Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: Geronimoo on April 16, 2012, 04:53:12 am
-
Let's do a poll!
-
i don't have a strong opinion either way!
-
It takes too much time. That's the only reason I don't really like it. Other than that, It's a fun card.
-
I hate it and love it at the same time ;D
-
I really do love it. Great card, none of the whining ever gets to me.
As for "emotionally negative," its really a zero-sum game. Those times when you are possessed on your hand of all green/curse/copper cards, it is quite satisfying. Those times when your KC megaturn is being played out by your opponent, it is quite depressing.
However, that is only when being possessed. Don't forget, barring an edge case with Black Market, you could be doing the possessing and have the same chances of inflicting "emotionally negative" or "emotionally positive" turns.
So, in the end, Possession doles out emotional positivity/negativity in balance.
Also, I have found that the increased game time is generally negligible except in turns with insanely long action chains. However, YMMV.
-
Another fun thing to try in a Possession war, is playing Possession in the possessed turn if your hand is mediocre. Your opponent will not be able to buy anything useful and you may improve your next turn. It confuses the hell out of some people :)
-
I personally LOVE this card. When I see it, I first think of whether or not to go for it. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I also love the change in play style that results in game from this card. When I see an opponent going for possession, I immediately switch my play style with the goal of greening early so that I'll get all of my good hands before they possess me. Despite what some people may say, I actually find many aspects of this card strategic. But I can see how some people may hate the "luck" factor of, "My opponent just possessed my last province/game-winning hand". But hey, lucks a part of the game. If you can't handle a bit of possession luck, it'll be tough to handle all the other various "luck" aspects of dominion.
-
i really don't like the card. admittedly, a lot of this stems largely from some awful experiences in group games when i was first learning the game. (can we all at least agree that possession in group games is a mess?) i have since played with it more but it is still a card i have a few problems with.
first and foremost - possession games take longer. sorry paddy, it is not at all a matter of opinion, it is a simple fact. we don't have a metric for determining how long games take in physical time, but we do have turn data. possession is 14th slowest in province games and 12th slowest in colony games, losing out almost exclusively to the cursers. but to add to the length just in turns you have to consider that you can have multiple possessions played per turn. with any semblance of an engine (and god forbid scrying pool / hamlet) this will take forever.
-
In my opinion, this is a great card! Very creative, a nasty attack, and it's fun. There are so many whiners out there, "it's too slow" "i get frustrated" etc., etc. It's part of the Dominion world and all the cards do something different and have their place and time to play. You win some, you lose some. Possession is a great part of the game. No one whines they're playing KC/Possession on an opponent!
-
I hate it and love it at the same time ;D
Me too!
-
I actually often apologize to my opponent when I King's Court Possessions. I can agree that long turns are part of the game, but when my opponent takes like 5 or 6 long turns in a row, followed by me playing some money and buying a green card, and then back to my opponent's long turns again, I feel like I'm not really needed for the game. It's basically me watching my opponent play a solitaire game. And a really long one.
I dislike the card for the same reason I dislike Munchkin Quest. When I want to play a game, I want to play it. Not just watch someone else play for a really long time.
-
first and foremost - possession games take longer. sorry paddy, it is not at all a matter of opinion, it is a simple fact. we don't have a metric for determining how long games take in physical time, but we do have turn data. possession is 14th slowest in province games and 12th slowest in colony games, losing out almost exclusively to the cursers. but to add to the length just in turns you have to consider that you can have multiple possessions played per turn. with any semblance of an engine (and god forbid scrying pool / hamlet) this will take forever.
No need to be sorry... and hey, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying it doesn't take longer, I'm saying the increased time is negligible in comparison with other "nasty" cards. It looks like you are actually backing up that assertion with your references to the cursers.
But there are plenty of cards which make the game "longer." Ambassador, cursers, etc. Attacks in general. I just don't see how Possession is special in this regard. Cursers make the game longer by giving curses, Possession does it by possessing... it may "feel" longer because when we play, we are always getting ready for "our" turn and when people play things like Outpost or Possession, "our" turn gets pushed back further. But in the end, it doesn't look like the game is more prolonged by Possession vs. Sea Hag or Mountebank.
