Print

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

[dz]

There's more errata coming up, it'll go up online uh soon.

List of cards:
Outpost, Possession, Mission, Voyage, Island Folk, Journey

Not getting changed:
Fleet, Seize the Day

New texts:
I'll compare the Old Outpost with the New Outpost, and then just post the new texts for the other extra turns.

Old Outpost (yuck):
If this is the first time you played an Outpost this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one, and you only draw 3 cards for your next hand.

New Outpost (wow it's so much shorter):
You only draw 3 cards for your next hand. Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row).

Possession:
The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one (but not a 2nd extra turn in a row), in which you can see all cards they can and make all decisions for them. Any cards or debt they would gain on that turn, you gain instead; any cards of theirs that are trashed are set aside and put in their discard pile at end of turn.

Mission:
Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row), during which you can't buy cards.

Voyage:
+1 Action
Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row), during which you can only play 3 cards from your hand.

Island Folk:
At the end of your turn, you may spend 5 Favors to take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row).

Journey:
You don't discard cards from play in Clean-up this turn, and you take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row).

What's the goal?
DXV has gotten sick of being able to take 3+ turns in a row, every single turn, for the whole game. Fleet and Seize the Day are only once a game, which is why they're safe.

How does this affect interactions?
Let's run through some examples:
* You buy 2 Journeys at once. you take 1 Journey turn, but now you've hit the "but not a 3rd turn" limit, so the 2nd Journey turn fails.
* You buy Mission on a Mission turn. you've hit the "but not a 3rd turn" limit, so the 2nd Mission turn fails.
* You play an Outpost and buy Mission. you draw a 3-card hand and then choose which extra turn to take (let's say Mission). now you've hit the limit, so the Outpost turn fails
* You play a Voyage, a Lich, and take Island Folk. you choose which extra turn to take (let's say Voyage). Lich skips the Voyage turn, then you take the Island Folk turn
* You Throne a Possession. you Possess the player to your left once, and then you hit the "not a 2nd extra turn in a row" limit, so they don't get Possessed again
* You take a Mission turn, and during it, you buy Seize the Day. Seize the Day doesn't have a restriction, so you get a 3rd turn in a row
* You play Possession. On their turn, you make them buy Journey. Their cards are stuck in play, and they take a Journey turn that's out of your control

Why is Donald X. ok with nerfing Voyage so hard?
The thing is: no one on this Earth thought Voyages were cumulative. and Odysseys has a banrate of 8.5%, I bet most of that is because people hate how Voyage chains can take forever. the errata fixes both those problems, hooray

Why was Voyage allowed to be cumulative in the first place?
no clue

[mxdata]

Hmm .... so if you're Possessed, then you play your regular turn, does this mean that buying Journey or playing Voyage would have no effect, since you've already had two turns in a row?

[Ingix]

Yes, that's correct.

[GendoIkari]

Wait, so Outpost is basically being un-errata'd back to its original wording?

You only draw 3 cards (instead of 5) in this turn’s Clean-up phase.
Take an extra turn after this one.
This can’t cause you to take more than two consecutive turns.

[majiponi]

Wait, so Outpost is basically being un-errata'd back to its original wording?

You only draw 3 cards (instead of 5) in this turn’s Clean-up phase.
Take an extra turn after this one.
This can’t cause you to take more than two consecutive turns.

No.  It forces you to draw only 3 cards even if you bought Expedition, since it does not say "instead of 5".
Or is it selectable?
Maybe  "You draw 2 fewer cards" is clearer.

[UltimateGeek]

Yes, that's correct.

Then Possession should also be an Attack.

[majiponi]

What happens with Lich?

Example 1: 2-player game
T10: Alice played a Lich on her regular turn.
T10: Bob played his regular turn.
T11: Alice skipped her regular turn.
T11: Bob played an Outpost on his regular turn.

Does he take an extra turn before Alice plays her next regular turn?
(During 11th cycle, Bob had only 1 regular turn.  Outpost does not let Bob take the 2nd extra turn.  Alice skipped?  That's her fault.)


Example 2: 2-player game
T10: Alice played a Lich on her regular turn.
T10: Bob played his regular turn.
T11: Alice skipped her regular turn.
T11: Bob played a Lich and an Outpost on his regular turn.

Will Bob skip his 12th regular turn?


Example 3: 2-player game
Alice played a Possession on her regular turn.
Bob played a Lich and an Outpost on his Possessed turn.
Bob skipped his Outpost turn.
Bob starts his regular turn with 3-card hand.

Is it an intended behavior?

[GendoIkari]

Yes, that's correct.

Then Possession should also be an Attack.

People have already been saying that Possession should be an attack forever; there's all sorts of ways to use it to hurt an opponent. But yeah, this certainly does add more possible combos in which Possession functions as an attack.

Ultimately though, it's important to remember that "attack" is an arbitrary keyword that is never guaranteed. There's both thematic and game-design reasons why Militia is an attack, but there's nothing actually wrong or broken about a card that does exactly what Militia does and yet doesn't have the attack type. It simply means that it's a bit more powerful because it can't be blocked.

[GendoIkari]

Wait, so Outpost is basically being un-errata'd back to its original wording?

You only draw 3 cards (instead of 5) in this turn’s Clean-up phase.
Take an extra turn after this one.
This can’t cause you to take more than two consecutive turns.

No.  It forces you to draw only 3 cards even if you bought Expedition, since it does not say "instead of 5".
Or is it selectable?
Maybe  "You draw 2 fewer cards" is clearer.

No, current Outpost also says "only draw 3 cards", but it works with Expedition to get you 5 cards instead.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

It simply means that it's a bit more powerful because it can't be blocked.

