Can We Ban Possession

[Jacob Marley]

please don't ban it. It's fun.

Fun for you, not for me.  Also, debates over fun-ness do not address the fundamental problem that it is an attack which does not have the attack type, and is thus broken mechanically.

[jsh]

So, another mark against Possession I hadn't considered: currently, it messes up the game log.

[strong hand]

please don't ban it. It's fun.

Fun for you, not for me.  Also, debates over fun-ness do not address the fundamental problem that it is an attack which does not have the attack type, and is thus broken mechanically.

It's not an attack, you can't mess up your opponent's deck or hand by playing it.

Or at least, you usually can't .
And anyway, if you don't find it fun you don't have to play with it.

But a tournament is supposed to be about testing skills and putting the best dominion players against each other at the game of dominion.

And the game of dominion includes possession.

[Donald X.]

But a tournament is supposed to be about testing skills and putting the best dominion players against each other at the game of dominion.

And the game of dominion includes possession.

This argument just super doesn't work for Dominion. You play with a subset of the cards, automatically, and see a subset of the combinations. You never see everything. No particular kingdom card is essential for it to be Dominion; no particular combo is essential either. Any given tournament you might never see any particular card, and that doesn't mean we didn't adequately test player skill.

[Jacob Marley]

please don't ban it. It's fun.

Fun for you, not for me.  Also, debates over fun-ness do not address the fundamental problem that it is an attack which does not have the attack type, and is thus broken mechanically.

It's not an attack, you can't mess up your opponent's deck or hand by playing it.

Actually, you can.  You can spend their coins (from Guilds), play their teacher to put tokens in useless places, etc.  It used to be that your argument was essentially correct, but the game has changed to where that is no longer the case.

[Cave-O-Sapien]

please don't ban it. It's fun.

Fun for you, not for me.  Also, debates over fun-ness do not address the fundamental problem that it is an attack which does not have the attack type, and is thus broken mechanically.

It's not an attack, you can't mess up your opponent's deck or hand by playing it.

Actually, you can.  You can spend their coins (from Guilds), play their teacher to put tokens in useless places, etc.  It used to be that your argument was essentially correct, but the game has changed to where that is no longer the case.

I'd argue that even with Duration cards it is a form of attack. If I have a Wharf or a Caravan in play and you take my next turn, you "steal" the duration effects from me.

[Beyond Awesome]

Don't forget about trashing. You can essentially force them to have a dud hand by trashing all of their good cards. Also, there's Ambassador, Masquerade, etc.

[Donald X.]

There is obviously nothing mechanically broken about even a flat-out attack missing the attack type. Most games nothing will care about the type anyway, and Moat isn't obligated to stop all bad things from happening to you.

I understand if any particular person does not like the idea of an attack without the attack type; that's fine, we all have our preferences, and I try to cater to the common ones. What I am saying though is that there is simply zilch mechanically broken about it. Arguing that it's messed up is just like arguing that you don't like a particular card's art (and yes I care about that too).

[Cave-O-Sapien]

There is obviously nothing mechanically broken about even a flat-out attack missing the attack type. Most games nothing will care about the type anyway, and Moat isn't obligated to stop all bad things from happening to you.

I understand if any particular person does not like the idea of an attack without the attack type; that's fine, we all have our preferences, and I try to cater to the common ones. What I am saying though is that there is simply zilch mechanically broken about it. Arguing that it's messed up is just like arguing that you don't like a particular card's art (and yes I care about that too).

Right, and a card like Ill-Gotten Gains -- while not an attack -- still follows the "attack all players (if possible)" precedent.

But of course, any complaints about Possession's "directedness" should be moot in a 2-player tournament.

[Emeric]

I'd argue that even with Duration cards it is a form of attack. If I have a Wharf or a Caravan in play and you take my next turn, you "steal" the duration effects from me.

But may be when there is possession you have to not go on duration cards. May be....

The problem is may be that when there is possession player have to think to change the best way to win. And it's for that I think Possession is a very interesting card.

[Lemonspawn]

This has probably been suggested before, but I feel like possession should have errata:

1. Make it an attack.

2. Make it not stack (add wording similar to outpost).

Does it NEED errata?  No, but I just think the world would be a better place if Possession were *slightly* weakened.  Hey, they changed Masquerade, why not change Possession?

I'll suggest agreeing to ban possession in any of my individual matches in the tournament, that's for sure.  Also rebuild.

[Cave-O-Sapien]

Also rebuild.

If you're the underdog I would think you'd want to keep Rebuild in.

[Jacob Marley]

This has probably been suggested before, but I feel like possession should have errata:

1. Make it an attack.

You cannot give Possession the attack type because it does not affect all other players.

[blamelewis]

I'd like a new feature which is an extension of Familiar cards - a "don't play games with x card in them" feature...

I've removed Possession from my familiar cards (it's my only unfamiliar card now!) and set my maximum unfamiliar cards to 0 - but still I regularly get in in games, presumably because I'm playing an opponent with a subscription and that's re-enabling it?

So the familiar card thing doesn't work especially well for that purpose, and I've come to really hate Possession - or at least if I were to play with it I'd have to be in the mood for it...

so, long winded feature request saying - isn't there some way to make it a user-selectable deal-breaker for the game matching process?

Thanks

Tim

[jsh]

I'd like a new feature which is an extension of Familiar cards - a "don't play games with x card in them" feature...

I've removed Possession from my familiar cards (it's my only unfamiliar card now!) and set my maximum unfamiliar cards to 0 - but still I regularly get in in games, presumably because I'm playing an opponent with a subscription and that's re-enabling it?

So the familiar card thing doesn't work especially well for that purpose, and I've come to really hate Possession - or at least if I were to play with it I'd have to be in the mood for it...

so, long winded feature request saying - isn't there some way to make it a user-selectable deal-breaker for the game matching process?

Thanks

Tim

Familiar Cards does not work in rated games.