Print

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

[SirPeebles]

Suppose Alice is playing Dominion versus Bob.  Alice plays a Possession.  During the Possession round, which is one of Bob's turns, Bob plays two Action cards, and then buys a Border Village.  Possession kicks in, and Alice gains the Border Village instead, allowing Alice to gain a card costing less than $6 (Assume no Highway, Bridge, Princess, or Quarry was played).  Alice wants to gain a Peddler.  For Bob, it's clear that Peddler only costs $4.  But Peddler says that the cost drops during *your* buy phase.  So can Alice gain a Peddler off of a Border Village gain during Bob's buy phase?

My hunch is that Alice cannot, but I'm not entirely sure.  Moreover, Goko currently displays Peddler as being at a reduced cost to me during my opponents' buy phases, which I suspect is wrong.

Is Peddler the only card whose cost can be different for different players?

[dondon151]

I don't follow your conclusion that cards can cost differently to different players at any single given moment. (Unless, of course, a card were to specify that cost changes were to be seen by certain players specifically.)

[TWoos]

And to add to the confusion, would any duration cards you played on your last turn reduce the cost of Peddler to put it within range of being gained through Border Village on a Possession turn?

[SirPeebles]

I don't follow your conclusion that cards can cost differently to different players at any single given moment. (Unless, of course, a card were to specify that cost changes were to be seen by certain players specifically.)

During Bob's Buy phase, Peddler costs $4 for him, but still $8 for Alice.  I'm not sure if this conclusion is correct or not.  Peddler's under-the-line text says: "During your Buy phase, this costs $2 less per Action card you have in play, but not less than $0"

So the thing is, Alice wants to gain a Peddler, but can only do so if it costs less than the $6 Border Village she just gained.  But Peddler says it costs less during your Buy phase.  But it's not Alice's Buy phase right now, it's Bob's Buy phase.

I'm also now noticing that that it counts the number of Action cards you have in play, so there is also the question of what happens if Alice, say, has three Action-Duration cards in play during Bob's Buy phase when all of this goes down.

Edit:  Maybe Peddler costs the same for everyone, and whose Buy phase we're in simply determines whose in-play Action cards are counted to compute the price reduction?

[D Bo]

In this case you are playing the cards for Bob, so wouldn't the "your" refer to Bob anyway? Meaning the cost would be reduced, Bob purchases Border Village and gains Peddler, and both cards go to Alice. That's how I would interpret at least.

[Kirian]

The cost is still the same for all players during your turn, including your buy phase, whether or not you currently control your turn or buy phase.  For instance, if Bridge is in play, cards cost less even during your opponent's turn; if your opponent plays Bridge, then Saboteur, he cannot sabotage a Silver, as your Silvers cost $2.

Or, in other words, during Bob's buy phase, Alice still sees Peddler as worth $4.

[dondon151]

So the thing is, Alice wants to gain a Peddler, but can only do so if it costs less than the $6 Border Village she just gained.  But Peddler says it costs less during your Buy phase.  But it's not Alice's Buy phase right now, it's Bob's Buy phase.

Except that this still doesn't explicitly say that Peddler costs differently to different people.

[SirPeebles]

So the thing is, Alice wants to gain a Peddler, but can only do so if it costs less than the $6 Border Village she just gained.  But Peddler says it costs less during your Buy phase.  But it's not Alice's Buy phase right now, it's Bob's Buy phase.

Except that this still doesn't explicitly say that Peddler costs differently to different people.

If it explicitly stated this, why would I ask about it on the Rules Questions subforum?

[SirPeebles]

In this case you are playing the cards for Bob, so wouldn't the "your" refer to Bob anyway? Meaning the cost would be reduced, Bob purchases Border Village and gains Peddler, and both cards go to Alice. That's how I would interpret at least.

Gaining the Peddler is triggered by gaining the Border Village.  Bob never gains the Border Village.  Your resolution would work if the extra gain were coming from Haggler, since that gain is triggered on-buy, and Bob did buy a card.

My question really isn't about Possession. I only used it to create a scenario in which Alice cares about the cost of Peddler during someone else's buy phase.

[DG]

Alice gains the border village (and peddler) during Bob's buy phase, during Bob's turn possessed by Alice. Bob has played action cards, it is his buy phase, so peddlers have their costs reduced.

[dondon151]

If it explicitly stated this, why would I ask about it on the Rules Questions subforum?

It doesn't state it, so that's not how it works?

[Kirian]

My question really isn't about Possession. I only used it to create a scenario in which Alice cares about the cost of Peddler during someone else's buy phase.

Right.  The answer is that, Possession or not, during Bob's buy phase, Alice sees Peddler as having its cost modified by actions in play.

[SirPeebles]

If it explicitly stated this, why would I ask about it on the Rules Questions subforum?

It doesn't state it, so that's not how it works?

Again, why would I ask the question here if I had the sort of certainty that you are accusing me of?  Why are you putting up these strawmen?  I asked this question because the rules felt ambiguous to me, and I could see arguments for at least two distinct interpretations.  One resolution is not explicitly stated on the card, but neither is any other.  Yes, I put forward a possible interpretation in my original post, but I called it a "hunch".  If I were certain, rather than confused, I would have reported this as a bug to Goko rather than asking in Rules Questions.

Anyhow, after thinking about it more, I have come around to agreeing with DG's explanation.

[AJD]

Anyhow, after thinking about it more, I have come around to agreeing with DG's explanation.

Yeah; to put it simply, the wording of Peddler is equivalent to 'During anyone's buy phase, this costs $2 less per Action card that player has in play'.