Or a bit less powerful, depending on the board setup. There are some cards that synergize with Attacks, like Quest or Urchin. Maybe it's just those two; I can't remember off the top of my head.

[mxdata]

It simply means that it's a bit more powerful because it can't be blocked.

Or a bit less powerful, depending on the board setup. There are some cards that synergize with Attacks, like Quest or Urchin. Maybe it's just those two; I can't remember off the top of my head.

Battle Plan is another one that synergizes with attack cards. That's the only other one I can think of right now

[J Reggie]

It simply means that it's a bit more powerful because it can't be blocked.

Or a bit less powerful, depending on the board setup. There are some cards that synergize with Attacks, like Quest or Urchin. Maybe it's just those two; I can't remember off the top of my head.

Battle Plan is another one that synergizes with attack cards. That's the only other one I can think of right now

Squire and Invasion come to mind.

Edit: Skirmisher as well.

[GendoIkari]

Also Courtier, and other things that count types.

[Donald X.]

Example 1: 2-player game
T10: Alice played a Lich on her regular turn.
T10: Bob played his regular turn.
T11: Alice skipped her regular turn.
T11: Bob played an Outpost on his regular turn.

The skipped turn doesn't count as a break in Bob's turn count; he's had two turns in a row, so Outpost can't give him a 3rd turn.

Example 2: 2-player game
T10: Alice played a Lich on her regular turn.
T10: Bob played his regular turn.
T11: Alice skipped her regular turn.
T11: Bob played a Lich and an Outpost on his regular turn.

Bob can apply Lich to skip the Outpost turn.

Example 3: 2-player game
Alice played a Possession on her regular turn.
Bob played a Lich and an Outpost on his Possessed turn.
Bob skipped his Outpost turn.
Bob starts his regular turn with 3-card hand.

Outpost doesn't care if you get the extra turn or not; the 3-card hand is independent of that. If you play Outpost, you only draw 3 cards (for your regular hand draw) in Clean-up; we don't even know yet if that turn will be skipped or what.

[majiponi]

Example 1: 2-player game
T10: Alice played a Lich on her regular turn.
T10: Bob played his regular turn.
T11: Alice skipped her regular turn.
T11: Bob played an Outpost on his regular turn.

The skipped turn doesn't count as a break in Bob's turn count; he's had two turns in a row, so Outpost can't give him a 3rd turn.

Example 2: 2-player game
T10: Alice played a Lich on her regular turn.
T10: Bob played his regular turn.
T11: Alice skipped her regular turn.
T11: Bob played a Lich and an Outpost on his regular turn.

Bob can apply Lich to skip the Outpost turn.

Outpost doesn't let Bob take an extra turn, right?  Then, what makes Lich skip Outpost turn?



Example 1
Outpost tries to let Bob take an extra turn.
Outpost prevents it because it is the 3rd turn.

Example 2
Outpost tries to let Bob take an extra turn.
Lich prevents it.
Outpost tries to prevent it to fail.


Like this?  Then what lets Lich interrupt Outpost instruction?  Take a turn and cancel it are 2 separate instructions, or 1 single instruction?

[Ingix]

Outpost doesn't let Bob take an extra turn, right?  Then, what makes Lich skip Outpost turn?

As far as I understand it, Lich and Outpost et. al. work on the same principle: An extra turn that is about to happen now will not happen if certain conditions are met. So if an "about to happen now" Outpost turn would both be the third for its player in a row and the first after that player played Lich, both effects can could apply. Whichver is chosen to prevent the turn wins, the other effect remains.

Of course, since Outpost only cares about the turn it created, if Lich is chosen to prevent the turn, Outpost's effect is meaningless now (the turn it might have prevented was prevented in another way). If it's done the other way around (Outpost's "no third in a row" prevented the turn), Lich's effect remains and will prevent the the next turn of that player.

I have to say I'm not sure if the ruling is that Lich always applies first, or if that is just the "always better for the player" choice, considering current cards.

[Donald X.]

As far as I understand it, Lich and Outpost et. al. work on the same principle: An extra turn that is about to happen now will not happen if certain conditions are met. So if an "about to happen now" Outpost turn would both be the third for its player in a row and the first after that player played Lich, both effects can could apply. Whichver is chosen to prevent the turn wins, the other effect remains.

Correct. We don't know if the Outpost turn will actually happen until it's time for it; when it's time for it, you can choose how to resolve Lich and Outpost. I've just been figuring you wanted to not skip more turns than you had to, but you can choose to miss the turn due to it being a 3rd one in a row, then also skip a turn due to Lich.

[majiponi]

As far as I understand it, Lich and Outpost et. al. work on the same principle: An extra turn that is about to happen now will not happen if certain conditions are met. So if an "about to happen now" Outpost turn would both be the third for its player in a row and the first after that player played Lich, both effects can could apply. Whichver is chosen to prevent the turn wins, the other effect remains.

Correct. We don't know if the Outpost turn will actually happen until it's time for it; when it's time for it, you can choose how to resolve Lich and Outpost. I've just been figuring you wanted to not skip more turns than you had to, but you can choose to miss the turn due to it being a 3rd one in a row, then also skip a turn due to Lich.

I thought "Outpost effect between turns" tries to let Bob take an extra turn only if he had only 1 or fewer turns in a row, since Outpost instruction is a single statement, unlike E1 clause - "This can’t cause you to take more than 3 consecutive turns".  So, I guessed Lich cannot cancel Outpost; nothing was about to happen.  As far as I know, this must be a new ruling.

[Donald X.]

As far as I understand it, Lich and Outpost et. al. work on the same principle: An extra turn that is about to happen now will not happen if certain conditions are met. So if an "about to happen now" Outpost turn would both be the third for its player in a row and the first after that player played Lich, both effects can could apply. Whichver is chosen to prevent the turn wins, the other effect remains.

