when was the last time you actually bought Pirate Ship?
nooooo all wronggggg.....
Even though I'm sure it's a joke that is one scary piece of text.
But you would never gain a card you cannot gain.No, you would gain it, but instead, you do something else. And that's exactly the reason why you cannot gain it. If you always reveal a Trader, you never actually gain any cards other than silvers, but you still would gain all sorts of cards.
But the first post states that the cards can never be gained. So you would never gain them. Of course your point makes sense, too. I think it's a bit like the question of the hen and the egg. Which was first?
Recruiter:
Kingdom - $4
When you would gain this, instead gain a card costing up to $5, and set it aside on your Servants mat.
---
During your turn, you may play cards from your Servants mat as if they were cards in your hand. Trash any cards you play this way.
But this isn't meaningless "definitional butchering" -- the point of the discussion is what a rating system should do with the situation that the Dominion rules call a "shared victory". You and Kirian believe that a "shared victory" equals a "tie", others think the words should be interpreted literally as a win for both players. It does matter for a rating system or tournament structure so it's not just a meaningless semantic debate.
Yes, and this second interpretation is definitionally incorrect, so the conversation should be over.
That would depend on the rules for the competitive environment. Dominion has no rules for tournaments or any structure beyond a single game (with the exception of the rule that the loser goes first next game). It is certainly not impossible to create a league or tournament structure where a "tie" is counted as a win for both players -- depending on the structure there may be no actual difference between a tie and a double-win, but it might make a difference.
For what it's worth, in the World Masters tournament, players who tied did not earn as many "points" as players who won outright.
It is certainly not impossible to create a league or tournament structure where a "tie" is counted as a win for both players -- depending on the structure there may be no actual difference between a tie and a double-win, but it might make a difference.
It is also not impossible to make a tournament structure where each match involves five games, and then a single die roll determines who actually wins. You can do it, but no one would.
Look, everyone here and elsewhere knows that "rejoice in your shared victory" is just a cute way of saying "tie." Both players do not actually win in competitive play.
I actually have been thinking of redoing the 'Princess' card. The idea that a woman is a prize to be won is one of my least favorite things about Dominion.
(More seriously, the card art seems less stereotypical than usual; is it just me or does she have some kind of weapons?)
Dude, that is 120% awesome! No, Murakami Ryu didn't write Vibrator; he maybe is best known for "Audition" which also was turned into a movie. But that's too gruesome for my tastes. Or "Almost Transparent Blue" which won the Akutagawa prize. I'm also going to check up on Soseki Natsume, I really enjoy Japanese literature, it has this...really...gosh, I'm searching for the right word, but I'm not finding it, which surprises me greatly...maybe "surreal" or "dystopian", or "personal" element to it. It's very moving, for sure.Anythign Murakami. anything by Haruki Murakami is just great.
But if you can't find him, and pick up Coin Locker Babies by Ryu Murakami, that's also good. Weird as all get-up, but good. Actually, Haruki Murakami's books are also mostly weird.
I've read 75% of Murakami Haruki's books. I met him once, before I cared about his stuff...hilariously, he told me his name and I was like "hey, you have the same name as that famous author." He looked me in the eye, with a death glare, and replied, "I am the famous author."
That all happened in Japanese, in front of a bunch of people who knew who he was, so it was extra hilarious.
Did Murakami Ryu write "Vibrator"? That's a good book.
Anyway, for my recommendation, buy Kokoro by Soseki Natsume (flip the name for books in English). If you can't find it, I Am A Cat by the same author is worthwhile.
Caves of Steel by Asimov has always been special to me; it was one of the first books I ever read as a kid.
I recently read the whole 14 book set that Asimov later called the "foundation series". Overall it was pretty good; I definitely suggest reading them in publication order rather than the internal chronological order that he suggested in 1988. Basically there are two groups -- the 50's "pulp" novels and then his return to the series in the 80's and 90's. Overall I would have to say I liked the 50's group better, but it is interesting seeing him try to combine all the books into a single story by the end. It's just too bad he never wrote anything that took place after Foundation and Earth.
I may be mistaken, but some of the final Foundation books weren't even written by Asimov. They may not be included in these 14 books, but it's the first three that are really good. The other ones are fine, but not of the same caliber as the initial ones.
There were, I think, only three written by others, and they aren't counted in the 14. There are four robot novels, three empire novels, and seven Foundation novels.
And I strongly disagree on quality; the early novels are shorter, less thoroughly plotted, and less complex. Oh, and generally have flat characters, and the only female characters are one dimensional set pieces if they exist.
I liked those books because I found they were less about the characters and more about the idea of the Foundation. It's a greater picture, not really about the people.
Caves of Steel by Asimov has always been special to me; it was one of the first books I ever read as a kid.
