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 - GendoIkari

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 280
1
General Discussion / Re: Brag Board
« on: November 16, 2018, 03:48:28 pm »
My wife is pregnant!!!!   :D

And my son was born today!

2
Playing a Smithy allows you to have more Coppers in hand, so Smithy is economy. Playing a Village allows you to play more Smithies; thus allowing you to have more Coppers in hand.

Playing Chapel is economy like Royal Carriage is; it increases the number of coin you have on future turns.

How many times have you opened Village/Chapel and hit $5?

If you only use Chapel to trash Estates, then you’ll hit $5 plenty. Anyway, you can use whatever term you feel like, but it sounds like I’m not alone in assuming that “economy” actually has to do with how much stuff your deck can afford, rather than how likely it is to hit a particular number that happens to be a number that has a lot of strong cards with that cost.

3
Playing a Smithy allows you to have more Coppers in hand, so Smithy is economy. Playing a Village allows you to play more Smithies; thus allowing you to have more Coppers in hand.

Playing Chapel is economy like Royal Carriage is; it increases the number of coin you have on future turns.

4
I gotta admit, I kinda like Awaclus's Unified Theory of Dominion:
"Everything is economy!"
It is short, it is simple, it is involuntarily funny and it is utterly wrong.

Rogue is a Village.

5
How does Apprentice give you economy? I thought economy referred to the ability to add new cards to your deck, generally through generating money, but possibly gainers as well? If simply card draw counts as economy, then almost every card in Dominion gives you economy in some way.

Card draw counts as economy, through generating money through putting Coppers into your hand.

If this is what people mean when they say that a card provides economy; then it’s a pretty meaningless term that applies to just about every card in Dominion.

6
Research is great. It helps you cycle your deck very fast, it gives you economy, it gives you trashing, so it's basically everything that you want to do in the early game in a single non-terminal card. Later on you can use it to trash cards for draw.
Research doesn't give you economy, it is just a Duration Apprentice. The only really powerful trasher in this set is Recruiter.

Apprentice gives you economy, therefore Research gives you economy. It's ridiculous to say that the only powerful trasher in the set is Recruiter when the set also has the significantly-more-powerful-than-Recruiter Cathedral, and Priest and Research are definitely very powerful as well.

How does Apprentice give you economy? I thought economy referred to the ability to add new cards to your deck, generally through generating money, but possibly gainers as well? If simply card draw counts as economy, then almost every card in Dominion gives you economy in some way.

7
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Can you infinitely play nesting Black Markets?
« on: November 14, 2018, 10:08:57 am »
Since with Doctor, you put the revealed card back in any order, it's clear that they have been moved in the process of being revealed.

Indeed... but I think it's an inconsistency, because Wishing Well does not tell you to put the revealed card back.

8
Rules Questions / Re: Capitalism and Black Market
« on: November 14, 2018, 09:35:52 am »
I'm unclear what you are asking, because you say "maybe someone has asked", but then quote the thread where someone asked, and where it was answered.

Donald's ruling was that buying a card from Capitalism'd Black Market in the buy phase was still happening during your "play treasures" part of the buy phase, and that the rulebook is saying that once you move to the "buy cards" part of the buy phase, you cannot go back.

9
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Can you infinitely play nesting Black Markets?
« on: November 13, 2018, 10:08:16 pm »
If you play a Black Market while Black Market cards are revealed, is it supposed to reveal the next 3? Revealed cards are supposed to be still considered to have not moved, right? So the top 3 cards would still be the 3 that are currently revealed wouldn't they?

If it wasn't supposed to reveal the next 3, then Scrying Pool would never reveal anything beyond the first card (infinitely many times if it happens to be an Action) by the same logic.

Good point. So I guess it's just a rule that a revealed (or being looked at) card isn't considered to be on top of your deck for the moment? Or just that to reveal the top card of a deck, you reveal the top not-already-revealed card.