Correct. We don't know if the Outpost turn will actually happen until it's time for it; when it's time for it, you can choose how to resolve Lich and Outpost. I've just been figuring you wanted to not skip more turns than you had to, but you can choose to miss the turn due to it being a 3rd one in a row, then also skip a turn due to Lich.

I thought "Outpost effect between turns" tries to let Bob take an extra turn only if he had only 1 or fewer turns in a row, since Outpost instruction is a single statement, unlike E1 clause - "This can’t cause you to take more than 3 consecutive turns".  So, I guessed Lich cannot cancel Outpost; nothing was about to happen.  As far as I know, this must be a new ruling.

I don't know what the ruling used to be. For me today, Outpost can't know if it will be a third turn in a row until it's about to happen. At the point at which we're looking at whose turn will be next, Outpost and Lich both speak up to answer this question, and you get to pick an order to resolve them.

So then, on the Lich side, Lich skips an upcoming extra turn. It can't wait until the turn has already happened; it's always an upcoming turn. The Outpost turn is upcoming until Outpost tells us it isn't.

That's how I see it currently. I'm happy to be argued into having Lich be screwed over in this ubiquitous situation (this situation is not ubiquitous).

Lich could possibly have made nothing happen on the turn, rather than skipping it, to clarify this; but then Lich was trying to not be a mess itself, and in most situations "skip a turn" is super-clear.

[Jack Rudd]

If Possession is getting errata anyway, would it be possible to change the "trashed" clause to "trashed or returned to its pile"? I've played one game with both Possession and Way of the Horse; never again.

[majiponi]

So then, on the Lich side, Lich skips an upcoming extra turn. It can't wait until the turn has already happened; it's always an upcoming turn. The Outpost turn is upcoming until Outpost tells us it isn't.

So, the following explanation A is more accurate than B, right?


Explanation A
(after checking end-game conditions) between turns
Outpost reserved effect happens
Outpost tries to make an extra turn
Lich interrupts to cancel it (upcoming extra turn)
Outpost checks if it is the 3rd turn in a row
Outpost tries to cancel it and fails


Explanation B
(after checking end-game conditions) between turns
Outpost reserved effect happens
Outpost checks if the previous 2 turns are yours (the next extra turn will be the 3rd turn in a row or not)
Because the answer is true, do nothing
(Lich effect remains)

[GendoIkari]

So then, on the Lich side, Lich skips an upcoming extra turn. It can't wait until the turn has already happened; it's always an upcoming turn. The Outpost turn is upcoming until Outpost tells us it isn't.

So, the following explanation A is more accurate than B, right?


Explanation A
(after checking end-game conditions) between turns
Outpost reserved effect happens
Outpost tries to make an extra turn
Lich interrupts to cancel it (upcoming extra turn)
Outpost checks if it is the 3rd turn in a row
Outpost tries to cancel it and fails


Explanation B
(after checking end-game conditions) between turns
Outpost reserved effect happens
Outpost checks if the previous 2 turns are yours (the next extra turn will be the 3rd turn in a row or not)
Because the answer is true, do nothing
(Lich effect remains)

I don't think A is correct because it doesn't give you the option to have another turn skipped. Should be more like:

(after checking end-game conditions) between turns
Outpost reserved effect happens
Outpost tries to make an extra turn
Outpost checks if it is the 3rd turn in a row
Outpost and Lich both try to cancel it
You choose which effect you want to apply.

If you chose to apply Outpost's effect: Lich has still not skipped a turn, so it will skip your next (regular) turn.
If you chose to apply Lich's effect: Outpost tries to cancel it the about-to-start turn and fails.

[majiponi]

Outpost reserved effect happens
Outpost tries to make an extra turn
*** HERE ***
Outpost checks if it is the 3rd turn in a row

Why doesn't Lich try to cancel the upcoming turn HERE, but waits Outpost's check?
Is he an enemy waiting for the transformation of the superhero?

[GendoIkari]

Outpost reserved effect happens
Outpost tries to make an extra turn
*** HERE ***
Outpost checks if it is the 3rd turn in a row

Why doesn't Lich try to cancel the upcoming turn HERE, but waits Outpost's check?
Is he an enemy waiting for the transformation of the superhero?

I suppose "Outpost checks if it is the 3rd turn in a row" isn't really a separate step then. It's more like

(after checking end-game conditions) between turns
Outpost reserved effect happens
Outpost tries to make an extra turn
Outpost and Lich both try to cancel it
You choose which effect you want to apply.

At least, that's what I get from Donald X's reply. However, I don't like this anymore after having typed it up. The problem is, "failing to create an extra turn" sounds like a different type of event than "skipping a turn". Outpost doesn't say "take an extra turn after this. If that would be a third turn in a row, skip it". But I suppose that based on Ingix's explanation, and Donald X's agreement, that is exactly what Outpost means. It's just really shortened on the card text.

Which means that I'm amending my steps once again:

(after checking end-game conditions) between turns
Outpost reserved effect happens
Outpost creates an extra turn
Before that extra turn would begin, Outpost and Lich both try to skip it.
You choose which effect you want to apply.

[Jeebus]

Yes, I think this is a very strange interpretation of new Outpost - that it actually sets up an extra turn, and then checks whether it would be the 3rd turn in a row right before you start the turn. I don't see why it wouldn't be exactly like original Outpost: after the current turn, it checks whether it will give you an extra turn.

The new phrasing seems to support this even more than the original phrasing did. "Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row)" suggests that you only take the extra turn if it wouldn't be the 3rd in a row. Taking an extra turn means that an extra turn is set up. Exactly as GendoIkari said, Outpost does not say: "take an extra turn after this one. If this would be the 3rd turn in a row, skip it."

