...and would end up causing violations of #7 in some cases.#7 is not a rule, it's one of my assumptions. I just hope it's true.
Recently I played a game online...Don't take what goko/MF does for granted. It isn't very likely they got this right.
This is not what I expected, given that a regular turn intervened in between the extra turns. I was expecting the following:I think your expectations are correct here.
His Turn (Regular) - Plays Possession
My Turn (Possessed) - Plays Possession, whoops
His Turn (Possessed)
My Turn (Regular)
So from this we can conclude that at least in the MF version point #2 is not followed. But more importantly, we can show that #2 and #7 are incompatible (in 3+ player games):Hmmm my wording on #7 is lousy. I will adjust it from
A's Turn (Regular) - Plays Possession
B's Turn (Possessed by A) - Plays Possession, whoops
C's Turn (Possessed by B) - Plays Possession, whoops
A's Turn (Possessed by C) - Note that A is neither the active player nor the next player
B's Turn (Regular)
7. As a result of this all, the collection of extra turns will only ever contain entries concerning the active player and/or the next player.to
1. Extra turns never count towards the tiebraker. They have no influence on who wins on a tied score.
2. When "there are extra turns" they always take precedence over regular turns, and when at some point we run out of extra turns the regular turns continue where they left off.
3. Extra turns are in a collection. Playing an outpost, playing a possession, buying a mission adds an outpost-turn, mission-turn or possessed-turn to the collection.
4. At the end of your cleanup you (or whoever controls your turn at that point) gets to decide what extra turn to take next. However, turns executed by the current player always take precedence over turns executed by the next player.
5. Outpost is a duration. During cleanup of the turn it is played it never gets cleaned up. The outpost card is linked to the 'get your outpost turn' event in the collection of extra turns. In the first cleanup after you've selected to take that extra turn (regardless of whether that succeeds or fails) it actually gets cleaned up.
5b. If I King's Court an Outpost, both the King's Court and the Outpost will be tied to all three of the extra turns (of which at least two will fail to happen). Only when all three of them are out of the collection and another cleanup phase happens they will get cleaned up.
6. The wording on Mission and Outpost on the condition preventing multiple turns is slightly different. For mission, if the previous turn was yours at the moment you buy it, simply nothing happens. There is no mission turn in the collection of extra turns that fails to happen. Outpost does always create the extra-turn but it might fail on execution.
7. As a result of this all, the collection of extra turns will only ever contain entries concerning the player currently playing extra turns and/or the next player. Note that in 3+player games this can be unrelated to the active player
I think KC and TR are not supposed to stay out after playing them on Outpost.
So my interpretation would be that if you play Possession and Outpost, you decide whether the Possession turn or your Outpost turn takes place first, since they are both trying to happen at the same time, and you took the last turn.
I seem to remember Donald saying somewhere that all of the current player's turns happen first. When multiple things happen at once, you try to resolve them in turn order, and when that fails, then you choose which one happens.
Let's see, 4-player Possession:
Possession reads "The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one..."
A plays 3 Possessions.
B takes 1 Possession turn, is forced to play 3 Possessions.
A decides whether B takes 2nd P-turn, or whether C takes 1st P-turn. Chooses C.
C takes P-turn, B forces him to play Possession.
B decides whether to take his 2nd P-turn, C to take his 2nd P-turn, or D to take his 1st P-turn.
Yep, your #7 is incorrect. Sorry. :(
4. At the end of your cleanup you (or whoever controls your turn at that point) gets to decide what extra turn to take next. However, turns executed by the current player always take precedence over turns executed by the next player.Which turn happens next is determined in-between turns; thus someone Possessing someone no longer applies then. So "(or whoever controls your turn at that point)" is wrong; no-one else controls your turn then. And I hope I haven't said otherwise somewhere.
5b. If I King's Court an Outpost, both the King's Court and the Outpost will be tied to all three of the extra turns (of which at least two will fail to happen). Only when all three of them are out of the collection and another cleanup phase happens they will get cleaned up.Which may be the clean-up phase of another player's turn. I am just noting this because it's uh noteworthy.