Thoughts? Not trying to say everyone should love this card. Just saying I think it is a fine addition to the subtleties of this fine game, on par with many other fine cards.
-
The reason why I dislike Possession is: the situations in which it's good are exactly the situations in which it's the most annoying: When it can be played over and over again or when it's KC'd.
I don't mind the occasional Possession during a playthrough of one's deck, but when you get KC-possessed, ugh.
Luckily it's often a trap card and therefore not much of a nuisance.
-
But in the end, it doesn't look like the game is more prolonged by Possession vs. Sea Hag or Mountebank.
Obviously KC, TR, or spammed Possessions are the exception. I think this is what you are talking about with the Scrying Pool/Hamlet reference. KC/TR/spam, especially when they can be played every turn or nearly so, can effectively double or triple the amount of turns being experienced for each game turn. It does take longer than the cursers there.
-
The reason that Possession is different from cursers in terms of enjoyability is that, even with curse-heavy decks, you at least get to do something. Even though the game is a slog, you are at least a participant in it. Contrast that with Possession; if your opponent averages one Possession per turn, you have dropped from about 50% of the playing time to 1/3. If they are double-Possessing you, you're playing about as much as you would in a four player game, but it's the same person playing for all the rest of that time.
I think Possession is much worse on isotropic because you probably don't know the person in real life and there's little conversation. Even being able to talk with your opponent could help keep them engaged, but isotropic is not built to accommodate that nearly as well as real life, chat box notwithstanding.
-
No need to be sorry... and hey, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying it doesn't take longer, I'm saying the increased time is negligible in comparison with other "nasty" cards. It looks like you are actually backing up that assertion with your references to the cursers.
But there are plenty of cards which make the game "longer." Ambassador, cursers, etc. Attacks in general. I just don't see how Possession is special in this regard. Cursers make the game longer by giving curses, Possession does it by possessing... it may "feel" longer because when we play, we are always getting ready for "our" turn and when people play things like Outpost or Possession, "our" turn gets pushed back further. But in the end, it doesn't look like the game is more prolonged by Possession vs. Sea Hag or Mountebank.
Thoughts? Not trying to say everyone should love this card. Just saying I think it is a fine addition to the subtleties of this fine game, on par with many other fine cards.
haha well i am trying to say that it is certainly not negligible. as many have pointed out, possession is almost entirely ignorable for many fast games. i would say that you can ignore it more than you could ever ignore sea hag or mountebank or similar. because it is often ignorable, this brings down the average turn value, suggesting that games you actually play possession take more turns than other attack games.
and that is just based off of average turns! the turn data shows us that possession is already on par with other attacks, but that doesn't even include all of the extra 'outpost' turns taken throughout the game. it would only take 3-4 extra possession turns per game to make possession the longest game by turns, and i have seen that many possessions played in one turn.
-
Can I have an option for 'I just plain don't like it'
-
It can be enjoyable when things are roughly equal. Oddly, the reasons I don't like this card are the same reasons I don't like Tournament: it's swingy, it tends to reward the person who is already winning, and it does very little to help end the game.
Your first $6p hand gets possessed, giving your opponent 2 Possessions to your 0. My blood pressure just skyrocketed thinking about it.
-
I really do dislike Possession's interaction with Ambassador and Masquerade (and Island), but that's it. Most of the time Possession is a fine card that I'm happy to see in the setup. It's usually a trap, and I'm glad to play with trap cards out; when it's worth it, you need to change your strategies a bit- always good to see more strategic avenues in Dominion- but it rarely has the potential to harm the possessed player, and frankly most of the ways in which you can harm a possessed player (e.g. burying their Alchemists and Treasuries) strike me as just good, creative play.
It's a little swingy, but not nearly so much as its reputation, and it's also way more strategic than said reputation. Sort of like Tournament (though it's also a much worse card than Tournament usually).
