Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ospond

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1]
1
Ironworks + Experiment + Triumph

This was fun. Aim for a deck with as many experiments as possible and maybe 4 ironworks. Each turn you play all the experiments, gain them all back with the 4 ironworks, and buy triumph for ~9 VP.

2
Dominion General Discussion / Re: The Dominion Cards Lists 2018 Edition
« on: February 26, 2019, 05:11:30 pm »
I think I've brought the wiki page up-to-date with all the results (including Events results from previous years) at http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/List_of_Cards_by_Qvist_Rankings.

Thanks to Werothegreat who appears to have done most of the work in updating the card-cost lists.

Some things in the wiki are still sloppy and maybe could be fixed up. For instance, I don't know why "data-sort-value=~ | -" is used in the tables -- it doesn't seem to sort correctly. Something like "data-sort-value=1000 | -" should work better. Also, the "Card Lists" section is a bit cluttered now, and the headers for each section (giving links to the forum results) are also getting cluttered and are not really that useful.


3
Dominion General Discussion / Re: The Dominion Cards Lists 2018 Edition
« on: February 26, 2019, 05:03:16 pm »
Anyone know how many responses there were this year?

Landmarks got only 13 votes. Hexes got only 13 votes as well, I assume it's the same for Boons. (see http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19561.0, http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19550.0)

Projects had 31 votes (mentioned at http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19557.0). Events not mentioned.

Prizes got 26 votes and Knights got 20 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19532.0, http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19531.0). Ruins and Potion-cost not mentioned.

2-cost list: 37-41 votes (mentioned above)
3-cost list: not mentioned
4-cost list: 30-34 votes (mentioned at http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19517.0)
5-cost list: 33 votes (mentioned at http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19518.0)
6-cost list: 33-36 votes (mentioned above)


4
I found some errors in the differences from last year (at http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18185.0):

- Bonfire should be +2, not +3

- Lost Arts should be -3, not -4


5
I rank landmarks based on fun factor. It's not like I have a choice to buy them or not so may as well apply the emotional criterium here.

Didn't see any mention of the word "impact" in the ranking thread either, so I wonder how many people actually know about that.

Interesting. Ranking by fun factor seems well outside the norm. You could rank that way for cards, too, but I think it's generally understood that the rankings are more about power and strategic impact.

I would support some kind of official policy/guide on what metrics to use when rankings. Right now it's kind of a free-for-all. But for landmarks, I think most people rank by impact factor.

6
So what do you think?  Seems like there's a pretty good case that Keep > Wall, although Wall leads to more games ending on provinces.  I also think Tower should be higher, since it apparently causes a 3-pile in about 15% of games.

I like the idea of looking at the stats to determine landmark impact, and I agree with the intuition about game length. For the reasons you mention, though, I think neither length of game nor chance of 3-pile alone summarizes impact well. Combining the two works better, but are there other variables we could measure? Maybe average length of game given a province ending, or given a 3-pile ending. Maybe the chance of first player winning would also be interesting. Skill multiplier might also say something about impact, if we believe that better players are more likely to alter their strategy with the landmark, whereas worse players aren't.

More generally it would be cool to have some kind of aggregate of how much the gain distribution changes in the presence of landmark X. So, total over all cards of the difference between the gain rate of that card with landmark X and the average gain rate for that card.


7
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Can Patron ever be the bane card?
« on: February 24, 2019, 06:26:11 pm »
As Patron is $4, it cannot be the bane? While there are cost reducers, these cannot apply during setup, and can't affect Patron. Or is there something I'm missing, like maybe some card that can turn cards into other cards or something?

Oops, that was an oversight when I wrote that. Looks like Werothegreat fixed it by removing Young Witch from the list.

