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 - phonological loop

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2
1
I hope "Sirlins" do find Dominion off-putting. If they're put off enough, I'll never have to deal with them or their bullshit. For people who are supposed to be subscribing to the tenet "play the game that everybody else is playing", they sure seem to whine a lot about making games more "competitive". I dunno, sounds like scrub talk to me.

If you want to play the equivalent of "no items, Fox only, Final Destination" in Dominion—and I'm not saying you do, but if you did—I think the closest analogue you could get is to find the set of 10 Kingdom cards that most rewards skill, and only ever play that board. Just play the crap out of it. That way you never have to experience the endless variety that makes Dominion so much fun. It's not a perfect analogy, of course, but you can't get a perfect analogy between a fighting game and a turn-based card game.

So yeah, for those who are looking to remove luck or whatever from Dominion, I say, go play Chess. Better yet, go play Chess 2! It's what Sirlin would do.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I suppose I might as well comment, since it seems everyone else is too busy falling for the prescriptivist bait and some points got lost in the shuffle.

First, my term "Sirlin" was an unfortunate choice, because I see it connotes certain negative aspects -- like his personality -- that are not essential to the psychology I meant to describe. I don't think it is necessary that someone who views games as intellectual sport is also an asshole. For example, I am a poor chess player, but I've played some live tournaments and a lot more online, and I've met a lot of players who are competitive and "play to win." But most are also kind people and good sports.

So, if you want to design games that are not meant primarily for people with a "competitive" mindset, that's totally cool. I just wish the justification was more about having a design philosophy that differs from theirs and less that you don't care about pleasing them because they're jerks, because I don't think that is usually the case. Maybe "competitive" is not even the right word. The mindset I'm trying to get across is about valuing certain game design principles, not cut-throat behavior and rudeness.

The "no items, Fox only, Final Destination" meme began as a parody of "competitive" Smash, and I wouldn't take it too literally. In any case, I don't think people with a "games as sport" mentality necessarily dislike variety. I would guess most welcome it. More variety means more strategic options and a richer game, right? Of course there are sometimes tradeoffs -- maybe there's a point where there's so much variety you just can't balance the game properly -- but personally I welcome variety.

Your comment about people wanting to remove luck from Dominion is interesting. There's been a lot of a good discussion on previous pages about this, but I'll reiterate some points briefly. I think we should distinguish between a game having elements of chance, and those elements of chance affecting the outcome of the game in a way that makes in-game decisions seem useless or purposeless. For instance, I don't know much about poker, but I've heard it said that the same players tend to rise to the top of tournaments despite the nominally large role chance plays in the game. This makes sense to me, because even though a single hand might be decided largely by chance factors, over the course of thousands of hands -- if skill has any impact on the outcome at all -- the better player should win out. So while poker is a game of "chance," the variance in outcome is actually quite small relative to the skill of the players and their decisions. (If anyone here plays poker competitively, please weigh in.)

However, if elements of chance frequently affect the outcome of the game to a large enough degree that one player simply can't win even if she plays optimally -- or more realistically, if the skew is quite large but not 100% decisive -- someone with a "games as sport" mindset may find that off-putting. This is more or less what I take Awaclus's point 5 to be.

Of course, we all have different tolerances for chance affecting game outcomes relative to player decisions, and that tolerance can't be zero unless you want to always play deterministic games because horrible draws and freak events will inevitably occur. But I do sympathize with Awaclus's preference here, at least on some days.

(And yeah, Chess 2 seems to misunderstand chess. If you want a variant that fixes some perceived defects, I'd go with Chess960 as mentioned earlier.)

2
I typed that post too quickly, and I did not mean to misrepresent your position. (The post should read "first player advantage beyond the possibility of an extra turn," but the point is the same.) I mean no disrespect, and having said what I want to say as well as I could say it, I'll bow out of this thread now.

3
For the online implementation, being able to look through your deck and shuffle it back to how it was and reading through the full log carefully are the same.

Sorry, I misread. I thought by "re-randomize" you meant organize the cards in the deck to get good draws. (The "perfect decisions" bit confused me.) Forget my remark, then.

4
Normally, I would expect either games or tournament formats to address first-player advantage.

Indeed, and this is one of those canonical things that the players I am attempting (poorly) to describe look for. And DVX is on record saying that first player advantage doesn't exist in Dominion (albeit in a forum post from 2008: http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Turn_advantage).

