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 - guided

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 38
51
Game Reports / Re: A victory snatched from the jaws of EPIC FAIL
« on: December 05, 2011, 05:10:10 pm »
You're right about the 12 buys. Amusingly, I was counting the extra buy from Tactician... but not the intrinsic buy you start with every turn :o

52
Game Reports / Re: Smallest relative margin of victory?
« on: December 05, 2011, 05:07:53 pm »
You can probably throw out the idea of 2-point margin games even being in the running (unless anyone around here has ever won 1002-1000?) and just look for the very largest winning score in a game with a 1-point or 0-point margin.

53
Game Reports / Re: A victory snatched from the jaws of EPIC FAIL
« on: December 05, 2011, 05:05:31 pm »
If I counted Correctly, chwhite had 12 buys on his final turn and could have used the same strategy to buy the final two Grand Markets and all 10 Curses to win the game.
11 buys, unless I've repeatedly miscounted.

54
Game Reports / Re: A victory snatched from the jaws of EPIC FAIL
« on: December 05, 2011, 04:20:25 pm »
chwhite would have lost the game regardless of what he did on turn 19, provided you noticed the Curse maneuver.
Heh, right. I'd put the chances of me noticing it around 50/50 if I hadn't already expected to win that turn by emptying the GMs.

I had hesitated to mention the decision not to take VPs for Copper buys, since it's not really a clear mistake. He thought about it for a long time before deciding to end his buy phase. In the end, he left 24 points on the table, which would not have been enough.

55
Game Reports / Re: A victory snatched from the jaws of EPIC FAIL
« on: December 05, 2011, 04:02:31 pm »
The higher-level you get, the smaller a mistake needs to be to count, also.

I'm not sure I can think of a single game or sport where 'high-level play' involves 'no mistakes' - as you get better, the mistakes you make become more subtle, to the point where lower-level players might think you're playing with 'no mistakes', but equally-skilled opponents get better at exploiting small ones that they're now good enough to see.
Good point. I mean, what level of play do you have to reach before it classes as a "blunder" to buy the 2nd to last Grand Market to leave $21 worth of cards in 2 stacks instead of $27? I only noticed because I'd specifically been thinking about the same issue on my previous turn. As I said, I've made similar mistakes myself in numerous past games, and I could easily have made the same mistake in this game! OTOH, playing out my Coppers was a legitimately boneheaded, obvious blunder ;)

56
Game Reports / Re: A victory snatched from the jaws of EPIC FAIL
« on: December 05, 2011, 03:25:06 pm »
I think somebody serious enough about the game could at least avoid blunders almost all of the time. chwhite only lost this game because he bought a GM at turn 19. Absent enough buys to empty the Curses I would subsequently have lost only because I played out Coppers I didn't need to play at turn 20.

With specific regard to reaching level 65, I totally agree though. I don't think even utterly perfect skill would get you there.


WW: No offense taken! That Scrying Pool game in particular, it was very sound advice.

57
Game Reports / Re: A victory snatched from the jaws of EPIC FAIL
« on: December 05, 2011, 03:19:54 pm »
This is by no means the first time WW has posted a legitimate critique of one of my games (or offered such in the chat after beating me :P), even after I'd noticed other mistakes I made in the same game. Yeah, none of us are Kasparov yet (or at least I'm not ;)).

I think I recall losing to WW once with a Scrying Pool deck, where I suboptimally chose attacks given that I was likely to be playing Jester at the end of each turn. I ended up stuffing him with Coppers instead of digging for VP cards (to give out Curses) or good cards (to gain myself). edit: And here it is! http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20111017-093752-7ffd11fb.html

58
Game Reports / Re: A victory snatched from the jaws of EPIC FAIL
« on: December 05, 2011, 02:20:26 pm »
My initial reaction here: GM>Goons?
GM draws while Goons doesn't. I would add that Goons requires Villages, but I had good Village density already. Priority was to get a single Goons, then worry about multiples later. This game was always going to be 99% decided on the final turn so the minor bonus VPs on midgame engine-building turns were less important than maintaining a reliable double-Tac engine. You miss your 2nd Tactician once, you're dead, period. Indeed, I did miss my 2nd Tactician on the last turn (though I wasn't terribly worried since I had planned it to be my last turn).

