Why?
This is the question I'd still like answered. A lot of the point of Ruins is that they're more interesting than Curses. Mostly that's because there are 5 different Ruins. Why change that?
Man, if I had to remove cards from these 3 sets, it would be Witch, Mountebank and Goons...
But never Saboteur or Trade route !
100% agree on Goons. I have not played a single game with Goons that has been fun, even when I'm the one racking in huge amounts of points. I don't understand why Trade Route is bad/not fun. It's a trasher, gives +buy and near the end of the game can make amazing money for it's price.
The seemingly oxymoronic concept of monopolistic competition actually exists. If Harry Potter books became too expensive, people would switch to reading Artemis Fowl. If the Goko implementation left something to be desired, people would switch to Isotropic Innovation.
After playing about a dozen games or so on Goko (enough for an opinion), here's what I can say about it:
It's not as bad as you'd think, it's not as good as you'd hope.
And unfortunately, this is what is going to keep Goko afloat. It is depressing to see a company get away with providing a thoroughly mediocre product, but as long as they are just "good enough," they have sole rights to many of the games that the players desperately want.
And also, you keep saying that Donald complained about freeloaders, but I don't think tthat's true. He complained (and rightfully, imo) that people were arguing against monetizing online Dominion. IIRC, those arguments weren't made against people who would have paid for Iso. Rather, it was addressing the entitled idea that people shouldn't have to pay for what was once free to them.
Has the author of Dominion ever settled the rule in this forum or elsewhere?
Not really a rules question, but this seemed like the best place.
Donald, Beggar might be the one card you want to change in future editions. It doesn't say "you may discard this from your hand". Strictly speaking that's a mistake, and you've taken care to have "from your hand" everywhere else, but of course in practice nobody will misunderstand how to use it. So it wouldn't really be a rules change, just a correction.
Why is it not a valid argument when people are feeling entitled to it? Isn't that proof enough that it is a valid argument?
No, that's not how arguments work.
And I didn't say Destierro had to purchase Goko. He's perfectly free to do whatever he wants. However, the reasoning that he's entitled to play online for free because he bought the physical sets is not valid. He's not paying for "it" again, because he hasn't paid for it in the first place.
I won't.
I dislike the UI intensely, and I refuse to pay for something that I have already bought. I have all the physical parts of dominion, I don't want to pay for them again.
I will really, really miss isotropic.
Why do we keep hearing this argument? This is not a valid argument. Buying a DVD doesn't entitle you to a copy on your computer, particular when the DVD was released prior to such technology being available.
Baptismal (revised)
$4 - Action
Trash one Copper or Curse from your hand. If you do:
+ 1 Card
+ 1 Action
If you reveal a hand with no Copper or Curses, gain a Gold.
The attack portion is problematic because when played repeatedly, it can wipe out your opponents' turns. You should include a clause so that this only hits players with 5 or more cards in hand.
And for now, either we can just accept it, live descriptivist lives, and go on to live in an English where disinterested has two easily-confused meanings. Or we can stick to our roots and fight the change, preserving a word in English that doesn't really have a perfect substitute.
I have a bigger problem with Scavenger/Salvager.
