# Dominion Strategy Forum

• September 17, 2019, 05:19:27 pm
• Welcome, Guest

### News:

DominionStrategy Wiki

### 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 - hhelibebcnofnena

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
##### Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles
« on: July 19, 2019, 11:28:35 am »
I'm also pretty sure that I have a solution (after some searching on the wiki to figure out whether it was valid)

Why is this in the "easy puzzles" thread?

The concept itself was easy for me once I figured out what the puzzle was actually asking. I just needed to look up the exact wording on one of the cards to figure out whether it was valid. I could have looked in my Dominion box, except that I have the 1st edition version of most expansions, including Alchemy, and I wasn't sure if this was one of the few cases where the slight wording change from 1E to 2E mattered (it's not).

2
##### Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles
« on: July 18, 2019, 08:36:05 pm »
While my opponent decides what this turn's purchase will be, I realized that the synergy Goons and Worker's Village is probably key to winning this game, but I don't have any Goons, there are no Goons left in the supply, no Goons in the trash, and all of my opponent's Goons are on his Island Mat.  But by the time my opponent is done deciding, I've already realized that's A-OK.  A dozen turns later, I play four Goons in a turn and pile out the Estates for a win.

What happened?

I'm pretty sure this comes down to finding a location that can contain owner-less cards other than the supply and the trash. I'm also pretty sure that I have a solution (after some searching on the wiki to figure out whether it was valid): Possession is in the supply. The opponent wins the Goons split 6/4, and either decides or is possessed to set aside all of their Goons with Island. Then, they Possess you, and (for some reason, maybe tfb; the Goons don't really benefit the opponent when possessed anyway) decide to "trash" all of your Goons. While they decide what "this turn's purchase" should be (i.e. your purchase which they will gain), "your" 4 Goons are not technically yours, nor are they technically in the trash. They are set aside and owner-less. However, as soon as your turn ends, they are yours again.

3
##### Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 11, 2019, 10:02:33 am »
Thanks, anordinaryman!

The new contest is about doing a non-conventional junker, i.e. it should not distribute Curses or Ruins unconditionally. You could do a Copper junker or come up with a new type of junk. Landscape cards are also OK.
Examples among official cards that would be good are Ambassador and Jester. Mountebank is also OK but something like Young Witch would be a bit borderline (lacking the third, Copper-junking option of Mountebank).

Does self-junking count as non-conventional (probably ruins)? What about something like IGG?

4
##### Dominion General Discussion / Re: Storage options?
« on: July 05, 2019, 12:14:34 pm »
this is my storage solution that uses the original boxes (i posted it on r/foamcore a few months ago)

It's heavy but until i start actually making paper versions of the Fan/Variant card forum should do fine.

This seems like the evolved version of my storage system.

5
##### Other Games / Re: Escape the Room
« on: July 05, 2019, 11:24:01 am »
Is it a win if time runs out after you solve the final puzzle and get the key, but before you actually use it to unlock the door? If the theme is a submarine running out of oxygen, is the qualification based on whether you can hold your breath for the extra three to five seconds?

If that counts as a successful escape, then I have escaped from 3 and failed 2. If it counts as a fail, I have failed 3 and escaped from 2. I personally count it as a successful escape, because there were no more puzzles to solve, and we could all hold our breath for 3 to 5 seconds.

6
##### Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 24, 2019, 08:47:32 pm »
CHALLENGE #34 - NO VANILLA SUBMISSION:

I'm not sure if it's clear, but the condition for gaining a Wish is not gaining 2 Spoils. Even if you only gain one Spoils due to that pile running out, you still gain a Wish.

Quote
When you play this, gain 2 Spoils from the Spoils pile to your hand. If you can't, gain a Wish from the Wish pile.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setup: Only add 2 Spoils per player to the Spoils pile.

How does it work with other Spoils cards? Does the restriction on Spoils number still apply?

7
##### General Discussion / Re: Maths thread.
« on: June 24, 2019, 08:40:18 pm »
People were able to compute plenty of derivatives perfectly well far before any of the modern rigorous notions of limits, which was primarily due to Cauchy. They did so mostly with "handwaving."

The key issue here is more subtle, and it's more about being circular than being handwavy. The approximation e^h = 1+h when h is small is only valid for the number e. It's equivalent to the fact that the tangent line to the graph of e^x at x=0 is y=1+x, which can't be established without knowing that the derivative of e^x is e^x in the first place.

Still not quite sure I understand. Doesn't x^h approach 1+h as h approaches 0 for any positive x?

The "handwaving" is just a less formal way of talking about limits, right?

8
##### General Discussion / Re: Maths thread.
« on: June 24, 2019, 05:09:27 pm »
The physicist's proof for the derivative of ex:

(ex + h - ex)/h = ex(eh - 1)/h.  Because h is small, eh = 1 + h, so ex(eh - 1)/h = ex(1 + h - 1)/h = ex(h/h) = ex.

