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 - Karrow

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Open 5/2, see a Witch or Mountebank.  Boring, I don't even feel good after winning.

2
So if we just change all the names, art,

Stop right there.  That's all you need, new names and art.  Game mechanics are supposedly not able to be patented.

Look at all the Tetris clones out there.   Charge the art and name, then your good to go.

Now Isotropic would never intentionally publish their code, but lets just say it could be accidentally ;) and completely unintentionally ;) leaked.

3
I'm so sick of the 5/2 start with a Mountebank or Witch against 4/3 that I'm ready to implement a house rule variant.  My house rule would be that players can stack their starting 10 cards any way they chose at the start of the game.

4
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Four-player Mountebank: Estate rush?
« on: December 23, 2011, 01:06:44 pm »
I don't think Mountebank is one of the better estate rush cards because it costs $5.  You only need 2.  In a 4-player game, everyone buys two, and that leaves 2 in the supply pile.  If you use $5 on two turns to empty the Mountebank's, another player who buys Duchies with their $5's instead will beat you.  But it can be done.

I think there are cards to watch for estate rushing, but they are mostly $3's and $4's.  Ironworks is obvious, as in this game where two opponents open 5-2 and they go with Ghost Ship & Saboteur.  Two opponents have a province on me.  But I easily win on turn 16 with 0 Province, 1 Duchy, & 15 estates.
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110919-205648-673377b2.html

The big ones that can almost guarantee a fast 3-pile are cards like Swindler & Saboteur.  If all 4 players start buying those, it's going to go fast.

And then there's the situation where there is an obvious strategy, and everybody plays the same.  If all 4 players rush the the same 3 kingdom cards, the game ends with a 3-pile on turn 8.

5
Dominion General Discussion / Re: is consulting a simulator cheating?
« on: December 15, 2011, 12:24:27 pm »
I think the depth of this discussion is quite confusing as I find the matter very simple.  It's like scrabble & a dictionary.  For official scrabble tournament rules, you can not use a dictionary during play, it can only be used to resolve a challenge.

For Scrabble, there are word finding cheater programs online.  Referring to a simulator while playing Dominion online is just like using a dictionary or word-finder program in Scrabble online.  It's wrong, it's cheating, but you will always run into people that do it.  Just because you can't prevent someone from using a word-finder doesn't mean you integrate it into the online game itself.

To claim that using a simulator for training is cheating is insane.  That would be like claiming that anyone who ever used a dictionary or word finder for training is a cheater in Scrabble.  Using a word-finder for training in Scrabble may seem helpful, but in the long run for most people it just makes them dependent on the word-finder.  And I think the same is true in Dominion.  One who uses a simulator too much is going to have a very limited vision.  There are a lot of situations and cards that the simulator can not handle yet, and simulator Big Money +X is garbage as soon as there's an attack in the kingdom.


6
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Modding rules for boring Intrigue cards
« on: December 08, 2011, 12:55:43 pm »
So I recently bought intrigue (it's the only real set I own). I've played a decent amount online and playing with just one set of cards seems dull.

I'd suggest buying more sets.  Your interesting changes could have unintended consequences once you do.  I feel that sucky cards are big part of the game.  Knowing how to use them so they don't suck, and knowing how to use them when the kingdom contains nothing better is a big part of the game.  But then again, if you're only playing with one set you're not going to get those boards when some sucky card is the best on the table.

7
I find having two boxes speeds up kingdom changes.  You always have at least two players, so splitting the cards into two boxes can cut the change time in half. 

For me Box 1 is A-M & treasures, Box 2 is N-Z & Victory cards.  (I don't think the 50/50 split is actually at M/N, but I don't have my cards in front of me to see where I have the split.) 

8
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Your nicknames for Dominion cards
« on: November 29, 2011, 11:15:21 am »
Shanty Town always end up with someone singing, "Won't you take me to, Shantytown!"   (to the tune of Funkytown of course)

9
Dominion Isotropic / Re: Isotropic on iPad
« on: November 22, 2011, 05:19:51 pm »
Anyone who can comment on this?


I can comment.  I have no involvement in isotropic and have no credibility, but this is what I've heard.