I may have been unnecessarily conservative in waiting to get my 2nd Goons, but I was making a conscious decision to prefer GM each time I chose it. I never once missed the first Goons before I got the second, so I had no trouble maintaining discard attack pressure with one copy.

59
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Which games count towards ratings?
« on: December 05, 2011, 12:49:42 pm »
I guess the one way to answer #3 would be to note how many games I've played through midnight last night, then play a known number of games today (all with the cards restricted to the base set), then check my record tomorrow see if the number of games has changed.
I promise you it doesn't count. Restrictions are restrictions, regardless of whether you name specific cards.

60
Game Reports / A victory snatched from the jaws of EPIC FAIL
« on: December 05, 2011, 12:48:23 pm »
cards in supply: Baron, Goons, Grand Market, Market, Masquerade, Nomad Camp, Silk Road, Tactician, Village, and Warehouse

This board is a Dominion strategy geek's wet dream. With the exception of Silk Road every single card in the Kingdom should prove useful for building a colossal multi-Goons double-Tactician fear engine. I was glad to draw this one against a top-flight opponent in chwhite, since I knew he wouldn't miss the possibilities here. It can be fun to beat up on less experienced opponents with double-Tac decks from time to time, but I logged on today to practice for the tournament!

I wasn't altogether pleased with my 5/2, since there are no helpful 2s, and Masquerade was a much more important opening card than Tactician, but I regained tempo parity by drawing Tactician at turn 3. At turn 5 we had essentially the same deck, though I finished ceding my first-player advantage by drawing Tactician with Masquerade. chwhite was the first to Grand Market, while I got a critical 6-4 Village split thanks to the one really important Masquerade trap I managed to catch him with. (He later got a Market off me since I refused to pass a Village instead, but that was late enough to be of little consequence.)

Late in the game I was looking at the writing on the wall and feeling none too confident. We had similar decks (though I was happy with my extra Villages), but chwhite had a small VP advantage and a 1-turn tempo advantage. At turn 19 I made the decision to leave enough Grand Markets and Markets left on the piles to make it impossible for him to buy out both those stacks to end the game. And then he bought a Grand Market.

"Squee! I can totally empty out the GM and Market piles next turn!" I thought. (I don't mean to bag on an excellent player here; I've made that mistake a hundred times before in megaturn games and paid the price for it.) So I played out my action phase at turn 20, ending with $21 and 14 buys, just enough cash to buy out the two stacks, with more than enough buys left over to pump up my VP chip stack with Coppers. But hey, since it's my last turn, why not play out my treasure cards so I can grab a Duchy too?

Several seconds later, I'm frantically clicking the Grand Market pile to no effect, and my heart sinks in my chest: Oh no. I can't buy the last GM after playing out those Coppers I never needed in the first place. And I don't have anywhere near enough money to empty the Markets and another pile (not even the Estates). Epic fail! I bemoan my idiocy in the chat, and chwhite confides that he had realized his mistake last turn upon buying the 2nd to last Grand Market. I sit there staring at it for a while, and I'm about to take the desperation move of grabbing 4 Provinces, an Estate, and a big pile of Copper and just praying it's enough VPs to hold him off until I can end the game.

And then I see it: Hey, Curses are a pile, with 3 Goons in play they're worth 2 VPs apiece, and I do have enough buys to empty the Curses and Markets. Ha!

led buys a Market.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
led buys a Market.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
led buys a Market.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
led buys a Curse.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
led buys a Curse.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
led buys a Curse.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
led buys a Curse.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
led buys a Curse.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
led buys a Curse.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
led buys a Curse.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
led buys a Curse.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
led buys a Curse.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
led buys a Curse.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
led buys a Province.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
... getting +1 ▼.
(led reshuffles.)
(led draws: an Estate, a Silver, a Grand Market, a Market, and a Goons.)

