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.

26

Dominion General Discussion / Re: CARD OF THE WEEK #9: Inn

« on: May 23, 2015, 10:03:57 pm »

It doesn't really matter what it has relative to cards like Festival and Necropolis.

How does it not matter? If someone asked me what advantages Hamlet has over Festival, I would absolutely mention that Hamlet allows you to switch out the worst of your other 4 cards for the next card on your deck if you want, while still getting either the village or +Buy effect that Festival gives you. That's what sifting is. Why does a word only apply to a card if that's why you buy it? I'm not going to buy Hamlet just for the sifting, but if I'm trying to decide if I should buy a Hamlet or a Festival, then the additional sifting effect that you get with Hamlet that you don't get with Festival very well could influence that decision. Does that make it a "sifter"? Well I would say so, but I don't really care because that's just semantics and not really useful for strategic discussions. But to say it has no sifting properties is just incorrect.

Hamlet has no sifting properties. The fact that other cards are worse than nothing for the purpose of sifting doesn't mean that a card that is exactly as good as nothing is a sifter. Saying that it is, is as good as saying that it produces virtual coin (after all, it does produce more virtual coin than Storyteller and Poor House in the situations where those cards give you negative coins), or that it increases the costs of all cards (after all, it does increase the costs of all cards more than Highway does).

And I would think it worth mentioning that Hamlet leaves you with more virtual coin than cards that spend coins in the event that you were comparing the two. I wouldn't say it gives you "virtual coin" because that actually has a well-established meaning, but then again I'd say Poor House technically gives "virtual coin" even if it nets you $0, so maybe the technical terms have the potential to be misleading. You say Hamlet gives no sifting? Alright, well then Festival gives negative sifting and it's still a comparison worth making.

27

Dominion General Discussion / Re: CARD OF THE WEEK #9: Inn

« on: May 23, 2015, 05:18:34 pm »

It doesn't really matter what it has relative to cards like Festival and Necropolis.

How does it not matter? If someone asked me what advantages Hamlet has over Festival, I would absolutely mention that Hamlet allows you to switch out the worst of your other 4 cards for the next card on your deck if you want, while still getting either the village or +Buy effect that Festival gives you. That's what sifting is. Why does a word only apply to a card if that's why you buy it? I'm not going to buy Hamlet just for the sifting, but if I'm trying to decide if I should buy a Hamlet or a Festival, then the additional sifting effect that you get with Hamlet that you don't get with Festival very well could influence that decision. Does that make it a "sifter"? Well I would say so, but I don't really care because that's just semantics and not really useful for strategic discussions. But to say it has no sifting properties is just incorrect.

28

Dominion General Discussion / Re: CARD OF THE WEEK #9: Inn

« on: May 22, 2015, 09:40:35 pm »

What is with the fixation on semantics around here? Call it whatever you want, it does the same thing regardless. Relative to cards like Festival and Necropolis it absolutely has a sifting effect on top of being a disappearing village. Why does it matter if that's the reason I bought it? Maybe I bought Trade Route for the +Buy, that doesn't mean it's not a trasher. Don't agree with my terminology? Well who really cares, it's not like "Sifter" is a card type. Saying Potion works well with sifters is still fine. Someone who reads "This card works well with trashers" and automatically thinks that card works well with every single trasher is probably still a pretty low-level player.

As to Secret Chamber, I wouldn't really call it a sifter because it doesn't draw cards and consequently can't improve the quality of the rest of your hand upon playing it. I'd consider Vault a sifter, but I don't really care if there's a community consensus on it. It's just a poorly defined term, let's stop fussing over it.

29

Dominion General Discussion / Re: CARD OF THE WEEK #9: Inn

« on: May 22, 2015, 05:24:37 pm »

Hamlet is not a sifter, it only draws 1 card.

So it sifts 1 card. Warehouse sifts 3, Inn sifts 2. They all reduce handsize, and they all let you switch out some number of cards for others. What exactly is your definition of a sifter?

A sifter that sifts one card is not a very good sifter.  Additionally, Hamlet is really more of a discard-for-benefit card, especially since the discard is optional.

