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 5 ... 205
51
Third, the card says you should take all cards not in the kingdom, and then Donald says you should do whatever you like best or what is practical. All cards not in the kingdom is 250+; 60 is just a reasonable approximation of that (I don't think 60 or 250 would matter for BMs strength) while at 20 it was significantly weaker then intended.
The original Black Market text said to use one of each unused card. The current text though just says "Make a Black Market deck out of different unused Kingdom cards." So anything is fair game. 60 is good though.

When the card had the original text, I never actually made it every card; I would use one not-being-used expansion as the Black Market deck. I only have 10 copies of each card, using one regular copy as the randomizer, so this approach took no setup.

52
I don't care about statistical analysis and I think it's mostly useless for Dominion. I also didn't really put in that many hot takes, I tried to keep it to a minimum, opting for trying to say something new about each card whenever I could.
There is useful statistical analysis for Dominion, and I don't mind a line of stats, or interesting stats, but I prefer e.g. "this is underrated because it's new" to e.g. "this would be one rank higher in the unweighted ranking." "This would be one rank higher in the unweighted ranking" is unreadable; it's something to desperately try to skim past to find any actual sentences.

53
Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Re: Artifact Origin cards as a card type
« on: February 14, 2019, 02:32:55 pm »
When it is used for action, treasure, night, victory, and curse, it means one thing, while when it is used for for duration, reserve, and reaction it is a different thing (color to help it stand out), while it means yet another different thing when used by all the other not-often-used types. I just would have liked to seen the "primary types" get something distinct from all the "secondary types". Durations and Reactions could still have a different color under that system.

If there were "primary" and "secondary" types, Reaction would be a primary type.

Why? The Wiki doesn't list it that way. Reaction is a type so that it can get the color, so it can remind you to pay attention to it when you aren't playing it. It doesn't have rules associated with it about what it can do or when.
Well. If I were changing the game to have primary and secondary types, maybe I would also get to change Reactions to be cards you could play in a certain situation (putting them into play rather than just revealing them). Then they would be primary.

54
Rules Questions / Re: Capitalism + Death Cart
« on: February 14, 2019, 12:08:15 am »
MY wife and I encountered this combo tonight. It was our first time with Capitalism in play. We ran into a situation. Death Cart is +5 coins, but you have to trash a card. Capitalism turns +$ cards into Treasures.

To get the +$ from the now-Treasure, do you have to meet the rest of the requirements on the card? That is, to use Death Cart as a Treasure, do you have to trash an Action or it? We played without requiring the trashing - made for a quick game! Every time the Death Cart came up you had 5 coins.
Being a Treasure doesn't change anything about Death Cart, except that things that check for treasures see it, and you can play it when you can play Treasures e.g. in your Buy phase. When you play Death Cart in your Buy phase, you still follow all of the instructions on it, and either trash it or an Action card from your hand.

55
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance and Capitalism (and Courtier)
« on: February 12, 2019, 07:43:36 pm »
A few questions surrounding the interaction between these two card shaped things (and Courtier as an afterthought).

1. If you buy capitalism, and then inherit a card which was affected, I assume Estates gain the Treasure type as well. This one is not as much of a question, but I still want to make sure.
2. If you inherit a card which originally does not have the Treasure type, but then buy capitalism so that it gains the Treasure type, do your Estates gain the Treasure type? They don't have a +coin amount in the text, but when Inheritance says that your Estates gain the types of that card, I'm not sure whether that is Inheritance doing that or the token. If it's Inheritance, I think it wouldn't gain the additional Treasure type, but if it's the token, I think it would.
3. If you buy Capitalism, then inherit Caravan Guard, are your Estates now Action-Treasure-Victory-Duration-Reactions? How does this new five-type card interact with Courtier? Do you just get the four bonuses? Basically, which word is more important: "for each type it has" or "the choices must be different"? I think there are a couple other cards which can give Estates five types, but they require cost reduction, so I chose Caravan Guard.
If you Inherit Militia and buy Capitalism, in either order, your Estates will be Treasures.

Yes nothing stops your Caravan Guards from having five types. Courtier gives a max of four bonuses.

56
Let's Discuss ... / Re: Let's Discuss Renaissance Cards: Lackeys
« on: February 08, 2019, 01:52:06 pm »
Experiment had to live with being compared to Expedition.
Out of interest, was Experiment ever tried at $2? (I'm guessing Expedition wasn't, because it would clearly suck to watch someone else get the 2/5 split.)
There were a bunch of Experiments, but no not a $2.

