Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Possession/Outpost  (Read 12726 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1691
  • Respect: +1162
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2013, 04:46:16 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...
I don't think you can force your opponent to take only a single 3-card turn with Possession/Outpost. Both cards create an "extra" turn which implies that it is not the 5-card turn they are waiting for when you play the Possession/Outpost.
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2013, 04:58:59 pm »
+1

No, you can, you just have to play two possessions. Because it's not a "3-card turn". It's just a turn. You draw cards at the END of a turn, not at the beginning of one. Dondon had it correct at the bottom of his post.


Player A: plays throne room on possession and ends their turn.

Player B: Currently has a hand of some number of cards, could be six or three or whatever, depending on what happened earlier. They take a turn, where all their decisions are controlled by player A and player A gains the cards. They draw five cards at the end of their turn - this has been the "First possessed turn".

Player B: Takes another turn, where their decisions are controlled by player A. Player A makes them play outpost. During clean-up, because of the outpost, they draw only three cards. This has been the "Second possessed turn".

Since player B has already had two turns, and Outpost can't make somebody take more than two turns in a row, the outpost does not give player B a third turn.

Player B: then they take their normal turn. This turn happens to start with 3 cards, because of what happened earlier. It is now their third turn in a row, so Outpost still can't give them an extra turn even if they play it now.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9625
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2013, 12:24:26 am »
0

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.

That's why it's so ludicrously expensive.  If we go by the shorthand of "potion = $2.5", then Possession is the most costly kingdom card in the game.  I'd like to see how many Possessions you can actually purchase before your opponent just goes "fuck it, I'm emptying the Province pile."
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2013, 03:23:40 am »
+2

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...
The way I have understood the rules, you don't have to play it on his second Possession turn, any of the Possession turns will do as long as your opponent is taking two or more Possession turns. Your Possession and his Outpost have stuff happen at the same time (after his Possession turn), so he gets to decide which one happens first, and since you are possessing him, you are the one deciding. And of course you would decide the Possession's extra turn happens first.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

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

Dominionaer

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
  • Respect: +66
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2013, 04:03:23 am »
0

The way I understood the rules AND the discussions (with Donalds posts in first line) the possessed player is only possessed during turns. So between turns he/she decide themself (and not the one, who played possessions) which turn next.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2013, 05:46:24 am »
0

That's why it's so ludicrously expensive.  If we go by the shorthand of "potion = $2.5", then Possession is the most costly kingdom card in the game.  I'd like to see how many Possessions you can actually purchase before your opponent just goes "fuck it, I'm emptying the Province pile."

If I have 2 Possessions and you have 2 Provinces, I just need to play both Possessions once and then I'll can potentially even out the Province split.

The major, major difference between Province and Possession (aside from the fact that they're totally different cards) is that Possession still does something for your deck while Province does not. You can't play a Province. Conversely, every Possession that you play does something, and depending on the state of your opponent's deck, it can do something big. "Every Possession could have been a Province instead" is a trite statement that really only holds true for money decks, because in an engine deck, Province slows down the player whereas Possession (in general) speeds him up.

I'm not really even going to dignify your rhetorical question with a response because it is a trivial matter to see just how many games are dominated by Possession (before anyone tries to misinterpret this statement, I am not contending that Possession is a powerful card relative to cost in general, but that its power and cost are not an excuse to allow for an unenjoyable, degenerate game state). In most games where multiple-Possession turns are a real possibility, they are among the best possibilities. You don't see people ignore King's Court most of the time because it is "too expensive," do you?

My final grievance against multiple-Possession turns doesn't even have to do with the power of the card. Single-Possession turns prolong the game but are tolerable because other cards also prolong the game by about the same amount. But when I'm playing 3 of your turns to my 1, it's like we're playing a couple of side games of Dominion within the real one. Never mind the prolonged periods of down time that happen while I'm taking my 4 turns while you're sitting there waiting to play your 1 turn.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2013, 05:49:39 am by dondon151 »
Logged

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2013, 07:53:52 pm »
0

So before I respond to a few points, I want to apologize for misrepresenting Possession.  I've been super busy this week but thinking about this in my spare time and I definitely over-simplified the card in my arguments.  I let my personal distaste for the card come through in my arguments about its depth and that didn't really serve anybody.  It's definitely deeper than I gave it credit for.

A lot of what you say in the post I'm quoting here, Donald, is true.  There are a few things I disagree with and want to clear up, though.

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.