10
General Discussion / Re: Maths thread.
« on: November 13, 2018, 09:43:16 pm »
I'm so tempted to share this on Facebook simply as revenge against the people who post the really stupid things like this simply because it makes them feel smart that they figured out a problem which any grade schooler could figure out.

11
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Snowline fan-based expansion.
« on: November 13, 2018, 09:36:02 pm »
Indeed, just look at it compared to Priest. Worth pointing out that it doesn't only work when you trash a card, but also when your opponent trashes any; which means that when you play this, your opponent has to choose whether or not trashing cards on his turn is actually worth it. If it were "for the rest of this turn", like Priest, then it might be ok, though it would be maybe too similar to Priest.

12
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Can you infinitely play nesting Black Markets?
« on: November 13, 2018, 02:21:27 pm »
If you play a Black Market while Black Market cards are revealed, is it supposed to reveal the next 3? Revealed cards are supposed to be still considered to have not moved, right? So the top 3 cards would still be the 3 that are currently revealed wouldn't they?

I remember this being discussed before with Lookout trashing Overgrown Estate. Is there a rule out there that says that when a card is revealed from the top of a deck, it is temporarily considered to not still be the top card of that deck?

13
Welcome to this site!

This is actually an intentional feature of the way the banned list / black market works:

http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=604.msg10646#msg10646
Quote
Version 1.3.3
Banned Possession.

Possession has been losing popularity recently, up to the point that most people are trying to avoid this card or make a deal in chat to not use it. Because the configurable banned-cards-list isn't implemented yet, this is a temporary solution that just always puts Possession on the banned list.

This means it won't show up at random in your kingdoms anymore. You can still add it to the required cards if you want to play with it. It's also still possible you find a Possession in your Black Market (but only if the kingdom already has potions).

14
Rules Questions / Re: Not enough cards with Border Guard
« on: November 13, 2018, 01:46:47 pm »
I think the wording on Lantern makes this less clear.

Border Guard by itself seems to suggest that you need to reveal 2 actions, because of the word "both". It's reasonable to see this as a different wording of "if you revealed 2 actions, take the Lantern or Horn."

However, Lantern says "it takes all 3" in parenthesis; which suggests that it's not a rule change but an explanation. If "it takes all 3" is indeed not intended to be a rule change, but a rules explanation, then that would suggest that Border Guard really means "if all revealed cards are actions".

So the 2 options as I see them:

1) Border Guard means to say "if you revealed 2 actions", and Lantern intends to say "Border Guard now says 'if you revealed 3 actions'". If this is the case, it seems wrong for that text to be in parenthesis.

2) Border Guard means to say "if all revealed cards were actions". This is consistent with the way Lantern suggests, but it doesn't seem likely that it's the intent.

*Edit*

Lantern reminds me of Experiment here. Lantern tells us that it takes all 3 being actions, but it doesn't tell us why that's the case. Like how Experiment tells us that the second one doesn't come with another, but it doesn't explain why that's the case. So why does it take all 3 being actions? Is it because Lantern has secretly introduced another wording change to Border Guard that's not specified? Or is it because Border Guard was always "all" and not "both"?

15
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Snowline fan-based expansion.
« on: November 13, 2018, 10:16:08 am »
Is Crossbow supposed to go to your Tavern mat when you play it? It doesn't say to put it on your Tavern mat.

It's very rare that you would be willing to trash a card costing or more to make your opponents discard. A combination with Fortress is about the only thing I can think of in fact. And having to discard 3 cards to call it is a huge penalty; given that the card costs , I don't see what's wrong with just letting you call it normally.

16
Rules Questions / Re: A Couple of Buy Phase Clarifications
« on: November 12, 2018, 09:23:05 pm »
I should have mentioned "literal-minded programmer types" when I was arging against the awful "Possession lets you take other players' -$1 token" ruling.  :P
The good news as you know is that that ruling is gone.