I've only played with Young Witch online, so I didn't realize the Bane had to cost 2 or 3.  :-[


8
The Most Impactful Landmarks

Only 13 people voted for the landmarks this year (compared to 18 voters last year). I'm guessing that's low enough that many of the ranking anomalies could be due to noise. ("Noise" includes, for example, someone voting Labyrinth as the best landmark, and someone voting Wall as second-to-worst. :swashbuckler: :parody: :o )

Obligatory comment about how "no one knows how to rank landmarks". Actually, I think it's the opposite: landmarks have only one metric that makes sense, whereas for cards, lots of different criteria are possible. For example, does how often you buy the card in optimal play matter? (This favors events like Save, Alms, Travelling Fair, and Borrow, and it favors King's Court over Donate.) Or is it just a matter of how strongly you should consider buying it at least once? What if it's a card you only buy when you're already winning or already losing (Salt the Earth, Duchy)? How should VP be ranked relative to non-VP? In contrast, for landmarks, the only metric that really makes sense is "how much does this change your strategy", or more concisely, "impact".

Assuming that impact is the metric, here are the results from least impactful to most impactful (countdown order).

#21 =0 Baths
Weighted 2.79% / Unweighted 7.31% (21) / Median 0% (21) / Std. Dev. 21.09% (15)

In the Weighted and Unweighted average scores, Baths is in its own bottom tier, very far below everything else. All except one voter put it last or second-to-last. It's not uncommon to pick up points from Baths, but usually it's when doing something you would have done anyway. Deliberately taking the points instead of building is comparable to discarding your hand against a Torturer engine rather than taking a couple of curses, which is to say you might as well resign.

Baths has some combo potential, but it's limited in scope: compared to not-buying (e.g. Hermit and Mission), not-gaining is a very steep activation cost. So you need a strong Event or Project to buy, but which doesn't gain you any cards, and right now that's just Salt the Earth. However, as most games use only 0-2 landscapes, the chance of Baths and Salt appearing together is low.

#20 ▼1 Aqueduct
Weighted 29.72% / Unweighted 31.92% (18) / Median 25% (18, tie) / Std. Dev. 16.24% (19)

The next five landmarks have a similar weighted score, so it's not too surprising that they jump around a bit. Aqueduct holds the distinction of being the worst landmark which isn't "put 12 VP here, take 2 VP when X". It's less impactful than Battlefield because in high-level 2-player play, Silver and Gold aren't gained in very large quantities. If each player gets maybe 1 silver and maybe a few Golds later, that doesn't amount to many points. Combos with Trader and Masterpiece, if you can set it up fast enough.

#19 ▼2 Arena
Weighted 30.07% / Unweighted 30.77% (20) / Median 25% (18, tie) / Std. Dev. 22.17% (13)

In my experience, Arena points are usually depleted, since all you have to do is over-terminal a bit in the early game, or build enough to have villages or draw leftover in the middle game. Getting multiple terminals and risking collision is often good anyway, and now you get a 2VP consolation prize if you draw poorly. Building to have villages and draw leftover is also often good anyway. Free VP -- but not very impactful.

#18 ▲2 Basilica
Weighted 30.56% / Unweighted 31.54% (19) / Median 35% (14, tie) / Std. Dev. 18.64% (17)

Basilica hasn't risen significantly this year. Occasionally it incentivizes getting cheaper cards, like Pixie, Druid, or Market Square. If you aren't mirrored and you can drain most of the 12VP quickly, the point swing could matter.

#17 ▼1 Labyrinth
Weighted 32.76% / Unweighted 35.77% (16) / Median 25% (18, tie) / Std. Dev. 30.94% (2)

The most amusing thing about these landmarks is watching top-level players right-click them for the reminder.

Like Basilica, Labyrinth incentivizes buying multiple cheaper cards, except it can't stack. On the other hand, Labyrinth also incentivizes gainers.

#16 ▼1 Obelisk
Weighted 33.38% / Unweighted 34.23% (17) / Median 40% (13) / Std. Dev. 22.6% (11)

Obelisk is the last of this group of 5 with a similar weighted average score. It fell 5 places last year and continues to drop this year.

