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 - faust

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 58
1
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 15, 2018, 12:08:15 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.

2
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 15, 2018, 02:36:36 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.

3
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 14, 2018, 11:19:31 am »
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.
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.
If card count was no object, you could provide an alternate set of Estate cards (alas, they'd probably stil have to be called Estate, for the sake of the effects that refer to Estate by name) that were Action-Events saying "Play your Estate-token Action card, leaving it there.", and Inheritance could have a setup step saying to substitute them.
That would create an interesting tension when Bonfire and Inheritance are both in the game.

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.

4
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles
« on: May 13, 2018, 01:43:00 am »
On a board with no Haunted Mirror, I gain a Ghost from the Ghost pile and play it on the same turn. How?

Hard mode:             No tokens, opponents have Lighthouses out       
Extra hard mode:                 All of the above, but also non on-trash effects             

EDIT: Hard mode fixed. It is solvable now.
EDIT2: New extra hard mode. I can think of 2 possible solutions for extra hard.

By the way Seprix has just inadvertently solved this puzzle in another thread:

Not useful, but certainly neat.

When you play an Enchantress, it covers the first Action card played during a turn... Which includes a Werewolf in the Night Phase.

5
Dismantle/Fountain

Trash your Estates for 3 Gold and 3 Coppers and 15 VP.

6
Dominion Articles / Re: Archive
« on: May 06, 2018, 01:37:27 pm »
I feel like this article ignores the main use of Archive: as pseudotrashing.

Would you mind elaborating on this? I mentioned how archive can be used to temporarily remove both dud cards and green cards from your deck by setting them aside for a few turns, as well as speeding up deck cycling with its temporary thinning effect. That being said, Iím not trying to call you out, Iím genuinely curious as to what I glossed over, and how it differs from the above.

(After all, Iíve read your articles so I know you know what youíre talking about)
I did not carefully read the whole thing, but you have a couple of paragraphs dedicated to different uses for Archive and none of those discusses this.

In 'Archives as late-game sifting', I mentioned how Archives can be used to temporary take green cards out of your deck as a sort of short-lived Island effect, and in 'Archives as deck cycling', I brought up how you can use Archive's deck thinning effect to get more frequent plays out of self-improving cards like Miser and the Traveler lines. Admittedly, both sections are rather brief, disproportionately so in comparison to the earlier sections. Would you suggest I develop them further, or is using Archives for pseudo-trash something completely different to both of those topics?
I guess the thing that bugs me is that if you use Archive as pseudotrashing, you might want a bunch of them if you have lots of junk. Both sections you mention, however, have quite a low number of recommended Archives.

Also, think about it, I don't really like "Archive as sifting". Sifting, for me, is replacing cards in your hand by other cards. That is just not what Archive does. And the "late-game" implies that you would only want to do this then, which I don't think is correct.

7
Dominion Articles / Re: Archive
« on: May 05, 2018, 11:32:57 am »
I feel like this article ignores the main use of Archive: as pseudotrashing.

Would you mind elaborating on this? I mentioned how archive can be used to temporarily remove both dud cards and green cards from your deck by setting them aside for a few turns, as well as speeding up deck cycling with its temporary thinning effect. That being said, Iím not trying to call you out, Iím genuinely curious as to what I glossed over, and how it differs from the above.

(After all, Iíve read your articles so I know you know what youíre talking about)
I did not carefully read the whole thing, but you have a couple of paragraphs dedicated to different uses for Archive and none of those discusses this.

8
Dominion Articles / Re: Archive
« on: May 05, 2018, 08:34:57 am »
I feel like this article ignores the main use of Archive: as pseudotrashing.

9
Just have many Coin tokens, trash your deck with Raze. Travelling Fair enables you to gain everything.
I think banning startup is needed.

It is:
  • The turn you take is effectively the first turn of the game.  So, you have no Durations in play, cards on mats, tokens on piles, etc.  And your opponent did nothing on their last turn (matters for Smugglers, Treasure Hunter).