What prevents that from working with any number other than e?
I'd say, the same thing that prevents it from working with e. The "because e is small" handwaving. The argument isn't correct just because it leads to the correct result.

Isn't that "because h is small" handwaving the basis of derivatives in the first place? What distinguishes one from the other?

9
##### General Discussion / Re: Maths thread.
« on: June 24, 2019, 05:00:07 pm »
The physicist's proof for the derivative of ex:

(ex + h - ex)/h = ex(eh - 1)/h.  Because h is small, eh = 1 + h, so ex(eh - 1)/h = ex(1 + h - 1)/h = ex(h/h) = ex.

What prevents that from working with any number other than e?

10
##### General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: June 24, 2019, 04:54:22 pm »
Man, I'd have found it fairly disturbing if e^pi - pi = 20 would actually be true.

I don't think it would be any more disturbing than e ^ (pi * i) = -1 .

11
##### General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: June 24, 2019, 02:29:34 pm »

12
##### General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: June 24, 2019, 01:52:57 pm »
here is a random fact: the programming language java can't count up by 1/20. I have a program where I increase a variable iteratively, and instead of going 3 -> 3.05 -> 3.1 -> 3.15 it gives me numbers like 3.149999999999997

At least it rounds correctly to the nearest 0.00000000000001. I suppose that's closer than 3.141592653589793... which only rounds correctly to the nearest 0.05.

13
##### Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 24, 2019, 12:30:36 pm »
A few answers, based on my interpretation of the contest. I'm pretty sure that I got these ones right, but Fragasnap should feel free to correct me. I have no idea about the p-stone question, though. I can see arguments both ways.

Wouldn't trashing a card from your hand be vanilla, or is that allowed?

Vanilla++ effects are: +Cards, +Actions, +Buys, +\$, +Potion, +VP, +Coffers, and +Villagers.

I assume that "vanilla++" means a vanilla effect that gives +x Somethings, which is why "trash a card" isn't there.

Does "If X, vanilla effect" disqualify a card?

• On-gain\on-buy effects that confer Vanilla++ effects still disqualify the card.
• A card with "Choose X" options still must have no Vanilla++ effects (Steward, Count, and Charm would be disqualified)

I feel that his can probably be extrapolated to "if x" clauses too. And any other clause.

If creating a victory card, would it be disqualified if it gave vanilla VP? (Like would Island or Tunnel be disqualified)?

Being a Victory card is fine, but it still must have an Action\Treasure\Reaction\Night effect (like Island and Tunnel).

That one is answered directly in the post, even giving the same examples.

14
##### Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Travelling Shop: An unusual terminal coin with setup instructions
« on: June 23, 2019, 07:05:55 pm »
Recommendation: do not put Port, Rats, Changeling or Castles into the Item piles in a game, unless you really want to annoy everyone at the table.

How would these behave any differently? If a card says "gain X", you still gain X even if it's not in the supply.
No you don't. "Gain X" gains from the Supply unless explicitly stated otherwise (usually with some phrase such as "gain an X from the X pile").

Changeling would work fine, though. The Traveller lines don't use that clarification when referring to exchanging, nor does Vampire.

15
##### Dominion General Discussion / Re: Strictly Better
« on: June 20, 2019, 11:31:52 am »
I was talking about Coppers, not Silvers. Trashing Copper has the (big) upside of making it easier to draw, with the downside of losing some payload. Gaining a Lab, though, is the best of both worlds: you get more draw without losing that \$. That's the crucial difference.

Trashing two Estates is like gaining two Labs and taking Miserable. Trashing a Curse is like gaining a Lab and taking a token. Trashing a Lab is like gaining a Lab and then trashing two Labs.

Do you regret making this thread yet? I would!

Not really; the argument probably would have happened whether or not I made the thread, it was just a question of whether it happened here or in the Project-Card parallels thread. I just diverted the argument to a different thread.

16
##### Dominion General Discussion / Re: Strictly Better
« on: June 19, 2019, 11:11:43 pm »
Commodore Chuckles isn't trying to say anything about Cathedral being bad. The point is that it is different from, not worse than gaining a bunch of Labs.

Correct me if I'm wrong about this. But I'm pretty sure that's what's going on, and also that this misunderstanding is what is feeding the whole argument. You can also correct me if I'm wrong about that.

17
##### Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 19, 2019, 10:59:48 pm »

Tithe
Reaction - \$1
When you buy any Action card in the supply, you may discard this from your hand. Trash a card from your hand for each \$1 the Action cost.
-

This pile can empty instantly. Donald X. Considers this a bad thing when designing cards.

How? Forum can do the same thing, albeit with more required to get multiple.

It's much easier with this. Having a single cost-reducer in play is much more common than having 5. Along the same lines, having \$10 is much easier than having \$50.

Besides, technically you can do this with any card. It's possible to have 10 buys on a turn. It's just a question of how easy it is. A card which costs and doesn't cost a buy makes it much easier than every other card in the game.