By the way, this Lich interaction applies to all these "extra turn" cards (except Possession), not just Outpost.

[Jeebus]

What's the goal?
DXV has gotten sick of being able to take 3+ turns in a row, every single turn, for the whole game. Fleet and Seize the Day are only once a game, which is why they're safe.

How was that possible, except with Voyage, specifically because it was missing "if this is the first time you played a Voyage this turn"?
Was the problem when there were several of these cards in the same game?

EDIT: Oh yes, Possession too.

[Jeebus]

I'm surprised that Outpost is errata'ed back to its original text, since now we're back to all the confusing stuff that the new (previous) wording was specifically made to avoid:

* If you play several Outposts, all stay in play. One is discarded in the Clean-up of your extra turn. The others are discarded in the Clean-up of the turn after that, which is normally the next player's turn.

* If you play Outpost and buy Seize the Day (on the same turn), you get both turns. The Outpost stays in play for one or two turns, depending on which extra turn you resolve first (although it doesn't make a difference otherwise; you will start the first turn with 3 cards in hand in any case).

* If you play Outpost on an extra turn, you only draw 3 cards in Clean-up even though you don't get an extra turn. The Outpost stays in play until the Clean-up of the next turn, which is normally the next player's turn.

Most of this now also applies to Voyage.

In addition we have all the confusing stuff about Lich that Majiponi posted, which I think applies to all of these "extra turn" cards.

Previous Outpost had a longer text, but I think it was much cleaner in its implementation. Either you get an extra turn and a reduced hand, or Outpost is discarded right away.

[GendoIkari]

I'm reminded of when a new rule was added that if a cost would be reduced to less than , it stayed at . This enabled Bridge and other cards to all not need "but not less than ". Could the same thing have worked for extra turns? Just a general new rule that says "A player cannot take more than 2 turns in a row. If a player would begin a third turn in a row, that turn is skipped". If such a rule existed, then all of these cards could be worded as they are in this errata, but without the "but not a 3rd turn in a row" bit.

Granted, that would also change Fleet and Seize the day, but only in the rare cases when they show up in the same game with other extra turn cards.

[faust]

Other random question:

3-player game. On my turn, I play two Possessions. On the first possessed turn, I make the player 2 play a Possession. Player 3 now takes a possessed turn. I then get to possess player 2 again?

Or alternatively, all turns beyond the first Possession turn fail because they are all "extra turns in a row", even if they are not extra turns by the same player? But then that would mean that Possession also fails if I play it on a Mission turn?

[Donald X.]

I'm surprised that Outpost is errata'ed back to its original text, since now we're back to all the confusing stuff that the new (previous) wording was specifically made to avoid:

For me, "you can't take 3 turns in a row" was more important than these things. That's the whole idea; killing those awful situations. I think the new wording is very clear for players in normal situations. IRL players may discard Outpost at the wrong time in exotic cases and that will be fine.

[Donald X.]

I'm reminded of when a new rule was added that if a cost would be reduced to less than , it stayed at . This enabled Bridge and other cards to all not need "but not less than ". Could the same thing have worked for extra turns? Just a general new rule that says "A player cannot take more than 2 turns in a row. If a player would begin a third turn in a row, that turn is skipped". If such a rule existed, then all of these cards could be worded as they are in this errata, but without the "but not a 3rd turn in a row" bit.

Granted, that would also change Fleet and Seize the day, but only in the rare cases when they show up in the same game with other extra turn cards.

Changing Fleet and Seize the Day isn't a problem. Having it just be a rule, no 3rd turns, was proposed, and considered, and wasn't good enough. If it were a new game, with an Outpost in the main set, then it could be in the rules, even though every such rule is super bad, as players never learn them since they don't come up often enough. In Dominion especially, people expect the cards to tell them the rules. Anyway it's not the main set for a new game; it's these cards, and the way for people to know the rule is to put it on the cards. Then you can say, the cards could have treated it like a rule that they were reminding you of: "(Players can't take 3 turns in a row.)" And I mean that was considered too. I don't want a main set rulebook rule like "you can't take three turns in a row" with no way to take extra turns; that's how it is.

"Cards can't cost less than $0" is much different, because it's what everyone expects will be the rule if they don't know the rule, and when they don't know the rule it's very clear to them that they don't know it. As soon as they ask, "hey does it go to negative $," they know they don't know and can look it up. They never think "oh it probably goes to negative, la la la, let's not check." They think "of course it won't go negative" or "I don't know." Whereas! You can't tell that you don't know "you can't take 3 turns in a row"; there's no hint for you that a rule is missing. By default you sure think you can.

[Donald X.]

Other random question:

3-player game. On my turn, I play two Possessions. On the first possessed turn, I make the player 2 play a Possession. Player 3 now takes a possessed turn. I then get to possess player 2 again?

Yes if you squeeze in a turn for a different player, you can get your next Possession to work. However! When two players are supposed to do something at once, we go in turn order, and in these between-turns situations, we go by the last player to take a turn. So you possess Alice twice, and on the first extra turn make her possess Bob; Alice took the last turn (with you possessing her) so we start with her and resolve her taking another extra turn, no wait she doesn't get it due to the wording on Possession, and then go on to Bob's extra turn.

[Ethan]

Hope we can get an Alchemy 2E replaced Possession. Maybe in 2033.

[Jeebus]

I'm surprised that Outpost is errata'ed back to its original text, since now we're back to all the confusing stuff that the new (previous) wording was specifically made to avoid:

For me, "you can't take 3 turns in a row" was more important than these things. That's the whole idea; killing those awful situations. I think the new wording is very clear for players in normal situations. IRL players may discard Outpost at the wrong time in exotic cases and that will be fine.

