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 - Donald X.

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 185
26
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Card alchemy revelation....
« on: May 17, 2018, 01:32:03 am »
     

27
I'm buying my brother Dominion for his birthday. I can buy him the 2nd edition or for about the same price I can buy him the 1st edition and give him the update pack (I have an extra one i'll never use). So the decision is kind of whether or not to give him the old cards for free. The extra variety would be nice but are they so bad that it would be better to not give them to a new player at all?
I recommend 2E!

Note that you also get more readable cards (bigger font, better layout, better wordings), and better versions of the base cards, e.g. instead of



you get



28
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Card alchemy revelation....
« on: May 16, 2018, 05:15:39 pm »


29
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Card alchemy revelation....
« on: May 16, 2018, 12:33:54 am »
Drab Emordnilap

30
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 15, 2018, 04:38:11 pm »
I think if Inheritance had never worked on Durations and Reserve cards - and had been in Empires - no-one would have said, this sucks, I need to be able to turn Estates into Durations.

I think you underestimate our ability to complain about things.
This experiment has also been played out. There are tons of things that didn't happen that you guys never complain about.

31
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 15, 2018, 04:37:08 pm »
I think if Inheritance had never worked on Durations and Reserve cards - and had been in Empires - no-one would have said, this sucks, I need to be able to turn Estates into Durations.
I mean, true, but if you hadn't created Dominion, probably noone would have said, this sucks, I need a balanced, fun game that opens up a whole new genre of games. Still, in the end I imagine publishing Dominion has increased the overall fun.
I contrasted Inheritance-that-doesn't-work-on-Durations with Inheritance. You contrast Dominion with nothing.
What I put in for these placeholders doesn't really matter. The point is that the argument is not logically sound.
What you are saying just seems like nonsense to me. Of course what you compare matters. Something awesome and something 99% awesome are almost the same. Something awesome and nothing at all are much different.

32
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 15, 2018, 03:50:20 am »
I think if Inheritance had never worked on Durations and Reserve cards - and had been in Empires - no-one would have said, this sucks, I need to be able to turn Estates into Durations.
I mean, true, but if you hadn't created Dominion, probably noone would have said, this sucks, I need a balanced, fun game that opens up a whole new genre of games. Still, in the end I imagine publishing Dominion has increased the overall fun.
I contrasted Inheritance-that-doesn't-work-on-Durations with Inheritance. You contrast Dominion with nothing.

Man and look how easy it would have been to contrast Dominion with Dominion-without-Durations. That experiment has been played out. Dominion without Durations won nearly every award ever. The Durations part was not required.

33
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 15, 2018, 01:56:52 am »
How about letting the turn player decide which behavior happens like what happens first when multiple things are triggers at the same time? For example...
This is no good.

34
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 14, 2018, 06:14:24 pm »
All the fixes take away a significant amount of the fun you can have with Inheritance in order to deal with an obscure edge-case that will never come up in 1000 years of playing Dominion. As much as I see the beauty in structural clarity, it's just not worth it.
It's a classic problem. Which is more fun: the most fun version of a card, or the version that works the best with the rules? Either it's a tie, or the most fun version is more fun.

I think if Inheritance had never worked on Durations and Reserve cards - and had been in Empires - no-one would have said, this sucks, I need to be able to turn Estates into Durations.

35
has anyone else had this happen?  i bought intrigue a few months ago, but finally had a chance to play it.  when we opened it up, one of the sets was adventure cards instead of intrigue.  is it best to contact Rio Grand, amazon, or am i just out of luck.
This was a mistake on the part of the printer (who RGG has now stopped using). In fact you should contact RGG, and they will provide the missing cards. You can keep the Adventures ones, some of which will work without more components (the rulebook if you need it is on the RGG website).

At this point I think the estimate is that a few hundred copies were affected. Initially they guessed something like 88, it would be in multiples of 88 for some reason, or whatever number I'm forgetting but you know, something like that; then there were more than 88 so oops 176? Anyway other people were in fact affected, but most copies are fine.

