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 - crj

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
Rules Questions / Re: Wine Merchant + Debt
« on: Today at 12:53:20 pm »
if you could theoretically pay of debt after you get Wine Merchant back, then the exact same argument could be used to say that you can buy a card after you get Wine Merchant back.
Well, what it actually says about Debt in the rules is "can be done both before and after buying cards". So: is there a special time between finishing buying cards and starting the end of the Buy phase in which all you can do is pay off Debt, or is there a time at the end of your Buy phase during which you can pay off Debt and/or discard Wine Merchants in an order you choose?

I still maintain that either interpretation was reasonable, before LastFootnote gave a ruling that is, naturally, definitive unless contradicted by Donald X. (-8

Rules Questions / Re: Wine Merchant + Debt
« on: Today at 11:06:15 am »
Seems like a pretty open-and-shut case.
  • Does a thing that happens "at the end of your Buy phase" occur during your Buy phase?
  • Does a thing that happens "at the start of your turn" happen during your turn?
  • Does Distant Lands being worth 4VP "at the end of the game" happen during the game?
The answer to (2) is definitively "yes". I'd argue the answer to (3) is also "yes", because if it happens after the game it's too late and a winner has already been determined. You're saying the answer to (1) is "no", which does feel right, but is hardly self-evident!

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Anticipating Renaissance
« on: Today at 08:49:00 am »
Popping over here from the card-name-reveal thread, because people were speculating about what Spices does.

I'm sure Donald will have come up with something better, but this feels like an interesting idea, riffing on the notion that variety is the spice of life.

Spices - $4 Treasure
Worth $1
While this is in play, keep your hand revealed. Cards you do not have a copy of in hand or in play cost $2 less, but not less than $0.

Variety being the Spice of life, Spices perhaps should either cause or reward variety in some Cornucopia-like way.

Rules Questions / Re: Wine Merchant + Debt
« on: Today at 08:34:45 am »
Interesting! Feels like you shouldn't be able to, but I'm struggling to see it specifically ruled out.

If the answer does turn out to be no, Capital would be a workaround, of course...

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: Today at 08:27:14 am »
As it happens, I've been teaching a lot of new people Dominion in the past week or four. A deck-and-discard mat would actually help a lot, given how easy people find it to get the discard pile confused with in-play. And you have to wait until someone plays a gainer then draw which triggers a reshuffle before it's even apparent to them why it can matter.

Sticky fingers - Action, Attack
Put chocolate on your fingers
Each other player reveals their hand and you may make a distinguishing mark on the back of one of the cards.

Dominion Articles / Re: Draw-to-X engines
« on: October 16, 2018, 10:42:09 pm »
Unless I really really needed the trashing, I'd rather skip JoaT and just buy the Watchtower. Playing Watchtower in isolation draws two more cards than playing JoaT with a Watchtower in hand does.

Dominion Articles / Re: Draw-to-X engines
« on: October 16, 2018, 07:14:54 pm »
Oh, but wouldn't the combination of JoaT and Changeling be lovely for a Draw-to-X engine? A man can dream...

Anyone know when we'll see copies on the shelves in the UK? Do we have to wait for them to become available in the UK and then pootle across the Atlantic?

Dominion Articles / Re: Draw-to-X engines
« on: October 10, 2018, 09:21:05 am »
Just to check my understanding, when your heading says "Your Deck Can Be Less Consistent", you mean "there is a risk your deck will be less consistent", not "it's OK if your deck is less consistent", yes?

That could probably be worded more clearly. (-8

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Most Potions in 1 turn?
« on: October 09, 2018, 09:42:48 am »
Is there anything here if there's no BM or Storyteller?
You can take one of the Villa infinite loops and wrap it around a payload of gaining Potion, drawing Potion, playing Potion, buying Bonfire, trashing Potion.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Complexity of Dominion
« on: October 05, 2018, 06:57:07 pm »
I agree with what you're getting at. I just wouldn't have put that as I(Q(G)) or Q(G(I)) because normally with nested functions
I wouldn't have put it that way either; it's not a natural way to express Dominion.

However, given other people have been using it, I've run with it, in order to explain in those terms how Dominion behaves.

you don't ever "go back" to the inner function once it is evaluated
That's taking a fairly narrow view of what G might be and how I or Q might manipulate it. For example, expressing the slightly simpler Wharf in the Python idiom:

Code: [Select]
class Wharf:
  def effect(g):
  def onPlay(g):
Now when you do g = someWharfOrOther.onPlay(g), the start-of-turn part of Wharf becomes encapsulated within g and will, indeed, be called later. In that sense you do "go back" to the inner function.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Complexity of Dominion
« on: October 05, 2018, 05:14:54 pm »
In order to evaluate I(Q(G)), you have to evaluate Q(G) first. And when you do, you would end up with "Estates cost ", because they aren't actions.
No, you don't end up with "Estates cost $2". You end up with a game state in which if you were to ask "what is the cost of this Estate in my hand?" you would be told "$2".

Then you would evaluate I(result); and the Estates would become Actions.
No, Estates don't become Actions. You end up with a game state in which if you were to ask "is this Estate in my hand an Action?" you would be told "yes".

And, as a result, if you then ask "what is the cost of this Estate in my hand?" with a Quarry in play, you will be told "$0". Because you're asking the entire question of state I(Q(G)), rather than asking Q(G) part of the question, memoizing the result and then asking the remainder of the question if I(Q(G)).