Better yet, that there are no printed copies of Possession with that wording.

17
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance and Border Guard
« on: November 12, 2018, 05:34:42 pm »
I'm not sure if the conclusion has to be that Border Guard's ability is modified.

Lantern must have an implicit "instead of", otherwise it would mean that you reveal 5 cards and discard 3 cards when you play Border Guard. So Lantern must have the implicit text "Instead of revealing 2 cards and discarding 1, your Border Guards reveal 3 cards and discard 2".

This could be seen as a shape-shifting thing. But it could just as easily be seen as an Enchantress-like replacement: "Instead of doing A, do B" kind of implies that whenever you would do A, you do B instead.

The difference here is that even if your "instead of" wording, it doesn't involve "when you play". It doesn't matter if it has an "instead" or not. It matters if it has a "when you play" or not.

18
Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns
« on: November 10, 2018, 03:04:47 pm »
That does not follow my latter case at all. My cases were about Possession turns, and the latter one was in accordance with your explanation. I was saying that with Possession turns, it actually does matter if we add extra turns or extend the game with an extra round. I was thinking that extending the game with 1 round would mean that the game continues with the next player who would normally have a turn if the game hadn't ended (so player B in Ingix's scenario):

Round 4) A, B, C, D, E, F
Round 5) A, [B poss. by A], [C poss. by B*], B, C, D, E, F


Ah, yeah sorry I misunderstood your previous post. When you said "In the latter case, the Fleet turns would start with B" I thought it was a scenario where A hadn't bought Fleet; so B was starting just because B was the first player with a turn in normal turn order.

Quote
Alice, Bob and Clara all buy Fleet. Alice plays Possession. Bob possessed by Alice triggers end-game. In what order do the Fleet turns go? The rulebook says: "The extra turns go in order starting with the next player after the one that just took a turn." Does that mean it's Clara, Alice, Bob? Or does the game extend normally with 1 round - Bob, Clara, Alice?

Yeah this is kind of unfortunate either way. The natural thing seems like it really should be Bob first, because had the game not ended, it would have been Bob's turn. Seems clear that that's the intended way for Fleet to work. However, you're correct in pointing out that the actual wording of the FAQ differs in this case. But I don't think this would be the first time that the FAQ says something where there is an assumed "normally", and specific card interactions can make it so that something different happens from what the FAQ says happens.

19
I think Pirate Ship is a less risky Lookout. It can still only trash treasures. Overall becomes much stronger; you can thin your Coppers; as well as increase your chances of getting a coin token.

20
Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns
« on: November 10, 2018, 01:02:14 am »
I agree with that way of thinking. It's just too bad that the Fleet turns count as extra turns, not as normal turns. If they had counted as normal turns, (1) and (2) would be a clean way of explaining it without the need for (3).

Well I've never thought of the tie-breaker as actually caring about the number of turns a player took. Even if it's worded that way. What it cares about is 1) Where you sit in turn order; and 2) If the game ended part of the way through a round.

Why is that different? If Alice starts and Bob ends the game, and they tie, the tie isn't broken. But if Alice has a Fleet turn and not Bob, Alice will get one more turn, and also the round (the extra Fleet round) ends part of the way through.

It's not different, which is why it's possible to think of it that way without changing any rules. But it does mean that you no longer need to worry about "extra" turns. Rather than count the number of turns each person took, and then subtract the ones that counted as "extra", you simply look at who was the start player, and where in turn order did the game end. I mean, that's what people do in reality; no one is actually counting turns IRL.

Quote
The question is what's the correct Fleet round turn order in this scenario. Does Fleet create extra turns, with a special rule that the player who triggered end-game comes last? Or does Fleet create an extra normal game round (whose turns still don't count for tie breaker), as GendoIkari suggested? In the latter case, the Fleet turns would start with B. In the former case, they would start with D.

