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 - tlloyd

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15
26
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Magician
« on: May 18, 2012, 02:35:50 pm »
I'm still leery of the 'when you place a card on a pile' thing. What if that pile is a Supply pile? Does the Magician go there?

I raised this point in my post, although I don't have a perfect answer. You could change the language to read "non-supply pile" (I just realized there's another crazy combo with Black Market!). That's a bit awkward. You could simply state in the instructions that supply piles don't count. That's not very satisfying. Or you could follow the Hinterlands instructions (I forget which card) and simply state that Magician does not interact with Ambassador.

Or you could just let it happen! Plenty of fan-made cards envision allowing you to block supply piles by putting other cards on top (as Donald originally envisioned Embargo). My card just did it by accident. :)

27
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Magician
« on: May 18, 2012, 02:10:25 pm »
I've tweaked the card a bit, making it (I think) simpler but weaker:

Magician
Action - Reaction ($3)
"Trash a card from your hand. You may gain a card with equal or lower cost."
- - -
"When you place a card on a pile, you may reveal Magician from your hand. If you do, put the card into your hand, and put Magician on that pile."


So when you trash, gain or top-deck a card, you reveal Magician and then the two cards switch places. This means
- You can still save your Colony from your opponent's Saboteur (and gain a Platinum for your trouble), but only at the expense of trashing your Magician.
- You can still trash a Colony with one Magician, gain a Colony, and reveal a second Magician to recover the trashed Colony, but once again only by trashing the second Magician.
- In general Magician is much weaker at its intended purpose (strengthening strategies that rely heavily on one-shots), but that might be a good thing, balance-wise.
- Magician does not duplicate Watchtower any longer, but in a very limited sense outclasses it, because you put a gained card right into your hand.
- Two Magicians really could amount to a reverse Swindler, since you could trash the Duchy with one, gaining a new ($5 card), and reveal the second Magician to put the newly gained card right into your hand.
- There is a very odd and potentially interesting reaction with Ambassador (can you put a Magician on top of some other supply pile?) I don't know how serious this bug would be or how to fix it.

I like this version a lot, but I think it's somewhat weak. Would it be better at $4 and make it non-terminal?

28
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: SuperHaven
« on: May 16, 2012, 12:56:03 pm »
I also have proposed a card called Super Haven, but I took it in a different direction. Rather than allowing you to set aside any number of cards for a single turn, it allowed you to set aside a single card for any number of turns.

29
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Magician
« on: May 11, 2012, 08:20:44 pm »
For "do something" I was thinking in the senses you described: putting on deck, discarding and trashing.  So you wouldn't be able to use it to turn junk in hand into useful actions.

But that still allows plays like the following:

1. Play Mining Village, +1 card +2 actions, trash it for +2 coin
2. Reveal Magician, trash a copper/curse/estate from hand, place Mining Village back in hand
3. Repeat 1 and 2 until you no longer have/draw a card that you are willing to trash for +2 coin
4. Use your 47* actions to draw and play the rest of your deck
5. Use your 93* coin to buy all the Provinces

*not intended to be a serious estimate

This card seems really cool, even if it might not be practical.  I think some of the most broken examples (like this one) can be at least half fixed by making sure the wording causes it to behave like Trader.  In this particular case, trashing a different card instead of the Mining Village would cause the "If you do" clause to fail, and you wouldn't get the +2 coins.  It is still pretty broken since you can trash through your entire deck as 1 shot Villages, but it wouldn't be quite as absurd.

This would also prevent the Swindler reveals a Province, keep it and gain another example brought up before, but it would still be strong to be able to Magician in an Estate when the Swindler hit.

I'm not sure I follow you. My proposed card recovers the trashed card after it gets trashed, so you still get any bonus that was contingent on the trashing.