-
I hate it and love it at the same time... I just never know when I should go for it and when I should build my deck to defend against it... so I love it when it works out really well, but I hate having to make the decision of whether or not to go for it... But it definitely makes some interesting games. So I'd say I like it more than I hate it. KC-Posession is kind of really fun
-
I neither hate nor love Possession. Why isn't there a poll option for me? :'(
-
If you can't handle a bit of possession luck, it'll be tough to handle all the other various "luck" aspects of dominion.
The thing about possession luck is that is often supersedes everything else. There are a lot of times when you get a bit unlucky on a few draws and then lucky on others, and in the end it all kind of cancels out. But the luck of hitting the first possession is often something that just can't be overcome. Theses snowballing kind of effects (which also occur with stuff like familiar, tournament, and GM) are a little more annoying than your average lucky occurrence.
-
I don't hate Possession because it relies too much on luck, or adds too much variance. Dominion still has a lot of luck involved, and that's a good thing. If the better player won 100% of the time, it wouldn't be much fun.
I dislike Possession simply because it's annoying and slows down the game. Although it can be fun.
I still remember the first time I played a Possession on Isotropic. It was against my brother. I didn't read the card carefully enough and thought that HE would gain the cards I bought, so I bought a Curse. I ended up being able to trash the curse on my next turn anyway, but it was still funny.
Against random opponents (not friends), I don't find it particularly fun.
-
I don't hate it because it can be tons of fun.
I also don't love it because sometimes I get confused with card interactions. For instance, IGG was on the board, and when I played Possession, my opponent had two in hand. I thought that I could buy a province on that turn by gaining coppers in his hand. No, those coppers ended up in my discard pile instead! Definitely a learning experience.
-
It's a unique strategic addition to the game, which is pretty much a good thing. The big downside from my perspective is that when it's a strong buy, that's when the variance gets frustrating. If you could only mitigate its power swing in a few more situations than currently exist (there are a decent number covered by theory in the DS article on it, but still a limited number and mostly focused on attacks and VP-chip gainers), I would be a pretty unequivocal fan.
-
I'm the lone vote for poor balance/bad design.
There is a large subset of Possession games that become completely degenerate - because you end up playing your opponent's deck much more often than you play your own. When trashing exists, these games can become indefinite.
Try playing with Farming Village, Golem, Possession, and Chapel. The best you can hope for is that one player is lucky enough to get significantly far ahead, and take exponentially more and more possession-turns, and manages to three-pile before you both trash down to zero treasure and zero coin-producing actions.
-
I wouldn't mind Possession if it had the "no more than one extra turn per turn" language like Outpost. Getting multiple turns in a row (even using someone else's deck) seems patently unfair. I suppose there is the argument that the extremely high cost of Possession justifies these powerful uses (or, that it would never be viable without such uses), but I'd rather have it be single use with a tweak to make up for the reduction in power or...well...not exist at all.
-
I'm the lone vote for poor balance/bad design.
There is a large subset of Possession games that become completely degenerate - because you end up playing your opponent's deck much more often than you play your own. When trashing exists, these games can become indefinite.
Try playing with Farming Village, Golem, Possession, and Chapel. The best you can hope for is that one player is lucky enough to get significantly far ahead, and take exponentially more and more possession-turns, and manages to three-pile before you both trash down to zero treasure and zero coin-producing actions.
Why would either player be trashing down to zero treasure? Do you mean using an opponent's chapel to trash his own deck? If so, cards trashed during Possession are instead placed in the discard pile, not the trash.
-
I'm the lone vote for poor balance/bad design.
There is a large subset of Possession games that become completely degenerate - because you end up playing your opponent's deck much more often than you play your own. When trashing exists, these games can become indefinite.
Try playing with Farming Village, Golem, Possession, and Chapel. The best you can hope for is that one player is lucky enough to get significantly far ahead, and take exponentially more and more possession-turns, and manages to three-pile before you both trash down to zero treasure and zero coin-producing actions.
