In fact, it's the other way round. If your average treasure value is $2, then venture behaves exactly like gold. Except that it speeds up reshuffling, which means you will draw the victory cards you buy earlier, and so BM decks with venture are less resilient to greening, not more.This is the same fallacy as the theorem. When you reshuffle, you put cards into your draw pile, not into your hand. Without cards that skip other cards, every card in your draw pile eventually ends up in your hand, so these are often the same. But with Venture, this is not the case. Cards in your draw pile have a chance (proportional to the amount of Ventures you have) to never end up in your hand.
I've never fully understood the claim that venture lets you green earlier. Most (but not all) of the time venture is worse than gold in terms of average yield, granted, adding green cards doesn't affect that value but neither does it affect the value of, for example, gold/merchant ship/silver/hoard. Now granted greening does adversely affect cards that draw, and many (nearly all) attacks are significantly less damaging to an opponent in a greened deck. But the statement that (non-ridiculously chained ventures) significantly help with greening is no different than the statement that high value treasure helps with greening.In fact, it's the other way round. If your average treasure value is $2, then venture behaves exactly like gold. Except that it speeds up reshuffling, which means you will draw the victory cards you buy earlier, and so BM decks with venture are less resilient to greening, not more.
It gives you 1+ [the average value of the rest of your treasures]. Roughly, I think this would be greater than 3 when (number silvers + 2*number of golds) > (number of coppers). So if you've trashed no coppers, it'll be after you have 3 or 4 silvers and 2 golds.
And with the militia/masquerade, are you saying that keeping a "junk" card is what should be done, or simply what IS done. For example, assuming your opponent is at the start of their deck after a reshuffle and plays "Village, Militia" and you know there is a chance of a masquerade, and your hand is something like Gold-Gold-Silver-Copper-Copper, are you saying to keep a copper and forgo a chance of a province, or is keeping GGS and potentially passing a silver worth the risk. Obviously it depends on board, situation, etc. but in general.I am not sure it's even worth making a general recommendation, other than "you really have to follow your opponent's deck in this situation". I.e., if he is going to draw his entire deck this turn, you better keep that junk card. If, on the other hand, he has already played the masquerade since the last reshuffle, you should of course keep that silver.
UGH, im willing to bet Italy-Spain will be a snore festI hope you didn't put any money on this bet
The players can always respond with comments.
If watching the video is going to hurt your feelings, you could just not watch the video. The better option is to be more rational. The feedback is either wrong and should be discarded, or right and should be contemplated and perhaps cause some future play adjustments.
Of course, I'd still honor his wishes, even if they are crazy, just like I let people disable my point counter.
Trader-x. Again, the collusion is fine.
I like Chapel for $3, because this causes 5/2 openers to either spend 5 on Chapel or take the good 5 first (Witch, Mountebank) and get the Chapel later (or not at all). I think this is more fair for the unlucky 4/3 opener who stands more of a chance against the 5/2s this way.This would make it more fair when there is a superduper $5 card, but I think on all other kingdom's it would just add chapel to 5/2-opening's nightmares, and make it too unfair in the other direction. The silver in a tyipcal silver/chapel opening is quite important (especially since you may spend two of the next four turns not buying anything.
I mean, depends on what information you're trying to conceal. I'm used to playing card games where my opponents don't get to know my cards. My partners don't either, but based on playing with me a lot, they can figure out what situations I'm likely to do what in. My gameplay changes a lot based on the score, and it also changes a lot based on how I read my opponents. Now, there are a couple people I've played enough with and talked to about my reasoning enough that they know how I'm going to react to these different situations reasonably well. But it's a lot of feel, and it's going to be difficult to draft up on a card. Furthermore, the big thing is that I'd have to explain what I think my partner means by his bids to my opponents. Like, I know his subtleties, so I know that at this point of the game, he's much more likely to be bluffing, or he's playing more aggressively, or he's now calling for me to do X. But, I really don't see why I should have to tell you that. And maybe that means I don't want to play bridge. But what I'm describing is also not 'degenerate', as you say.
In general, how do you decide between Trader and Horse Trader to open?It depends on the kingdom.
In the same way Chelsea deserved to win the Champions League final, because they defended well, and were effective. In general (barring mistakes by the referee) the team that wins almost always deserves it, for all sufficiently good definitions of "deserve to win".