Someone with the "Sirlin" mentality could probably accept the argument that first player advantage is small enough that the best solution is to switch sides in a tournament setting, or that any fixes have costs that outweigh the benefits. But a claim that it actually doesn't exist is going to make them a little uncomfortable.

To be clear, I don't want to get into a debate about whether Dominion has FPA here. I just point this out because it is a perfect example of there being a collection of players of a certain "competitive" mindset with relatively predictable preferences and concerns.

The question of whether you whine about the guy who digs through his discard pile or inspects his deck then re-randomizes it to make perfect decisions,

These two things are not at all equivalent! No one is advocating for the latter, and it would be a really bad design change, for reasons I hope are obvious.

5
The situation is somewhat different there in that a "Timmy" or "Johnny" card can exist parallel to the competitive scene in a way a "swingy" or otherwise competitively undesirable card can't exist outside of all expansions, full random, Fox only, etc., but the solution here is probably to come up with a better competitive Dominion format that excludes such cards. Then everyone's happy.
When people bring up banning whatever cards, Mic Qsenoch speaks up to say, you guys want to ban all the fun cards. It's like all competitive players aren't identical in what they like!

Not all good players, or people who play competitively, have the psychology I described. Nor is it the case that all people with that psychology are clones of each other, just that they share enough opinions about gaming that such a classification is useful.

Further, based on direct experience I know there is faction of hardcore types with a certain "play to win, games as intellectual sport" disposition and with relatively homogeneous game design preferences, and that such types always find certain deviations from their ideals a little grating. Awalcus is one, on some days I am one, and I know more in real life. (Their preferences are homogeneous, by the way, because they're mostly learned from a shared set of previous competitive or "serious" games.) I'm not sure how many Awalcuses play Dominion, but I can assure you they're definitely out there.

6
Well, Blizzard is perhaps a better example. I actually don't know much about MtG these days (cf. my incorrect comment about note taking earlier in the thread); I haven't played for years and years. Old Mark Rosewater columns gave me the impression that making the game play well competitively was a top priority. This does not imply they can't also have other design goals in mind, or that they're perfect. I would be surprised if there was not extensive 2-player playtesting under tournament-esque rules today, with some consideration of how each card might affect the competitive meta-game, but I'm happy to be corrected on this point.

The situation is somewhat different there in that a "Timmy" or "Johnny" card can exist parallel to the competitive scene in a way a "swingy" or otherwise competitively undesirable card can't exist outside of all expansions, full random, Fox only, etc., but the solution here is probably to come up with a better competitive Dominion format that excludes such cards. Then everyone's happy.


Any given individual may not be satisfied, for whatever personal reasons. If you have perfect information some ultra-competitive people will hate that; if you don't some ultra-competitive people will hate that. Also non-ultra-competitive people will hate both things. You can't please everyone on every point.

I agree with this.

Quote
It's nuts to think that all Spikes want the same things, and it's nuts to think that you have go all out for Spike or Spike won't be happy.

I don't agree with this. The players I'm talking about -- let's call them "Sirlins," since you think "Spikes" is too broad -- do want mostly the same things and share a certain broad game design philosophy. For instance, when I read Awaclus posts I understand immediately the place he is coming from (though I also enjoy my casual multiplayer games, thank you very much). I've met several people in real life with basically the same gaming philosophy.

(As an aside, I would be very interested in a description of the psychology of "Spikes" who are not "Sirlins." Perhaps I would better understand the distinction you're drawing.)

It is my impression that such people are generally very detail-oriented and find any deviation from certain Platonic competitive ideals off-putting, and have played enough games that they're quick to find and call out such deviations. (The lack of a turn timer in Dominion Online is possibly one example; it's often thought that competitive chess is a better game in virtue having a time limit, and the ability to select different time limits from "blitz" to G90 or beyond. I don't want to necessarily defend this idea, but I do want to point out that a "competitive" person of the kind I'm thinking of will find the idea of unlimited turn time a little weird.)

7
I'm not putting down your work on Dominion!

Perhaps depth in the sense of interesting card interactions is not an accident, but depth in the sense of holding up to scrutiny in the standard competitive 2-player format seems to be.
It turns out that when you say that something that someone accomplished seems to be an accident, that's putting down their work.