Although tacking 2VP on a card can be a real bonus (see Nobles), this generally requires the card to be spammable. Nobles is, but something like Militia or Noble Brigand isn't. And if the spammable card is also strong (the only village, or Grand Market), you were probably going to spam it anyway. Still, Obelisk is 20VP, which is more than any previous landmark on this list.

#15 ▼1 Palace
Weighted 38.14% / Unweighted 41.15% (12, tie) / Median 45% (12) / Std. Dev. 24.43% (8 )

Damn it, I already trashed my coppers, and now I have to buy 3 stop cards for each 3VP?

Effectively-unbounded VP is something, but in practice it's difficult to make Palace scale to more than 2-3 sets. Palace is also lacking insane combos, as far as I know. You need to gain lots of Coppers, Silvers, and Golds all at once. Treasure Trove comes close.

#14 ▼2 Defiled Shrine
Weighted 38.5 / Unweighted 41.15 (12, tie) / Median 30% (17) / Std. Dev. 15.08% (20)

A lot more points than Aqueduct, and they almost always eventually accumulate to unignorable levels. Worse players often buy the Curse too early, but once it gets to a Province or better (for 0), it can be a scary point swing. Plus, you can trash the Curse and keep the VP.

#13 =0 Battlefield
Weighted 39.93% / Unweighted 39.62% (14) / Median 35% (14, tie) / Std. Dev. 18.34% (18)

This will make my Ironworks-gain-estate rush strategy work again, right? Probably insane with Lurker+Hunting Grounds; I hope I never see that game.

#12 ▲6 Colonnade
Weighted 40.78% / Unweighted 37.31% (15) / Median 35% (14, tie) / Std. Dev. 27.01% (5)

Our first huge winner this year. Rising 6 places, Colonnade outscored all the other 12VP pile landmarks. I'm not sure what to make of this. Have I been sleeping on Colonnade? Perhaps the rise is due to favoring the engine; you don't get many Colonnade points if you mainly want Silvers and Golds with a few actions. Or maybe it's due to favoring the first player to hit a large price point with multiple buys.

#11 =0 Fountain
Weighted 41.2% / Unweighted 49.23% (10) / Median 55% (9, tie) / Std. Dev. 31.55% (1)

Although Fountain keeps its place in the rankings, it remains as controversial as ever with the highest standard deviation of any landmark. It had several votes near the bottom, as well as a vote for best, a vote for second-best, and several votes in the upper half (5th to 9th place).

Fountain also has the highest absolute difference between its weighted and unweighted scores (8.03%). It's fair to conclude that worse players are significantly overvaluing it. The 15VP is tempting, but a strong engine still wins against some sad strategy which buys coppers. Don't skip strong copper trashing for Fountain points. More often, you just want to build enough +Buy to pick up coppers near the end of the game.

#10 ▼3 Tower
Weighted 52.64% / Unweighted 48.46% (11) / Median 55% (9, tie) / Std. Dev. 23.07% (10)

A big jump in weighted average from the last group of landmarks, Tower falls from last year but remains far above Obelisk. Superficially similar to Obelisk, it plays differently: rather than picking up one card for the points, you look for a pile-out with a free VP lead at the end.

#9 ▼1 Triumphal Arch
Weighted 59.52 / Unweighted 54.23 (9) / Median 50% (11) / Std. Dev. 23.85% (9)

For some reason, I always have to remind myself what this does. Triumphal Arch maxes out at a lot of points (30 VP). In practice it's more likely to get 12VP or 18VP. I like looking at the board and planning which two cards I can go for; it's not always obvious in advance. Like Tower, it can easily enable a pile-out win.

#8 ▼2 Orchard
Weighted 65.46% / Unweighted 63.85% (7) / Median 65% (8 ) / Std. Dev. 20.21% (16)

The theme of many high-end landmarks it that they allow a ton of alt VP for the player who builds longer. You only get points for actions; well that's great, because that's how you build. You also only get points if you diversify your deck; well that's also great, because you need to do that anyway to avoid piling, and now you're playing with more of the board. As far as gameplay goes, I like Orchard (and Museum, later) because they make more cards on the board relevant. Watch out for split piles.