Q: Why isn't the guy who made isotropic making the commercial version?
A: He didn't want the job and in any case wasn't going to be doing versions for more platforms
(From this thread here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=175.msg2386#msg2386)

So I'd guess he's not interested in ipad support, and you're out of luck until the official version is released.


10
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Help! I've become too good!
« on: November 18, 2011, 08:10:22 pm »
Ah,  the play to win conversation.  A timeless debate.


There's an old Buddhist saying.  When a glass is broken, you don't get angry because it broke, you get angry because you thought the glass would never break.

You will lose, and you will win.  So if you choose to only "play-to-win," you are choosing to be happy only part of the time.  Why choose to only be happy some of the time?

Me.  I simply want to play Dominion.  So it's great for me.  Win/lose/draw, it doesn't matter.  I want to play.  So when I play, I am happy.  And yet I also realize that any game could be the last I ever play.  So if I never play again, I am thankful for the time I had.

One friend of mine has to play to win.  We were playing Steam, and a few turns back someone moved the wrong point counter.  We all agreed something looked wrong, but it was too many rounds ago to remember what the right thing exactly was.  I start to push that too much time has passed, nobody remembers what happened, lets just play on.  So my friend threatens to just quit the game.  He would rather not play, than continue knowing his score was wrong (in the negative direction).  I stated, "you can move me down 10 points, (my point count was not one of the ones in question).  Heck, if you have to win so bad just move yourself up 20 points.  I just want to play the game."  This of course just infuriated him further.

Often when I play against people who must win, I find life much more enjoyable by just letting them win.  I also find it very humorous.  The joy, the pride of the accomplishment, the happiness, over what?  And if they realize I'm throwing games, rage, fury, anger, over what?  I throw games all the time, and they are happy.  So when I tell them I threw the game, why is the reaction so different?  It uncovers the truth.

And that is the big problem I often see.  Every must-win player will say "its for the love of the competition!  I love the challenge, and I enjoy improving my skills"  I call BS.  90% of them will brag about beating a new player or a young child.  90% of them prefer games they have better than average odds of winning at.  90% will not play a game if they are so outmatched that they will never win.  And God forbid if someone makes an honest mistake that causes them to lose, then game pieces start flying.  If it was for the love of competition, you would focus on games and opponents that you only win half of the time.  If it's for the challenge you'd focus on games you suck at and opponents who are better than you.  The 10% of must win players that do that, those are the ones who turn into pro's.

I really do feel sad at times for those who must play-to-win.  Winning is more important than friends?  Winning is more important than your wife/girlfriend(OP)?  Really?  If I was given the choice between winning the Dominion World Championship or playing Chutes & Ladders at home with my young daughter, Chutes & Ladders it is.



So anyhow, rant over.  Back to the original post.

Chose one.
A.  Get over yourself.  Change your "want" from away winning.  Change it to, "I want a happy Girlfriend."  Don't play Dominion in ways that piss her off.  Happy girlfriends tend to be much more giving in the bedroom.
B.  Get used to sleeping alone.
C.  Don't play skill games.  Focus on luck games that give the illusion of control.  For example, I find Battleships to be great.  After my last game with my daughter I looked proudly at my attack board and admired the ingenious and well executed attack pattern.  I had a perfect spacing pattern with just enough randomness and chaos so that the pattern would not be predictable to avoid.  It was amazing.  And the fact that my daughter still completely destroyed me by pure dumb luck is great, because she was happy as well.

11
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Running out of steam
« on: November 17, 2011, 11:19:34 am »

4. In a Province game, should I delay buying a Province if I have 8 in hand by turn 5? What if I have no source of +Buy?


For this one, based on simulation of big money vs big money, the optimum I've seen is do not buy your first province until you have around 18$ total coin value in your deck which is around turn 7.  Playing this way against a big money that buys a province as early as possible give you a whopping +3% odds of winning.  So to me, in real life, it's not worth the effort to keep track for +3%.  And of course no one plays straight big money, so this isn't even really accurate in most cases.

At the basic level, always buy a province with 8 unless you have a damn good reason not to.