I'm sorry, that was not the best choice of words. As I said, I enjoy the game, I think it's well designed, and it is not at all my intention to put down the work that went into it.

Let me try to rephrase things. It seems agreed that you do not attempt to hyper-optimize the game for "competitive" play (2-player, random kingdom, etc.), or for the tastes of a certain brand of "competitive" player (as opposed to say, the way Blizzard and Wizards try to optimize Starcraft 2 and Magic, respectively, with an absurd amount of 2-player testing under competition rules.) I realize I'm being a little vague here, but think of the MtG "Spike" psychotype, or David Sirlin of "play to win" fame.

This is fine! I'm not making any value judgments. It's your game and you can shape it as you see fit, and arguing about how people "ought" to conceive of games is like arguing about what your favorite color ought to be. I think it's a great achievement that Dominion produces interesting and diverse games even when played competitively (and also when not!), as not many games do (and even fewer are as fun).

But nonetheless, your goal is not solely to optimize the game for competitive play. So someone looking for a such a game is never going to be 100% satisfied. There will always things about the game and the client that could be tweaked to optimize things for "Spike," but were not in order to serve another element of your design philosophy. And this explains the OP of the thread (echoing LastFootnote).

Do you think this is a reasonable take?


8
I'm not trying to put down your game!
I didn't say you were putting down Dominion. You were putting down my work on Dominion. And that's what I said.

I'm not putting down your work on Dominion! I'm saying, as LastFootnote said on the last page, that it (and the online client?) was "not designed to be played at the level that top players are playing it." This is why my first post in this thread quotes his. Further, I'm not making any value judgment about whether this is a good or bad thing. I'm just noting that LastFootnote hit the nail on the head, and this is why Awaclus appears to be unhappy.


The point I am trying to make is that (correct me if I'm wrong!) you don't go out of your way to tailor things to to the "hardcore" or "competitive" crowd, and your modal Dominion experience is in fact more casual 3-4 players games.
You're wrong; that isn't the point you were trying to make. Hey, it's an Awaclus thread.

What point do you think I am trying to make?

9
Perhaps depth in the sense of interesting card interactions is not an accident, but depth in the sense of holding up to scrutiny in the standard competitive 2-player format seems to be.
The correct way to put down my work on Dominion's strategic depth is to note that strategic depth is in fact easy to come by. It's easy! Like, Go has it. It's like Godel's Incompleteness Theorem; any sufficiently complex game will have strategic depth. I didn't lay down on the job, thank you very much, but, it wasn't a struggle either. You have a nice amount of agency as a player; the cards interact so that power levels vary; enough is sufficiently obscured that there's stuff to figure out. Even when a card is very strong, there's enough to what you're doing that there's still a game.

I'm not trying to put down your game! It's a good game! I play it regularly, have nearly all the expansions, and care enough to argue about it on an online message board. The point I am trying to make is that (correct me if I'm wrong!) you don't go out of your way to tailor things to to the "hardcore" or "competitive" crowd, and your modal Dominion experience is in fact more casual 3-4 players games. (And don't get me wrong, I like those kinds of games too!) And consequently, you make certain decisions that might not be optimal from the perspective of someone wanting the card game equivalent of no items, Fox only, Final Destination.

Quote
For some cards, the 2-player game is specifically an issue; somehow in those cases I don't just laugh at how those players will suck it up. Would you believe. And the feedback isn't that oops I just always blow it there. I mean like, it's *checks* season 28 of the league. Some people are having fun with 2-player Dominion (yes, or we'll be seeing a lot of these threads, oh man, 28 seasons was the breaking point). And I mean if no-one was I would be bummed out, but I can deal with any given individual being dissatisfied. Like I always say, it didn't win game of the year in Austria.

Well, I have fun at least. Awaclus's point is that we'd probably have more fun if an optional turn timer was included and the client was made faster. This seems reasonable to me.

10
No, but you can (if I recall correctly) look through your discard pile, which accomplishes much of the same purpose.

11
It would also be nice to have these concerns on your radar during playtesting.

Concerns like, you want to be able to look at your discard pile? Sorry, that ship has sailed. Although in my IRL games, we allow each other to look through our discard piles on other people's turns (and our own if it's quick). The entire point of the rule forbidding looking through the discard is exactly so that players won't waste everybody else's time by constantly doing it. I guess it would be nice to have the ability to use that house rule in Dominion Online, but I think the people clamoring for it are the ones most likely to abuse it and slow games way down.