Yeah, this was a poor argument on my part.  I apologize for that; let me take a different tack on the originality issue, more along the lines of what I originally intended before I distracted myself:

It isn't an original idea simply because it's rarely-implemented, which is what you implied in a previous post ("If it's so obvious, why don't all games have it? Because they're trying not to be so obvious?").  I think other games don't have it because it's an overly-complicated and hard-to-balance idea, not because it's a new one.

I see Possession (and Outpost) as the answers to "what can we do with turn manipulation"?  Simplest answer: "take an extra turn"; this is Outpost.  Second simplest answer: "lose a turn"; huh, that just feels like inverted Outpost.  Third simplest answer: "take your opponent's turn"; this is Possession.

Since I've given a relative rating here, I haven't shown that the card is actually uncreative.  There's no absolute measure of that kind of thing, obviously.  And maybe getting to third answer takes more creativity than I'm giving credit for, but the question feels like it has very few possible sane answers, Possession is one of them, and it doesn't take much to get there.

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!

So I don't pull out "straw man" lightly, because I've also experienced what you say here.  In fact, I can't remember any time when I've done it before.  But, in this case, I really felt like you were misrepresenting my argument and then attacking that misrepresentation.  I still view it like that.

In this case, I think the core issue is that I draw a distinction between the creativity of the core concept, and the creativity you had to apply to balance it in your game.  Going back to Smithy, "draw cards" is not an original idea.  But deciding the cost and how many cards it should draw requires creativity to make it fit into Dominion.

You were implying that, because Possession requires some kooky rules to balance, I was crazy for calling it uncreative.  I still disagree with that.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2013, 08:24:56 pm »
0

A lot of what you say in the post I'm quoting here, Donald, is true.
Hooray!

I see Possession (and Outpost) as the answers to "what can we do with turn manipulation"?  Simplest answer: "take an extra turn"; this is Outpost.  Second simplest answer: "lose a turn"; huh, that just feels like inverted Outpost.  Third simplest answer: "take your opponent's turn"; this is Possession.
You aren't "taking your opponent's turn," since for example that would mean that your opponent got the cards that got bought (Let's be clear here: in order to say exactly what the twist to Possession is, you will have to *say more things*; it is not some trivial thing that you have said so simply); again by this reasoning most cards in most games are uncreative; and again I can't sit here and argue about how great I am.

I told Dame Josephine, "there's a guy in the forums saying how uncreative Possession is." She laughed. Try it with your friends!

So I don't pull out "straw man" lightly, because I've also experienced what you say here.  In fact, I can't remember any time when I've done it before.  But, in this case, I really felt like you were misrepresenting my argument and then attacking that misrepresentation.  I still view it like that.
I was pointing out a hilarious contradiction. I didn't say, "your argument is this bit here."

You were implying that, because Possession requires some kooky rules to balance, I was crazy for calling it uncreative.  I still disagree with that.
You said, blah blah blah, "fundamentally alters what things like Trash and Gain mean." Not, blah blah blah, requires some kooky rules to balance.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2013, 08:26:25 pm by Donald X. »
Logged

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #33 on: February 16, 2013, 08:26:52 pm »
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.

For some reason, timchen (almost called you timechen - that's a cool name, too!), your post stood out to me here.  I'm going to respond to a few points.

On 1, I called it uncreative and I was just defending that assertion.  My Smithy example is agreeing with you that "uncreative" isn't enough to banish a card.  But it doesn't score any extra points, either.

On 2, this brings up the broader issue of counter play that I wish I had touched on earlier.  BTW, I take the term counter play from a Extra Credits episode here: http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/counter-play.  The basic concept is simple: A truly great mechanic is not only fun to use but fun to play against.  I think Possession is, psychologically, one of the most un-fun things to play against in Dominion, and not just for me or my tastes.

It doesn't completely fail the counter play test, of course.  Some people like playing against Possession and altering their strategy accordingly - that's fine, but it's only one piece of the puzzle.  I touched on this before, but the lack of tactical counter play is it gets weak, specifically because of what Possession does.

I believe people really dislike watching other people use "their" stuff.  Once you buy Possession, I have no choice but to watch you play it and then take "my" turns using "my" cards buying things that were supposed to be "mine".  Psychologically, that sucks, man.  It's invasive, no matter how you slice it.  Once they get rolling the best you can hope for is having a bad hand when they Possess you and then you get to be like "haha - my deck is so inconsistent your Possession is wasted".
Logged

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #34 on: February 16, 2013, 09:03:17 pm »
0

A lot of what you say in the post I'm quoting here, Donald, is true.
Hooray!

