Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

18751

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #5: Herald

« on: June 10, 2013, 12:10:50 pm »

Thief is good in 4 player games against strategies that both rely on treasures and trash junk,

That's a bit harsh. Thief can be good in 4-player games, OR against strategies that rely on key treasures, OR against heavy trashing.

I think NMF is closer to the truth

4 Player Thief-Gardens is actually pretty strong.  Kind of like Beggar-Gardens, but you trade off a guaranteed 3 cards for a chance at Silver / Gold, and attacking your opponents.

Also the Thief in your hand doesn't give you any money to buy the gardens that turn, so you'll be needing that Silver/Gold badly to afford the Gardens in the slog.

I think that's Thief's biggest downfall. If it produced even $1 it would be useful in a decent percentage of games. In fact, that's my Scout fix, too. +$1.

How powerful would Thief be if it put one of the stolen treasures in your hand?  (Like, set each trashed treasure from each player aside, and at the end choose one to put in your hand and the others in the trash.)  Seems like it would make it extremely good in games where people trash some Copper.

18752

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What would it take for a card or combo to be banned?

« on: June 10, 2013, 09:53:09 am »

I would emphatically disagree with the idea of banning a card or combo.  From what I can see, all the "I win" combos that are essentially undefendable (e.g., emptying the supply on Turn 4 without any cards that would let your opponent mess it up) have almost negligible chance of occurring.  I would guess that a player that went for a turn like that would likely lose most games, since they aren't making their deck towards a high-win-percentage strategy.  And if both players went for it, you'd probably just see a sub-par game.

More common strategies and combos (e.g., Masquerade pin) are neat, but I don't think they're the dominant strategy almost ever.  I thin most experienced players that play in tournaments would be able to defend against it, or play it themselves if it's a good idea.  And if not, well, make tournaments match format (which, I think, most are).  The chance of a crazy combo existing in two random boards is pretty small.

And if you're still concerned about it, well, there's Veto Mode.  I would imagine it would be pretty rare for there to exist a game-breaking combo that requires only two out of three particular cards. (Say you want to ban it and your opponent doesn't).

18753

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: First small Guilds Spoiler

« on: June 10, 2013, 12:27:52 am »

Everyone seems to think the Candlestick maker will be the one that has overpayment for coin tokens.  Does that fit thematically?  Just because he makes stuff?  I guess he can sell his candles at a later date.

It would make more sense for that to be on something called Guild Hall (you invest in your guild and it you get returns later), or Merchant Guild, or Tax Collector.

18754

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #4: Butcher

« on: June 09, 2013, 05:54:59 pm »

I wonder if any players will hesitate to butcher, say, a Noble Brigand.  A Jester?  The Ambassador?  Maybe an entire Village?

Or Princess, or Harem.

Or, of course, Scout.  No one wants to see that dude harmed.

Great, Dominion meet cannibalism.

Butchering a Princess seems more logical than Butchering inanimate objects.

Which in turn is more logical than butchering things which aren't objects at all (I guess they aren't things either). How do you butcher an expand? What is 'an expand'? But eh, who cares.

"To butcher" can also mean to mess something up horribly.  Like, I really butchered that expansion job by expanding my Colony into an Estate.

Yes, but this entirely misses the point. Butchering an expansion - fine. Butchering an expand - wuzuhuh?

Yes, but you can take Butchering a verb to be butchering the process of performing the action corresponding to that verb.

In other words, someone butchered the naming of this card, and additionally butchered the English language in going so.

Man, that just means this card name works on a metalevel.  DXV is, like, way over our heads, dude.  He sees the whole forest while we're just here pondering bark on trees.

18755

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Homage to the Best Card

« on: June 07, 2013, 05:02:25 pm »

For all the recent criticisms:

18756

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #5: Herald

« on: June 07, 2013, 03:33:55 pm »

*Limit 10.

19 with Band of Misfits!

Then your opponent buys the last Herald, and it was the only Action card costing less than $5. Nooooooooooo!!!

I wonder how many weird edge cases there are where emptying a pile can fundamentally mess up someone's Band of Misfits strategy.  (Obviously, buying the 10th scout to reduce your opponent's effective Scouts from 19 to 9 is just rude, and they may up and quit at that point.  The smart opponent will 10x Embargo the Scout pile after he has 9.)

18757

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #4: Butcher

« on: June 07, 2013, 02:38:03 pm »

I wonder if any players will hesitate to butcher, say, a Noble Brigand.  A Jester?  The Ambassador?  Maybe an entire Village?

Or Princess, or Harem.

Or, of course, Scout.  No one wants to see that dude harmed.

Great, Dominion meet cannibalism.

Butchering a Princess seems more logical than Butchering inanimate objects.

Which in turn is more logical than butchering things which aren't objects at all (I guess they aren't things either). How do you butcher an expand? What is 'an expand'? But eh, who cares.