30
Dominion General Discussion / Re: $5's That Make You Open Feast
« on: May 11, 2012, 04:47:52 pm »
I've mentioned this before in other threads, but it's just so classic: when my bro-in-law was fairly new to the game he opened Feast/- with $5/$2. When I asked why he took the Feast over a $5 card, he said he didn't want any $5 cards!  :D

31
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Magician
« on: May 11, 2012, 03:17:31 pm »
For "do something" I was thinking in the senses you described: putting on deck, discarding and trashing.  So you wouldn't be able to use it to turn junk in hand into useful actions.

But that still allows plays like the following:

1. Play Mining Village, +1 card +2 actions, trash it for +2 coin
2. Reveal Magician, trash a copper/curse/estate from hand, place Mining Village back in hand
3. Repeat 1 and 2 until you no longer have/draw a card that you are willing to trash for +2 coin
4. Use your 47* actions to draw and play the rest of your deck
5. Use your 93* coin to buy all the Provinces

*not intended to be a serious estimate

32
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Magician
« on: May 11, 2012, 01:34:03 pm »
1. Should the action allow you to gain an identical card, or should it be limited to "a different card of equal or lower cost." If the card can be the same, having two magicians in hand allows you to simply gain a copy of any other card you have in hand (although at the expense of playing one magician and discarding the other, along with the target card).

That doesn't sound even close to overpowered, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Here's another take on the reaction mechanics: whenever you do something with a card you may swap that card for one in your hand and do it to the new card instead.

Example interactions: play a Feast, then trash an Estate from your hand instead of the Feast, and put the Feast back in your hand.

Your Province is Swindled, you can trash a Copper from your hand, place the Province in hand, then gain another Province.

You're forced to discard Copper to Cutpurse, you put it back in your hand and discard a Curse.

Gain a Village with Ironworks, discard a card to put it in your hand.

This fits nicely with your proposed upper half and the theme of card manipulation.  It doesn't look obviously overpowered, but as an alternative to reveal-and-discard if it is you could replace the "switch with card from hand" by "look at the top card of your deck and optionally switch", Sea Hag style.

That's an interesting idea, and as you say it fits the theme I described. But I worry that it would mess with the mechanics of the game in fundamental ways. For example, if I have a hand of Minion, copper x3, and Magician, could I play Minion but swap in a copper to play that instead? So I play all my copper and then get a new hand with Minion? I would bet there are hundreds of such cases where the reaction you describe would be either too strong or just completely disrupt the standard rules of the game.

33
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Magician
« on: May 10, 2012, 05:31:44 pm »
So I just thought of a possible action to pair with Magician's reaction. How about a reverse swindler?

Magician
Action - Reaction ($4)
"Trash a card from your hand. You may gain a card with equal or lower cost."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When a card is placed on a pile, you may reveal this card from your hand and discard it. If you…
-Trashed a card, gain it (to your Discard pile)
-Gained a card, place it on your deck
-Placed a card on your deck, place it in your hand"


Two more questions:
1. Should the action allow you to gain an identical card, or should it be limited to "a different card of equal or lower cost." If the card can be the same, having two magicians in hand allows you to simply gain a copy of any other card you have in hand (although at the expense of playing one magician and discarding the other, along with the target card).

2. If you use the action to trash, should the gaining be mandatory or optional? Turning Curses into Coppers is okay, but usually not as good as getting rid of the curses altogether.

34
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Magician
« on: May 10, 2012, 05:13:59 pm »
This is a complete counter to Ghost Ship -- any reason to think that's a problem? (Moat is too, after all).

I don't think it's a complete counter.  It would change GS from "place X cards on top of deck" to "place X-1 cards on top of deck and discard Magician".  Say you have 5 in hand.  You would place 2 on your deck, then reveal and discard magician to put one of those cards back into your hand.  You still end up with a 5-card hand.

Of course, maybe you could argue some weird timing rule:

Opponent Plays Ghost Ship.
You place one card on top of deck.  You now have 4 cards in hand.
You reveal and discard Magician.  You now have 3 cards in hand and the attack is concluded.
Magician allows you to return the top-decked card to your hand.  You end with 4 cards.

