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.