7. As a result of this all, the collection of extra turns will only ever contain entries concerning the player currently playing extra turns and/or the next player. Note that in 3+player games this can be unrelated to the active playerRight, the first player's turns come first, so you never get the 2nd player playing Possession until the first player's turns are done.
And okay. Revised 4-player Possession game:If I am reading your shorthand correctly than yes.
A plays 3 Possessions.
A tells B to play 3 Possessions on his P-turn.
There are now five extra turns waiting to happen. 2 of them (B's P-turns) are trying to happen at the same time, while the other 3 (C's P-turns) are required to happen afterwards. So the next 2 B-P-turns happen first.
Now C takes their first P-turn, and B tells them to play an Outpost.
Now C gets to decide whether to take their O-turn, or their next P-turn.
Yes?
4. At the end of your cleanup you (or whoever controls your turn at that point) gets to decide what extra turn to take next. However, turns executed by the current player always take precedence over turns executed by the next player.Which turn happens next is determined in-between turns; thus someone Possessing someone no longer applies then. So "(or whoever controls your turn at that point)" is wrong; no-one else controls your turn then. And I hope I haven't said otherwise somewhere.
Which turn happens next is determined in-between turns; thus someone Possessing someone no longer applies then. So "(or whoever controls your turn at that point)" is wrong; no-one else controls your turn then. And I hope I haven't said otherwise somewhere.
So now Y has to take a Possessed turn and an Outpost turn, and which comes first is a decision. Y took the most recent turn, so by my previous ruling we treat the between-turn space as Y's turn. Y was Possessed on that turn, so I am ruling that X makes the decision as to which to do first.
I overturn that. Possession does not give you control of any not-that-turn time.Which turn happens next is determined in-between turns; thus someone Possessing someone no longer applies then. So "(or whoever controls your turn at that point)" is wrong; no-one else controls your turn then. And I hope I haven't said otherwise somewhere.
Actually, if I'm understanding correctly, I think you have...
From here: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/6917692#6917692Quote from: Donald X.So now Y has to take a Possessed turn and an Outpost turn, and which comes first is a decision. Y took the most recent turn, so by my previous ruling we treat the between-turn space as Y's turn. Y was Possessed on that turn, so I am ruling that X makes the decision as to which to do first.
One last thing (famous last words). If no-one controls your turn because the decision isn't part of a turn, who is to make the decision?The general rule is, when two things happen to the same player, that player orders them; otherwise go in turn order starting from the player whose turn it is. The very specific rule for extra turn stuff is, between turns, the most recent player to take a turn goes first. Possession of course causes another player to take a turn, not you.
I assume this is always the player that will be playing the extra turns that we are currently choosing between?
I overturn that. Possession does not give you control of any not-that-turn time.
I overturn that. Possession does not give you control of any not-that-turn time.
Oh, time to change the FAQ. A 4.5 year old ruling overturned. Now we all have to play differently. (Well, I don't think I've ever been in the relevant situation yet. It could happen more now that we have Mission though.)
I overturn that. Possession does not give you control of any not-that-turn time.
Oh, time to change the FAQ. A 4.5 year old ruling overturned. Now we all have to play differently. (Well, I don't think I've ever been in the relevant situation yet. It could happen more now that we have Mission though.)
I can't tell if this is hostile or sarcastic.
I overturn that. Possession does not give you control of any not-that-turn time.
Oh, time to change the FAQ. A 4.5 year old ruling overturned. Now we all have to play differently. (Well, I don't think I've ever been in the relevant situation yet. It could happen more now that we have Mission though.)
I can't tell if this is hostile or sarcastic.
?? Neither. "Now we all have to play differently," was half-serious. It's true of course - we have to play this scenario differently - but as I acknowledged in the parenthesis, up until now it was probably a very rare scenario. The rest is completely serious. I've had this in my FAQ for 4.5 years, and it's also in other rules documents.
I guess I hadn't considered the 3rd option, that it was just meant to simply state a fact. It just sounded like you were expressing annoyance at Donald