I didn't mean the discard pile rule when I wrote about playtesting. I was thinking more about keeping the concerns of "competitive" players in mind and considering how such cards would affect the standard "competitive" format I described above. For instance, are they too swingy or luck based? Do they lead to runaway leader scenarios? Are they stronger in 2-player games than in games with more players? (It's quite possible you do this already, but the whole "we didn't playtest Nocturne with 2 players" thing makes me wonder, you know?)

I agree it would be nice to able to see the discard pile in Dominion Online. The concern about slowing the game down could be solved by implementing an optional turn timer, as Awaclus suggested. If these options exist and are, well, optional, then everyone wins, right?


Quote
I don't think the strategic depth is an accident, happy or otherwise. The entire game is built around interesting card interactions, and I think that's where most of the depth springs from. I guess you could hypothesize that some parts were an accident. I'll do that now, in fact. It seems to me that the relative ease of drawing and trashing in Dominion is a big part of what makes it more strategic (as opposed to just being a tactical sort of game). You can actually build a reliable deck pretty often. From my limited experience, most other copycat deckbuilders make drawing and trashing much more expensive, and those games tend to be much more luck-driven affairs. So you could call it an "accident" that Dominion is this way. But based on the secret histories, it seems like it was a conscious decision based on how these things played out in real games; what was fun.

Perhaps depth in the sense of interesting card interactions is not an accident, but depth in the sense of holding up to scrutiny in the standard competitive 2-player format seems to be. The game designer and playtesters do not seem to have this format or audience in mind when designing cards and playtesting. To be specific, DVX saying he basically never plays 2 player games when playtesting makes me think his design goal is not at all to produce an optimally "competitive" game for 2 players. But this is what Awaclus and I are looking for, hence the complaining and the remark about "accidentally" (sort of) producing such a thing.

12
I think that, perhaps, a lot of these issues stem from the fact that Dominion was not designed to be played at the level that top players are playing it. Which is not to say that top players are doing anything wrong. It's just a reality.

Well, this is the crux of the issue, isn't it? For many of us, strategic depth is what makes games fun. A large part of that is that a game withstands repeated playings and attempts to find optimal strategies and plays -- in other words, that playing the game to win presents a deep and intellectually stimulating task. Compare chess and go, for instance. They've survived for so long and are revered precisely because they possess this quality.

It is clear that Dominion as played competitively -- 2 players, all expansions, random kingdoms -- has a lot of strategic depth. But I am becoming convinced that is mostly a happy accident. For instance, Nocturne wasn't even really playtested with 2 players, as we discussed in a previous thread.  Further, certain things seem to break down around the edges when you start to conceive of Dominion as a competitive game, from overly swingy cards to the totally arbitrary rule against checking the contents of your discard pile. And these introduce undesirable qualities from the perspective of someone who desires a deep, well-tuned game of skill. (I suppose I should expand on the log and discard pile issue. I, and I would guess Awaclus, would like games to be more about making good strategic decisions than memory. If I want to test my memory, I have various other ways of doing that. The "can't look at the discard rule" introduces what I perceive as an overly extreme and artificial barrier to making good decisions.)

So, one of the complaints is that Dominion does not play well as a game of skill at a high level, and your response is that of course that's true, because it wasn't designed that way. Then I think it is very fair for someone like Awalcus or myself to respond -- well, if that's the case, why should we keep playing it?

And I suppose the obvious response to this is to go elsewhere and play such games, if that's what we want. This seems to be Awalcus's conclusion, too. But I find the whole thing a little sad, because Dominion comes so, so close to being such a game -- so close that a healthy competitive community has sprung up nonetheless! -- that with a few small tweaks to the online client it could get it most of the way there (as Awalcus points out). It would also be nice to have these concerns on your radar during playtesting.



13
These kind of posts are more terrible than any other thing happening on this forum.

I genuinely don’t know which post you’re referring to...
Seprix' starting post.

Reading the thread with the perspective that the OP was meant as a joke; I feel stupid now. I thought that the second 2 replies were both yelling at Wero for being disrespectful to Seprix by arguing against his article.

The best parodies give enough winks and nods to the attentive reader that it becomes increasingly clear it's a joke, even if it's ambiguous at first. This one needs a few more clues.