[GendoIkari]

I really don't think a clear answer has been provided. The part that gets to me isn't so much "Your buy phase" as it is "each action card you have in play". It seems to me to be very reasonable to think that the "you" in that case is the person who wishes to gain or buy Peddler, so unless Alice has Duration cards in play, then she has 0 action cards in play, thus Peddler costs $8.

You can also certainly make a good case for it being as AJD says, that the "you" is always the person whose buy phase it is. But I don't see any good reason to choose one of the other. I'd really like to hear Donald's opinion on this one.

[eHalcyon]

Anyhow, after thinking about it more, I have come around to agreeing with DG's explanation.

Yeah; to put it simply, the wording of Peddler is equivalent to 'During anyone's buy phase, this costs $2 less per Action card that player has in play'.

I agree with this. Interpreting it otherwise seems a stretch to me.

[Drab Emordnilap]

But the 'you' refers to the same person that 'your' referred to previously. You could replace both instances with "The active player" for clarity.

[D Bo]

I still think it's rather clear that the cost would be reduced.

From the rulebook on Possession:

"Possession - You are not taking a turn with the deck of the player to your left; that player is taking a turn, with you making the
decisions and gaining the cards. This is a crucial difference to keep in mind when considering card interactions – the “you” in all
cards still refers to the player being Possessed, not the player doing the Possessing."

So the "you" on Peddler refers to the actions already played during the Possessed hand, IMO.

[shMerker]

To add to that, it doesn't say to whom the card costs less, only when. So if it's Bob's buy phase and Bob played the actions (it is and he did, just under possession) then it all lines up and peddler costs less to everyone, so it doesn't even matter if Border Village is activating because Bob tried to gain it or Alice actually gained it.

That last part I'm not entirely clear on. Wouldn't the Border Village on-gain activate simultaneously with possession attempting to set it aside anyway? If it does that would also make this a moot point.

[eHalcyon]

That last part I'm not entirely clear on. Wouldn't the Border Village on-gain activate simultaneously with possession attempting to set it aside anyway? If it does that would also make this a moot point.

No, Possession will trigger first because it says "would gain".  The Possessed player never gains the card.

[GendoIkari]

I still think it's rather clear that the cost would be reduced.

From the rulebook on Possession:

"Possession - You are not taking a turn with the deck of the player to your left; that player is taking a turn, with you making the
decisions and gaining the cards. This is a crucial difference to keep in mind when considering card interactions – the “you” in all
cards still refers to the player being Possessed, not the player doing the Possessing."

So the "you" on Peddler refers to the actions already played during the Possessed hand, IMO.

Ah, this does indeed clarify it. It's not so much a question of how Possession works anyway, but the Possession FAQ does make it pretty clear that the word "you" in Dominion always refers to the player who is currently taking a turn.

[RiemannZetaJones]

I still think it's rather clear that the cost would be reduced.

From the rulebook on Possession:

"Possession - You are not taking a turn with the deck of the player to your left; that player is taking a turn, with you making the
decisions and gaining the cards. This is a crucial difference to keep in mind when considering card interactions – the “you” in all
cards still refers to the player being Possessed, not the player doing the Possessing."

So the "you" on Peddler refers to the actions already played during the Possessed hand, IMO.

Ah, this does indeed clarify it. It's not so much a question of how Possession works anyway, but the Possession FAQ does make it pretty clear that the word "you" in Dominion always refers to the player who is currently taking a turn.

Edited:

This interpretation of 'you' seems inconsistent.

The text on the Border Village reads 'When you gain this, gain a card costing less than this'. According to the interpretation 'you' should refer to the possessed player, who does not gain the BV, the BV wouldn't trigger and no second card would be gained. But this is not what happens when a BV is gained by a player on an opponents turn (eg through governor-trashing).

I think the 'you' on the BV has to refer to the player gaining the card.

[GendoIkari]

I still think it's rather clear that the cost would be reduced.

From the rulebook on Possession:

"Possession - You are not taking a turn with the deck of the player to your left; that player is taking a turn, with you making the
decisions and gaining the cards. This is a crucial difference to keep in mind when considering card interactions – the “you” in all
cards still refers to the player being Possessed, not the player doing the Possessing."

So the "you" on Peddler refers to the actions already played during the Possessed hand, IMO.

Ah, this does indeed clarify it. It's not so much a question of how Possession works anyway, but the Possession FAQ does make it pretty clear that the word "you" in Dominion always refers to the player who is currently taking a turn.

Edited:

This interpretation of 'you' seems inconsistent.

The text on the Border Village reads 'When you gain this, gain a card costing less than this'. According to the interpretation 'you' should refer to the possessed player, who does not gain the BV, the BV wouldn't trigger and no second card would be gained. But this is not what happens when a BV is gained by a player on an opponents turn (eg through governor-trashing).

I think the 'you' on the BV has to refer to the player gaining the card.

Dang it, you're right. If "you" was always the current player's turn, then if your opponent gave you a Border Village with Ambassador, or Jester, or Governor-Remodel, then it wouldn't work right.... ugh, so confused.

[dondon151]

Again, why would I ask the question here if I had the sort of certainty that you are accusing me of?  Why are you putting up these strawmen?

I am not strawmanning anything. My implication was that this rule has an obvious answer and that you were thinking too hard about it.

[RiemannZetaJones]

The text on Peddler is insufficient. The text in the rules reads "During Buy phases, this costs $2 less per action you have in play. This cost applies to all Peddler cards, including ones in hands and decks" (emphasis mine).

The text of the rules, read literally, is probably wrong since each player has a different number of actions in play and so the Peddler cards in the game should have multiple costs. I believe the sensible thing to do is to read the 'you' in the first sentence of the rules as referring to the player whose buy phase it currently is, per dondon151's original dismissal of the question.