10
Den of Sin/Horn of Plenty

Gain lots of Den of Sins through Horns of Plenty, then have your megaturn and gain all the Provinces. Probably one of the strongest HoP enablers out there.

11
I don't like undoes. I just don't. To me it's part of the game to be aware of what you're doing and if you're forgetting your tavern mat or don't pay attention of your curser, that's on you. The only undoes I seem as "fair" is where the implementetion is sub-optimal as in with GM where the coppers shouldn't play automatically and it's easy to forget about it.
I would argue that the implementation of the start-of-turn phase is in fact suboptimal since it's hidden away in the log. If there was an "end start-of-turn phase" button similar to how there is an "end action phase" button, it would be something else (though I still grant undoes if someone mistakenly ends their action phase).

12
Dominion Articles / Re: Donate Part 1: The Beginning
« on: May 02, 2018, 03:53:34 am »
If you want a multi-part series on Donate, which there is probably enough to discuss for, it might be best to plan out the whole thing and then write an introductory post, because that way you can actually do a summary instead of using a lot of word bubbles to say relatively little. Like, this would be useful if it went something like this:

Donate

Some general advice, opening, read more here: [link to other part]

Donate and other trashers, Donate is usually better, read more here: [link to other part]

Donate requires more planning especially of your first 6 or so turns, read more here: [link to other part]

Sometimes it's better to get 2 Donates than to trash everything in one go, overtrashing is problematic, read more here: [link to other part]

Conclusion, Donate is hard, for some case studies of high-level games featuring Donate check this out: [link to other part]

13
I'll also just reiterate that if you're coming back to this with whether or not certain steps should be granted, you're missing the point.
This post is about the denier, not the denied. It's about how your approach affects your experience and your development as a player and as a person, not about the game rules or the moral justification behind requesting the undo in the first place.
I'm sharing some insight on how to improve your relationship with the playerbase, your skill as a player, and yourself. How you choose to react to that and what you choose to do with it is 100% your call.
You might find more of an open ear if you took care to not make your posts sound patronizing. This is just me sharing some insight on how to improve your relationship with f.ds, your skill as a poster, and yourself. How you choose to react to that and what you choose to do with it is 100% your call.

14
I don't see why. I mean you would first have to define what "how strong they really are" means.

Well, if we take the "impact" metric from trivialknot's thread as an example, Fool's Gold doesn't make a very big impact in many kingdoms because getting 5 Fool's Golds isn't very impressive and you're better off gaining none, and then nobody buys it and it doesn't affect anyone's other buys either (so we would understand that it's a weak card). But also in many kingdoms, if your opponent starts to buy it, you have to buy it too because getting all 10 Fool's Golds is pretty often too good.
I don't think the impact metric says all about card strength though. If getting all Fool's Golds is too good, then you have to build your deck so that it can accomodate some Fool's Golds in case your opponent goes for them and you need to get some. Because if Fool's Gold is better for them and they can force you to get some, then that's an advantage for them. So it impacts the game even if it isn't bought.

That is assuming that your assessment above of Fool's Gold's strength is correct. I think a lot of the time it isn't super important to prevent your opponent from getting all the Fool's Golds.

15
Also, gaining the card is probably always allowed for the purpose of ending the game on piles
This is problematic as for some cards (Messenger, Stonemason), the ability to quickly end the game is part of what makes up their strength.