The "clue" is that the combo is obviously horrible.

Also, see the comment about Lookout.

14
GendoIkari beat me to it. I agree with his response.

Mainly my concern is with there being no 2-player testing, when this is apparently the most common format. Whether you're doing "full random" or "base plus two sets plus the expansion to be playtested" seems inconsequential.

I'm not sure 2 player is the most common format. Online, yes, but for most dominion players IRL I would be very surprised.

Well, I hedged my statement because I am also uncertain. I have no data on the matter. But there is certainly a vibrant community here that mainly plays 2-player, and I'm sure you could find statistics on the total number of such games played online. So in absolute terms 2-player seems popular, or at least popular enough that I find it weird that it's ignored in playtesting.

15
GendoIkari beat me to it. I agree with his response.

Mainly my concern is with there being no 2-player testing, when this is apparently the most common format. It's essentially an entire different game with an entirely different set of choices and meta-game. To essentially not test it and just hope it all works out seems ... weird.

Whether you're doing "full random" or "base plus two sets plus the expansion to be playtested" seems inconsequential.

16
Bear in mind that most of the playtesting that gets done is with at least three players, and often with four or more. You don't always have the time or resources to build the perfect Treasure-less engine in those games. For Nocturne specifically, basically 100% of the testing was done at Donald's IRL table or mine, and I bet you could count the number of 2-player testing games on two hands.

This is sort of hair-raising. A huge chunk of Dominion games are played online in a 2-player random kingdom format. I am astonished that this format receives "basically 0%" of the attention in playtesting.

Explain to me how we are meant to do 2-player online playtesting without an online simulator that has the cards being tested? During development the cards are changing all the time, and it's a tall order to ask somebody to create, maintain, and update an online version. We had access to isotropic for Adventures and part of Empires, but eventually even dougz threw in the towel.

I don't think that online vs on tables was the part he was talking about. It was 2-player full random vs 3/4 player set-specific.

Yes, just the "competitive" 2-player all random format.

You’ll be shocked to learn how much playtesting uses an all sets full random format, then.

Seems to work out fine though, doesn’t it?

It does, though perhaps more by accident than by design.

17
Bear in mind that most of the playtesting that gets done is with at least three players, and often with four or more. You don't always have the time or resources to build the perfect Treasure-less engine in those games. For Nocturne specifically, basically 100% of the testing was done at Donald's IRL table or mine, and I bet you could count the number of 2-player testing games on two hands.

This is sort of hair-raising. A huge chunk of Dominion games are played online in a 2-player random kingdom format. I am astonished that this format receives "basically 0%" of the attention in playtesting.

18
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Fix the worst cards
« on: June 16, 2018, 02:47:22 pm »
Sorry to continue further this meta-discussion, but I want to say that I did not intend to mock anybody with my post. I just wanted to point out that using that strange shorthand makes posts hard to read and confusing for newer players, so perhaps it is best avoided. (For instance, I just picked up this game and jumped in at the end of the thread, and it was not clear to me what card "mute" referred to until someone quoted that post and called it "Transmute.")

What newer players? This board chases the vast majority of them away.

Basically every single thread ends up with a bunch of people posting mockery/off topic/in-jokes/etiquette nitpicking. Rather than being a place where people come to discuss Dominion, this board has a highly unfortunate tendency to become a place about how you should discuss Dominion while fishing for up votes with snark. Most new players are not that invested and will never become posters here because they already have places in their life for making in-jokes and . The people who actually become "regulars" have a clear survivor bias and frankly stopped being "new players" long before they became regular posters.

Thanks for your comments about the cards I listed. You've made a good case that there are sometimes uses for Duchess and Mandarin. However, these are extremely niche, as you admit, and I'm not really sure these uses are common or interesting enough to justify them having a place in the Kingdom compared to another randomly selected card.

Maybe a good solution would just be to replace Mandarin with Count in any Kingdom where it's selected by the app. I'm not sure what to do about Duchess. Potentially it could be replaced by Duke in a similar fashion, if you wish to keep the emphasis on Duchies, though that analogy is much less precise. And Fool could just be replaced with a random card (I'm not sure what a good analogue is).