I see Possession (and Outpost) as the answers to "what can we do with turn manipulation"?  Simplest answer: "take an extra turn"; this is Outpost.  Second simplest answer: "lose a turn"; huh, that just feels like inverted Outpost.  Third simplest answer: "take your opponent's turn"; this is Possession.
You aren't "taking your opponent's turn," since for example that would mean that your opponent got the cards that got bought (Let's be clear here: in order to say exactly what the twist to Possession is, you will have to *say more things*; it is not some trivial thing that you have said so simply); again by this reasoning most cards in most games are uncreative; and again I can't sit here and argue about how great I am.

I told Dame Josephine, "there's a guy in the forums saying how uncreative Possession is." She laughed. Try it with your friends!

So I don't pull out "straw man" lightly, because I've also experienced what you say here.  In fact, I can't remember any time when I've done it before.  But, in this case, I really felt like you were misrepresenting my argument and then attacking that misrepresentation.  I still view it like that.
I was pointing out a hilarious contradiction. I didn't say, "your argument is this bit here."

You were implying that, because Possession requires some kooky rules to balance, I was crazy for calling it uncreative.  I still disagree with that.
You said, blah blah blah, "fundamentally alters what things like Trash and Gain mean." Not, blah blah blah, requires some kooky rules to balance.


Dude, I try to keep these things really, really civil, but maybe you're just taking that as weakness or some invite to mock me?  I can get mean, too, if you'd prefer.  I'd personally prefer to stick with "if a conversation's worth having, it's worth having politely".  If it's really not worth having, then just leave me to my terrible opinions.  But telling me "Dame Josephine" laughed at my opinion is neither relevant nor kind.

You don't have to explicitly say "your argument is this bit here" to misrepresent my argument in your response.  You say it's a "hilarious contradiction" that I was criticizing Possession for being uncreative, but that I called out weird things it did.  But then you ignored my response where I draw a distinction between those types of creativity...  I already addressed that and don't have much more to say; I mean, I can't make you go back and read that section again.

You are "taking your opponent's turn" in that you are "taking a turn with your opponent's deck/hand that they were about to take".  The "twist" is also the "kooky rules to balance" AKA "fundamentally alters what things like Trash and Gain mean".  Because it does seem trivial and obvious to me that arbitrarily trashing your opponents' cards is too powerful and buying stuff for them would quickly degenerate into buying curses/coppers.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #35 on: February 16, 2013, 09:59:35 pm »
0

But telling me "Dame Josephine" laughed at my opinion is neither relevant nor kind.
To me Dame Josephine laughing was actual evidence, so I can see why you call it insulting and irrelevant. The first handy person I asked thought your stance was crazy. Hey, probably she was biased; so, conduct your own study, you have the means. I think it would be informative. That's only natural; since I think I'm right, I think other people will agree with me.

People are hugely affected by biases (you will see in a moment that I'm talking about me rather than you!). Being aware of this doesn't dodge it; one of the biases is to think you're less affected by biases. I do what I can. When someone acts like I'm crazy about something, I ask a third party, am I crazy about this? Am I missing something? I like what this does for me; I prefer it to blindly believing whatever I started with. Sorry that that's so insulting! Remember this for future arguments, I will be that awful rude guy.

I already addressed that and don't have much more to say; I mean, I can't make you go back and read that section again.
I too have already addressed things, and have no ability to make that matter to you.

We can't run the experiment to see what percentage of the population exactly would have thought of Possession. I don't know what units creativity is measured in. But even things that are just one twist away from a basic thing can be extremely exotic. When they do a Magic card like that, me personally, I think, what a cool thing, not, wow that's just one twist away from a basic thing, this is so uncreative.

You are "taking your opponent's turn" in that you are "taking a turn with your opponent's deck/hand that they were about to take".  The "twist" is also the "kooky rules to balance" AKA "fundamentally alters what things like Trash and Gain mean".  Because it does seem trivial and obvious to me that arbitrarily trashing your opponents' cards is too powerful and buying stuff for them would quickly degenerate into buying curses/coppers.
You control your opponent's turn, but during that turn you gain the cards rather than them. That's the actual premise. The bit about you not getting rid of their cards except with Masquerade, yes that's just there to make the card work, that's not part of the premise. But the bit about you getting cards is part of the premise; Mindslaver for example does no such thing.