The hard question is, "what's a good reason not to?"  For real play I just go by feel.  If it looks like it may be a fast game, like a 3-pile multiplayer, or Council Room/Village, buy a Province at any chance you get.  If I've trashed my estates, I know I can handle one green so buy the Prov.  If I've trashed my coppers and still have Estates, 4 greens early in a thin deck is going to hurt.  It's usually better to get the thin deck where I want instead of an early Province.  If it's going to be a painful long game like Ghost Ship/Sea Hag, I may hold off on the early Province unless of course it's going to be a non-Province 3-pile.  If I'm building a heavy cantrip deck with only +1card/+1action cards, drawing a province is a dead draw so think hard about buying an early one. 

And lastly, I think one area I fail to consider as often as I should is predicting when your next shuffle is.  If your draw pile is empty, the card you buy could be in your next hand.  If you discard is empty, your buy will be offset by a couple more buys before getting to the next shuffle.  I'm not to this level of play yet, but I think this consideration for every buy is probably important for top level play.

12
Simulation / Re: Simulating challenge: Province vs Colony
« on: November 16, 2011, 12:55:41 pm »
@Karrow: I don't think what you suggest is very realistic but Ill-Gotten Gains is definitely a card that is a candidate for the winning Province strategy although it might not even include Provinces, just Duchies...

Well if Provinces are not required, that's too easy.  Ill-Gotten Gains/Gardens and Workshop/Gardens both do the trick.  Considering only those two in the kingdom, I can't get a Colony to win.

13
Simulation / Re: Simulating challenge: Province vs Colony
« on: November 16, 2011, 11:02:18 am »
I think you guys are way, way off here.

The OP said "realistic situation."

1.  The standard colony bot goes by # of colonies left in the supply.  This screws it up against any non-colony bot.  You have to re-tune the colony bot to be fair.  Changing them all to # of buys needed to end the game is a good start.

2.  The colony bot should have use of all cards the non-colony bot does.
  - The most basic way to do this is simply add a "buy Colony" to the top of your province bot.

14
Simulation / Re: Simulating challenge: Province vs Colony
« on: November 15, 2011, 07:37:38 pm »
How about a realistic situation until the game starts.  A descent colony player should notice when a bad situation arises, and switch to a province strategy.  But that gets tough to simulate.

This was very tough because every time I though I had it, I optimized the colony player to be fair and colony would win.

I almost thought it impossible because I took it literally "province only."  Any strategy "province only" gets beat by province +duchy/estate.  But since I realized I was loosing to a player that did not always buy a colony, I changed my colony player to "must buy 1 colony before buying another victory card."   

I barely squeezed it out after I optimized the colony player.  Kingdom = Sea Hag, Militia, Ill-Gotten Gains.  I'm assuming the other 7 kingdom cards suck for both players.  The key is having "non-card-drawing-curse-givers" to slow the game down and speed a 3-pile, and then to completely lock down the colony player to 3 cards with militia.  Any +card for the colony player will cause him to win.  It doesn't matter much if colony buys a militia or not, it just speeds up a 3-pile.  It looks like Sea Hag doesn't do much, but I wanted more options to optimize and make it realistic.  I'll Gotten Gains slows down the colony player, but it hurts worse not to buy them so he has to join in buying them.  I can't get the colony player to win with only these 3 kingdom cards.  I'm sure there's a way to improve on this, but I'm out of time for now.   

Province-only player, wins 55% of the time.
Code: [Select]
<player name="Prov-only beats Colony" author="Karrow" description="Designed to beat a Colony player with only Provinces.">
 <type name="Optimized"/>
 <type name="SingleCard"/>
 <type name="UserCreated"/>
 <type name="Province"/>
 <type name="TwoPlayer"/>
 <type name="BigMoney"/>
 <type name="Bot"/>
   <buy name="Province">
      <condition>
         <left type="getTotalMoney"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="42.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Platinum"/>
   <buy name="Gold"/>
   <buy name="Ill_Gotten_Gains"/>
   <buy name="Sea_Hag">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Sea_Hag"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Militia"/>
   <buy name="Silver"/>
</player>