Sure, I understand that priority. But Outpost already prevented more than 1 extra turn from itself. Voyage and Possession were the only ones that didn't. So the reason to not just errata those two must be that you wanted to prevent taking more than 1 extra turn in games with two (or more) of these cards in the kingdom?

Outpost got errata specifically to kill those complicated questions, and you maintain that there's a high bar for getting errata, so that must have been quite important. What this new errata achieves is that you can't take exactly 2 extra turns in a row when there are two "extra turn" cards in the kingdom. (Those kingdoms aren't any less exotic than playing a Throne Room variant + Outpost/Voyage.) It seems weird to me that that was so important that it warrants not just another errata, but reverting a previous errata (plus errata to several cards where that's the only difference).

Or to put it another way: Why is it so bad that players can't take 2 extra turns in a row when there are two of these cards in the same kingdom, which surely isn't very common?

[GendoIkari]

"Cards can't cost less than $0" is much different, because it's what everyone expects will be the rule if they don't know the rule, and when they don't know the rule it's very clear to them that they don't know it. As soon as they ask, "hey does it go to negative $," they know they don't know and can look it up. They never think "oh it probably goes to negative, la la la, let's not check." They think "of course it won't go negative" or "I don't know." Whereas! You can't tell that you don't know "you can't take 3 turns in a row"; there's no hint for you that a rule is missing. By default you sure think you can.

Yeah, very good point.

[Donald X.]

Or to put it another way: Why is it so bad that players can't take 2 extra turns in a row when there are two of these cards in the same kingdom, which surely isn't very common?

I think we just disagree on the importance of both halves - I put less value on the exotic cases, and more value on the three-turns-in-a-row problem. It would be great to have everything perfect in all respects; this is what I have currently. Playing Throne on Outpost is super crazy exotic when the card makes it clear that it won't work. You won't do it! Asking what happens exactly then is just an intellectual exercise, or something important for programmers of the digital versions; it's not something that really happens in games. Whereas when you can take 3 turns in a row, you do it.

It came up; otherwise I wouldn't have been thinking about it. I had multiple games where players could take three turns in a row. It sucked hard. I thought, damn Donald X., fix that. I fixed it. It wasn't just Voyage; a variety of extra turn cards came up and we had the awful experience. Then Allies was being reprinted and hey, good time to fix this.

[Jeebus]

Or to put it another way: Why is it so bad that players can't take 2 extra turns in a row when there are two of these cards in the same kingdom, which surely isn't very common?

I think we just disagree on the importance of both halves - I put less value on the exotic cases, and more value on the three-turns-in-a-row problem. It would be great to have everything perfect in all respects; this is what I have currently. Playing Throne on Outpost is super crazy exotic when the card makes it clear that it won't work. You won't do it! Asking what happens exactly then is just an intellectual exercise, or something important for programmers of the digital versions; it's not something that really happens in games.

That's a good point, in a practical sense it's more exotic than I realized. But then why was it important enough to get errata in the first place? I guess that's part of my surprise here.

I had multiple games where players could take three turns in a row. It sucked hard. I thought, damn Donald X., fix that. I fixed it. It wasn't just Voyage; a variety of extra turn cards came up and we had the awful experience. Then Allies was being reprinted and hey, good time to fix this.

I really wonder what kind of games this was, with two of these cards consistently giving 1 extra turn each, making in awful experience? I guess it didn't involve Island Folk; you don't get that many Favors. Voyage and Journey create very limited turns; Possession, Mission, and sometimes Outpost will let you take full turns. So I guess that's three cards, two of which need to be in the game, letting you take 3 full turns in a row. (Not just asking Donald X. here; I guess this is a problem several people reported?)

[Wizard_Amul]

I really wonder what kind of games this was, with two of these cards consistently giving 1 extra turn each, making in awful experience? I guess it didn't involve Island Folk; you don't get that many Favors. Voyage and Journey create very limited turns; Possession, Mission, and sometimes Outpost will let you take full turns. So I guess that's three cards, two of which need to be in the game, letting you take 3 full turns in a row. (Not just asking Donald X. here; I guess this is a problem several people reported?)

If you have more than one of those, the turns can definitely stack up. You probably get this part, but before the errata, since they all said "if the previous turn wasn't yours," you could sometimes easily stack up multiple of those effects on your first turn and then proceed to take multiple turns in a row.

In the particular case of Donald's game, I'd be curious to hear what the cards were but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Island Folk combined with another one--you can sometimes build a deck that can give you multiple favors every turn, most likely with Underling or Guildmaster. I think I've personally played a game with Island Folk and Outpost where I was able to get the 5 favors each time (plus, you get two turns to get the favors, so 3 favors each turn would work). The game ends up being both players taking nearly 3 full turns in a row every turn. I wouldn't say it was a bad experience, though, although it definitely makes judging the end of the game pretty difficult.

I can see Voyage going either way--I thought it was fine to take the very limited turns multiple times, but it's the one card where you could sometimes get multiple turns in a row without needing another extra turns card. Particularly IRL, I could see that slowing the game down and not being a fun experience.

[Jeebus]

If you have more than one of those, the turns can definitely stack up. You probably get this part, but before the errata, since they all said "if the previous turn wasn't yours," you could sometimes easily stack up multiple of those effects on your first turn and then proceed to take multiple turns in a row.

In the particular case of Donald's game, I'd be curious to hear what the cards were but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Island Folk combined with another one--you can sometimes build a deck that can give you multiple favors every turn, most likely with Underling or Guildmaster. I think I've personally played a game with Island Folk and Outpost where I was able to get the 5 favors each time (plus, you get two turns to get the favors, so 3 favors each turn would work). The game ends up being both players taking nearly 3 full turns in a row every turn. I wouldn't say it was a bad experience, though, although it definitely makes judging the end of the game pretty difficult.