That's a good point. Let's use Dan Brooks' recent turn 3 victory as an example to show the rationale for and potential pitfalls of this guideline: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11060.msg755449#msg755449

Using Stonemason's on-gain ability is essential to Dan's strategy. But he also needs to buy out the Trade Routes to end the game. So in a "Dan can't buy Trade Route" cage match game, he wouldn't have been able to pull of the same win. Which wouldn't indicate anything about the strength of Trade Route, just that it happened to be a pile that could get bought out to end the game on a win. So presumably the rule for Stonemason would be something like "gaining Stonemason is allowed for the purpose of ending the game on piles, but using the over-pay is not". Or buying Messenger on the first buy of a turn would only be allowed if the game could be won without using the on-gain ability. The idea is not to artificially restrict paths to victory but to avoid having the abilities of the particular card come into play.
I disagree that it wouldn't indicate anything about the strength of Trade Route. Trade Route is a $3 action, and you need that here to pull off the win. Restricting card "abilities" is super artificial here because cost is also a card ability. It is easier to pile out with Poor House because it only costs $1. It's arbitrary to describe Forum's +buy as a card ability (though it's essentially just "this doesn't cost a buy") and not take Poor House's $1 as a card ability.

It's super rare for that particular ability of Trade Route to be important (partly because so many other cards have it too), but that doesn't mean it's not part of what determines the strength of the card, just that it's a very very minor factor that matters in maybe 0.1% of games.

16
I meant to respond to this...

3. If two top players of similar strength play a match where they are and aren't allowed to gain a card, respectively, how big of an advantage will the former have
This addresses all of the previous problems, but introduces a new one: the player who is allowed to buy the card has access to the knowledge that the other player will surely not buy it, which gives them an inherent advantage, partially independently of the card's strength.
This is certainly not ideal, but I don't think it's a big issue in practice, as the advantage you gain from knowing you get from knowing that will be roughly proportional to the card's strength anyway. At least I cannot think of an example where this would push an otherwise weak card up. Of course there's a 3-pile threat that means that low-cost cards will get rated better, but you can get around that by enforcing that the player who may gain all the cards should play as though their opponent were allowed to gain the card when it comes to pile control.

This also makes self-synergistic cards seem stronger than they really are.
I don't see why. I mean you would first have to define what "how strong they really are" means.

In the case of a real match between two real players, as opposed to a thought experiment, it also has the problems that six games is a very low sample size which can result in kingdoms or shuffles favoring one player over the other, and the players might not be giving their best performance at the time of the match even if they are very closely ranked.
Of course measurements will get more accurate the more data you have. That would be a trait common to all measuring methods.

17
Dominion General Discussion / Re: To Those Who Deny Undo Steps Online
« on: April 30, 2018, 09:13:37 am »
I make it a policy to not ask for any undo that I wouldn't grant.

I've never actually played against those people who play Wishing Well and then ask for undo when they don't get what they wished for, are they really that common?

I don't think I've ever seen it, but maybe people do things like that and I just don't notice?
Maybe people don't do it because it generally won't work.

18
Dominion General Discussion / Re: To Those Who Deny Undo Steps Online
« on: April 28, 2018, 06:28:56 pm »
I donít get this at all personally. I would see allowing an undo as being very gracious and sportsman-like, but to a degree above what I think should be minimally expected of people. I think someone is fully within their rights to deny an undo, and that such an act is not poor sportsmanship or rude; it is simply a lack of excessively good sportsmanship.
Well, not that I expect other people to grant undos, but then I don't want to play with them.

On the subject: Sometimes things might just be misunderstandings. I just played someone who played an Avanto and requested undo afterwards. I denied, thinking they wanted to not play Avanto once he drew a hand of no Saunas, but they clarified that they just mistakenly clicked "End Actions" (which I don't think there is a way for me to realize?), so then I gave them the undo. Without the talking it might have been a case where both think the other was being a jerk.


But see that's exactly what I'm talking about. It is not your job or responsibility to police other players and decide which undos they do and don't deserve. Just grant it. If they're requesting one to give them an unfair advantage, that's on them. Is it your privilege to deny? Sure, but it's also a bad attitude and that's what I want to see change in this community.
What? So your suggestion is that if someone undoes every Wishing Well wish to guess the right card, it would be bad attitude for me to deny that?