Prov-only Colony Opponent  wins 43%
Code: [Select]
<player name="Prov-only Colony Opponent" author="Karrow" description="WanderingWinder's BMU+Col modified.  Forced to buy at least 1 Colony before any other victory cards.">
 <type name="Optimized"/>
 <type name="SingleCard"/>
 <type name="UserCreated"/>
 <type name="Colony"/>
 <type name="TwoPlayer"/>
 <type name="BigMoney"/>
 <type name="Bot"/>
   <buy name="Colony">
      <condition>
         <left type="getTotalMoney"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="12.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Province">
      <condition>
         <left type="gainsNeededToEndGame"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="6.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Colony"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Duchy">
      <condition>
         <left type="gainsNeededToEndGame"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="5.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Colony"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Estate">
      <condition>
         <left type="gainsNeededToEndGame"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="2.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Colony"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Platinum"/>
   <buy name="Gold"/>
   <buy name="Ill_Gotten_Gains"/>
   <buy name="Sea_Hag">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Sea_Hag"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Militia">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Militia"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Silver"/>
</player>

15
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Province vs Colony
« on: November 15, 2011, 11:59:19 am »
3-4 player games!

Two players can conspire to empty the Province pile and beat one or two colony players.

16
Simulation / Re: Simulating challenge: Province vs Colony
« on: November 15, 2011, 11:58:58 am »
I'm guessing this will need to be for 2-player only.  With players conspiring, 3-4players is too easy.

17
Dominion Isotropic / Re: Bug with Scheme and with Inn
« on: November 11, 2011, 01:57:14 pm »
Since there's two more expansions and they are already coded into isotropic where I hear they are play-tested, there may be a reason it is the way it is.

But then again,
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..

Yea, there's a situation when you would want to do it more than once, but it requires other cards.  If Moat is the only reaction in hand there's no reason for isotropic to let you reveal it more than once.

18
Rules Questions / Re: Ironworks + Trader
« on: November 10, 2011, 04:01:58 pm »
The key is, Trader does not replace "what you were getting" with Silver; it replaces "you getting something" with a new event, which happens to be you getting Silver.

If I play Goons, buy a copper, then reveal Trader and gain a silver instead, do I still get the VP? Or does the "gain a silver" event replace the "buying a copper" event? I would expect the answer is I do get the VP, since that is triggered by buying the copper, which I've already done before I can gain it. Since the Trader is triggered by "about-to-gain," it only replaces the "gain a copper" event, not the "buy a copper event." Right?

I'd say you are right.  This was about something else, but from this quote from Donald X here it's pretty clear.

Subtle but important point: when you "buy" a card, you subsequently "gain" it. In other words, the gaining comes strictly after the buying. No, this isn't stated in any of the rulebooks, but it's implied by the Mint FAQ in the Prosperity rulebook, and it's been explicitly confirmed by official tester Jeff Wolfe on BGG.

Here's one example of why it matters: Suppose you play Royal Seal, then buy a Mint. The Mint's "when you buy" effect triggers, trashing the Royal Seal. Then you gain the Mint, but since the Royal Seal is no longer in play its "when you gain" effect can't be used to put the Mint on top of your deck.
I am just here to back this up. Buying happens before gaining. Possession should make it clear that gaining and buying are different, in addition to some cards saying gain and some saying buy, and this distinction is at least mentioned in a sidebar in one of the rulebooks.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=261.msg3214#msg3214

19
Dominion Isotropic / Re: Decline of civility on isotropic?
« on: November 08, 2011, 11:37:25 am »
There's not much that is more more game-changing than an early drop in 3-player.  I've been stuck in a few curse games that had the 3rd player drop early.  20 curses and 12 provinces can be painful.

But i just shrug it off.  His mom probably just told him it's bedtime and closed his laptop on him.  It's just another kingdom variant.  The winner will be the one who best adapts to the board and plays the best strategy, just like every other kingdom.

I think the big thing to remember in all of this is that it's just a game, have fun.

Rage-quitters can be fun too.  I remember in Magic the Gathering when there was finally enough different counterspell forms to make a 100% counterspell deck (+mana of course).  I built it, and I was undefeated with it.  Keep in mind the deck had no way to win.  Not one single card in it was for the purpose of winning.  I repeatedly refused advice to at least put a single creature or graveyard recycling card in it.  It wan't needed.  It was simply a metagaming tool against the rage-quitters.

20
Game Reports / Re: How ambassadors can lose you the game (w/o Possession)
« on: November 07, 2011, 01:45:25 pm »
I love it.  I'ts not often you can get 18 estates.  And the best part is octopus won with 18 estates and bought 0.  He could have not played anything the whole game and still won.