"To butcher" can also mean to mess something up horribly.  Like, I really butchered that expansion job by expanding my Colony into an Estate.

Yes, but this entirely misses the point. Butchering an expansion - fine. Butchering an expand - wuzuhuh?

Yes, but you can take Butchering a verb to be butchering the process of performing the action corresponding to that verb.

18758

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Getting an early Familiar

« on: June 07, 2013, 02:05:47 pm »

So I posted this in the Doctor preview but didn't get any response.  I think Doctor/Squire with Familiar on the board is a little interesting.

If you have a 2/5 opening, buy Squire with 2C, discard 3E,2C,S, draw 5C.  Buy Doctor with 5, shuffle 3E,2C,S into deck, turn over and trash two.  The chance of one of those being a Squire is 1-(2/3) = 1/3.  Then you get a Familiar in your discard pile, so your draw deck is 4 cards (copper/estate) and your discard pile is 5C, D, F.  You then have a 1/7 chance of drawing Familiar on the third turn. 

Well, considering you need 2/5 and not 5/2 for this, and it's only a 1/21 chance given the 2/5 opening, it's not all that likely.  But it does let you play the Familiar on turn 3, which is neat.  Plus, you've already trashed away one of your Estates and Coppers and can start naming Estate or Copper with Doctor.  Seems like you'd be in a really sweet spot if it hit.

You can also do it with 4/3 opening, but then you cut your chance of trashing the squire in half.  But that still lets you get a Familiar in your deck on Turn 3 1/6 of the time.  Having a coin token from Baker of course makes this better.

If you miss trashing from Doctor's on-buy ability, you can still play Doctor to trash.  To trash the Squire on turn 3, you'd have to draw the Doctor and have the Squire be cards 6, 7 or 8 in your reshuffle (draw 1st 5, reveal next 3).  The number of ways to do this would be, (if you trashed two cards with Doctor previously), I think, 3/20.  (Doctor must be in first 5 cards (1/2), Squire must be in last 5 cards (1/2), squire must be in first 3 of last 5 cards (3/5).  So, 15%.

Now if you draw Doctor turn 3 but miss Squire, then you're screwed, because you know you'll be drawing Squire next turn.  Or if you have $5 you can overpay $2 for Doctor and guarantee to trash the Squire, but then you'll have two Doctors.

Anyway, that's not all the possible cases, but I wonder how viable opening Doctor/Squire with Familiar is.  You could do this for other attacks if you're unable to buy them in the opening, I guess, but it's probably better to just buy money and directly buy the attacks.

18759

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: First small Guilds Spoiler

« on: June 07, 2013, 12:09:00 pm »

Based on a bit of research into Medieval guilds, here are my guesses for Guilds card names (those already revealed in bold):
<Modified from before since Journeyman has to cost $5>

BEguild ($4) --> AD = Advocate
CBguild ($5) --> BA = Baker
CVguild ($5) --> BU = Butcher
DNguild ($2) --> CM = Candlestick Maker
EPguild ($3) --> DO = Doctor
GPguild ($3) --> FO = Founder (or Foundry)
HVguild ($5) --> GU = Guild Hall
IFguild ($4) --> HE = Herald
NHguild ($5) --> MG = Merchant Guild (or Master Guildsman)
NJguild ($2) --> MI = Miller
TPguild ($5) --> SO = Sojourner renamed to Journeyman (?)
UWguild ($4) --> TV = Trading Village (or Tavern)
UYguild ($4) --> TX = Tax Collector

None of these seem like they could be a treasure.  What about Mill for "MI"?  Perhaps $0, gain a coin token, or something.  But that doesn't quite fit with the treasure-naming scheme.. a Mill is a place that makes thing, or an action of making things, not the thing that is made.  Foundry has the same issue.  "Tax" could be a treasure, referring to the specific coin as the "tax".  And makes sense giving a coin token, since a tax is something whose use is a little delayed. 

Edit: Come to think of it, Quarry is a treasure, so maybe Mill or Foundry are possible.

18760

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: First small Guilds Spoiler

« on: June 07, 2013, 12:00:47 pm »

MI is definitely going to be MINK, just to create more confusion with Mint and Mine.

Play Wishing Well, mumble Min..(swallow the last consonant), reveal one of these three and claim that's the one you said!

In other news, Mumbles from Dick Tracy plays Dominion and buys $3 Labs.

18761

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: First small Guilds Spoiler

« on: June 07, 2013, 11:36:03 am »

Mime replays the the last action card you played this turn.

That's it.  Good call.

18762

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: First small Guilds Spoiler

« on: June 07, 2013, 11:13:31 am »

MI is definitely going to be MINK, just to create more confusion with Mint and Mine.

Play Wishing Well, mumble Min..(swallow the last consonant), reveal one of these three and claim that's the one you said!