36
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 14, 2018, 02:28:40 am »
Let's start by summarising how the situation arises.  It's a combination of four factors:
  • TR-alikes play an Action card multiple times by looking at the instructions on the card each time it's played.
  • The instructions on three Action cards, namely BoM, Overlord and inherited Estate, change dependent on the location of the card.
  • Some Action cards trash themselves when played, plus during the Action phase Crown can be trashed by buying Mint with Black Market or top-decked by gaining Mandarin.
  • Once such a card has been trashed or top-decked, a sequence of subsequent Actions can cause its location to become unknown.
The "TR-alikes" category is a trick; it's just a result of how the card mix fell out, and not some innately important category. Ditto the movement category.

Really, the broad problem is any way to interact with a card twice - for example Remodel trashes a card, then cares what it costs - plus a way to have a copy of a card change in some way without all copies of that card changing that way. You need to add whatever other effects to get the problem, based on what these two pieces look like, but these two pieces are the issue. With the right new cards (triggers on trashing / ways to feed off of them), Remodel would do this; we would have a card where we didn't know what it cost. We can get the cost part to fail for Procession now (also Procession is missing from your list): trivialknot's post, but we Procession instead of Throning, and everything goes down on the second play so that we don't have to first wonder what card gets played.

It looked like cards leaving play was part of it, but it isn't. Cards leaving play before clean-up is bad in that it creates tracking issues a variety of ways (e.g. Bonfire your Hireling), but it's only relevant here because Band of Misfits and Overlord specifically care about leaving play, and Inheritance cares about who has the card (and for a Throned card, it has to leave play to change that). It's part of the actual combos, but not relevant to the broad picture - the perspective of, what if there are 300 more Dominion cards, how do you make sure there aren't issues like this.

We want to be able to have cards like Remodel and Throne Room, and don't need to have shapeshifting cards that just change one copy or some copies, so they're the thing to fix.

Band of Misfits / Overlord could have changed all copies of themselves everywhere; again I think the move there is to not change any copies, just play the card from the Supply. And similarly with Inheritance, you could live with instant weirdness with changing all Estates on your turn, but I think it's better to just play the set-aside card as suggested.

Edit: I should add, yes there is also the category of fix that's, "here's a rule for if you want to know something about a card and it's moved from where you expect it to be." That handles future mistakes or fan cards, that part is nice. But I don't like how it's like lose-track, a confusing rule that no-one knows. I prefer changing three of the most confusing and ruling'd cards in the game.

And despite these posts there is no errata as of yet for those three cards; right now, there are extremely exotic situations that fail IRL (online, the program can track the shapeshifted card).

37
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 14, 2018, 01:52:13 am »
If there were a card that just said "You may play a victory card from your hand", then it seems almost clear that if you played that card, you would then successfully play a victory card. This leads me to believe that with TR+Estate-as-Feast, you would play the Estate twice (but only get the benefit of Feast the first time).
This at least has an easy ruling. Yes, if somehow you are told to play a Victory card that doesn't do anything when played, you first put it into play unless you've lost track of it, and then do nothing.

38
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 12, 2018, 07:32:10 pm »
How about losing track slighty harder as a solution?  If the current location of the card can't be determined without 'cheating', it retains the identity it had when last its location was known.
It is going to be hard for me to make the leap to "okay I am changing the rules; here is the rule almost no-one will know, that will never come up, but maybe, just maybe, will confuse someone reading the wiki or punchball's document."

If I could go back and do things better, the fix would be to not have this situation be possible, rather than to have more to the lose-track rule. Ideally lose-track itself would also not be possible; probably many of the abilities that move cards could have fairly similar forms without invoking that rule.

39
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 12, 2018, 07:27:21 pm »
Might it be simpler to fix Inheritance along these lines?

Once per game: Set aside a non-Duration Action card from the Supply costing up to $4. Move your Estate token to it.
Throughout this game: Estates are also actions. When you play one: play your Estate-token Action card, leaving it there.

By my understanding, that fixes the problem by arranging that every Estate in the game is identical; having Estates be Action-Victory cards isn't the problem.
It sounds like that works, although you do also need to fit the text in the box. Probably I would say "During your turns" rather than "throughout this game"; for one thing it continues the thought, it's part of the ability.

40
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 12, 2018, 04:55:43 pm »
--Play Band of Misfits as Mining Village, trash it
I see I see. There are of course several cards that trash themselves, and they are a way to have a card leave play.