As if this matters!
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #36 on: February 16, 2013, 10:04:40 pm »
0

I believe people really dislike watching other people use "their" stuff.  Once you buy Possession, I have no choice but to watch you play it and then take "my" turns using "my" cards buying things that were supposed to be "mine".  Psychologically, that sucks, man.  It's invasive, no matter how you slice it.  Once they get rolling the best you can hope for is having a bad hand when they Possess you and then you get to be like "haha - my deck is so inconsistent your Possession is wasted".
I have an insight here, check it out.

When I made Possession, I played it with the original group of Dominion players, and we all liked it. When someone took a good turn with my deck, I would think, "pretty sweet deck huh" not "oh I feel so violated." And it was the same for all of us. I am not lying, neither am I in error.

When I was working on Alchemy for publication, I played at a public game night with certain regulars plus random people. No-one voiced disapproval for Possession. Some people adored it and would buy it up. Other people would only go for it with Throne or something. No-one experienced any rage. Valerie said the FAQ was too long and I agreed and well I tried to make an exciting replacement in the time allotted but did not come up with something doable that was exciting enough.

Why do you experience such violation, where we did not? I put it to you that I was playing with friends, rather than random kids on the internet.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #37 on: February 17, 2013, 08:53:26 am »
+1

I think that 'I don't like people using my stuff' is probably a reaction similar to 'I don't like people trashing my stuff'. Some people hate it, some people love doing it, some people are fairly ambivalent.

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #38 on: February 17, 2013, 04:31:57 pm »
0

Maybe this is more your style:

Quote from: No One Ever
So, I was arguing with this guy on the internet.  We had different perspectives and weren't really coming to agreement.  But then he started acting condescending and insulting, which totally convinced me he was right.

You did not present your wife's (I'm assuming Josephine is your wife) opinion as evidence of a self sanity check.  It came out of nowhere and seemed to be "I was venting to my wife, who laughed at your opinion."  That's, at best, as relevant as me taking a poll of 1.  Sure, it's technically "evidence", but it's about as biased and small a sample as you, yourself, personally, could get.

The core of my issue with it was not that she agrees with you or that she laughed.  It's how you convey that information in a dismissive manner.  You can say things that are true and corrective that are not also mean or condescending.  Do you really need me to give an example in this case?  Because I can do it.  Anyway, being the rude guy is a choice that does not reinforce your opinion or do anything to convince other people you're right.  In my experience, it just makes other people less receptive to a position.

So, when you fall back to being mean (and this isn't the only example I can cite), I just don't know what you're trying to accomplish other than perhaps boosting your own ego (that's usually why I'm tempted to do it)?  It's usually self-defeating in what could otherwise be a productive discussion.

On to evidence:

I have no problem with evidence.  I love evidence!  And I would resent you saying I call it "insulting and irrelevant" if it wasn't such preposterous and obvious trolling.  The work you propose when you say "conduct your own study" is kinda big for it to really mean anything.  I do, for reference, ask my friends about these kinds of things.  As you might imagine, some agree with me and some don't.  On the general "you may" issue, for example, one friend would prefer "you may" on Soul Warden for the physical version and no "you may" in digital versions.  So opinion can be context-sensitive, as well.

But I never get treated like I'm crazy.  That's a special honor reserved primarily for you! :)

I already addressed that and don't have much more to say; I mean, I can't make you go back and read that section again.
I too have already addressed things, and have no ability to make that matter to you.

We can't run the experiment to see what percentage of the population exactly would have thought of Possession. I don't know what units creativity is measured in. But even things that are just one twist away from a basic thing can be extremely exotic. When they do a Magic card like that, me personally, I think, what a cool thing, not, wow that's just one twist away from a basic thing, this is so uncreative.

Let's take a step back here, because when I look at the previous posts, we've lost context and rat-holed on this specific issue.  The crux of my argument against Possession is that it's overly-complicated for what it adds to the game.  I still believe this.  The crux has *never* been that it's uncreative.  I continue to believe it's not a particularly creative concept, but as I've stated many times now with Smithy examples, a concept does not have to be creative to be valuable and productive.

I believe people really dislike watching other people use "their" stuff.  Once you buy Possession, I have no choice but to watch you play it and then take "my" turns using "my" cards buying things that were supposed to be "mine".  Psychologically, that sucks, man.  It's invasive, no matter how you slice it.  Once they get rolling the best you can hope for is having a bad hand when they Possess you and then you get to be like "haha - my deck is so inconsistent your Possession is wasted".
I have an insight here, check it out.