18
##### Dominion General Discussion / Re: Strictly Better
« on: June 18, 2019, 11:06:28 pm »
I was talking about Coppers, not Silvers. Trashing Copper has the (big) upside of making it easier to draw, with the downside of losing some payload. Gaining a Lab, though, is the best of both worlds: you get more draw without losing that \$. That's the crucial difference.

Trashing two Estates is like gaining two Labs and taking Miserable. Trashing a Curse is like gaining a Lab and taking a token. Trashing a Lab is like gaining a Lab and then trashing two Labs.

19
##### Dominion General Discussion / Re: Strictly Better
« on: June 17, 2019, 11:20:12 pm »
Something doesn't have to be strictly better in order to have to cost more. Lab isn't strictly better than Woodcutter but it has to cost more.

However, Cathedral is three Labs (and more) and costs the same as Woodcutter.

Projects and Events are an exception to most cost/power relationship unwritten rules. For Events, you only get the effect once per time you buy it (as opposed to once per shuffle for cards) and for Projects, you can only ever buy it once and it makes the game more interesting if that one time is early. That's not to say there's not other exceptions too.

20
##### Dominion General Discussion / Re: Project - card parallels
« on: June 17, 2019, 11:08:17 pm »
Strictly better means more or less the same as always better.

That's not what people normally mean when they say strictly better, though; the number of card pairs where one is truly strictly better than the other becomes infinitesimal if that's your definition. What people normally mean is that card X is strictly better than card Y if card X is better commonly enough that it would be bad game design for both cards to cost the same.

That's why it makes no sense to say that Canal is strictly better than Treasury as a Project but more sense to say that Canal is more often than not or on average better than Treasury as a Project which indicates that Treasury as a Project might have to cost less than \$7.

For example, what you've said in italics is what people normally mean by "strictly better."

I would add to your common usage definition the fact that the "strictly better" and "strictly worse" card have to also be somewhat similar (so e.g. adding +1 Card or changing + to cost reduction by ). Because Laboratory is on average better than, say, an Amulet, but nobody would call it strictly better, even by the looser definition, because they aren't similar to each other. On the other hand, you could take Poacher < Peddler < Highway as an example. You could imagine a situation where you wanted to discard a card, such as Tunnel, but usually it's a downside. And you could imagine a situation where you wanted the pure + instead of the cost-reduction, such as tfb, you usually prefer the cost-reduction. And all of these are similar enough that they can be called "strictly better" by the common usage. And I won't argue with the common usage, because language is supposed to evolve.

21
##### Dominion General Discussion / Re: Strictly Better
« on: June 17, 2019, 04:49:14 pm »
I see now that I've misunderstood the purpose of this thread, though.

Yeah, sorry for being unclear earlier.

22
##### Dominion General Discussion / Re: Strictly Better
« on: June 17, 2019, 04:42:10 pm »
So? Ignoring for the moment who totally fringe Diadem-Storyteller is, if you don't want to draw, nobody forces you to play Diadem (or Venture which might draw into Diadem) while you play Storyteller.

Storyteller doesn't undo that more Coins and more Actions are always better. All that Storyteller does, once it is in your deck, is potentially change virtual Coins into card draw.

Storyteller does undo the coins, because there are some cards which may force you to play it, such as e.g. Herald, when you would play that card anyway hoping for something else.
In terms of the actions, I'm a little unclear on it, but I guess the idea is that you might play the Diadem to get more coins, then maybe buy Villa and then play Herald or something? I'm not sure.

23
##### Dominion General Discussion / Re: Strictly Better
« on: June 17, 2019, 04:36:11 pm »
I guess my point is that there's 2 different discussions you could have. One is about a general terminology use, which it seems like this thread was intending to do. But in that discussion, there's no reason to list out the specific possible things you can add to a card to keep it strictly better. That sort of lists belongs in the other discussion; the one about puzzles.

I think my original post is unclear on that front. It sort of seems like it wants to talk about the general terminology use, but then it goes into the specifics somewhat pedantically. I think my original intent was the second one, but I didn't think the puzzles subforum was a good place for it, given that I started with a list that I thought at the time was complete (or close to it). If I had just asked people to come up with stuff from scratch, I would have put it in the puzzles subforum. I could be wrong about that, but I'm not sure how to move the thread anyway.

24
##### Dominion General Discussion / Re: Strictly Better
« on: June 17, 2019, 03:34:05 pm »
Can anyone come up with something not on the list so far?
- Adding "take the Horn/Lost in the Woods"

I'm mostly talking about effects which exist. "You win" doesn't exist on any Dominion card. I also don't want to include card-specific things like "take the Horn".

Coffers can be bad if you want to play Swashbuckler without getting the treasure chest.

Okay, I will move Coffers to the one-card-exception section.

25
##### Dominion General Discussion / Re: Strictly Better
« on: June 17, 2019, 11:06:26 am »
Okay, I added a section for "almost strictly better": an effect which would be a "strictly better effect" if you removed one card from the game. So + and +Actions can go into that section, as can replacing + with +Coffers.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14

Page created in 0.112 seconds with 19 queries.