I can see Voyage going either way--I thought it was fine to take the very limited turns multiple times, but it's the one card where you could sometimes get multiple turns in a row without needing another extra turns card. Particularly IRL, I could see that slowing the game down and not being a fun experience.

Yeah, I can see changing Voyage and Possession to get rid of multiple turns with them in a row. But the errata to the others are only relevant when there are several of these cards in the same kingdom (as you wrote and as I wrote before). Game with three of these cards would be extremely rare, so we're talking about the ability to take 3 turns in a row as opposed to 2 turns in a row. I don't really get the awfulness of this in the few games where it would be possible. Some people also understandably hate 4-player cursing games with no trashing, for example, which has been quite common in Dominion from the start; but I would never think the game should be fixed to avoid it.

[majiponi]

New question.

Alice played Possession.
She gained Province.
Bob played Black Cat as a Vassal(Way of the Mouse).
He discarded Outpost to play it.
Between turns, He chose 4-card Outpost turn to resolve first.
On the Outpost turn, he played another Outpost.

Q1. Does he take another Outpost turn?
Q2. If Q1 is true, after his 2nd extra turn, does he take a Possessed turn? (It will be the 3rd turn in a row, not the 2nd one in a row.)

[Ingix]

New question.

Alice played Possession.
She gained Province.
Bob played Black Cat as a Vassal(Way of the Mouse).
He discarded Outpost to play it.
Between turns, He chose 4-card Outpost turn to resolve first.
On the Outpost turn, he played another Outpost.

Q1. Does he take another Outpost turn?

Yes. The second Outpost turn (if he choses to take it before the Possessed turn) would be his 2nd turn in a row, so is not prevented.

Q2. If Q1 is true, after his 2nd extra turn, does he take a Possessed turn? (It will be the 3rd turn in a row, not the 2nd one in a row.)

No, the Possession turn will not be taken. It would be his 3rd extra turn in a row and Possession prevents that. It was deemed overkill to word it as "2nd, 3rd,.... extra turn in a row", as your scenario is really rare. The same is true for the other rewordings, that means in the following situation

normal turn, play Outpost,
Outpost turn, buy Seize the Day
Seize the Day turn, activate Island Folk

you don't get an Island Folk turn, it would be your 4th turn in a row.

[Jeebus]

Yes, I think this is a very strange interpretation of new Outpost - that it actually sets up an extra turn, and then checks whether it would be the 3rd turn in a row right before you start the turn. I don't see why it wouldn't be exactly like original Outpost: after the current turn, it checks whether it will give you an extra turn.

The new phrasing seems to support this even more than the original phrasing did. "Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row)" suggests that you only take the extra turn if it wouldn't be the 3rd in a row. Taking an extra turn means that an extra turn is set up. Exactly as GendoIkari said, Outpost does not say: "take an extra turn after this one. If this would be the 3rd turn in a row, skip it."

By the way, this Lich interaction applies to all these "extra turn" cards (except Possession), not just Outpost.

Donald X., maybe you missed this post since it was last on the first page? Seems like at least me, GendoIkari and Majiponi think that the wording on Outpost suggests that Lich can't skip the Outpost turn.

[Donald X.]

Yes, I think this is a very strange interpretation of new Outpost - that it actually sets up an extra turn, and then checks whether it would be the 3rd turn in a row right before you start the turn. I don't see why it wouldn't be exactly like original Outpost: after the current turn, it checks whether it will give you an extra turn.

The new phrasing seems to support this even more than the original phrasing did. "Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row)" suggests that you only take the extra turn if it wouldn't be the 3rd in a row. Taking an extra turn means that an extra turn is set up. Exactly as GendoIkari said, Outpost does not say: "take an extra turn after this one. If this would be the 3rd turn in a row, skip it."

By the way, this Lich interaction applies to all these "extra turn" cards (except Possession), not just Outpost.

Donald X., maybe you missed this post since it was last on the first page? Seems like at least me, GendoIkari and Majiponi think that the wording on Outpost suggests that Lich can't skip the Outpost turn.

Outpost has to check if the turn will be a 3rd one right before that turn happens. If it checked any earlier, things could change such that you got a 3rd turn in a row; if it checked any later, the turn would have already happened.

Then, given that, how should it be phrased? Currently it's phrased to be clear and simple for people in normal situations, with the idea being that there's a rulebook (though currently there isn't, since the card hasn't been reprinted yet) to cover the tricky cases.

So then, there's two pieces here: generating the turn, and making sure it's not a 3rd one. We could spell these out as:
A) Take an additional turn after this one. When it's about to happen, if it would be a third turn in a row, get rid of it quietly.
B) After this turn, when you've got a moment, if another turn wouldn't be a third turn in a row, take one.

I went with A. I think you're arguing for B.

The card text is: "Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row)."

Leading with "Take an extra turn" makes it look like, okay we're taking a turn; now then, what else is there to say? But really we've provided timing and could rephrase it as:

"After this turn, take an extra turn (but not a 3rd turn in a row).

When you look at it like that, the uh amount of reasonableness of B goes up. B still is really seeing it as:

"After this turn, if it won't be a 3rd turn in a row, take an extra turn."

But then, the "if" has to come ahead of the actual turn.

So this does make it seem like Lich shouldn't be able to skip a 3rd turn generated by Outpost. There's no turn to skip until we know it's not a third one.