When I made Possession, I played it with the original group of Dominion players, and we all liked it. When someone took a good turn with my deck, I would think, "pretty sweet deck huh" not "oh I feel so violated." And it was the same for all of us. I am not lying, neither am I in error.

When I was working on Alchemy for publication, I played at a public game night with certain regulars plus random people. No-one voiced disapproval for Possession. Some people adored it and would buy it up. Other people would only go for it with Throne or something. No-one experienced any rage. Valerie said the FAQ was too long and I agreed and well I tried to make an exciting replacement in the time allotted but did not come up with something doable that was exciting enough.

Why do you experience such violation, where we did not? I put it to you that I was playing with friends, rather than random kids on the internet.

Out of curiosity, what sorts of numbers are we talking about here?  I had a friend who, out of the blue, messaged me saying "man, it's really not fun to watch other people use my deck against me" and it clicked for me that's another reason I dislike the card.  But that's not something I had thought to verbalize before he said it.  For whatever that's worth.  And another friend said something like "ick, that just helps the winner win more".  So adoration for Possession is certainly not universal.  It's weird to me that you didn't encounter any distaste for it, but I don't think you're lying or anything.  If nothing else, it's an interesting data point that helps me understand the broader picture as well as you're personal experience.

But, anyway, I probably extrapolated my experiences too readily, because your reaction to being Possessed is so bizarrely foreign to me.  It indicates that you're more concerned with showing off your cool deck than winning the game.  Which is fine - that's a fine approach to the game.  But I've never encountered that with anybody else I've played with.  Maybe I just play with hyper-competitive people?  Or is that not fair to your playtesters?

Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #39 on: February 17, 2013, 07:57:37 pm »
0

Your post is too long and this argument is too pointless. Call me uncreative all you want. I am not too insecure there. It is pretty hilarious that you give an example of me being uncreative and then think it's horribly rude to note someone who thought that was silly. But this is after all the internet.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #40 on: February 17, 2013, 11:24:29 pm »
0

Maybe I just play with hyper-competitive people?
You're confusing hyper-competitive people with sore losers. Competitive people enjoy competition. Sore losers hate losing.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

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

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1691
  • Respect: +1162
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #41 on: February 18, 2013, 01:38:24 am »
0

Maybe I just play with hyper-competitive people?
You're confusing hyper-competitive people with sore losers. Competitive people enjoy competition. Sore losers hate losing.
I wonder if I like Dominion so much because I'm not very competitive and don't mind losing?
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #42 on: February 18, 2013, 02:47:58 am »
0

Your post is too long and this argument is too pointless. Call me uncreative all you want. I am not too insecure there. It is pretty hilarious that you give an example of me being uncreative and then think it's horribly rude to note someone who thought that was silly. But this is after all the internet.

Any discussion/argument has whatever purpose you choose to give it, of course.  The main point for me was to be understood, which seems to have failed again.  If it has no point to you, then, as I said before, leave me to my terrible opinions.  I'm neither offended nor validated by your silence and I truly have no wish to exasperate you.

I'm sorry you take my uncreative comment as a personal criticism, because it was not aimed at you.  It's aimed at a card you made.  You're much more creative than I am, but that doesn't mean everything you do is creative.  I mean, I feel crazy / condescending for even saying this, but: these are basic distinctions you seem unable or unwilling to understand.  Because I never said anything about you being uncreative, yet you exit this conversation seeming to think I actually called you uncreative.

But that's the pattern I believe see over and over in our fruitless arguments.  Right or wrong, for better or worse, I think I tend to see more shades of gray than you do (not in everything, though).  Because I feel like I say something referring to a specific shade and you respond as if it encompasses the two shades to either side of it.  I don't think my perspective is inherently right and I don't think you're deficient for not drawing the same distinctions I do; it's just frustrating that we get lost in translation.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #43 on: February 18, 2013, 02:54:02 am »
0

I mean, I feel crazy / condescending for even saying this, but: these are basic distinctions you seem unable or unwilling to understand.
I am also not insecure about my grip on reality, phew.
Logged

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1751
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #44 on: February 20, 2013, 06:30:44 pm »
0

Tactician is also an answer to "how to mess with turns". It of course can be much more, but the first read on the card is "merge two turns".
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All
 

Page created in 0.677 seconds with 21 queries.