Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Dominion: Alchemy» Forums » Rules

Subject: The ordering of multiple nested possessions. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Andrew Mitchell
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
Ok, so this question is a little long and complex... bear with me...
This issue came up tonight and I'm not certain what the turn ordering should be.

The summary... do multiple possessions queue up like a FIFO queue or a FILO stack? [read on if FIFO and FILO make no sense to you]

Please interrupt [inline reply] if you feel any of my assumptions are wrong along the way.

4 players, A, B, C, D.
Available cards include Golem, Possession, (and some other nice cards for the possessor to posess like salvager .
I'll use notation XY to denote a turn where X possesses Y.

A plays Golem. cycles the deck and hits two posession cards. A buys something to finish his turn.
Now A gets to possess B twice. [In this instance it doesn't matter the ordering of the two possession turns, they are equivalent]
Lets call these two turns where A posesses B to be AB1 and AB2. Clearly AB1 and AB2 cannot be taken concurrently and so one is taken before the other.

So now we have turn AB1 next. [the first turn where A possesses B].
In turn AB1, A instructs B to play a golem (in the hope of getting a salvager to salvage B's colony to have lots of coinage and a nice double colony buy gained by A).
When B plays the golem... you guessed it... two possessions turn up and no salvager.
So, if I am understanding correctly, this is instructing that at the end of the current turn, AB1, that B should take two turns possessing C (called BC1 and BC2) where B makes the decisions for C and B gains the cards [A is not involved as AB1 is over].
Anyway, turn AB1 soon finishes with A gaining some cards.

So, here is the question... what turn comes next?
AB2 was supposed to be next (it is still supposed to be right after A's turn)... but now BC1 and BC2 are also supposed to be next!
Do BC1 and BC2 interupt the flow to AB2 (like a stack, first in last out) or do all these "turns that happen after this turn" act like a queue (first in last out)?
The difference between these options is small, but non-zero. If BC1/BC2 come before AB2, then A gets to make use of the cards that B gains when possessing C in BC1 and BC2... otherwise not.

My instinct is that we should treat it as a stack... if two cards say "do this next [instead of what would otherwise happen]" then the card that comes second would override the original card ... hence the turn order would go:
[note, in the game turns AB2 and B also resulted in 1 possession each]
A,AB1,BC1,BC2,AB2,BC3,B,BC4,C,D.
It was just as well that C hadn't bought any possessions or else it might have gotten confusing
Maybe in the next set Donald can introduce a card that reverses direction of play to spice things up a bit

For those interested, player A eventually won as C didn't have a great deck so B was gaining golds during the BC turns and A kept salvaging possession, province, colony during AB turns.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald X.
United States
flag msg tools
designer
Possession is in Alchemy! And this has come up in the Alchemy rules forum. Here's what I said then:

Quote:
The general timing rule is "When two things try to happen at the same time, if they are happening to the same player, that player decides, and otherwise, go in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is."

That isn't spelled out like that in the Dominion rulebook - it says the less general "If an ability of a card affects multiple players, and the order matters, resolve that ability for each affected player in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is." But the intention is that any timing conflict involving multiple players is resolved this way. I will try to include this in future rulebooks where it's relevant, but probably can't change the main set rulebook.

This does not answer the question of course. Even knowing this, you can ask, between turns, whose turn is it? It isn't anybody's turn. But we need an answer in order to resolve this particular conflict.

My ruling is, treat the person who most recently took a turn (normal or extra) as the active player when resolving timing conflicts between turns (thus they take extra turns first, then the player to their left takes any extra turns, etc.).

Obv. I did not think of this in time to include it in the Alchemy rulebook.

And for context the thread is: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/540344/multiple-possessi...
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mb
Thanks, Donald!