You'd need to mumble the vowel too...all three of those use very different vowel sounds for the "I"

"mink" uses an ee sound like "ink"

"mint" uses an ih sound like "did"

"mine" uses a long ai sound like "ice"

Don't blame me, I didn't invent this language.

I don't know how you pronounce "ink", but I don't use a long ee sound.

Though obviously "mine" has a different vowel sound.

Clearly it should be Mime---a representative of the Mummer's guild.  Has an overpay effect to gain another card.. or some weird Band of Misfits variant.. or something.

18763

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #5: Herald

« on: June 07, 2013, 10:52:19 am »

What is also cool about this is that you can fill your deck with Heralds and Villages and now your Village Idiot has his own Herald to let everyone know he's coming.

18764

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #5: Herald

« on: June 07, 2013, 10:43:10 am »

So since overpay happens on buy, not on gain, you can't overpay to topdeck itself.  On the other hand, you could overpay to topdeck a Talisman'd copy, or to topdeck anything gained off of Haggler.

Also, Throne Room and Golem just gained some company in forcing us to play Actions.  This time with less choice than ever.  Herald could be a dangerous card in some decks.

So, re: talisman: overpay and talisman's effect both occur at "when you buy", so you choose which to do first.  If you choose overpay first, you are now not buying a card costing $4 or less, so talisman's effect does not come into play.  So make sure you choose to talisman first.

I don't believe this is the case.  From how I believe I've heard it described, this card costs 4.  Overpaying does not change its cost.  You're just allowed to spend money for something else to happen.  I think the + is not actually changing the cost of the card, just reminding you that you can spend more money.  Unlike Peddler, which explicitly states its cost is different.

18765

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #5: Herald

« on: June 07, 2013, 10:30:55 am »

So since overpay happens on buy, not on gain, you can't overpay to topdeck itself.  On the other hand, you could overpay to topdeck a Talisman'd copy, or to topdeck anything gained off of Haggler.

Also, Throne Room and Golem just gained some company in forcing us to play Actions.  This time with less choice than ever.  Herald could be a dangerous card in some decks.

So just to be clear, the sequence of events is:
1) buy
2) resolve all on-buy effects, including choosing how much to overpay and the overpay effect; you choose order if there are multiple events
3) resolve al would-gain effects
3) gain the card (to your discard pile unless the would-gain effect changed it).
4) resolve all on-gain effects

Correct? 

18766

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #4: Butcher

« on: June 07, 2013, 09:58:33 am »

It would make sense if the Butcher would slice up something big (a single card worth at least X) and create smaller, but very nice parts out of it, say 2 cards costing up to $1 less than the trashed card, kind of like a reverse Forge. At least that would be somewhat thematic.

I don't see at all how I'm supposed to connect Butcher to the actual text on the card...

I disagree.  You would consider an entire cow useless as a personal buy; you would pay a good deal for a prime piece of meat.  Butcher takes something, cuts it up, and makes it more valuable to the consumers.

18767

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #4: Butcher

« on: June 07, 2013, 09:56:29 am »

I wonder if any players will hesitate to butcher, say, a Noble Brigand.  A Jester?  The Ambassador?  Maybe an entire Village?

Or Princess, or Harem.

Or, of course, Scout.  No one wants to see that dude harmed.

Great, Dominion meet cannibalism.

Butchering a Princess seems more logical than Butchering inanimate objects.

Which in turn is more logical than butchering things which aren't objects at all (I guess they aren't things either). How do you butcher an expand? What is 'an expand'? But eh, who cares.

"To butcher" can also mean to mess something up horribly.  Like, I really butchered that expansion job by expanding my Colony into an Estate.

18768

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #4: Butcher

« on: June 06, 2013, 05:55:37 pm »

Hm, Possessions interaction with coin-token cards is kind of interesting.  The possessor gains the cards, but the possessed player gains the coin tokens. I wonder if there will be Guilds cards where the token gaining happens at times other than when you play the action (i.e., when you buy cards).  There is no real harm in playing Baker during your Possession turn as you can just spend the coin tokens, so it's not as bad as the VP tokens.  But you would have to avoid a card that says "While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a coin token" or something to that effect.

Its not that new, same thing happened with VP chips.

Right, my point was, the coin tokens are a vulnerability with Possession on the board.  You have to spend them or your opponent will spend them for you.  But they (or token-given cards, actually) could also be a protection if the token gaining happened at different times. (So that your opponent couldn't spend them while you're Possessed.)

Edit: I guess the real thing I'm thinking of is that if there were a card that would gain coin chips at the end of your turn, you may be able to manage a deck that can provide no coin when your opponent Possesses you (assume you trash all your treasure).  Of course, it would require some engine where you'd play enough to get 8 coin tokens at the end of your turn, and of course you played Outpost, then you buy a province during your Outpost turn. 