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Complexity of Dominion
« on: October 05, 2018, 02:30:35 pm »
For a concrete example of why you have to think in those terms, consider this:
  • You play Quarry A
  • You play Quarry B
  • You buy Bonfire and trash Quarry A
  • You buy a Village
How much does the Village cost when you buy it? $1. You cannot reach that conclusion by reducing the cost of Village by $2 (minimum $0) when you play Quarry A, then by another $2 (minimum $0) when you play Quarry B, then increasing it by $2 when you remove Quarry A from play.

The only correct option is to think in terms of evaluating the cost of Village at the moment when you buy it, using an algorithm which is dynamically adjusted by the course of play.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Complexity of Dominion
« on: October 05, 2018, 02:16:50 pm »
First, I think you may have typoed this statement.
Ooops, yeah, fixed.

Say Q(x) represents a game state like x, but with Quarry's effect applied. I(x) represents a game state like x, but with the effects of Inheriting Village applied. G is a game state where everything is as printed.

If you evaluate Q(I(G)), you get $0 Estates. If you evaluate I(Q(G)), you get $2 Estates. In order to get a consistent result of $0 Estates, you should only ever be picking Q(I(G)) whenever you have to evaluate both of them.
Not so.

Firstly, I'll clarify that I(x) should actually be with the effects of player P Inheriting Village applied.

Q(x) modifies the algorithm for determining card cost, until the Quarry leaves play. It reduces the cost for any card that has Action type.

I(x) modifies (amongst other things) the algorithm for determining card type, until the end of the game. If a card is an Estate and is owned by P, it does have that type if Village has that type.

If you ask the question "what is the cost of card C?", you'll get the same result on Q(I(G)) or I(Q(G)).

That Q(x) and I(x), rather than instantaneously adjusting card costs or types, alter the algorithm by which costs or types will be determined in future, is what I mean by saying the effect is "ongoing".

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Complexity of Dominion
« on: October 05, 2018, 11:55:11 am »
I'm pretty certain that having both Quarry and Inheritance means you need "timing" as well. Inheritance's effect modifies types. Quarry's effect cares about types. I'm not aware of a way to evaluate them other than one at a time, and the order you choose matters. One way (the correct way, I believe) makes your Estates $0 because the modifications made by Inheritance's effect are visible to Quarry at this point; the other way makes them stay $2 because Inheritance's modifications are not visible to it.
Both of those are ongoing effects, which will compound in the obvious way: once you've Inherited an Action, all of your Estates cost $0 while a Quarry is in play. The relative ordering of buying Inheritance, taking ownership of the Estate and playing a Quarry is unimportant.

The only fiddly question is question is exactly when an Estate becomes yours, which has wider implications than just Quarry, and is presumably part of why Donald X. says he "blew it" on Inheritance.

Rules Questions / Re: Sequence point of Knights
« on: October 04, 2018, 10:35:40 pm »
Or: Without looking in the FAQ, how can I deduce from the wording of Knight that its attack is not (Each opponent, in player order, reveals two cards. Each opponent, in player order, chooses one of their revealed cards $3-$6 and trashes it.)?
The base rules for the game say:
When two things happen to different players at the same time, go in turn order starting with the player whose turn it is. For example, when a player plays Witch, the other players gain Curses in turn order, which may matter if the Curses run out.
I think it's pretty clear that this should always be applied as broadly as it can be, so unless a card is worded as "Each player does X. Then, each player does Y." each player in turn does X, then Y, then the next player does X, then Y, and so on.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Complexity of Dominion
« on: October 04, 2018, 12:14:13 pm »
lmao 229 pages
To be fair, even the Laws of Duplicate Bridge are 166 pages long. They're small pages, and they go into enormous detail about how to handle more irregularities than you ever thought possible, but even so, you'd have thought Bridge was a simple game compared with something like Dominion.

OK. It makes pragmatic sense, but I can't help feeling it represents a distressing lack of consistency.

Rules Questions / Re: Sequence point of Knights
« on: October 03, 2018, 10:15:03 am »
I'm not completely sure what you mean by sequence points
I think Wuscheli means they're a C programmer. But the notion of sequence points isn't really relevant to Dominion.

I'm not joking.

I mean, clearly the sensible behaviour would be that Watchtower worked in the intuitive way when you gain Cache, letting you, for example, topdeck the Cache and trash the two Coppers. But I'm not quite sure that's a consistent interpretation, unless there is indeed an explicit ruling that when you gain cards you handle the on-gain effects of each one (in an order of your choosing) before gaining the next, even when told to "gain 2 Coppers" as a single instruction.

However, you've previously given the example that if you gain Border Village, then choose to gain a Duchy before reacting with Watchtower, Watchtower then loses track of the Border Village and can no longer do anything about that gain. So by my understanding if you did gain both Coppers before applying on-gain triggers for either, Watchtower would, lose track of the underneath one?

Yet I have seen it stated many times. Here's one.
That only addresses the specimen, not the actual issue.

Now what about Cache, or Treasure Map, or Trusty Steed, or whatever, where the cards aren't listed in a particular order?

It would be unfortunate if things like Watchtower lost track of the earlier gains because they got covered by later ones!

while gaining is different: you gain each card separately.
I've never seen that stated anywhere, actually.

(Specimen question: when you play Treasure Trove with Watchtower in hand, can you choose to top-deck both the Copper and Gold in either order?)

When you play Priest (or, indeed, any card) you do what it says, step by step, completely resolving each step before proceeding to the next.

  • You play Priest
    • You get 2 coin to spend
    • You trash a card
      • Because of Sewers, you may trash another card
    • For the rest of this turn, when you trash a card, +$2
...and the Sewers trashing happens before introduce the effect of +$2 whenever you trash something.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37

Page created in 0.108 seconds with 18 queries.