Like Donald said, the rule book does say that the turns count as extra turns. But I don't see why it's an either/or between that and creating an extra round. Fleet says there's an extra round, but that doesn't mean you need to start with player B. You don't just immediately end the current round because Provinces ran out, and then start the new, extra round. Instead, because the game is one round longer than normal, you keep going with the current round, and go exactly 1 more round; as in each player gets a final turn (but only players with Fleet, and those turns don't hurt you in the tie breaker).

So to try and diagram this; looking at a game with Fleet that only lasted 4 normal rounds. B buys the last Province on turn 4, and everyone bought Fleet.

Your latter case (not what happens):

Round 1: A, B, C, D
Round 2: A, B, C, D
Round 3: A, B, C, D
Round 4: A, B
Round 5: A, B, C, D

What happens, thinking in terms of simply extending the game by 1 round:
Round 1: A, B, C, D
Round 2: A, B, C, D
Round 3: A, B, C, D
Round 4: A, B*, C, D
Round E: A, B**

*Even though B bought the last Province, Fleet added 1 to the game round counter, so the last round isn't round 4 anymore.
**The game normally would have ended after turn 4-B, Fleet makes it end after 5-B instead.


What happens, thinking only in terms of extra turns:
Round 1: A, B, C, D
Round 2: A, B, C, D
Round 3: A, B, C, D
Round 4: A, B
Round 5: C, D, A, B

These last 2 interpretations are completely the same, rules-wise. At least until there's some card and rule introduced that formalizes what exactly constitutes a "round". But I prefer the first of these interpretations; simply because this extra round doesn't suddenly have a different turn order than all other rounds.

21
Rules Questions / Re: Wine Merchant and Pageant
« on: November 09, 2018, 05:32:18 pm »
Just remember to discard your Wine Merchants first!

Do we have confirmation that this matters? I agree that it likely does; but there’s 2 ways you can think of it that could be valid.

1) At the end of your buy phase, 2 things trigger. The “you may spend a coin for a coffer” and the “if you have $2 left you can discard Wine Merchants.” In this case, the order you choose the 2 things matter.

2) At the end of your buy phase, if you have $2 left, 2 things trigger: “You May spend a coin for a coffer” and “you may discard wine merchants”. In that case, the order would not matter. Wine Merchant’s “you may discard” ability has already triggered. 

22
Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns
« on: November 09, 2018, 01:11:46 pm »
I agree with that way of thinking. It's just too bad that the Fleet turns count as extra turns, not as normal turns. If they had counted as normal turns, (1) and (2) would be a clean way of explaining it without the need for (3).

Well I've never thought of the tie-breaker as actually caring about the number of turns a player took. Even if it's worded that way. What it cares about is 1) Where you sit in turn order; and 2) If the game ended part of the way through a round.

23
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 09, 2018, 12:30:42 pm »
My post is now edited with the new - $1 token wording

I don't think it's clear if they take the token before or after resolving the card. Under the normal rules of "when", it would be after, but people won't know that necessarily. If you want it to be before (which would match your original wording), then you can put "first" to make it work similar to things like Moat.

24
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 09, 2018, 11:56:28 am »
Although it still technically could be different with a few things.  Capitalism being the first that comes to mind.  With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording.  But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.

This is wrong. Capitalism doesn't care if a card actually produces any money. It cares if it has + in the text. Peddler would still be a Treasure because it still has that in the text. Doesn't matter that it produces +.

Lol I can't figure out Capitalism

Simply put, Capitalism affects any card whose text has a "+" immediately followed by a "" whether that has a number inside of it or not.

25
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 09, 2018, 11:53:48 am »
Although it still technically could be different with a few things.  Capitalism being the first that comes to mind.  With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording.  But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.

This is wrong. Capitalism doesn't care if a card actually produces any money. It cares if it has + in the text. Peddler would still be a Treasure because it still has that in the text. Doesn't matter that it produces +.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 280

Page created in 0.158 seconds with 19 queries.