Why would either player be trashing down to zero treasure? Do you mean using an opponent's chapel to trash his own deck? If so, cards trashed during Possession are instead placed in the discard pile, not the trash.
If you're playing more hands with your opponent's deck than your own, and he's playing more with your deck than his own, it's in each player's best interests to make their own respective decks and bad as possible.
Edit: (Buying-power-wise).
-
If your opponent's deck is capable of KC-Possession, then your deck is actually going to be his deck the rest of the game (well, 3 out of 4 turns). This means you want to destroy your own deck's economy if you're also capable of KC-Possession. This way he can't buy anything in those 3 turns, but you'll be able to buy stuff with his deck. This means he'll want to destroy his own economy as well, resulting in a stalemate where neither player can buy anything anymore.
Ninja'd ...
-
Ah, now I understand. Apologies. Thanks for setting me straight. ;D
-
While I chose variance, I think the main thing is the non-enjoyment factor of the Possessed player. If the KC-Possession can't finish the game, then you have one player playing 4/5 of the turns... which isn't strategically "unfair," just really annoying for the Possessed player.
-
The poll likes an option for a neutral or slightly positive opinion.
I used to hate possession until I figured out how to play against it...then it became an interesting puzzle when Possession was in play and a feasible option.
Multi-Possession turns are really annoying, but other than that I'm fairly "meh" on the card. I've never thought to myself "you know what, I haven't had a possession game in a while, I could go for one about now", but I don't hate the card either.
-
Hate this card.
-
These are my cards, there are many like them, but these are mine.
Plus it makes table placement much more important.
-
I really hate this card in two circumstances in particular:
1) When playing in real life because the time factor is more noticeable than on isotropic and as anyone except the player doing the possessing, you get a lot of downtime. While in theory everyone should do just as much possessing, it sometimes feels like whoever buys it first plays it much more.
2) When I don't notice it. This is particularly true when Chapel is on the board and I don't notice Possession. What tends to happen is I will make a strong engine and then my opponent will start playing my turns and getting provinces on them.
-
Masquerade/Ambassador interaction is really the only thing about it I don't like, and even those games can be fun and skill intensive once you learn how to play it.
It probably isn't even in my top 5 for cards that can ruin a nice game. (IGG and tournament come to mind immediately)
-
I really hate this card in two circumstances in particular:
1) When playing in real life because the time factor is more noticeable than on isotropic and as anyone except the player doing the possessing, you get a lot of downtime. While in theory everyone should do just as much possessing, it sometimes feels like whoever buys it first plays it much more.
2) When I don't notice it. This is particularly true when Chapel is on the board and I don't notice Possession. What tends to happen is I will make a strong engine and then my opponent will start playing my turns and getting provinces on them.
I don't think everyone does as much possessing in theory. There's a pretty massive advantage to the first person doing the possessing. Each Possession play is an extra turn, so that person is a turn ahead in terms of buys. Further, it's a huge blow if that player possesses the other player's first Possession hand or worse, his first $6p hand.
-
I don't think everyone does as much possessing in theory. There's a pretty massive advantage to the first person doing the possessing. Each Possession play is an extra turn, so that person is a turn ahead in terms of buys. Further, it's a huge blow if that player possesses the other player's first Possession hand or worse, his first $6p hand.
True. I guess both in theory and in practice there's a huge advantage to having the first Possession.
-
Possession is not degenerate, it's fascinating. One guy I saw on iso complained about the card, then trashed wads of his own fivers when I didn't have remotely enough possessions to play his deck more than he could, and he didn't buy a single Duchy.
There is a large subset of people that don't understand optimal possession strategy and think it's worse than it is. For example, I very much doubt the golem example is really degenerate. If you want to beat the golem possession deck without using Possession, the last card you want to use is chapel, because your deck will be too thin to accomodate Duchies. I'm not saying duchies definitely beat chapelled, golemmed possessions because that is a pretty strong possession case, but you haven't even tried the correct counterstrategy so you can't pass judgment on the card. It makes you sound like the guy who threw up a thread here to complain that Apprentice is broken.