But then you have the effects of each card interwoven with one another.  I think it would make more sense if you only revealed after placing 2 cards on the deck.  Or, if you "interrupt" the attack with the Magician reaction, the attack resumes afterwards so you still have to top-deck one of the cards from your 4 card hand.

Yeah, you're right. I was forgetting about the "reveal-and-discard".

35
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Magician
« on: May 10, 2012, 04:44:08 pm »
I've been trying to come up with language concise enough to fit on a card. Here's my best attempt so far:

Magician
Reaction ($3)

"When a card is placed on a pile, you may reveal this card from your hand and discard it. If you…
-Trashed a card, gain it (to your Discard pile)
-Gained a card, place it on your deck
-Placed a card on your deck, place it in your hand"


I am pretty sure that the person who trashes a card is always the person who "owned" the card before it was trashed, so this prevents serious abuse with Saboteur, etc. Also, although the wording is a bit awkward, I think it is clear enough that a single reveal-and-discard of Magician does not allow you to trigger all three reactions, thus placing a trashed one-shot right back in your hand.

Some remaining questions:

This is a complete counter to Ghost Ship -- any reason to think that's a problem? (Moat is too, after all).  [EDIT: Nope - not a complete counter to Ghost Ship after all. In fact the only effect it can have is to allow you to discard Magician and only put one card back on your deck.]

In contrast, this does nothing against Militia, since as worded it does nothing in response to discarding a card (as opposed to gaining a card to your discard pile). Should this be changed? If so, how would you word it? Maybe "If you...Gained or Discarded a card, place it on your deck."

Finally, the awkward "when a card is placed on a pile" is potentially problematic, since you can reveal it in response to almost anything on anyone's turn. I tried to mitigate this by making the option "reveal and discard" instead of "you may reveal" followed by "you may discard." In other words, if you reveal it you have to discard it. The only odd feature of this wording then is the fact that you can chuck this card from your hand at will, say in anticipation of a Minion attack. I don't know how significant that bug is or how it could be fixed.




36
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Card Idea: Tariff
« on: May 10, 2012, 11:22:52 am »
Why is this called tariff? I don't see anything in the gameplay that resembles a tax on imports. Did you make that choice because the card feels like embargo and embargo ~ tariff? Maybe call it Customs House or even Trade War.

37
Variants and Fan Cards / Magician
« on: May 09, 2012, 04:51:54 pm »
Somewhere in the Secret Histories Donald mentioned that he had more ideas for one-shot cards, and that we might see more in the future. I think one-shot cards are very interesting strategically, but it's hard to see how games would work if many or most of the kingdom cards were one-shots. This put in my head the idea of a card that would allow you to recover your one-shots. Rather than another "sift through the trash pile for goodies" card, I envisioned a reaction that would work like a reverse Watchtower -- allowing you to gain cards that had just been trashed.

In order to make the card relevant, though, it has to do something else as well, and it probably needs to ensure that cards get trashed. This could mean one of three things: make it a trash-for-benefit card, make it a trashing attack, or make it a one-shot itself. All are interesting possibilities.

Meanwhile, I've been thinking that there should be a card that allows you to put gained cards directly into your hand, which also is a spin-off of Watchtower. The common connection to Watchtower led me to combine the two ideas as follows:

In plain English the card can react to three different events: (1) if a card from your deck was just trashed, you may gain it (to your discard pile); (2) if you just gained a card, you may move it to your deck; and (3) if you just placed a card on your deck, you may place it in your hand. Obviously in order to keep a trashed one-shot from coming right back into your hand, this card would have to use a reveal-and-discard mechanic.

Notice that this reaction would not allow you to trash incoming curses, so in that respect Watchtower still has a unique function. But it would allow you to snatch back the Colony that just got Sabotaged (you also get to gain a Platinum, because your Colony was in fact trashed, but the Plat can't go on top of your deck if you intend to save your Colony).

If that's all the card does though, then it only serves as a half-watchtower in games without certain trashers or top-decking potential. But I'm already worried that there is no sufficiently concise way to word the reaction component. Also, this card could be terribly confusing with Possession, could make Forge, the Remodel family, and trash-for-benefit cards very powerful, and would completely nerf Saboteur.