Well I never said the sifting was good. Trade Route isn't an exceptionally good trasher, but it's still a trasher. Hamlet is also a discard-for-benefit card, but cards can be multiple things. Obviously you don't buy Hamlet just for the sifting effect, but it's still there (provided you actually use one of the discard options). You're still discarding bad cards in favor of keeping good cards, and if that's not sifting then I don't know what is. Obviously Hamlet doesn't improve the cards in your hand relative to not having the Hamlet at all, but it does improve the quality of the cards in your hand relative to other disappearing villages, such as Necropolis or Festival.

30

Dominion General Discussion / Re: CARD OF THE WEEK #9: Inn

« on: May 22, 2015, 12:56:31 pm »

Hamlet is not a sifter, it only draws 1 card.

So it sifts 1 card. Warehouse sifts 3, Inn sifts 2. They all reduce handsize, and they all let you switch out some number of cards for others. What exactly is your definition of a sifter?

31

Dominion General Discussion / Re: CARD OF THE WEEK #9: Inn

« on: May 22, 2015, 10:50:13 am »

Overall, I think it's a super innteresting card. It's (I'm pretty sure) the only village-sifter, and I think that's a neat concept.

Depends on if you count Hamlet, although Inn is obviously a better sifter in exchange for the lack of flexibility that Hamlet offers.

Oh yeah, I'd count Hamlet.

32

Dominion General Discussion / Re: CARD OF THE WEEK #9: Inn

« on: May 22, 2015, 01:16:42 am »

Starting questions:
* Do you ever not shuffle in all Actions in your discard pile?
* When is the best time to gain an Inn?
* How does it compare to Lost City?
* Who wants to spend a weekend in that picture?
* Overall, is it an inn-teresting card?  *winks obnoxiously*

Unless it's like 2 or 3 actions, you should pretty much always take the time to think about which ones you want to reshuffle. Maybe if all of them are Labs or something then maybe, but I mean you still don't want to make them all miss the shuffle.

The best time to gain an Inn? Sometimes you just get it when you need a village, sometimes you just get it when you need a sifter. If you want it primarily for the on-gain effect, it's usually best towards the end of your shuffle, as you're more likely to draw all of those actions together and pull off a monster turn. Just be careful that you don't make them all miss the shuffle and get stuck a billion bad turns in a row. I've on a number of occasions bought an Inn towards the end of the game as a means to setting up a game-ending turn.

It doesn't really compare to Lost City except in the sense that they can both be used as villages. Overall I'd say Lost City is a much better card, but Inn's on-gain ability can be game-changing.

Sure, I'd spend a week there. I love how isolated it looks. Pretty spooky.

Overall, I think it's a super innteresting card. It's (I'm pretty sure) the only village-sifter, and I think that's a neat concept. I also really love the on-gain effect. Knowing how to use it properly has made the difference in quite a few games that I've played. Really neat card.

33

Rules Questions / Re: A bajillion Possessions

« on: May 21, 2015, 03:47:34 am »

If there are multiple extra turns to be played "after this turn" then you get to choose the order, I believe, unless an Outpost and Possession were played on the same turn, in which case Outpost happens first. I'm pretty sure that's right.

Sure, but this doesn't answer the question asked. The question is...

Turn A: I play Possession-1 and Possession-2.
Extra Turn 1: I make you play Possession-3.

Which happens first, Extra Turn 2 or Extra Turn 3?

No, my post did answer that. 2 turns are lined up, so you get to pick which happens first.

34

Rules Questions / Re: A bajillion Possessions

« on: May 21, 2015, 01:20:02 am »

I believe the answer is, when you play Possession, it inserts a Possession turn immediately between the current turn and whatever turn is supposed to come after it.

I've always imagined a "extra turn queue" of sorts, where all cards trying to make extra turns are in the queue and are all trying to do it at once (then you choose).  When you've played multiple Possessions and play an Outpost in their first turn, you decide which of the Possession or Outpost turn happen next.  At least I seem to remember hearing that somewhere.

If there are multiple extra turns to be played "after this turn" then you get to choose the order, I believe, unless an Outpost and Possession were played on the same turn, in which case Outpost happens first. I'm pretty sure that's right.