Curses, Villages, and Markets are all gone.
led wins!


Thanks to chwhite for an excellent game! I can honestly say this is the first time I've ever bought the entire Curse stack in one go before. That's a possibility I'll have to keep in mind for the future.

61
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Which games count towards ratings?
« on: December 05, 2011, 10:29:08 am »
1) Yes. My "led" account is mostly veto-mode games, and it looks like pretty much all my games have been counted.
2) Pretty sure yes. You have no control over whether your opponents use the bias boxes when you get automatched, so it would be pretty cruel to discount those games.
3) Definitely doesn't count. You've set restrictions, and games with restrictions don't count.

62
Dominion Articles / Re: A Few Combos
« on: December 04, 2011, 09:00:06 pm »
Spice Merchant strikes me as neither a particularly strong opening nor a particularly weak one. It's not that likely to get you to $5 (which is IMO its main flaw as an opener), but the the combination of cycling and trashing early is useful. Alongside a good $3 terminal action it's probably pretty good. Spice Merchant/Silver certainly doesn't wow me though.

63
"I want a Witch, just not quite yet."

64
I've done it to power up a City stack before, or yes, end the game.

65
Game Reports / Re: On not giving in to temptation
« on: December 03, 2011, 07:17:56 am »
^I guess my point was that I didn't know why silver/chapel is in consideration
Why not simulate it? And indeed, simulating it seems to have shown it's better than Silver/Potion/Chapel. I'm not sure what you're complaining about here. Also, from a practical standpoint (if we hope to actually apply our results to real games) the assumption that there are no useful $5 cards you would ever want in a Familiar game is an extremely bad one.

Regarding chapel/potion vs no chapel
I doubt the result will be a landslide, and in any case the specific comparison that most interests me is Silver/Potion openings with and without Chapel.

66
Dominion Isotropic / Re: Minor Walled Village bug?
« on: December 03, 2011, 06:22:39 am »
I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but you're right that the behavior you describe is a bug. I can't think of an example where it matters, but maybe someone else can.

67
Game Reports / Re: On not giving in to temptation
« on: December 03, 2011, 06:16:34 am »
According to simulations Chapel/Potion is better than Chapel/Silver which is better than Silver/Potion. The possibility of an early Familiar is probably key, but it's high variance (which I'm sure a lot of players will hate). The last option buys a turn 3 Chapel which is just not effective.
What's the appeal of chapel/silver? You have zero chance of getting a familiar before the second shuffle with that opening. If the silver collides with chapel, you're not going to use it anyway, so you might as well have got a potion. And if the silver doesn't collide with chapel and provides a $5 hand, you're just going to buy a potion with it anyway? It seems like there is nothing to gain by getting silver instead of potion...
It's plausible to me that Silver/Potion/Chapel is worse than Chapel/Silver, and you'll note he did say that Chapel/Potion was the best out of the three.

I wonder how Silver/Potion fares if it doesn't buy a Chapel? I've found turn-3 Chapel to be quite weak in general (from earlier solitaire studies of increased costs for Chapel), and I've found Chapel to be mediocre at best against fast Cursing attacks.

68
2011 / Re: Schedule and Results: 2011 DominionStrategy.com Championships
« on: December 01, 2011, 02:35:26 pm »
Just one dude's opinion, but I'd put it Buggz's discretion whether to replay the game or take the win (regardless of the score at the time of disconnect).

69
So (next try) if top-decking causes the WT to loose track, then reshuffling into your draw should also cause it to lose track.
Critically, top-decking with Develop (or via a Sea Hag attack) does not cause the WT to lose track. Develop and Sea Hag gain cards straight to the top of the draw pile, and Watchtower "expects" the gained card to be wherever it was gained to (not necessarily the discard pile). The card FAQ for Watchtower makes this pretty clear, using the example of Mine. Donald has confirmed on BGG that Watchtower is meant to work against Sea Hag, and by extension could be used to immediately trash cards you gain with Develop.