#7 ▼3 Wolf Den
Weighted 65.71 / Unweighted 61.54 (8 ) / Median 75% (3, tie) / Std. Dev. 30.78% (3)

I don't understand the theme of this landmark. Wolves will eat you unless your workers come in groups of at least two??

Wolf Den falls somewhat from last year; perhaps people have figured out how to manage the bookkeeping and play around it. Step 1, build your engine from not-way-too-many components; step 2, buy an extra copy of one-of components at some point when you would gain a Duchy, or before that if they're good for your deck anyway. Works out very nicely with Remodel variants and other trash-for-benefit. Serious counter-synergy occasionally, like with Black Market.

#6 ▼1 Tomb
Weighted 65.97% / Unweighted 68.46% (5) / Median 70% (6, tie) / Std. Dev. 24.45% (7)

This landmark sucks. Getting points for trashing? Who cares, you were going to trash anyway if possible, and if the trashing is weak (or nonexistent), Tomb probably won't make it good. Tomb + Trade Route is not a combo.

Given the rankings, what I said in the above paragraph must be wrong. I'll try again. Tomb is unbounded VP, and it favors the player who builds longer. Remodel variants can build up a lot of Tomb VP without requiring extra gains. Gaining copper and trashing it to Forager or Chapel also works well. Unlike unbounded VP from something like Palace, you don't have to add a bunch of junk to your deck to get it.

#5 ▲5 Bandit Fort
Weighted 66.29 / Unweighted 66.15 (6) / Median 70% (6, tie) / Std. Dev. 30.01% (4)

You heard it here first: Silver and Gold are good cards again. In a surprising reversal, Bandit Fort regains the 5 ranks it lost last year. High standard deviation, though.

#4 ▲5 Mountain Pass
Weighted 69.72 / Unweighted 71.15 (4) / Median 75% (3, tie) / Std. Dev. 21.68% (14)

The second huge winner on the upper half of the list. Mountain Pass feels less like a Dominion card and more like an exercise in game theory. Which is disorienting, but a very unique effect and a welcome strategic challenge.

"Strategic challenge" is an understatement. There way too many numbers between 1 and 40. Normally in Dominion you just click to play your cards and then buy whatever you think is best for the amount of money you have; now you have to think about your exact chances of winning. Overall, Mountain Pass probably deserves its high spot on this list.

#3 =0 Museum
Weighted 72.84% / Unweighted 72.69% (3) / Median 75% (3, tie) / Std. Dev. 12.19% (21)

Museum has the lowest standard deviation and comes in the same rank as last year. Usually, Museum is just tons of extra VP; in contrast to Triumphal Arch or Orchard, you don't have to buy multiple cards to get it. It's almost always worth diversifying for Museum points.

#2 ▼1 Keep
Weighted 86.88% / Unweighted 82.31% (1) / Median 95% (1) / Std. Dev. 22.5% (12)

Keep has by far the most first-place votes (5), but loses its spot at the top in the average. My personal pick for most impactful landmark, Keep is like Duchy-dancing on steroids. Sadly there is no nice equilibrium where you both get the points and move on; treasure piles don't usually come close to running out. So you just keep fighting back and forth. Sometimes if you pick up a lead early enough (e.g., a few Silvers), your opponent will give up on that particular treasure and only fight for the other ones. Usually, though, it's very careful bookkeeping of how many treasures you each have of each type. Keep loves cards that can gain treasures easily, like Artisan, Bandit, Soothsayer, Hero, Tragic Hero, Treasure Trove, Charm, and Haggler. More often than not the point swing in the last turn is so large that it decides the game.

Also, thank god for the VP counter.

#1 ▲1 Wall
Weighted 87.15% / Unweighted 81.15% (2) / Median 90% (2) / Std. Dev. 24.66% (6)

Finally, we have Wall in first place, regaining its spot from the 2016 rankings. It has only 2 first-place votes, and the raw weighted score is not significantly different from Keep. However, there is no doubt that Wall has a serious impact on every board.