To get the category as small as possible, my next guess is that it's just these three ways to make a card not be itself: Band of Misfits, Overlord, Inheritance. Can you mess up without those?

Band of Misfits and Overlord should be like Necromancer - play the card leaving it there, non-Duration. Inheritance should be e.g. "discard an Estate to..." (it's trickier than that because there's no terse way to say "you can do this any time you are allowed to play an action," although again it's too big of a change for errata, and if the card weren't published yet I wouldn't be trying to simulate it exactly).

41
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 12, 2018, 04:35:38 am »
When you gain this in your buy phase, topdeck all Treasures  in play.

Mandarin errata like this. This changes the fewest.
That wouldn't be enough for Mandarin - there are reasonable cards that would still break that. However the very similar "When you buy this..." would probably be enough, since it makes sure you aren't in the middle of resolving anything, unless it's something that lets you buy cards (which there aren't likely to be too many more of - Black Market is what does it now). And just having a new card that lets you buy a card isn't enough to be a problem, it would need to be a trigger, or specifically happen in the middle of doing two things with a card.

Though that just changes one word on Mandarin, it also gets rid of the Horn of Plenty trick.

Inheritance still hangs on a thread there, but I'm not seeing how to generate the problem with Bonfire or Procession.

42
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 12, 2018, 12:39:15 am »
The lose-track change would change Throne / Feast in the original main set; I'm not doing it. People don't know the lose track rule, and the main set rulebook said Throne / Feast worked. For new games this would be a thing to consider; Dominion does not want to mess with that.

I think you can lose track harder and still have Throning Feast work. One way would be to use last-known information for things you lost track of. Throne plays a card in your hand twice. That card's not in your hand anymore after the first play? (Actually true whatever it plays; Feast wouldn't even be a special case.) Ok, just play whatever that card was back when it was in your hand. Throne wants to play an Estate that used to be in your hand but has somehow maybe ended up around the world and in the supply or in your opponent's deck or maybe is still in your hand and nobody really knows for sure where it is? Just play whatever the Estate was when it was in your hand.

There would be complications with BoM, though. The way BoM works now, I guess a Throne would always end up playing it as BoM both times (because that's what it was in your hand) so you'd always get to choose an action to emulate for both plays. If you wanted to change that, maybe you could revert BoM to its old behavior and have it become Feast or whatever as you play it; then Throne would remember it as Feast and play it as Feast twice... which was how that originally worked anyway, I think. (To me, either one of those options seems like an improvement over the current situation where sometimes a Throned BoM is stuck as one card and sometimes it's not.)

Using last-known information would also, I guess, make things like Transmute and Procession work like Ritual and care what stuff looks like just before you trash it, not what it turns into afterwards.

It's something to think about. We aren't necessarily talking about a Throne Room; an effect could just play a card once, and somehow the card could vanish before being played (e.g. Summon if it didn't say "if you do"). So the rule can't be about what the card was the first time - there may have been no other time. However at some point we knew what card we were talking about, so we can refer to that. It would probably be a confusing rule, though to be fair it covers cases that are confusing any which way. It would be really simple to just not let you play a card without being able to put the physical card into play - like I said, a fine solution for some other game.

As I like to point out, the actual problem situation we are talking about is extremely obscure. So, the rules weight it adds wants to be correspondingly tiny.

43
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 12, 2018, 12:25:36 am »
----Play Herald, which plays University to gain Mandarin.
Clearly, the problem is Mandarin.

That's not even just silly. Moving cards in play ahead of clean-up (e.g. with Procession) creates tracking problems.

44
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 12, 2018, 12:22:58 am »
The behavior is correct, and you are correct about the other problem.

Wait, which behavior is correct?  You can't actually play the other person's Inherited card, right?
The following is the current game rules being executed correctly by the online program: "I played Throne Room to play a inherited Estate(Crown), to play Herald, to reveal and play University, gained Mandarin (topdecked that inherited Estate), played Herald (second time), drew the Estate, revealed and played Ambassador, returned the Estate, and played it (second time) AS THE CARD MY OPPONENT HAD INHERITED."