What causes WT to lose track is when something moves a card after it is gained. Royal Seal can move a gained card from the discard pile to the draw pile, and at that moment WT loses track. Inn shuffling the deck is also a movement effect, so WT should lose track there too. Do you still have a question about how things should work?

Another parallel issue: Donald tentatively ruled on BGG that you lose track of any top-decked cards that get covered up by other top-decked cards. i.e. you can only "keep track" of the very top card of the draw pile. He did hedge that he might change his mind when lose-track is finalized, but it seems like a solid ruling to me since there's no limit to how deeply a card could get buried (e.g. by gaining a Mandarin as BV's bonus card).

70
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Exception to the rule, part 2
« on: November 30, 2011, 07:24:55 pm »
I can more usefully send you Coppers and Curses with Ambassador. I can trash them on Upgrade without gaining stuff I might not want. Owning them is not "strictly worse".

71
isotropic has a limitation where I'm only allowed to reveal Watchtower at most once for each card. Technically in a FtF game I could reveal it once, top-deck the card, then reveal it again to trash the card, but I can't do that on isotropic.

I think Donald ruled <a href="http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1028.msg16184#msg16184">over in the Rules forum</a> that this doesn't work in a FtF game; top-decking it once causes the Watchtower to lose track when you try to reveal it the second time.
Fair point. Anyway, the idea is I used Royal Seal to see if there was a bug there similar to the Develop bug, and there was no bug. Watchtower correctly loses track of the gained card once Royal Seal moves it.

72
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Exception to the rule, part 2
« on: November 30, 2011, 06:32:55 pm »
I'm not just being contrarian, I seriously have no idea what the OP means by "worse". When we talk about buying things that are better than silver, we mean better in helping you win the game. So if we mean worse in the same sense, then the answer is "never". If some other buy makes you less likely to win the game, you shouldn't make that buy, period. If we mean worse in some other sense, what sense is that?

73
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Exception to the rule, part 2
« on: November 30, 2011, 02:29:12 pm »
Define "worse".

Because under the definition of "worse" that comes to mind the answer is tautologically "never, ever ever ever" :P

74
I didn't say it was a high priority bug. But if it indicates a more general problem (and since I don't know the cause of the bug I don't know whether it does) then maybe Doug will be more interested in fixing it.

Edit: So the problem is (in this situation) that, when gaining the Inn, you can not react with Watchtower, or you can react, but the the reaction is applied to the BV and not to the Inn?
The problem is that reacting to the BV with Watchtower after shuffling for the Inn actually works, pulling the BV out of the shuffled deck and putting it on top. Even if I'm allowed to react with Watchtower here (which is technically correct), the effect should fizzle rather than actually digging through the deck to find the BV.

To answer your question more directly, I am able to react with Watchtower to BV or Inn or both, and I have some slightly-incorrectly limited choices of which order to react to them in, but not in a way that matters much. I'm not bug-reporting any limitations of when I'm allowed to reveal Watchtower; I'm bug-reporting the phenomenon of deck-diving for a shuffled card.

You mean WT with Royal Seal, or?
isotropic has a limitation where I'm only allowed to reveal Watchtower at most once for each card. Technically in a FtF game I could reveal it once, top-deck the card, then reveal it again to trash the card, but I can't do that on isotropic. So I can't test the idea of using Watchtower to top-deck the BV, then gaining an Inn and shuffling that, then using Watchtower again to try to top-deck the BV again. Instead I tested the same idea using Royal Seal to top-deck the BV before gaining the Inn, planning to reveal Watchtower after shuffling, and isotropic correctly does not let me top-deck the shuffled BV in that case. (Indeed it does not let me reveal Watchtower at all, which is technically incorrect but who cares? since the effect should fizzle anyway.)

75
2011 / Re: Prize
« on: November 29, 2011, 07:24:57 pm »
If I win, I'm taking Followers.
I regret that I have but one upvote to give to this post ;D

Also, dibs on Trusty Steed.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 38

Page created in 0.162 seconds with 18 queries.