57
Let's Discuss ... / Re: Let's Discuss Renaissance Cards: Lackeys
« on: February 08, 2019, 01:51:44 pm »
Spices is super better than Gold almost every time.
And of course has to be, since Gold is in every game.

And also because Gold sucks.
That's what comes of lots of cards having to be better than it.

58
Let's Discuss ... / Re: Let's Discuss Renaissance Cards: Lackeys
« on: February 08, 2019, 12:31:39 pm »
Assuming Donald X. knows what he's doing, the MEH and the CON outweigh the PRO enough to merit the $1 discount?
Remember that it's not like "this effect is worth $1, this other one $3, add up the effects, this card should cost $4." The differences between $2's and $4's come down to openings, +Buys, and satisfying player expectations when comparing cards (and rarely something else, e.g. is Remodel better or worse at $3).

Experiment had to live with being compared to Expedition. Lackeys is clearly not strictly better/worse than them though, so that's not an issue. It felt like a $2, given Moat and Faithful Hound; it worked fine at $2, people did not quit in disgust at 5/2 Lackeys openings or some such. It seemed fine to buy them up with +Buys.

59
Let's Discuss ... / Re: Let's Discuss Renaissance Cards: Lackeys
« on: February 08, 2019, 12:25:18 pm »
Spices is super better than Gold almost every time.
And of course has to be, since Gold is in every game.

60
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: February 08, 2019, 12:24:01 pm »
I picked up Renaissance this week week and I loved it! I've always been a fan of the simpler sets, my favorite being Seaside and my wife's being the Base set, so getting a new expansion somewhere around that complexity has been fun for us. You said in the secret history that expansions have gotten too complex and that this one was made intentionally simple. Where do you think future expansions will fall on the complexity scale?
They will try to be as simple as Renaissance, but I don't know how well I'll do there. I'll have to put in the work to know for sure though.

61
Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Re: Artifact Origin cards as a card type
« on: February 08, 2019, 12:19:16 pm »
In my opinion, Dominion actually has far too many types. I think there should be only Action, Treasure, Night, Victory. And Curse, I suppose, although rules-wise that would have worked fine as a Victory type instead.
I feel the opposite! Types let you refer to the types. This both lets you deal with problems, and lets you make cards that work with a category in the simplest way. The cost is just a word on that bottom bar; it does not feel high. A good example is, multiple cards would have liked to exempt Throne Rooms or one-shots. This would be trivial if they had types. It's essentially impossible given that they don't.

The ability of players to refer to the group is also nice. It's nice in the rulebooks too, even when there aren't special rules.

Of all existing types, conceivably I could have done without Gathering (living with those interactions). The others all feel like they're pulling their weight.

All the other types are fundamentally different from those 4 or 5. Those ones are really needed; they tell you what you can do with the card and when (when you can play it; or if you can play it). Things like attack could have been a keyword instead; this was dicussed somewhere else recently.

Duration doesn't have any meaningful rules associated with it; all cards are cleaned up on that last turn in which they do something. It just so happens that for regular actions, that's the same turn they were played. It's not clear from the rulebooks if Reaction actually has special rules. For both of those, I can see how the color is helpful, though. Although Temporum did fine with having "until-next-turn" cards just stay out without any special type.

I've said before that I'm against Reserve being a type. It's not even clear what that type means. Not that it can be called (Distant Lands). Not that it uses the Tavern Mat (Miser/Copper). The color doesn't seem particularly meaningful; because you know that stuff on your Tavern Mat is stuff to pay attention to at special times (except when Copper ends up there. Or Distant Lands).
"Attack" could be a word in the middle of card text, and that does have some benefits; I don't think anything else can benefit from that approach. Mid-text Attack is handling two things: attacks that are optional, and attacks timed at other than when playing a card (e.g. Ill-Gotten Gains). Arguably I shouldn't have done optional attacks - they're political (yes you can draw two terminals and choose to play the attack or not, but getting rid of some of the politics is still a positive). I don't know how much trouble "let you Moat Ill-Gotten Gains" is worth.

Duration was not originally a type, and Greed also has those cards without a special type. But there is in fact a lot of value to the color there, ditto for Reactions. Reactions originally had rules associated with them, and that version was better (they could be played at a special time).

Reserve cards put themselves on your Tavern mat. It seemed helpful at the time and I mean no regrets.