[Jeebus]

So then, there's two pieces here: generating the turn, and making sure it's not a 3rd one. We could spell these out as:
A) Take an additional turn after this one. When it's about to happen, if it would be a third turn in a row, get rid of it quietly.
B) After this turn, when you've got a moment, if another turn wouldn't be a third turn in a row, take one.

I went with A. I think you're arguing for B.

Yes. I read "(but not a 3rd turn in a row)" as "unless it would be your 3rd turn in a row".

[Donald X.]

So:

I'm changing the ruling on Lich vs. the new Outposts. You can't skip the turn you weren't going to get. Outpost says "Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row)"; that can be read as "After this turn, if this wouldn't be a 3rd turn in a row, take an extra one."

Outpost is timed as "in-between turns"; Lich is timed as "when you're about to take a turn." If you play two Outposts and Lich on one turn, Lich can skip the first extra turn. The second Outpost still happens, since you haven't taken 2 turns in a row yet. If you play Outpost and Lich on an Outpost turn, Outpost doesn't generate an extra turn and Lich ends up skipping your next normal turn.

As noted this means that a superfluous Outpost gets discarded during another player's Clean-up. It doesn't know that the extra turn won't happen until we're right there failing to do it, which is after Clean-up.

[GendoIkari]

As noted this means that a superfluous Outpost gets discarded during another player's Clean-up. It doesn't know that the extra turn won't happen until we're right there failing to do it, which is after Clean-up.

And this would be the case even if Outpost had nothing to do with giving extra turns, right? The fact that it also changes the draw part of cleanup means that it still has stuff to do after the discard part of cleanup.

[GendoIkari]

Outpost says "Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row)"; that can be read as "After this turn, if this wouldn't be a 3rd turn in a row, take an extra one."

Outpost is timed as "in-between turns"; Lich is timed as "when you're about to take a turn." If you play two Outposts and Lich on one turn, Lich can skip the first extra turn. The second Outpost still happens, since you haven't taken 2 turns in a row yet. If you play Outpost and Lich on an Outpost turn, Outpost doesn't generate an extra turn and Lich ends up skipping your next normal turn.

Hmm, I'm a bit unclear on the timing of multiple Outposts in general. When you play 2 Outposts, do both trigger at the same time (in between turns)? Or does one trigger after the current turn, and the other trigger (and fail) after the Outpost turn? I'm pretty sure it's the first one. But if it is, I don't see how the timing works out with the new Lich ruling.

1) Play Outpost, Outpost, Lich
2) Go to in between turns. Both Outposts trigger
3) Outpost #1 (whichever you choose to resolve first) creates an extra turn
4a) Outpost #2 fails to create an extra turn, because it would be your third. But how does Outpost #2 know if it will be your third turn or not?
OR
4b) Outpost #2 creates an extra turn, because the extra turn from Outpost #1 won't happen. But how does Outpost #2 know this?
5. Lich skipps the upcoming Outpost #1 turn. (When you would begin a turn).
6. You get to take the Outpost #2 turn.

There's a disconnect in step 4 here. Lich doesn't skip the turn until it's about to begin, whereas Outpost is creating, or failing to create, the extra turns before Lich gets involved. By your recent ruling update, it seems that Outpost #2 has to "look into the future" and know to not create the turn if there was another Outpost played, or to go ahead and create the turn if there was also a Lich played which will skip the other Outpost's turn.

*Edit* Or was the comment about the extra Outpost being discarded during another player's turn precisely because Outpost #2 doesn't trigger after the current turn, but rather after the Outpost #1 extra turn? After all, if they both triggered after the current turn, then they should both be cleaned up at the end of the Outpost extra turn, because Outpost #2 will have already finished failing to create that extra turn.

[majiponi]

When you play 2 Outposts, do both trigger at the same time (in between turns)?

I am sure they do, but understanding is different.


"Between turns" window
Outpost #1 and #2 are waiting for being resolved
choose Outpost #1 to resolve
(Outpost #2 waits until #1 is fully resolved)
-- Outpost #1 checks if the extra turn wouldn't be the 3rd turn
-- Outpost #1 tries to create a turn(Lich can interrupt to cancel it)
---- Outpost #1 turn starts!
---- ....
---- Outpost #1 turn ends
---- end-game check
-- Outpost #1 is fully resolved
choose Outpost #2 to resolve
-- Outpost #2 checks if the extra turn wouldn't be the 3rd turn
-- Outpost #2 does nothing
-- Outpost #2 is fully resolved

"if the extra turn wouldn't be the 3rd turn" is clear; it actually checks "if the previous 2 turns are yours" because Outpost can't know the future

[GendoIkari]

When you play 2 Outposts, do both trigger at the same time (in between turns)?

I am sure they do, but understanding is different.


"Between turns" window
Outpost #1 and #2 are waiting for being resolved
choose Outpost #1 to resolve
(Outpost #2 waits until #1 is fully resolved)
-- Outpost #1 checks if the extra turn wouldn't be the 3rd turn
-- Outpost #1 tries to create a turn(Lich can interrupt to cancel it)
---- Outpost #1 turn starts!
---- ....
---- Outpost #1 turn ends
---- end-game check
-- Outpost #1 is fully resolved
choose Outpost #2 to resolve
-- Outpost #2 checks if the extra turn wouldn't be the 3rd turn
-- Outpost #2 does nothing
-- Outpost #2 is fully resolved

"if the extra turn wouldn't be the 3rd turn" is clear; it actually checks "if the previous 2 turns are yours" because Outpost can't know the future

Yeah I was imprecise with "triggers" vs "resolves". I had been thinking that 2 Outposts both resolved at the same time; setting up 2 extra turns before either one happened.