Wall is the definition of game-warping. It feels like your deck is working against you, and everything you learned about Dominion is wrong.  The negative points are often just enough that if you build more, and try to catch up on VP later, you just can't quite close the lead.

Strategically, I usually think of Wall as "-1 VP for every card in your deck". Other versions of it were tested (see secret history). But I doubt it would be that different if the first 15 cards mattered as well.


Summary: Landmarks Tiers

Since there were only 13 votes, it makes sense to also present the landmarks in tiers, by weighted score. Landmarks which are in the same tier had similar weighted scores; the cutoff points are chosen such that there is a significant weighted score gap between one tier and the next.

The tiers range from S (completely game-warping) to F (completely ignorable), with A, B, C, D, and E in-between.

Tier S (86-88%): Wall, Keep

Tier A (65-73%): Museum, Mountain Pass, Bandit Fort, Tomb, Wolf Den, Orchard

Tier B (59-60%): Triumphal Arch

Tier C (52-53%): Tower

Tier D (38-42%): Fountain, Colonnade, Battlefield, Defiled Shrine, Palace

Tier E (29-34%): Obelisk, Labyrinth, Basilica, Arena, Aqueduct

Tier F (2-3%): Baths



9
Well, the lists weren't ever really super useful for anyone. They are fun, that's the main point.

I disagree that they're not super useful. I have Qvist rankings open in the next tab when I play. If I'm split between buys or strategies, I check the Qvist rankings of each card to decide. Over time I memorize the community consensus and stop looking at the rankings so much, but that wouldn't be possible without the rankings.

Also I use them as a litmus test that the way I'm evaluating cards is correct. It happened very often that I thought a card wasn't strong, but Qvist rankings said it was. This forces me to think about what aspects of the card I'm undervaluing.

This doesn't seem like a good way to make decisions. It's better to gain cards based on what roles they fill and how they interact with each other. For the rankings to really be useful for in-game decisions, you'd have to encounter a choice between two cards that cost the same and perform the same basic function, a relatively (and increasingly) rare occurrence. And even then, the best choice is often because one card has a subtle interaction with another card in the kingdom that the competing card lacks, not because it happens to be higher in the rankings.

I do think about the interactions. What I mean is that I take community power ranking as a variable in consideration (and a somewhat prominent variable). It's worked out very well for me so far.

Basically I take the community ranking as a baseline for how "strong" the card will be and then adjust based on interactions that I can think of.


10
Well, the lists weren't ever really super useful for anyone. They are fun, that's the main point.

I disagree that they're not super useful. I have Qvist rankings open in the next tab when I play. If I'm split between buys or strategies, I check the Qvist rankings of each card to decide. Over time I memorize the community consensus and stop looking at the rankings so much, but that wouldn't be possible without the rankings.

Also I use them as a litmus test that the way I'm evaluating cards is correct. It happened very often that I thought a card wasn't strong, but Qvist rankings said it was. This forces me to think about what aspects of the card I'm undervaluing.

Are you sure you want to give the guy who voted Chapel last and Duchess first a say in the strategies you pick?

The data is noisy but still useful, I think.

No idea why that person did that, but we did encounter software bugs that can mess up the rankings in ordered mode.

If the rest of that person's data is as bad as chapel and duchess, ideally I would like to exclude it as an outlier.

11
Well, the lists weren't ever really super useful for anyone. They are fun, that's the main point.

I disagree that they're not super useful. I have Qvist rankings open in the next tab when I play. If I'm split between buys or strategies, I check the Qvist rankings of each card to decide. Over time I memorize the community consensus and stop looking at the rankings so much, but that wouldn't be possible without the rankings.

Also I use them as a litmus test that the way I'm evaluating cards is correct. It happened very often that I thought a card wasn't strong, but Qvist rankings said it was. This forces me to think about what aspects of the card I'm undervaluing.