62
Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Re: Artifact Origin cards as a card type
« on: February 08, 2019, 12:03:34 pm »
As I was re-organizing my cards and noticed that the 'origin' cards for the Artifacts did not have their own 'card type'.  I am not intending to criticize the introduction of this new concept, but the other non-card type cards (at least in Renaissance have some sort of 'origin' card.  Doom > Hex, Fate > Boon.  Why did the Artifacts 'origin' card not have their own type? Maybe 'Reward' or 'Trophy'.  I doubt it was an 'oversight' by design.
Types are used in Dominion either to have rules tied to them, or because making the cards a different color has value.

Those cases did not come up here; so, no new type.
Strictly speaking, Gathering fulfils neither of these requirements; the way I understood it, those cards have a type just so that other cards can refer to them.
The rules on cards are also rules, but sure, we can add, having card text able to refer to the type. That is exactly what Gathering is there for.

You could also argue for "letting players refer to the group of cards by the type." This is handy although it's never been enough on its own to create a type.

63
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Taking Notes - Against the Rules?
« on: February 07, 2019, 12:13:53 pm »
It doesn't convince me because I think it begs the question: we agree that for anyone using a notepad or the like to track all the information he needs, the game does not have a memory element, while for anyone not using such an external tracker, it does, so the question of whether memory is an inherent element of the game is equivalent to the question of whether using a notepad vel sim. is allowed*. You can't support your answer by assuming it as a premise!
When I said to guided that the game had a memory element, he knew what I meant; I had communicated successfully with him. He understood what it meant for a game to have a memory element, and that the point of the notebook was to get around the memory element. There was no faulty rhetorical technique employed; I didn't trick him.

The game doesn't let you use a notebook because the rulebook doesn't specifically allow it. In all games, within game contexts, you may only do things specifically permitted by the rules; this is what it means to have rules. If you disagree with this then I mean you're someone to avoid playing games with.

This isn't something that only comes up with notebooks. People will decide that flavorwise they should be able to do something, and then demand that you find the place in the rulebook where it says they can't, even though the rules in no way let them do what they want to do. For example, they're playing Netrunner, they played a resource with a penalty that they no longer want, they say "I'm throwing this away" and move it to the trash. That dates back to when I was trying to work this out. There is one answer to rule them all: the rulebook has to specifically let you do things. If you don't agree to this, there will be an endless number of things you can try to do that the rulebook won't cover; you have switched to playing Calvinball.

I think it's fair to note that I have not sufficiently argued the case of the difference between counting out loud and using a notebook. I will not be doing so today either.

For people who like to argue about this, there is also an official ruling, that you cannot use a notebook. If this question were ubiquitous enough then it would be worth including in rulebooks even though it would be redundant.

In any case, given that the officially licensed online implementation of Dominion, complete with score tracker and game log, is a "Dominion variant" by your definition, I can't quite understand your position. The site is not called playadominionvariantonline, after all. I should think endorsing its version of the game as the official implementation of Dominion™ would give that version at least equal status to any derived by inference from the rulebook that didn't bark in the night.
If you think about it, really think about it, maybe you will find a plausible path by which the website got its name. You will also be able to find other games where there is a similar difference between online and physical versions and yet they don't call their game A Magic Variant Duels or what have you, for some reason, despite only being able to play with one of each mythic and having your Liliana zombie tokens max out and so on, and playing the physical game doesn't entitle you to play by the online version's variant, for some reason.

64
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Taking Notes - Against the Rules?
« on: February 06, 2019, 02:51:59 pm »
Here's the thread where I convinced guided. GL on it working for you. It is not the kind of discussion worth having as many times as I have.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=876.0

65
Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Re: Artifact Origin cards as a card type
« on: February 06, 2019, 12:34:47 pm »
Doom and Fate are something of a stretch though. Is the only rule attached to them "shuffle the Hex/Boon pile before the game begins"? Receiving a Boon doesn't seem significantly different from gaining a Spoils, or a Prize.
They require you to shuffle the Hexes/Boons, yes. "Receive a Boon" needs rules, it's incomprehensible otherwise, unlike "gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile" - but those rules are independent of "Fate."

66
Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Re: Artifact Origin cards as a card type
« on: February 06, 2019, 11:47:33 am »
As I was re-organizing my cards and noticed that the 'origin' cards for the Artifacts did not have their own 'card type'.  I am not intending to criticize the introduction of this new concept, but the other non-card type cards (at least in Renaissance have some sort of 'origin' card.  Doom > Hex, Fate > Boon.  Why did the Artifacts 'origin' card not have their own type? Maybe 'Reward' or 'Trophy'.  I doubt it was an 'oversight' by design.
Types are used in Dominion either to have rules tied to them, or because making the cards a different color has value.

Those cases did not come up here; so, no new type.