As for the name, I'm inclined to go with Magician, as it connotes both bringing the "dead" back to life and sleight of hand with cards. I would welcome any thought on cost, whether an action is necessary and what it should be (I like the idea of a card that is simply a reaction, if it is worth buying), and any other potential problems I may have overlooked (I'm sure there are many).

38
GokoDom / Re: Kirian's Bracket, Week 7
« on: May 09, 2012, 04:02:49 am »
Coheed played well, and I made some errors, but boy did I catch every bad break imaginable in these games. Oh well.

Game 1: I figured Jack is good for getting rid of estates and Trading Post would be good for getting rid of Coppers. I still think it could have worked, but probably Spice Merchant is the safer bet.

Game 2: I think you have to buy the last City, even though it gives your opponent the first turn with better cities, if doing so is necessary to avoid a 7/3 split in his favor. I probably should have just sucked it up and bought a City for $9 instead of that first Province.

Game 3: Border Village + Wharf is very strong. Embassy + Tunnel is also quite strong. Probably all four could make for a decent strategy, but Jack's simplicity is also very strong. Coheed's attempt to incorporate Jack into the engine strategy was just asking for trouble. I think this game was closer than it might have been.

Game 4: If any play sums up how this series went, it's my buying a Province when Coheed's five-card hand was Library, 4xFG. Talk about a punch to the gut. It's not just that he gained a Province, or even that he did so without losing a turn. The worst part was that on a single turn he largely extricated himself from a losing FG strategy. Even though I won this game I got the distinct impression that the universe had it out for me tonight.

Game 5: Once again my rhythm was off in this game. Obviously in an IGG game you've got to hit $5 consistently, and once again I pull an early $8. How do you ignore that in an IGG game? You've got to buy a Province when you can, right? Because it's going to come down to a Duchy race, right? Not if you have such a hard time reaching $5 afterward that you end up swallowing 8 Curses. There's simply no way that a Fool's Gold strategy is the right play on an IGG board -- I mean lots of IGG games never even touch the Provinces! So with all due respect to Coheed, the outcome of this game was simply ridiculous. I will note that I overbought Nomad Camps, but I did so in a desperate attempt to reach $5 before Coheed had handed me all the curses.

Game 6: I didn't play this one well, partly due to the soul-crushing defeats I had already suffered up to this point. I'm still unsure about Oasis vs. Silver here (I am in most games with Oasis actually). Silver is worth more and you can play it if you draw it from Ironworks, but Oasis should give you better cycling so you play your key card (Ironworks) more often. Oasis should be especially useful when your strategy is to flood your deck with green cards. Regardless, I think I bought too many Oases and switched to Estates too late. For all the bad luck I had in the other games, this one comes down to poor play.

Game 7: I think Coheed's play was actually quite clever here, and my claim that his strategy should never have worked was clearly the result of Coheed's having mopped the floor with me over seven games. I do, however, think Coheed's draws couldn't have been planned much better. Despite using finicky drawers (Crossroads needs green, Stables needs treasure) his cycling over the course of the game is excellent. He reshuffles after turns 3, 4, and 5, and after that is off and running.

My expectation - which I have learned was incorrect - was that Coheed's Pirate Ships would make up for one of Jack's few weaknesses: the inability to trash copper. But look at the treasures Coheed's ships trash from my deck: Silver, Copper, Silver, Gold, Silver, Silver, Copper, Copper. By the time the last two coppers were trashed the game was long over. His excellent cycling and very effective crippling of my economy (in a double Jack deck!) was a killer combination.

Thanks for the game Coheed. I hope we get a chance for a rematch.  :P

39
Game Reports / Re: The (Disappearing Village) (Draw up to X) engine
« on: May 08, 2012, 05:40:46 pm »
Library and Watchtower neutralize the advantage drawing villages generally have over non-drawing villages, they don't turn it into a disadvantage!

I don't think that's true if you're using Library to draw the cards.  Yes, the number of cards you ultimately end up with will be the same, but Library includes the option to set aside action cards, which gives slightly better control over what is drawn.