12
Dominion General Discussion / Re: facebook group
« on: January 25, 2019, 08:15:15 am »
Why is there no active dominion facebook group ?
Id like having dominion on my news feed.

The group https://www.facebook.com/groups/135570883310548/ is semi-active with occasional posts. If you want to join posting there, that would make it more active.

Personally I also prefer Discord.

13
Dominion General Discussion / Re: The Dominion Cards Lists 2018 Edition
« on: January 24, 2019, 05:32:02 pm »
I keep getting this error when trying to log in to finish the rankings.

It may be because I tried to copy the rate mode to compare/order mode and overloaded the server.


500 - Interner Serverfehler
_________________________________________________________

Sehr geehrter Besucher,

leider ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Die angeforderte Seite hat einen Script-Fehler verursacht.

Haben Sie sich vielleicht vertippt oder eine alte URL aufgerufen? Wenn nicht, informieren Sie bitte den Webmaster dieser Homepage per Email. Um zu der vorherigen Seite zurückzukehren, verwenden Sie bitte einfach die "Zurück" - Taste Ihres Browsers.


14
Dominion General Discussion / Re: The Dominion Cards Lists 2018 Edition
« on: December 07, 2018, 03:43:48 pm »
A word of warning to others: it seems that your progress can be lost if you don't mark either ordered or compare mode as complete.

So specifically, if you generate ordered mode automatically from rate mode, and then you edit and save a new ordered mode, and then finally you switch to a new list (or log out and log in), it seems that the custom edits you made to ordered mode can be lost.

Or maybe what is causing the loss of data is that "Copy rate list to compare/order list" copies all the data from all the lists at once. I think that might be it.

15
Dominion General Discussion / Re: The Dominion Cards Lists 2018 Edition
« on: December 07, 2018, 02:44:33 pm »
Thanks for putting this together.

Question:
I'm using the S = 7, A = 6, B = 5, C = 4, D = 3, E = 2, F =1 voting method. I am then copying this to the compare/order list, and tweaking the order.
Which list should I mark as finished? The compare/order list, the rate list, or both?

17
Dominion League / Re: Season 30 - Signups
« on: October 05, 2018, 09:57:27 pm »
I would like to join as a new player.

Username: ospond
Time zone: America/New_York
Discord: @ospond#4815



18
You know that old wisdom: "if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all"?
My mother always told me, "If you can't say anything nice, say this little speech."

Although the question was not particularly consequential, you didn't have to answer it. Instead, you answered a question about Renaissance by saying "I checked the Empires rulebook for you", which doesn't even make sense, and the "for you" just makes it slightly rude.
It turns out that ignoring someone's question is also rude.

The question didn't say "hey Donald X." but was implicitly directed at me. Hey, I'm here, I don't need to act like, why are you bothering the game designer. I have long established that when people say "hey tell me this about the new set" I will say something like "the blurb doesn't seem to answer that." Those questions get answered when the rulebook is posted, and it hasn't been. This question had an answer separate from Renaissance, so I gave that answer. He could have dug up that answer himself, so yes, "for you." I did in fact go look in the rulebook to see what it said; I wouldn't have otherwise, and he could have done that himself.

Recently on the forums I saw some posts back and forth where you kept using "your mom" insults. Being the creator of the game we all love gives you status. We're the customers. You should use your status to take the higher ground and set an example for everyone else.
If I am saying a "your mom" joke, it's to be hilarious, not to actually insult anybody. I do not see how you can actually insult someone with a "your mom" joke in 2018.

I am always going to be that rude guy. I have no ability to put on some fake persona for you. If it ever seems like a real problem I can just not post in the forums.

All right, I'm impressed with the politeness of your response. I may have misjudged the tone of your comments. Thank you for frequenting the forums and answering people's questions.


19
I guess my question was actually if Renaissance rules were a change to the Empire rules here; and I’m taking your reference to Empires as a “no”.
The rulebook for Renaissance hasn't been posted yet, so I looked in the Empires rulebook. I've said a bunch of stuff about Renaissance, so I can understand thinking, who knows, maybe he'll answer this; what does it matter if people know this anyway? OTOH at the point at which this information will be useful, you will be able to find out the answer without me. So the question doesn't leave me feeling particularly generous.