Remember, Ambassador is a whole different game in 3-4 player.

To Ambassador Estates in a fast low cost 3-pile 3-4player game is often suicide.  And to Kings Court it?

You have to realize that Ambassador is a dead card in a fast 3-pile 3+player non-curse game.  It's a +0$ terminal.  What are you going to Ambassador?  Ambassador Estates?  That's already shown to be suicide.  Ambassador coppers?  This doesn't really hurt much when the game will end on 3 low cost piles. 

Slower, non-3-pile 3+player games are a different story.

21
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Variant card needs a cost
« on: November 04, 2011, 02:27:52 pm »
Why not stop worrying and learn to love the big cantrip engine game? :p

EDIT: To clarify, in my view, it's perfectly acceptable to have one card which for its cost is a must-buy on any board it appears on, so long as that card alone doesn't create a degenerate strategy that recommends you forsake every other card on the board and buy only it and maybe a silver or two.

I would disagree.  A must-buy means you're not playing, your following a script for the first X#-turns.  I would rather just put X in each players deck before the beginning of the game.  Then you can skip the script, and actually play.  (This would be an interesting variant to have a card that had a setup rule like this on it.)

And as mentioned if the must buy is too expensive, then it's higher variance.  So we should price it lower. So how about this?

Card name "Must-Buy"
Cost $3
Type:  Treasure
Card text:  1$  +1 Card.  As long as Must-Buy is in play, draw one card whenever you play a treasure.

It's pretty much the same as untitled right?  It just turns every treasure into a weaker Venture, no big deal.  Kinda like turning every cantrip into a lab.  It's weaker than Venture cause you could dead draw an action or victory. 

Boring because it forces big money?  What if I like big money engines?

And I think that's the problem.  You like "untitled" because you like big cantrip engines.  But it forces everyone to play the way you like.  And the same goes for my "Must-Buy" card.  I could argue day and night on why it's a good card, but being overpowered it forces everyone to play big-money.

22
Rules Questions / Re: Ironworks + Trader
« on: October 31, 2011, 11:39:50 pm »
For a tournament, whatever the person running the tournament says goes, right or wrong. That is how tournaments work.
And when a tournament is run by those who officially represent Dominion, any ruling made is a de facto official ruling of the official Dominion sanctioning body.  And any dignified tournament afterwards would surely be expected to follow the rulings of the official dominion tournament by default if not stated otherwise.

Everyone I know will take anything you say as an official ruling.  For obvious reasons, you know the design intent of the cards better than anyone.  You've made a great game, you know what you are doing.  I respect that you know what works for the game by a large order of magnitude better than I ever will.  So I'd like to play as you think is best to properly experience what you've created.  Yes, we know, variants are welcome.  But they are variants.  Your word is the official non-variant.  So for a few hours, the official ruling on Ironworks changed.  And like the Kings Court / Throne Room change, the ruling has little impact to the big picture of the game.  We just want to play right, so we just need to know the ruling so we can all play by the same rules.  Then when two different groups get together, we can just play a great game rather than argue what the word "it" means.  (Arguing about the definition of "it" is what the internet is for :)  )

No errata is necessary; nothing is being modified. Everything does what it says it does.

Of course the card and rules are correct.  Some will tell stories of the few hours the Ironworks rules changed, or they may tell stories of some changes on the Throne Room/Kings Court rules.  But the rules have never changed.  The rules are right.  The rules have always been right.  Completely true.  Never mind that the directions on how to follow the rules have changed the way the game is played.  Although it would be nice if we could just change the understanding of the rules for Masquerade.  That part about everyone passing cards at the same time, clearly if one person cannot pass a card then we can not all pass cards at the same time.  So if one person can not pass a card, that part fails in total and no one passes any cards.  You know, not a rule change.  Just a better understanding of what the rules mean.

23
Gardens or some theoretical future victory card worth 1 per X treasures in deck.  That's all I can think of for getting the copper.

Most of the time I don't even want a 2 if it gives me worse odds of drawing the great 5 I just bought.

24
Rules Questions / Re: Ironworks + Trader
« on: October 31, 2011, 02:20:53 pm »
The day of doom has finally come.

Love ya Donald X, but I'm also fascinated by train wrecks.