That said, you make a good point above.

This is also a valid point. I would suggest that it is somewhat offset by the fact that a plain Village gives you a better chance to get to your Library in the first place, but point taken.

40
Game Reports / Re: The (Disappearing Village) (Draw up to X) engine
« on: May 08, 2012, 05:38:11 pm »
In general, speaking of not just shanty town: non-drawing villages always have some sort of advantage to offset the fact that they are non-drawing. In the presence of Library or Watchtower, being non-drawing is not a disadvantage at all; it's basically neutral. Thus, the additional benefit of the non-drawing village gets to be used without the drawback, making it powerful.

This I completely agree with. It is quite a contrast with many of the preceding arguments. 

41
Game Reports / Re: The (Disappearing Village) (Draw up to X) engine
« on: May 08, 2012, 05:34:34 pm »
I pretty clearly stated my argument in my post.

Shanty town without draw to X does one of two things, one of which is better than vanilla village, one of which is worse.
Shanty town WITH draw to X does one of THREE things, one of which is better than vanilla village, one of which is the same, one of which is worse.

The "worse" option in ST-DrawtoX is relatively more unlikely than the better, making ST better than village in draw-to-X engines.

Capiche?

Perhaps we could agree that Shanty Town is not strictly a drawing or non-drawing village. Perhaps we could also agree that Shanty Town is better when it acts like a drawing village than when it acts like a non-drawing village. We might also agree that the discussion was about whether non-drawing villages have an advantage over drawing villages when combined with Library or Watchtower. We could then conclude that your argument "Shanty Town > Village" is not quite responsive, even if true.

42
Game Reports / Re: The (Disappearing Village) (Draw up to X) engine
« on: May 08, 2012, 05:13:18 pm »

If that's your argument, then it is misplaced. The debate is not Shanty Town vs. Village. The debate is "disappearing village" (one that does not replace itself, or results in a decreased handsize) vs. "drawing village." It's somewhat ironic then that you are using Shanty Town as the champion of the non-drawing villages, when it's only potential advantage over village is that it may draw more. Guess what, level 2 Cities will beat Shanty Towns in the match you proposed. Why? Because they draw more!


I'm also up to playing the same mirrormatch where you buy cities and I buy shanty towns, if you're seriously considering using that flawed of an argument.  ;)  We certainly aren't ignoring cost differences.

I honestly can't tell if you're playing dumb on purpose just to drag the debate out, or if you simply failed to read the whole thread. If your argument is that non-drawing villages are better than drawing villages in games with L/W because they tend to be cheaper, then say so. That would be logical. But that's not what chwhite said:

...you absolutely do prefer to load up on the disappearing Village, because otherwise the second Library/Watchtower won't be doing much drawing.

And that's not what you have been saying either:

The point is that you need +actions in these games and dissapearing villages basically become much much better than villages, because their either the same card with a +1card boosted (IE, you have library in hand), or your Shanty Town most likely activates for +draw.

Although frankly I'm not sure you know what you're saying.

43
Game Reports / Re: The (Disappearing Village) (Draw up to X) engine
« on: May 08, 2012, 04:50:59 pm »
If you're planning on building up to an engine that plays more than one Library/Watchtower per turn, than you absolutely do prefer to load up on the disappearing Village, because otherwise the second Library/Watchtower won't be doing much drawing.  (Unless of course there's additional discard/cycling around as well.)

This is exactly the kind of silly argument I've been talking about (no offense to chwhite): "You don't want your village to draw one more card because then your Watchtower will draw one less card!" The whole point of Library/Watchtower is that you'll draw up to a set handsize -- regardless of how many cards your villages drew for you. Library and Watchtower neutralize the advantage drawing villages generally have over non-drawing villages, they don't turn it into a disadvantage!

The point is that you need +actions in these games and dissapearing villages basically become much much better than villages, because their either the same card with a +1card boosted (IE, you have library in hand), or your Shanty Town most likely activates for +draw.