18769

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #4: Butcher

« on: June 06, 2013, 05:23:46 pm »

Well, it's usually a bad idea to butcher the Princess.

Unless, of course, you're Sir Lancelot.

I'm not sure which version of King Arthur you read, but in my version, Lancelot used quite a different verb on the princess.

This version, of course:

Edit: Can start at around 2:40 if you're impatient.

18770

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #4: Butcher

« on: June 06, 2013, 04:02:55 pm »

I would be very surprised about that.
You make the decsions for your opponents. There's no reason why you can't make him use coin tokens.

Yeah this seems extremely clear cut. 

And as my earlier post said (well, I kind of waffled I guess) it's not THAT onerous because you can always spend your Coins before I get to them.  Maybe one or two go to waste this way but if you're smart I should never get my hands on your tokens unless it's a calculated risk. It's unpleasant but man if Donald didn't warp the Possession rules to eliminate the Ambassador interaction then he sure won't do it for something as small as this.

I am quite sure Donald X confirmed that you can cash coin tokens when you possess another player.

And in my opinion, that is totally fine. You have to be careful and need to keep track of your opponent's deck, and you should not save the coin tokens when the Possession has to come.

Hm, Possessions interaction with coin-token cards is kind of interesting.  The possessor gains the cards, but the possessed player gains the coin tokens. I wonder if there will be Guilds cards where the token gaining happens at times other than when you play the action (i.e., when you buy cards).  There is no real harm in playing Baker during your Possession turn as you can just spend the coin tokens, so it's not as bad as the VP tokens.  But you would have to avoid a card that says "While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a coin token" or something to that effect.

18771

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #4: Butcher

« on: June 06, 2013, 03:52:31 pm »

Well, it's usually a bad idea to butcher the Princess.

Unless, of course, you're Sir Lancelot.

18772

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #4: Butcher

« on: June 06, 2013, 03:48:33 pm »

I wonder if any players will hesitate to butcher, say, a Noble Brigand.  A Jester?  The Ambassador?  Maybe an entire Village?

Or Princess, or Harem.

Or, of course, Scout.  No one wants to see that dude harmed.

18773

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: When you can spend your tokens

« on: June 06, 2013, 03:47:40 pm »

Why would it matter for Poor House?  It's not like you're literally exchanging tokens for Treasure cards - they're just increasing your fielded coins this turn.

It matters with Poor House because Poor House has a lower bound on it's -coin effect.  For example, if have 6 treasure in hand and played a poor house, you would get +4 coin and then -4 coin.  If you played two coin tokens, and then played poor house with 6 treasure in hand, you would get +4 coin and then -6 coin. 

Of course, in the end, you end up with +0 coin from Poor House.  But in the second scenario you don't have those two coin tokens during your buy phase.

Right, though it also only matters if you for some really odd reason chose to spend the coin tokens before playing Poor House. There may be another card that would be better if you could do so.

You can't choose to pay coin tokens before playing Poor House anyway, because you can't pay coin tokens until the Buy phase.

Right, that was the point of the original post.  Why can't you pay coin tokens before your buy phase.  Then someone asked why it mattered with Poor House.  I was just saying that playing coin tokens before playing Poor House does matter, and so disallowing it does have a functional effect.

18774

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: When you can spend your tokens

« on: June 06, 2013, 03:11:12 pm »

Why would it matter for Poor House?  It's not like you're literally exchanging tokens for Treasure cards - they're just increasing your fielded coins this turn.

It matters with Poor House because Poor House has a lower bound on it's -coin effect.  For example, if have 6 treasure in hand and played a poor house, you would get +4 coin and then -4 coin.  If you played two coin tokens, and then played poor house with 6 treasure in hand, you would get +4 coin and then -6 coin. 

Of course, in the end, you end up with +0 coin from Poor House.  But in the second scenario you don't have those two coin tokens during your buy phase.

18775

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Preview #4: Butcher

« on: June 06, 2013, 01:33:03 pm »

Slager!

Find edge cases where UpdateRemodel is better.

You want to Remodel more than one Curse with Pawn on the board and there is no other way to gain Coin Tokens. You want to remodel more than one Gold into Provinces and the three other players left you only one Butcher. You want to remodel Silvers on a Duke board but you don't want to spend too many 5s on Butchers (if any).

Basically in every game where you want to remodel more than one card into a card costing 2 more than it (or more than two cards if the card costs 1 more than it), without buying more than a single Remodel/Butcher, Remodel is the better choice unless there is another way to gain Coin Tokens.

I'm not sure what you mean. Butcher gives you 2 coins every time you play it, so you can always get the same benefit as Remodel.

I think the only edge cases would have to include its cost ($5 vs. $4) in trash-for-benefit- or remodel-type scenarios.  That is, trashing the Butcher vs. trashing the Remodel.