45
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Playing to lose?
« on: May 11, 2018, 07:35:41 pm »
If someone enjoys coming in second, hooray, someone is enjoying some innocent thing. Being against that is being the enemy of fun. I am not the enemy of fun; have all the fun coming in second that you want. If you want to think of it as "first loser" that's fine too.

It does come up for me personally; sometimes someone else is just winning, there's no two ways about it, and well, I play for second. It's more fun than just passing on my turn.

Playing for second reduces kingmaking issues and that's nice too. They aren't making a decision to kingmake; they're making a decision to try to come in 2nd.

Sometimes a player will try to end the game when they're losing. This is a nasty surprise if you don't know them, but is fine if you do know them. I have a playtester who does that all the time; it's just something to factor in. The piles are lower than they look because that guy will help empty them; points are more important than you'd think because of that too. It doesn't remove strategy, it's just important to know.

I have played thousands of games of Dominion with 3-4 players; somehow we had fun!

46
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 11, 2018, 07:28:48 pm »
Quote
I've found an undefined behavior on dominion.games.
I played Throne Room to play a inherited Estate(Crown), to play Herald, to reveal and play University, gained Mandarin (topdecked that inherited Estate), played Herald (second time), drew the Estate, revealed and played Ambassador, returned the Estate, and played it (second time) AS THE CARD MY OPPONENT HAD INHERITED.
(This is the summary of this twitter post.)

I don't think I can play other player's card, but I am not sure.

And more, I've noticed another problem. If I have another Estate in my hand, we cannot tell which Estate I played (on dominion.games). Did I play the returned Estate? I mean, do I play Estate as Crown, or play Estate as "solid Estate" (so I fail to play it again)? (Maybe too complicated question...)
The behavior is correct, and you are correct about the other problem.

There are two classes of solutions: changing the lose-track rules to lose track harder, and changing Inheritance.

The lose-track change would change Throne / Feast in the original main set; I'm not doing it. People don't know the lose track rule, and the main set rulebook said Throne / Feast worked. For new games this would be a thing to consider; Dominion does not want to mess with that.

The only possible (heavy errata) fix I see for Inheritance is the "during your turn" that Bridge etc. use - all copies everywhere change. Inheritance breaks an important rule, that all copies of a card should be identical, and this convoluted combo exploits that. Inheritance originally said "during your turn"; the problem is that you get super-weird stuff immediately, with trivial rather than convoluted combos. For example I inherit Caravan Guard and play an attack; you respond with Estate because it's Caravan Guard. But on your turn the Estate is in play and has no abilities, or is some other card that you inherited. The rules handle it, but it's super-confusing.

Feel free to simply not play with Inheritance. That actually solves the problem.

In my defense, Inheritance was a lot of fun. Today I would have you do the effect without Estate changing, e.g. you can discard Estate to play the set-aside card, leaving it there, and it's limited to non-durations (like Necromancer). That gives you "my Estates do this thing" but cuts out things like "they are Actions for Herald." And the Estates are always just Estates so so much for that. It's a poor fit for Adventures, since there are lots of Durations and also Reserve cards, which are useless here. It could have been in Empires though. Anyway we wouldn't use errata to effectively make Inheritance some other related thing.

47
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: May 10, 2018, 05:50:49 pm »
Cornucopia's 2E rulebook has the jesters fighting to the death joke. Did you intentionally add it back in?
Shhhhh.

Technically I didn't add it back in, I just made the new rulebook based on my old file, which always had it. And Jay based the back cover on the previous back cover, so it's still not there.

Why did you change Raider from a cost of $5 to $6, and also change "4 or more cards" to "5 or more cards?" (From Nocturne's secret history) Was it just too good?
Letting it work twice is just too oppressive. It couldn't have been "4 or more" for more than one evening.

It was $5 until late in the going. We had some bad recommended set games where someone got it on a 5/2, and then we played some more games that intentionally had a 5/2 Raider, and then I upped it to $6. When you get it turn one, the Cutpurse effect - all it does for you then - keeps other players from $5. And they can't buy the Cutpurse to do that right back to you - the Cutpurse costs $5. It stood out as a thing that made players have no fun. I could have tried to make a weaker cheaper version, so we could all buy it, or just up it to $6, and well time was short and $6 seemed fine.

