Most games are of the sort that someone should be able to trailblaze multiple paths to victory that cannot be blocked by everyone else.If most games are two player or have two teams or are co-ops or N-against-1 or are decisionless then hey, no politics. Multiplayer games with interaction and decisions always have politics, and not every designer tries to mute the politics.
Risk is not unique, it is typical of an era.
Name, reaction, and artwork of Horse Traders synergise very well. I find this card very thematic.Bazaar has that name because there was unused art from the main set that needed to be used - specifically, unused art for Market.
Bazaar should have been a Village. Every card which looks like a market should net a Buy.
Richard Garfield argues that all political games are the same; he likes politics but doesn't need more games that have it. I don't remember how he actually argues this, but it seems to me that if convincing another player to do things good for both of you is more useful than whatever else you're doing with the components, then that's the game, the rest is window dressing.
This could probably beat an Amb opening (assuming Estates; it could definitely beat Amb assuming Shelters).
Kingdom : Native Village, Ambassador, Market Square, Scheme, Death Cart, Salvager, Smithy, Treasure Map, Hunting Party, Mine
I would seldom buy Death Cart, unless there was a good combo like Trader or Watchtower in the kingdom."In the kingdom" wouldn't cut it, I presume you mean "in hand", since you want to use the reaction part of the cards you mentioned?
I think the biggest reason he's celebrated now is because he strongly defended his models and their prediction of Obama's relatively easy win, compared to a large number of more conservative (in both senses of the word) commentators who seemed to be trying to drum up excitement by suggesting it was going to be neck-and-neck. And, yes, he guessed all of the states and got the margins of error pretty close, too.
/in, game has started with Galzria and Tables.Ok, 4 player game hosted.Done after about a week, next game f.DStrategy.6 hosted with same password.
Maybe I should mention the name is f.DStrategy.5 and the passowrd is Dominion
Things not to discuss on the internet:
Religion, politics, probability, and whether .99999.... = 1
In a frequentist setting: Depends if your null hypothesis is directional. If it was P(heads) <= 0.5, I could immediately reject it at the alpha = 0.51 level.For sure using jargon is not going to be how to communicate clearly here, even if the jargon seems precise to you. I am not looking for the xkcd comic that explains those terms.
In a Bayesian setting: If you have a non-degenerate prior symmetric around P(heads) = 0.5 the first toss would lead to an asymmetric posterior in either direction. How is this not evidence?
For example if you flip tails, you know the coin doesn't always flip heads. That's something right there.
But that imbalance, trickery, or whatnot might be biased either direction, and we have no a priori evidence that it will be in one direction or the other. Even factoring in the possibility of an unbalanced coin, our expectation value for heads is 0.5 on each flip, without performing any flips. Coming up heads on the first flip does not suddenly change our expectation value; it's, again, just one data point.
In a frequentist setting: Depends if your null hypothesis is directional. If it was P(heads) <= 0.5, I could immediately reject it at the alpha = 0.51 level.
In a Bayesian setting: If you have a non-degenerate prior symmetric around P(heads) = 0.5 the first toss would lead to an asymmetric posterior in either direction. How is this not evidence?
I think there's a disconnect here between what statisticians, or at least you, mean by "evidence" and what scientists mean by "evidence."
For those of us in the latter group, something numerical isn't evidence until it's significant. One coin flip is not significant no matter what kind of terminology you try to apply to it.
It's as if I were back in my genetics lab, and claimed GeneA and GeneB were linked (i.e., near each other on the same chromosome) based on the fact that one person had mutations in both.
Maybe statistical terminology means something different at that basic level, but I really don't think you'd have seen Nate Silver making predictions about the outcome of the Presidential race based on any single poll...
In a Bayesian setting: If you have a non-degenerate prior symmetric around P(heads) = 0.5 the first toss would lead to an asymmetric posterior in either direction. How is this not evidence?
But as far as I see our prior on "is the coin rigged" does not change, it just changes the "in which way is the coin rigged" prior. Edit: Assuming symmetric prior.
Edit2: So assuming you have some 99.9% prior on "not rigged", the statement "the first heads does not change this prior" is correct in normal day use, because it does not really matter if some of your 0.05% for "rigged for tails" moves to "heads".
But that imbalance, trickery, or whatnot might be biased either direction, and we have no a priori evidence that it will be in one direction or the other. Even factoring in the possibility of an unbalanced coin, our expectation value for heads is 0.5 on each flip, without performing any flips. Coming up heads on the first flip does not suddenly change our expectation value; it's, again, just one data point.
But it IS some amount of evidence of a somewhat rigged (and by somewhat rigged, I don't necessarily mean 100-0) coin. I don't care if it's in the middle of a zillion flips or if it's the only ten flips you do. Every heads flip is evidence that it comes up heads more often, and every tails flip is evidence it comes up tails. Now, sure, if you flip it a million times and have ONE instance of ten heads in a row, then you shouldn't ignore the other 9,999,990 flips, but this is a total strawman - nobody's going to do that. And even in this case, those ten flips are still evidence that it's "rigged", just you have a lot of other evidence you need to look at too.Dude. I can consider all the flips at once and see what they say. I don't have to look at just one flip. The fact that it's different if I look at just one flip does not stop me from looking at all of them. The fact that it's different if I consider all of them vs. if I consider a subset is the part I like.
In my experience, market square is pretty weak (much weaker than tunnel), but even, I wouldn't rank it in this part of the list.
Forager, on the other side, is one of the best trashers of the game. I would say Forager > Steward > Loan > Lookout > Trade route.
You'll have 1 corruption, is that okay? spreadsheet shows after production currently)
Qvist scores 0 culture, 1 science, and produces 3 food (4-1 consumption) and 3 resources (3-0 corruption). He then draws 0 military cards.
Well I don't think I'd want the increased price to persist through your opponent's turn.
To me, it's fundamentally important that Copper costs $0, since it means that no matter is done, at least you can buy a Copper. Then even under relentless militia attacks, three Copper buys Silver, three Silver buys Gold, and 1xSilver + 2xGold buys Province (three Gold buys Platinum, and 2xGold + Plat buys a Colony). If you up the price of Copper for opponents, then you open the door to pinning.Certainly. I didn't say I'd want this void to be filled. But there are options to put a limit to the pin, like M:tG's cumulative upkeep.
A card which increases prices.I'd like to see a card which increases prices, but how do you make it exciting?
A card which cares about the top of the discard pile.