You know that old wisdom: "if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all"?

Although the question was not particularly consequential, you didn't have to answer it. Instead, you answered a question about Renaissance by saying "I checked the Empires rulebook for you", which doesn't even make sense, and the "for you" just makes it slightly rude.

Recently on the forums I saw some posts back and forth where you kept using "your mom" insults. Being the creator of the game we all love gives you status. We're the customers. You should use your status to take the higher ground and set an example for everyone else.



20
Swashbuckler: Why does everything Pirate-related have to be weak?  :( Well, at least it's not borderline useless, like that other card...

My impression is that it's stronger than it looks. With any sort of discard enabler (e.g. Warehouse, Plaza, Stables, Militia) it's already +3 cards, +1 coffers. With other sources of Coffers, you can gain a Gold on every turn AND you can still spend the Coffers afterwards.

Not sure if it's better than Werewolf, Rabble, Patrol, Journeyman, but it definitely might be. Probably not as good as Torturer and Margrave.

21
I'm so, so happy with the focus on simplicity and really excited to see the rest of the set. To me, Adventures, Empires, and Nocturne just complicate and obscure the fact that most strategic synergies are really elegant and simple. In general, I love cards that introduce one mechanic and make it viable (e.g. Chapel, Scheme, Smugglers, Fortress, Band of Misfits); I dislike cards that tack random effects together, at least when they are conceptually and strategically unrelated (e.g. Watchtower, Horse Traders, on-trash effects like Squire and Hunting Grounds, on-gain effects like Doctor and Herald).

Mountain Village seems quite strong for a village. It acts like an accelerant when you're not drawing deck, letting you replay key cards one shuffle, or the new card you just bought last turn. Once you are drawing deck it behaves just like a normal village (with maybe some mid-turn gain shenanigans), but by that point, it's done a lot of extra work for you.

It has a slight drawback in that it anti-synergizes with sifting, because you are forced to draw stuff that you wanted to discard. But in most cases I agree it seems very strong.

In my playing, it seems the anti-synergy can be mostly removed by playing around it appropriately. So, if you get Mountain Villages and Warehouses in the same deck, what you do is learn to discard a good card with Warehouse whenever necessary. Also this only matters just after a shuffle or if you have already sifted through your whole deck this turn and picked up all the actions.

Even if you get unlucky and have to discard something with Warehouse only to pick up the same thing again with Mountain Village, Warehouse + Mountain Village is the equivalent of "+2 actions, draw 3 cards, discard 2". Compared to a regular village, the net effect of the Warehouse here is "+1 action, +2 cards, discard 2", which is not as good as Warehouse was before, but still fine.

Overall I think Mountain Village is really strong. When you draw it with a lot of cards in your discard, it gets ridiculous, because you can chain all of the Mountain Villages before continuing with whatever action you want. (I tried with Scholar, which is interesting, but not directly a good synergy; you need lots of payload cards also also discard cards or at least don't draw, and sifters like Warehouse are not payloads.)


22
With so many Dominion expansions now (13 including base set), it would be wonderful if Dominion Online allowed for rated formats where you only play with the latest expansion (or some other officially-chosen subset, like a "standard" rotation). Similar to what other popular card games have done after they have been around for a while and keep releasing new cards (e.g. Magic: The Gathering and Hearthstone).

Personally I'm finally starting to be familiar with all the cards in the Silver subscription, but I'd rather skip learning all of the rules quirks and strategy subtleties in Adventurers, Empires, and Nocturne, and just jump directly to Renaissance. The rules of Dominion are just getting more complicated with each new expansion. Playing in person encourages only buying or playing with a couple of expansions at once, which works very well, but playing online requires playing with every card ever printed (at least, if you want to play competitively and/or in the official tournaments).

Pages: [1]

Page created in 0.09 seconds with 20 queries.