Moved to Dominion: Alchemy >> Rules
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Mitchell
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
Thanks Donald... Looks like we played it right at the time. [I guess we were thinking of it like an interrupt for Magic The Gathering]

I searched around, but I think only in the main Dominion forums! When I started writing the post, it included a mix of cards from a mix of expansions and I wasn't thinking of it as Possession specific... hence I went for general. imho it would be nice if all the rules forums were merged.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Knutsen
Norway
Oslo
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
armitch wrote:
Do BC1 and BC2 interupt the flow to AB2 (like a stack, first in last out) or do all these "turns that happen after this turn" act like a queue (first in last out)?


A little mistake here. You write "first in last out" in both options, but the second one, the queue, should be "first in first out".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Knutsen
Norway
Oslo
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
armitch wrote:
Thanks Donald... Looks like we played it right at the time. [I guess we were thinking of it like an interrupt for Magic The Gathering]

If this is how you played it...:
Quote:
hence the turn order would go:
[note, in the game turns AB2 and B also resulted in 1 possession each]
A,AB1,BC1,BC2,AB2,BC3,B,BC4,C,D.

...you played it wrong. I'm pretty sure it would be:
A,AB1,AB2,BC1,BC2,BC3,B,BC4,C,D
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Seehart
United States
California
flag msg tools
My 2 coppers:

I would consider the relationship between Possession and ordinary play order as a precedent in this case. That is, in normal play, the player to your left will play next. When you play Possession, the possession turn happens next, prior to the next player's ordinary turn.

Thus I read "The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one..." to mean "The player to your left takes an extra turn [in succession to this one and prior to whatever turn would otherwise have transpired next]..."

I hate it when people make stuff up when interpreting cards, so my additional text "and prior to whatever turn would otherwise have transpired next" requires justification. My justification is that without this clarification, the word "after" is ambiguous, since "after" means "later in time than", so a silly person could argue that the possession turn could be invoked several turns later at his convenience. It is thus preferable to define "after" as "in succession to".

Of course when multiple Possession cards are played, there appears to be a conflict in the word "next" that must be resolved. This is where the precedent comes in. The default rules for move order goes like this: "Players take turns in clockwise order". Playing a card that invokes an extra turn will generally contradict "Players take turns in clockwise order", but as is usually the case, the most recent event may alter what has been gone before. Since we must agree that "takes an extra turn after this one..." supersedes "Players take turns in clockwise order", we also must agree that "takes an extra turn after this one..." supersedes a prior instance of "takes an extra turn after this one...".

This yields FILO like behavior, as in Andrew Mitchell's interpretation (never mind that my labels for AB1 and AB2 are inverted, which in this case is not important, but would be important in the case of Possession + Outpost). Somewhat counter-intuitively, Golem: [Possession, Outpost] would cause the Outpost turn to happen before the Possession turn.

The move queue starts out as [A B C D ...]
Player A starts his turn, so the queue is [B C D ...], and plays Golem, which invokes Possession twice.
After the first Possession card is played, we have [AB1 B C D ...]
After the second Possession card is played, we have [AB2 AB1 B C D ...] (note that I am labeling these AB1, AB2 based on the order in which the cards are played, which is the opposite of the order in which the possession turns will be played).
Player A finishes his turn.
Player A possesses B (AB2), plays a Golem, and invokes two Possession cards. Now the queue is [BC2 BC1 AB1 B C D ...]
Player A wraps up turn AB2.
Player B possesses C for turns BC2 and BC1, (assuming more chaos does not occur), so the queue is [AB1 B C D ...]
Player A possesses B (turn AB1), and then the game finally continues with player B.




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Knutsen
Norway
Oslo
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
LobsterNinja wrote:
Since we must agree that "takes an extra turn after this one..." supersedes "Players take turns in clockwise order", we also must agree that "takes an extra turn after this one..." supersedes a prior instance of "takes an extra turn after this one...".


Why? "Players take turns in clockwise order" is a general rule. "Takes an extra turn after this one..." is a card effect. Card effects supersede general rules, but it doesn't say anywhere that a card effect supersedes an earlier card effect. Thus the two effects happen "at the same time" and we must have a general rule to decide which one is first. The general rule is that the timing of card effects is resolved in player order starting with the current player.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.