-
Possession is not degenerate, it's fascinating. One guy I saw on iso complained about the card, then trashed wads of his own fivers when I didn't have remotely enough possessions to play his deck more than he could, and he didn't buy a single Duchy.
There is a large subset of people that don't understand optimal possession strategy and think it's worse than it is. For example, I very much doubt the golem example is really degenerate. If you want to beat the golem possession deck without using Possession, the last card you want to use is chapel, because your deck will be too thin to accomodate Duchies. I'm not saying duchies definitely beat chapelled, golemmed possessions because that is a pretty strong possession case, but you haven't even tried the correct counterstrategy so you can't pass judgment on the card. It makes you sound like the guy who threw up a thread here to complain that Apprentice is broken.
But apprentice IS broken!
;)
No I mean, possession can be an annoying card to play against. I get that and I agree with it. And especially with masq or ambassador, because well, you lose your precious cards. And people don't like that. But there are lots of other things that are also annoying to play against, and I don't see this as being too far beyond them: cursers, ghost ship, consistent militia/goons, KC/Goons/Masq pin, ambassador in general, tournament....
-
Possession is not degenerate, it's fascinating. One guy I saw on iso complained about the card, then trashed wads of his own fivers when I didn't have remotely enough possessions to play his deck more than he could, and he didn't buy a single Duchy.
There is a large subset of people that don't understand optimal possession strategy and think it's worse than it is. For example, I very much doubt the golem example is really degenerate. If you want to beat the golem possession deck without using Possession, the last card you want to use is chapel, because your deck will be too thin to accomodate Duchies. I'm not saying duchies definitely beat chapelled, golemmed possessions because that is a pretty strong possession case, but you haven't even tried the correct counterstrategy so you can't pass judgment on the card. It makes you sound like the guy who threw up a thread here to complain that Apprentice is broken.
But apprentice IS broken!
;)
No I mean, possession can be an annoying card to play against. I get that and I agree with it. And especially with masq or ambassador, because well, you lose your precious cards. And people don't like that. But there are lots of other things that are also annoying to play against, and I don't see this as being too far beyond them: cursers, ghost ship, consistent militia/goons, KC/Goons/Masq pin, ambassador in general, tournament....
Except that they are MY cards, and I don't like people touching my things. I agree, it isn't broken or any more annoying to play against than those other cards/combos... It just rubs me wrong. I play my deck, you play yours. Whoever wins, wins.
Besides, if you need MY deck to win, what does that say about who's better? ;)
-
Besides, if you need MY deck to win, what does that say about who's better? ;)
Well, if I win, I guess I'm the better player, right?
I like Possession. Any card that forces you to think in a completely different way than you normally would is a solid card in my opinion.
Consider Possession a middle man of sorts. In the real world, a middle man sees an opportunity to make a buck by putting himself in between a buyer and a seller… they broker a deal and take a cut in the process. Stock brokers, eBay, Wal-Mart, FLGSs, Malcolm Reynolds, craigslist, pimps, politicians… it's all middle men, all the way down.
If your opponent sees your deck is better than their own, they'll slide a Possession into their own deck, play yours and take a cut of "your" earnings.
I loathe middle men, but I also respect them.
-
Besides, if you need MY deck to win, what does that say about who's better? ;)
Well, if I win, I guess I'm the better player, right?
I like Possession. Any card that forces you to think in a completely different way than you normally would is a solid card in my opinion.
Consider Possession a middle man of sorts. In the real world, a middle man sees an opportunity to make a buck by putting himself in between a buyer and a seller… they broker a deal and take a cut in the process. Stock brokers, eBay, Wal-Mart, FLGSs, Malcolm Reynolds, craigslist, pimps, politicians… it's all middle men, all the way down.
If your opponent sees your deck is better than their own, they'll slide a Possession into their own deck, play yours and take a cut of "your" earnings.