48
Rules Questions / Re: Resolve and Discard Hex
« on: May 07, 2018, 03:10:57 pm »
While a Hex is being received, does it keep revealed until completing resolving or has it gone to its discard pile? For example when receiving Locusts causes a Cursed Village to be gained and its when-gain requires the new Hexes deck, Locusts is pending, would it miss the shuffle? The rulebook sounds yes it is discarded after finish receiving, but Im not sure. Id like to get the intention.
It stays revealed until done; it can miss a shuffle, and you can't receive it again in the middle of receiving it.

49
Dominion Articles / Re: Donate Part 1: The Beginning
« on: May 02, 2018, 02:58:26 am »
Also, this is a draft. Please feel free to critique or suggest additions.[/i]
I'm there for you.

I don't think an article this short wants a section called Introduction, a section called Conclusion, or a paragraph that starts "This article won't..." Similarly, you spend extra words not saying anything throughout, e.g. "It is hard to have any Donate discussion without..." Just say what you want to say; don't talk about saying it.

Asking questions without answering them is not great! If you want to say things like "Do you buy Donate more than once" - which I do think is worth addressing - I would go on to say what you think there, as much of an answer to that as you have. If you can't say anything about these questions, I recommend doing some research before working more on the article. I mean it's fine to say "here's a thing you have to worry about," where that thing is posed as a question. But. If when we remove the extra language all that's left is, "Donate is powerful and makes you think," well that's not really an article.

I have no problem having a Donate discussion without starting on "deck control." That paragraph just seems off on a tangent to me. Donate isn't so much like trashing as it is like getting to immediately do exactly what you want. Comparing it to other "deck control" just means spending time mentioning topdecking or whatever without saying things about Donate. I would fold "Any deck imaginable...," minus the deck control mention, into the "have a plan paragraph." Which I would put first; that's the big thing, front and center, have a plan. Donate lets you perfectly execute the plan you have; this means the player with the better plan will win. Be that player.

It's fine to mention that the game will be shorter. It will be! I don't think that requires a paragraph, a comment about how long it feels, a repeat of how you want the better plan, a reminder that making mistakes is bad.

Have examples: here is a board, here are different paths, look how they go. Here's where we are after a few turns if we Donate on turn 3, if we Donate turn 5, if we Donate turn one and then again later.

Like everything else, Donate has interactions. Workshops for example are a thing. Go over the prominent interactions. Sometimes you will give out Curses after Donating, despite Donate being available to deal with them; the people reading a Donate article will be wondering, do I just rule out buying Witch or what.

Edit: I didn't notice that it said it was a "Part 1." I am not seeing the beauty of this part 1. If you have several more parts that are great my advice will be to cut part 1 entirely. Reduce it to an Introduction section which you then cut because man you don't need one of those. But really, why didn't you actually post an article if you wanted an article critiqued; was it just to see if people were reading the italic text? (yes or the title)

50
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Data Mining: Card Impact Factor
« on: April 30, 2018, 06:53:36 pm »
For 3) the difficulty is whose card categories do I use?  I hope that the PCA analysis, when I do it, will provide some insight into card categories.
Hey you can use your math to figure out categories.

1. Each card determines a category. You won't actually do each card, because we care about e.g. villages rather than e.g. Poor Houses.
2. So, pick a card, e.g. Village.
3. Iterate through all other cards.
4. For each card, calculate the sum of the absolute value of the differences between gain percentages for Village and the other card, for all other cards. For example, for Poor House, first you say, okay how much does Village change the gain percentage for Ironworks, how much does Poor House change the gain percentage for Ironworks, take the absolute value of the difference; then, Forager, how much does Village change the gain percentage for Forager, how much does Poor House change the gain percentage for Forager, and so on. In the end you have this number that says, how similar in changing gain percentages is Poor House to Village.
5. Sort from lowest to highest; the ones at the top are the most similar to the chosen card, e.g. Village.
6. Draw the line where it looks like it goes.

This of course includes power level; a card we recognize as a village might be so weak that it's beaten by cards we are sure aren't villages. Still, could be fun.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 185

Page created in 0.167 seconds with 18 queries.