Do you care if you have a village or a shanty town in a hand with library? Usually not. But you're welcome to lose 2-8 in a set of ten of these engine games where the only difference is I buy shanty town/fishing village and you buy village.

Hamlet IS uniquely superior because it gives you a cellar-type effect for your crappy coppers aswell.

Hamlet and Inn are often better than plain Village with Library/Watchtower, but they are not strictly superior (not sure what you meant by "uniquely" superior) because there you may regret having to discard any of the cards you have in hand in order to get the +Actions.

As for Fishing Village, clearly it's stronger than Village -- but that's generally true even without Library/Watchtower. L/W eliminate FV's only real weakness, making FV much better than Village. But the reason FV is so strong is not because it is non-drawing; it's the coin and duration effect. If FV also drew a card, that would make FV stronger still -- even in a game with L/W.

As for Shanty Town, it's only potentially better than Village because it can potentially draw more cards!!! So I'm not sure that does much for your argument.

My argument is that we should play mirror matches with library engines, me using shanty town and you using a vanilla village if you don't understand why Shanty Town is superior in this case :p. They're either equal (Library in hand) or ST is superior (No library in hand) if you have sufficient +actions (say you're combining this case with FV)

If that's your argument, then it is misplaced. The debate is not Shanty Town vs. Village. The debate is "disappearing village" (one that does not replace itself, or results in a decreased handsize) vs. "drawing village." It's somewhat ironic then that you are using Shanty Town as the champion of the non-drawing villages, when it's only potential advantage over village is that it may draw more. Guess what, level 2 Cities will beat Shanty Towns in the match you proposed. Why? Because they draw more!

44
Game Reports / Re: The (Disappearing Village) (Draw up to X) engine
« on: May 08, 2012, 04:38:54 pm »
If you're planning on building up to an engine that plays more than one Library/Watchtower per turn, than you absolutely do prefer to load up on the disappearing Village, because otherwise the second Library/Watchtower won't be doing much drawing.  (Unless of course there's additional discard/cycling around as well.)

This is exactly the kind of silly argument I've been talking about (no offense to chwhite): "You don't want your village to draw one more card because then your Watchtower will draw one less card!" The whole point of Library/Watchtower is that you'll draw up to a set handsize -- regardless of how many cards your villages drew for you. Library and Watchtower neutralize the advantage drawing villages generally have over non-drawing villages, they don't turn it into a disadvantage!

The point is that you need +actions in these games and dissapearing villages basically become much much better than villages, because their either the same card with a +1card boosted (IE, you have library in hand), or your Shanty Town most likely activates for +draw.

Do you care if you have a village or a shanty town in a hand with library? Usually not. But you're welcome to lose 2-8 in a set of ten of these engine games where the only difference is I buy shanty town/fishing village and you buy village.

Hamlet IS uniquely superior because it gives you a cellar-type effect for your crappy coppers aswell.

Hamlet and Inn are often better than plain Village with Library/Watchtower, but they are not strictly superior (not sure what you meant by "uniquely" superior) because you may regret having to discard any of the cards you have in hand in order to get the +Actions.

As for Fishing Village, clearly it's stronger than Village -- but that's generally true even without Library/Watchtower. L/W eliminate FV's only real weakness, making FV much better than Village. But the reason FV is so strong is not because it is non-drawing; it's the coin and duration effect. If FV also drew a card, that would make FV stronger still -- even in a game with L/W.

As for Shanty Town, it's only potentially better than Village because it can potentially draw more cards!!! So I'm not sure that does much for your argument.

45
Game Reports / Re: The (Disappearing Village) (Draw up to X) engine
« on: May 08, 2012, 03:26:42 pm »
If you're planning on building up to an engine that plays more than one Library/Watchtower per turn, than you absolutely do prefer to load up on the disappearing Village, because otherwise the second Library/Watchtower won't be doing much drawing.  (Unless of course there's additional discard/cycling around as well.)