19
Dominion General Discussion / Re: To Those Who Deny Undo Steps Online
« on: April 28, 2018, 08:40:34 am »
I donít get this at all personally. I would see allowing an undo as being very gracious and sportsman-like, but to a degree above what I think should be minimally expected of people. I think someone is fully within their rights to deny an undo, and that such an act is not poor sportsmanship or rude; it is simply a lack of excessively good sportsmanship.
Well, not that I expect other people to grant undos, but then I don't want to play with them.

On the subject: Sometimes things might just be misunderstandings. I just played someone who played an Avanto and requested undo afterwards. I denied, thinking they wanted to not play Avanto once he drew a hand of no Saunas, but they clarified that they just mistakenly clicked "End Actions" (which I don't think there is a way for me to realize?), so then I gave them the undo. Without the talking it might have been a case where both think the other was being a jerk.

20
Also, gaining the card is probably always allowed for the purpose of ending the game on piles
This is problematic as for some cards (Messenger, Stonemason), the ability to quickly end the game is part of what makes up their strength.

21
You just proved my point via pointing out that in this Kingdom Diplomat is not a good card. You cannot claim that a card is good if player A has it but becomes bad when player B also buys it because that would be a partial analysis that ignored player interaction. Then the card simply isn't good in the first place, like Diplomat in your example.
This is a slightly silly point because the implication seems to be that a deck that consists of only Possessions and Villages is not a good deck. (since, if both players have it, you cannot do anything!)

The best actual strength test (I think) is to play a cage match of 2 equally skilled players where one player may not gain the card in question, and see how it affects winrate. Obviously if one player was not allowed to go for Diplomat in the example given, then it would be good for their opponent to build the Scrying Pool deck and win, so Diplomat would affect the winrate and thus be strong (even if given normal game rules it won't be bought).

22
Dominion Videos and Streams / Re: Stupidest guys ever
« on: April 24, 2018, 11:53:22 am »
You can find out by the fact that the other guy is playing a proper strategy and is crushing him.
I dunno man, at one point he has a hand of 4 Gold and a Festival.

23
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: How many gains can you get with n cards?
« on: April 24, 2018, 07:22:01 am »
For n=0, there are various ways to get to 4:
- Alms for Death Cart, exchange for Changeling.
- Alms for Villa, play Villa, buy Borrow, use Baker token, buy Stonemason overpaying by $1 to gain 2 Poor Houses.

If you had space for at least 3 Events, you could get insane with Villa+Borrow/Travelling Fair/Advance.

Random question on the "trash begins empty" edit: Does that mean we cannot use Necromancer or would Necromancer just not spawn any Zombies?

24
Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Feature Request: Mute the chat
« on: April 23, 2018, 07:49:41 am »
I wanna be able to turn this shit off...


In order to turn ShiT off, all you have to do is close the browser tab.

25
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: April 21, 2018, 04:43:02 am »
If you really want to have some fun, go to any discussion group of the Pathfinder RPG (based on 3rd edition of Dungeons & Dragons) and suggest that the game should be published in metric. People will spiral into a frothing fit to tell you why metric is a bad idea in their RPG.

My favorite "argument" is that if the game changes so that each square is 2 meters instead of 5 feet (which the Star Wars RPG actually did do BTW), then the iconic "5-foot step" would have to be renamed to the "6.56-foot step" and that's too hard to memorize. Some people are so entrenched in imperial that they can't even fathom renaming it to a "2-meter step." Yes, 5 feet sounds like quite a large step; it's not a literal single step.

I'm pretty bad at metric, but I've had some practice with the Torg RPG in 1990. It used metric even when it was an American publisher. Now that it's owned by a German publisher, metric is even more natural.
Well RPGs are an area where I actually kind of get this, especially if the setting is medieval where you wouldn't have a standardized system in-world anyway and people would use their actual feet etc. to measure things.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 58

Page created in 0.129 seconds with 19 queries.