Donald has made it clear before.  There is no erreta.  All cards are as printed, and all rules are as printed.  There are no extended rulebooks or errata lists you to keep up on to play the game (like Magic).  And there was clear intent that it would stay that way.  And there are no complicated rules on order of operations.  Play cards one at a time, if more than one thing happens, the player who's turn it is gets to decide what order.

I saw the utopian intent, and I understand it.  But no matter how much you wish it to be, utopia is not real.


There are now Rio Grande sponsored tournaments.  There are prizes.  There will be disputes.

(Theoretically)  If in a tournament you Ironworks the great hall and gain a silver from trader instead, I'm protesting if you gain +1/+1.  It doesn't matter what I think it should be, this is a tournament and all I care about is winning.  Ironworks says "it."  I'm going to claim "it" never happened, "it" was not an action or victory so you get neither.  No it doesn't matter what you chose to gain, the card does not say "choose a card to gain."  It says "Gain a card... if it."  "It" obviously refers to the gained card.  The gained card was not an action or victory or treasure.  The gained card was nothing.  It did not happen.  You gained a silver, from trader, instead of the ironworks effect.  Trader's FAQ clearly states that card gain effects don't happen when replaced with a silver.  Even if lose my argument, I'm then going to claim that then the silver must be the "it" card so you get +1$.  If I'm convincing enough for either argument, I 'll get a judge to agree. 

But then some other judge says no "Donald X said on BGG this is what happens."  Then the protest gets ugly.  What's BGG?  I'm just playing by the rules.  So BGG is now an official rules publication?  I thought Donald said there were no rule changes or errata?  If Donald posted a message on BGG stating you must scratch your ass when you play a Ironworks on a Tuesday, does this somehow become a legitimate rule in a dominion tournament?  How are we supposed to know what the rules are?  Are we supposed to read every post of BGG to follow the rules?  What if Donald posts in another forum?  Do I have to keep a printout of every post Donald makes on every internet forum as proof of the rules in case I need to protest someone who is wrongly trying to play as the cards as they are written?  Because all I'm trying to do with ironworks is play it how it reads.  Gain a card.. if it is one of these things... it is none of those things... you get nothing! 

Any way you play ironworks that benefits you, I'm protesting and arguing the opposite because I want to win the tournament prize. (Theoretical situation aside.  This is one of the reasons I don't play in many real for prize tournaments.  And I understand this is what Donald wanted to avoid.  But utopia doesn't exist.)

Then someone at the tournament will screw something up.  The internet will blaze on fire.  The results of the tournament, and viability for competitive Dominion will be brought under question.

It's vague enough, it can be argued either way.

The answer is clear.  Errata Ironworks or the rules to however Donald wants it to work.  Rio Grande hosts the official errata page.
Then it can go any way desired. 
"chose a card to gain...  if the card chosen is a"
"gain a card... if it is gained and is a ..."
Leave ironworks and rule on Trader, "trader replaces the ironworks card with a silver so ironworks trigers from the silver's card type."
or "Trader gains the silver instead of ironworks activating.  So ironworks fizzles and does nothing."



25
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Keeping Score
« on: October 31, 2011, 12:00:30 pm »
Back to the OP.  There are exceptions, but in the big scheme of things it usually doesn't matter. 

If ending the game will cause you to loose, what are your other options?  If you don't end the game, your opponent who is winning probably will.  Realistically in most cases, instead of buying that province you can get one duchy.  So all your opponent needs to do is buy the prov to win, or buy a duchy to return to the exact situation when you started your turn.  In most cases, your options are to end the game losing, or drag the game on and lose.

In 3-4player if you can end the game and don't, odds are that you will not get another turn.  If you can't pull a lead, you are loosing no matter what.

So really 95+% of the time if you're beat, you're beat.  By skill or luck they built a better deck and played better.  Dragging it out will not change that.  If you don't have a way to pull off 3 buys or have a kings court/possession combo in your deck, why bother.

As someone suggested, if you want to count, only keep track of your opponents score difference.  It keeps the numbers small.  It's usually easier to remember that your opponent is +2 rather than "he has 21 and I have 19".

Pages: [1] 2 3

Page created in 0.089 seconds with 18 queries.