I loathe middle men, but I also respect them.
As I said... I don't have any problem with the card in terms of strategy... It has it's uses, and it has it's counters. It isn't "broken" in any sense... I just plain don't like it.
I can play my deck (X), so that it's stronger than your deck Y, but have to worry that Y+n%(X)>X, or I can keep my deck junked so that %n(X) is itsy bitsy. Since I generally don't enjoy filling my deck up with sub-optimal cards, I don't like Possession.
As a result, most the time I ignore it, and the truth is that most of the time that's the right play. By the time your deck is set up to play mine with regularity, I'm far enough ahead that if we split 50/50 for the rest of the game, I'll win.
On those occasions that I get my a** handed to me by possession, well... I don't fault mt opponent... But more often than not I just roll my eyes and browse the news until the game ends. Yeah, they took a legitimate strategy. But I still feel they did it because they knew they couldn't compete with my deck one-on-one***.
***This feeling may or may not be accurate. It's just how I feel***
At the end of the day, on Iso, I don't really care of it's there or not. I prefer to not play in veto mode, and don't decline any boards. But it's a card I disallow on my phones randomizer if I'm setting up a live game.
-
Besides, if you need MY deck to win, what does that say about who's better? ;)
Well, if I win, I guess I'm the better player, right?
I like Possession. Any card that forces you to think in a completely different way than you normally would is a solid card in my opinion.
Consider Possession a middle man of sorts. In the real world, a middle man sees an opportunity to make a buck by putting himself in between a buyer and a seller… they broker a deal and take a cut in the process. Stock brokers, eBay, Wal-Mart, FLGSs, Malcolm Reynolds, craigslist, pimps, politicians… it's all middle men, all the way down.
If your opponent sees your deck is better than their own, they'll slide a Possession into their own deck, play yours and take a cut of "your" earnings.
I loathe middle men, but I also respect them.
As I said... I don't have any problem with the card in terms of strategy... It has it's uses, and it has it's counters. It isn't "broken" in any sense... I just plain don't like it.
I can play my deck (X), so that it's stronger than your deck Y, but have to worry that Y+n%(X)>X, or I can keep my deck junked so that %n(X) is itsy bitsy. Since I generally don't enjoy filling my deck up with sub-optimal cards, I don't like Possession.
As a result, most the time I ignore it, and the truth is that most of the time that's the right play. By the time your deck is set up to play mine with regularity, I'm far enough ahead that if we split 50/50 for the rest of the game, I'll win.
On those occasions that I get my a** handed to me by possession, well... I don't fault mt opponent... But more often than not I just roll my eyes and browse the news until the game ends. Yeah, they took a legitimate strategy. But I still feel they did it because they knew they couldn't compete with my deck one-on-one***.
***This feeling may or may not be accurate. It's just how I feel***
At the end of the day, on Iso, I don't really care of it's there or not. I prefer to not play in veto mode, and don't decline any boards. But it's a card I disallow on my phones randomizer if I'm setting up a live game.
I'm fine with this, but...
When you say the feeling may not be accurate, man you are right, it is not. Well, I mean, sometimes it might be, just like Saboteur can be a desparation ploy. But... the thing is, the possession was there from the beginning. Having a possession strategy can certainly make your deck stronger. And they may not have built the engine that beats yours because you could possess them then. Certainly the last NV/Bridge/Possession game I saw, I did NOT go for the NV/bridge in a game that I think I could have pulled it off maybe a hair better than my opponent, but it would be very close. I did not, in fact plan on going NV/Bridge at all, because I saw possession on the board, and I know that it's a really good counter. So when he DID, I went for the possession. Could I have won the mirror? Maybe. Maybe not. It would have been close, and quite luck-dependent, for sure. Does that mean I 'knew I couldn't compete with him'? Certainly not. I ain't scared of nobody in dominion (you really need to not be whilst playing a game competitively, even when you objectively know you're outmatched, as I know I sometimes am; but like, I can hang in chess games against grandmasters (eventually I almost always lose) largely because at least in the course of a game, I feel I can play as well as them, even though I know objectively know that I probably won't) except maybe Donald X, since he's seen things I can't dream of and could through some weird new strategy at me with cards that don't exist for the public.