Perhaps the question would be clearer with current Voyage, which lets you play multiple to take multiple extra turns after this... you play 2 Voyages on your turn. In between turns, what exactly happens? Do you resolve both Voyages to set up your next 2 extra turns? Or do you only resolve 1, taking that turn right away, then resolve the other, taking that turn?

[Jeebus]

Yeah I was imprecise with "triggers" vs "resolves". I had been thinking that 2 Outposts both resolved at the same time; setting up 2 extra turns before either one happened.

Perhaps the question would be clearer with current Voyage, which lets you play multiple to take multiple extra turns after this... you play 2 Voyages on your turn. In between turns, what exactly happens? Do you resolve both Voyages to set up your next 2 extra turns? Or do you only resolve 1, taking that turn right away, then resolve the other, taking that turn?

It must be the latter.

I'm pretty sure the original scenario is simply:

1) After this turn, these two trigger:
* Outpost #1: "Take an extra turn if you haven't had more than one turn in a row"
* Outpost #2: "Take an extra turn if you haven't had more than one turn in a row"

2) You resolve the first Outpost: "Take an extra turn if you haven't had more than one turn in a row". So you get an extra turn.

3) When you would resolve that extra turn, Lich cancels it.

4) You resolve the second Outpost: "Take an extra turn if you haven't had more than one turn in a row". So you get an extra turn.

[Jeebus]

As noted this means that a superfluous Outpost gets discarded during another player's Clean-up. It doesn't know that the extra turn won't happen until we're right there failing to do it, which is after Clean-up.

And this would be the case even if Outpost had nothing to do with giving extra turns, right? The fact that it also changes the draw part of cleanup means that it still has stuff to do after the discard part of cleanup.

That used to be the case (but in practice it never mattered for Outpost). But as far as I know, the latest ruling is that Durations only stay in play if they have something left to do after this turn.
This matters for Cargo Ship with no cards, Garrison with no tokens, Duration + Way of the Seal, and Duration + Way of the Squirrel.

[GendoIkari]

Yeah I was imprecise with "triggers" vs "resolves". I had been thinking that 2 Outposts both resolved at the same time; setting up 2 extra turns before either one happened.

Perhaps the question would be clearer with current Voyage, which lets you play multiple to take multiple extra turns after this... you play 2 Voyages on your turn. In between turns, what exactly happens? Do you resolve both Voyages to set up your next 2 extra turns? Or do you only resolve 1, taking that turn right away, then resolve the other, taking that turn?

It must be the latter.

I'm pretty sure the original scenario is simply:

1) After this turn, these two trigger:
* Outpost #1: "Take an extra turn if you haven't had more than one turn in a row"
* Outpost #2: "Take an extra turn if you haven't had more than one turn in a row"

2) You resolve the first Outpost: "Take an extra turn if you haven't had more than one turn in a row". So you get an extra turn.

3) When you would resolve that extra turn, Lich cancels it.

4) You resolve the second Outpost: "Take an extra turn if you haven't had more than one turn in a row". So you get an extra turn.

It makes sense this way. But this whole time I was thinking that extra turns were a thing that were created ahead of time and sitting there waiting to either happen or be canceled by Lich. Now it seems like there isn't actually such a thing as an extra turn that's waiting to happen. Only an instruction to take an extra turn that's waiting to happen, and you always start that extra turn the moment you're told to "take an extra turn".

[Jeebus]

It makes sense this way. But this whole time I was thinking that extra turns were a thing that were created ahead of time and sitting there waiting to either happen or be canceled by Lich. Now it seems like there isn't actually such a thing as an extra turn that's waiting to happen. Only an instruction to take an extra turn that's waiting to happen, and you always start that extra turn the moment you're told to "take an extra turn".

Note that other set-up effects work the same way. For instance, "+1 card at the beginning of next turn" is not a card-draw waiting to happen, but an instruction. You could end up not drawing the card because an opponent played Bridge Troll or because you already drew your deck.

[GendoIkari]

In all the discussions way back when with original Outpost about when a second/failed Outpost was supposed to be discarded, I don't ever remember it being said that Outpost #2 would get discarded from play on a different turn from Outpost #1. I always thought it was Outpost #2 gets discarded on your Outpost turn instead of on the current turn, because it didn't know yet that it wouldn't do anything (and maybe also because it hasn't made you draw 3 cards instead of 5 yet).

But with this understanding, it seems clear that original Outpost (same as brand new Outpost) would make it so that only the first Outpost gets discarded on the Outpost turn; the second Outpost gets discarded on the turn after that (opponent's turn).

[Donald X.]

As noted this means that a superfluous Outpost gets discarded during another player's Clean-up. It doesn't know that the extra turn won't happen until we're right there failing to do it, which is after Clean-up.

And this would be the case even if Outpost had nothing to do with giving extra turns, right? The fact that it also changes the draw part of cleanup means that it still has stuff to do after the discard part of cleanup.

Yes, the Outpost / Lich business doesn't involve that. Edit: corrected by Jeebus.

As noted this means that a superfluous Voyage... there we go.

[SignError]

Possession:
The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one (but not a 2nd extra turn in a row), in which you can see all cards they can and make all decisions for them. Any cards or debt they would gain on that turn, you gain instead; any cards of theirs that are trashed are set aside and put in their discard pile at end of turn.

Will Possession get the Duration type to match Outpost and Voyage?  Kind of like how Prince eventually got the Duration type.

[Donald X.]

Possession:
The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one (but not a 2nd extra turn in a row), in which you can see all cards they can and make all decisions for them. Any cards or debt they would gain on that turn, you gain instead; any cards of theirs that are trashed are set aside and put in their discard pile at end of turn.

Will Possession get the Duration type to match Outpost and Voyage?  Kind of like how Prince eventually got the Duration type.

It wouldn't be wrong, but no plans there.