67
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Taking Notes - Against the Rules?
« on: February 06, 2019, 11:40:32 am »
With all due respect to the creator of this brilliant game, I have never agreed with this particular view of his. The thing is that he did not put the prohibition on taking notes in the rules, but considers it something that is disallowed by convention in any game until specifically allowed by the rules of that game. It follows that if you disagree with Mr. Vaccarino about the general convention (i.e., you would not apply it to a game that he had not designed), you equally disagree about its applicability to Dominion, since this is not one of Dominion's rules.
Rules, for all games, say what you are allowed to do within game contexts; they don't say what you aren't allowed to do, because that would be endless. Yes sometimes rules note a particular thing you aren't allowed to do because it's a common question.

68
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Request: Online image for token/materials
« on: February 04, 2019, 11:22:24 am »
There may be something usable on BGG. I looked at Empires and it has comparisons of the 1 and 5 VP Empires / Prosperity tokens: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/3051698/dominion-empires
Thank, but I was hoping for an individual image of each.  But I still might try to figure out how to upload an image to an online place that I can reference.
Anyone can upload images onto BoardGameGeek.

69
The Action you play has to be differently named from each and every card you have in play.

The Action you play has to be differently named from any card you have in play that anyone might challenge you on.

The Action you play has to be differently named from the first card you have in play, and from each card you have in play that follows a card you have in play.

The Action you play has to have a name not included in the set of names of cards you have in play.

The Action you play has to have a name that's novel to your play area.

The Action you play can't share its name with a card you have in play.

It can't be that upon playing that Action you have two cards with its name in play.

The Action you play has to follow the rules of an Action you'd play via Imp or Conclave.

70
There may be something usable on BGG. I looked at Empires and it has comparisons of the 1 and 5 VP Empires / Prosperity tokens: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/3051698/dominion-empires

71
Let's Discuss ... / Re: Let's Discuss Second Edition Cards: Replace
« on: January 30, 2019, 10:24:14 am »
Lose-track is a rule that literally doesn't matter until Dark Ages when it was first coined.
Mining Village - hey in Intrigue - is the first case where lose-track matters. You play Throne Room, it makes you play Mining Village. You trash it for the +$2. Throne Room makes you play Mining Village again... and does not pull it from the trash into play (which would let you trash it again for +$2).

Technically this happens with Feast too, but it doesn't make a difference there.

72
Rules Questions / Re: Sauna and Innovation
« on: January 28, 2019, 01:38:53 pm »
It depends what it means to "finish playing an Action card". Maybe it's possible to view it as on Guildhall: you played a Treasure, no matter if it changed later. The process that you finished doing was "playing an Action card".
That doesn't sound unreasonable.

Another thought is that maybe these cards will have new wordings to match Citadel some day?
I don't need to rule it out, but right now the plan is not to pour more work into new printings. There would need to be something making that happen.

73
Rules Questions / Re: Sauna and Innovation
« on: January 28, 2019, 12:40:10 pm »
Ignoring the Diadem case, there's also Feast (yes I know), Treasure Map (unlikely), Farmers' Market. With cost reduction Pillage, Tragic Hero.
Feast may be oop but it's still "supported"; lots of people have it.

"Directly after you finish playing an Action card." If I fix the shapeshifters then Coin will work, so it's tempting to let Coin work so that that ruling won't change. You didn't "finish playing an Action card" though. You finished playing a card but it's not an Action. There's no sense there of "when you play an Action card, okay now after it's done." However similar the phrasing may be to e.g. Citadel, it's different.

74
Rules Questions / Re: Sauna and Innovation
« on: January 28, 2019, 12:30:31 pm »
You wouldn't be calling Coin of the Realm after a Mining Village or Experiment.
You're about to move to the Buy Phase and play Diadem?
You wouldn't be calling Coin of the Realm after a Mining Village or Experiment, except for the edge cases that always exist and yet somehow always need to be mentioned and which don't possibly matter here.

75
Thanks for responding - I'll note that I don't think I ever argued it wasn't a high-skill card, but that it's also quite swingy and to me, somewhat tedious.  Obviously you know better than me where it's acceptable for a card to land on the skill/fiddliness axes.  I'm not surprised it's Stef's favorite card as I know he put a lot of thought into how the card would work on his implementation of the online game. 
Black Market significantly increases the chance that the better player will win. I don't think that's what people mean by "swingy." Black Market *feels* swingy but is not.

I'm sure what Stef likes is the gameplay, not the work he put into the programming. Here's his article on it from before ShuffleIT existed and there before he had programmed it: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11896.0

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 205

Page created in 0.15 seconds with 18 queries.