-
I dislike possession and believe it to be less well designed for the following reasons:
1. It takes a long time to play. Yeah, I know cursing games can take more turns, but possession engines (reliably playing possession multiple times per turn either via multiple copies or with TR/KC) already are a lot of clicks/shuffling. Worse, possession rewards you for doing all the things that slow down the game - going for attacks so you opponent has to self sabotage if they play them (of course this leads to other game slowing bits like using reaction cards to offset this resulting in even more decision points during gameplay) - greening early and slowly dragging your deck to a 3 pile and having to do deck management for two different decks (is it better to play this minion to help my current, possessed hand, or to swap my own hand - perhaps one likely to be possessed in turn). KC/Possession deserves a special mention as being unbelievably game slowing. Possession just introduces a lot of analysis paralysis in the game and a lot of mechanical time increases that are just about never there otherwise
2. It viciously rewards turn order in 3er or 4er. Yeah, I know other stuff like masq, smugglers, and tribute are all position dependent, but one of the great things about Dominion is that, in general, where players are seat relative to each other has limited impact. Because the utility of possession depends on the other player there is a great reward for being upstream from a middling player (good enough to build a strong engine, bad enough not to self-sabotage to make possession worse). Likewise, there is great utility in being downstream from the player who went for something that can't go possession (e.g. someone going gardens or jack).
3. It introduces high variance. 6P is harder to hit than 8; while we often weigh cards with the assumption that every potion could have been a silver, in game potions increase variability as they make for fewer degenerate hands (e.g. copper x2, gold x2 is degenerate with copper x2, silver x3); because you can't substitute 2 coins, action cash, or any sort of trash for benefit for the potion portion of the cost you end up with fewer combinations that make 6P than 8.
4. It is exceedingly unfriendly to new players. Possession requires that you look at your deck in a way very different from the rest of Dominion. Having walked a dozen players through possession, I have never found a player who gets how to play possession or against it on the first several passes - this as opposed to say all of Hinterlands that could be introduced with reasonable success. Including the cards that are just a bit weird to wrap your head around with possession - like embargo, outpost, ambassador, etc. makes it much harder to just deal out 10 kingdom cards and have players get up to speed.
Now none of these are individually missing in dominion - hag makes the game long, tribute hugely rewards play order, plat can add huge variance, and black market can create weirdness for new players - but possession takes all the things that I tend to dislike and combines them in one.
-
Good post.
The variance criticism applies to all of Alchemy, and I have to agree I don't think Potions are a good thing. Familiar's 2p and Possession's 5p suck.
Possession is definitely complicated, but Alchemy is definitely an expert expansion. I don't know if it's labelled as such or not.
-
I simply dislike it because it is by far the most complicated card in Dominion - it is the only card where I had to look into the FAQ more than once.
Besides that the risk/reward has a much higher variance than any other card.
-
I like it. It's too swingy, but otherwise is a fine card and adds a unique wrinkle to the strategy.
-
I'm still confused as to its interaction with Outpost.
If player A plays Possession, and makes player B play Outpost, does B play a 3 card hand, then play a normal 5 card hand, or is he just stuck with a single 3 card hand before A's turn?
-
If player A plays Possession, and makes player B play Outpost, does B play a 3 card hand, then play a normal 5 card hand, or is he just stuck with a single 3 card hand before A's turn?
If I remember correctly, the text on Outpost should be interpreted as saying that the turn caused by Outpost cannot be the third, or higher, consecutive turn taken. In the case of a possessed player being made to play an outpost, I believe the order is Possessed turn, Outpost Turn, Regular Turn.
Does anyone know how isotropic, or a rules clarification, handles the case of a player being forced to play an Outpost on the second of two possessed turns (or generally on the second or later possessed turn of a sequence of possessed turns)?