Regarding your comments about newer players, I can only speak for myself, but I've found the forum and related Discord quite friendly and welcoming. I can get extremely quick feedback on my plays and answers to my questions on the chat at any time of day, and the thread I started about a kingdom here got several very helpful replies within 24 hours. The in-jokes seem infrequent and are easily recognizable as such (imo). For me, a much greater barrier to participation is deciphering shorthand like "Hop" and "GSSHop." I think I was able to decode the rest of your post, but I honestly still have no clue about those. (And I fear the situation would be much worse if I were not already somewhat familiar with all the expansions.)



19
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Fix the worst cards
« on: June 16, 2018, 12:07:25 am »
But that's not really a helpful answer for what you asked. Cards to consider excluding for weakness (with the caveat that you'll miss out on those rare shining moments they have):

-Harvest-- top of the list for sure
-Transmute
-Counting House
-Navigator
-Fortune Teller
-Beggar
-Pirate Ship
-And obviously any of the cards cut out of base and Intrigue for being too weak

What about Mandarin? Without Capital on the board, it never seems attractive.

Maybe Dutchess? Possibly Fool just because it's so awkward?

20
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Fix the worst cards
« on: June 14, 2018, 12:32:39 pm »
Sorry to continue further this meta-discussion, but I want to say that I did not intend to mock anybody with my post. I just wanted to point out that using that strange shorthand makes posts hard to read and confusing for newer players, so perhaps it is best avoided. (For instance, I just picked up this game and jumped in at the end of the thread, and it was not clear to me what card "mute" referred to until someone quoted that post and called it "Transmute.")

Here's a more on-topic question. Given my group won't want to house-rule cards, what bad cards are so bad that the average quality of the game goes up when you exclude them from being chosen for the kingdom? (Define "quality" however you please.) Assume an otherwise all-random kingdom chosen via some app, with all expansions included.

I was thinking at least Harvest and Navigator, perhaps.

21
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Fix the worst cards
« on: June 12, 2018, 08:10:22 pm »
Is it really that hard to type "Transmute" instead of omitting the first 5 letters? It's not even a good abbreviation; it's an entirely different word.

22
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Question- which one tilts you?
« on: May 30, 2018, 07:48:45 pm »
I'm a much, much worse player than you. However, let me suggest that if you regularly get very emotional about bad draws (or your opponent's good draws), you would be a better player if were able to eliminate that impulse (perhaps using some techniques from cognitive behavioral therapy). At least, I don't think it helps you, and it takes away mental energy from more important things.

More or less you're playing a coin flip simulator, with some ability to bias the coin with good play. Getting mad at bad draws seems about as sensible and useful as getting mad at a coin for coming up heads.

23
Help! / Re: Base game kingdom with no trashing
« on: May 22, 2018, 08:39:24 pm »
If there's just Village and Smithy and literally nothing else on the board, the best strategy is big money.

I just had a kingdom on Dominion Online somewhat like this that I wanted to ask about. Similar to the kingdom in the OP, it is a base game kingdom with no trashing.

3: Harbinger, Merchant, Vassal, Village
4: Bureaucrat, Poacher, Throne Room
5: Council Room, Laboratory, Market

I opened silver/silver and tried to put together a Village+Council Room engine, using Poacher for money. Somewhat unsurprisingly, this much too slow. With no trashing or gaining, I simply couldn't get enough buying power in time. The bot destroyed me with council room and treasures. It seems like without gaining or trashing (and lacking Cellar), an engine is much too slow.

Is CR-BM best here, or is there a better strategy?

24
Oh, I see now. Each expansion is indeed in alphabetical order (I was not looking very closely  :-[).

The big box was what primarily confused me, but it too is in alphabetical order by set. I was confused because I have not learned to distinguish between base set and Intrigue cards (since I got them all at once, in one box).

I'm not usually this much of an idiot, I swear.

25
I have the base game (2nd edition big box) and a few expansions. Included in each box is a paper organizer insert with the names of the cards on it. You stick the insert in the middle of the box and it tells you where to put each card.

The problem is that I don't understand the organization scheme used by the insert, which makes it a headache to set up games. What is the logic behind the insert? I ask so I can find cards more efficiently. (And why is it not simply in alphabetical order in each box?)

(Almost certainly this has been asked before, but I could not find an explanation using Google or the search feature on this forum. My apologies, and thanks in advance for the help.)

Pages: [1] 2

Page created in 0.112 seconds with 18 queries.