This is exactly the kind of silly argument I've been talking about (no offense to chwhite): "You don't want your village to draw one more card because then your Watchtower will draw one less card!" The whole point of Library/Watchtower is that you'll draw up to a set handsize -- regardless of how many cards your villages drew for you. Library and Watchtower neutralize the advantage drawing villages generally have over non-drawing villages, they don't turn it into a disadvantage!

46
Game Reports / Re: The (Disappearing Village) (Draw up to X) engine
« on: May 08, 2012, 12:35:28 pm »
There's another village that fits will with this type of engine:  Shanty Town.  If you have it in hand with your drawer, it's exactly what you want - a non-drawing village.  If you have it in hand alone, it does the drawing for you.  (Modest drawing, but still more drawing than you'd get from most other villages.)

And on the pricier disappearing village side, one can't forget Inn. 

The notion that you "want a non-drawing village" is frequently overstated. In the case of Library/Watchtower, the most you can say is that the drawback of a non-drawing village is mitigated by the variable-drawer. Of course, the non-drawing village might (1) have other compensating features (fishing village provides coin, university gains cards) that when combined with Library/Watchtower makes the non-drawing village strictly superior to Village; or (2) cost less, and thus be a better deal and easier to obtain in multiples. But none of that means you prefer the village to draw zero cards.

Menagerie is a different story, because its draw condition at times makes you prefer to draw nothing or, even better, to discard from your hand.

Don't forget the compensating features offered by the drawing card too.

For example, two comparative hands:

You have one action at present.

First possibility: Library-Village-silver-gold-silver
Second possibility: Library-Shanty Town-silver-gold-silver

Deck to come is: Moneylender, Library, Fishing Village, Fishing Village, Fishing Village, Fishing Village, Fishing Village...


Assume that the Moneylender has no more copper in the deck to work on.

In this hand, the Shanty Town is still strictly better than the Village.
With the village you'd draw the Moneylender then Library would draw you 2 Fishing Villages and the Library.
With the Shanty Town you'd not draw anything from it, then with Library you could choose to discard the Moneylender, and then have Library and 3 Fishing Villages instead.

I will grant you that laughably narrow set of circumstances. My general point still stands though: a village being non-drawing does not make Library/Watchtower stronger; Library/Watchtower makes non-drawing villages stronger.

47
Feedback / Re: Titles
« on: May 07, 2012, 11:52:33 pm »
These titles always remind me of of Zoolander, in light of which I think the highest title should be "David Bowie."  ;D

48
Game Reports / Re: The (Disappearing Village) (Draw up to X) engine
« on: May 07, 2012, 08:57:22 pm »
There's another village that fits will with this type of engine:  Shanty Town.  If you have it in hand with your drawer, it's exactly what you want - a non-drawing village.  If you have it in hand alone, it does the drawing for you.  (Modest drawing, but still more drawing than you'd get from most other villages.)

And on the pricier disappearing village side, one can't forget Inn. 

The notion that you "want a non-drawing village" is frequently overstated. In the case of Library/Watchtower, the most you can say is that the drawback of a non-drawing village is mitigated by the variable-drawer. Of course, the non-drawing village might (1) have other compensating features (fishing village provides coin, university gains cards) that when combined with Library/Watchtower makes the non-drawing village strictly superior to Village; or (2) cost less, and thus be a better deal and easier to obtain in multiples. But none of that means you prefer the village to draw zero cards.

Menagerie is a different story, because its draw condition at times makes you prefer to draw nothing or, even better, to discard from your hand.

49
Young Witch lets you hit those price points and the ability to scramble out of the curse filled muk butterfly affects the rest of the game.

I'm trying to imagine how I would have responded to this "gibberish" two years ago. Now it makes perfect sense to me.  :)

50
Solo Challenges / Re: No Treasure
« on: May 05, 2012, 11:01:26 am »
By the way, the first time I started a solitaire game to try this challenge, I didn't draw $5/$2 until turn 55! I think that's a personal record.
Logs or it didn't happen.

Did happen, no log. Unless Councilroom records solitaire games...

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15

Page created in 2.023 seconds with 18 queries.