35

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Adam is bad at kingdom design

« on: May 19, 2015, 02:35:42 pm »

King's Court, Possession, Wharf, Fishing Village, Chapel, Grand Market, Band of Misfits, Procession, Cultist, Fortress.

Is it bad that this post gave me butterflies?

36

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Name a card that fits its name

« on: May 19, 2015, 02:18:04 am »

Doctor

I never understood how Doctor was very doctorly.

It removes junk cards/cancerous cells from your deck.

37

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles

« on: May 19, 2015, 01:49:39 am »

Heck, I don't feel bad about going right ahead and calling anything that is a splitter in any sense at all a village.

Agreed. While a more literal definition of a village might be "a card that provides +2 (or more) actions when played"; the entire purpose behind categorizing things as villages in the first place is to answer the question "can you play more than 1 terminal on a turn if this card is available?" And for that question, Throne Room qualifies as much as Village does.

Hmm, well. By that argument we could say a Throne Room qualifies only half as much as a Village does, since you have to have two Throne Rooms in order to play two terminals. (With one Throne Room you can play one terminal, but you play it twice.)

Well no, you're still playing two terminal actions, they just both come from the same card.

38

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles

« on: May 18, 2015, 03:32:31 am »

How can I put 4 Distant Lands onto my Tavern mat this turn?

Pick them up and put them there.

39

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles

« on: May 16, 2015, 04:01:31 pm »

I Inherit Peddlers on turn 2.  How?

T1-Play 5 Copper; Buy Travelling Fair, Poor House, and Poor House, top-decking both. Draw PH, PH, and your 3 Shelters.
T2-Play Necropolis, then both PHs. Inherit Peddlers.

I wonder if it's possible without Shelters? Probably not, but I'll think about it.

40

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What is your favorite Event?

« on: May 15, 2015, 05:53:43 pm »

Travelling Fair. I love that an event can be a source of +Buy now.

41

Rules Questions / Re: Harold, Black Market and Possesion

« on: May 15, 2015, 04:03:49 pm »

Sorry for digging up an old thread, but I felt like I should clarify. If you Possess your opponent and play Possession on your Possession turn, your opponent should immediately get a chance to Possess you once your Possession turn is done, after which your opponent should get his normal turn. Instead, it gives him his normal turn after you finish Possessing him, and then he Possesses you. So it should be:

1. Player A's turn
2. A Possesses B
3. B Possesses A
4. Player B's turn

But instead, Goko does:

1. Player A's turn
2. A Possesses B
3. Player B's turn
4. B Possesses A

True.

42

Rules Questions / Re: Harold, Black Market and Possesion

« on: May 15, 2015, 12:59:23 pm »

Sorry for digging up an old thread, but I felt like I should clarify. If you Possess your opponent and play Possession on your Possession turn, your opponent should immediately get a chance to Possess you once your Possession turn is done, after which your opponent should get his normal turn. Instead, it gives him his normal turn after you finish Possessing him, and then he Possesses you. So it should be:

1. Player A's turn
2. A Possesses B
3. B Possesses A
4. Player B's turn

But instead, Goko does:

1. Player A's turn
2. A Possesses B
3. Player B's turn
4. B Possesses A

43

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Bizarre Bot Strategies II

« on: May 15, 2015, 12:52:24 pm »

Warlord Bot - plays Warehouse
Warlord Bot - draws Salvager, Estate, Warehouse
Warlord Bot - discards Estate
Warlord Bot - discards Estate
Warlord Bot - discards Curse
Warlord Bot - plays Warehouse
Warlord Bot - draws Warehouse, Salvager, Copper
Warlord Bot - discards Salvager
Warlord Bot - discards Copper
Warlord Bot - discards Salvager
Warlord Bot - plays Familiar
Warlord Bot - draws Warehouse
Warlord Bot - plays Familiar
Warlord Bot - draws Warehouse
Warlord Bot - plays Warehouse
Warlord Bot - draws Curse, Gold, Warehouse
Warlord Bot - discards Curse
Warlord Bot - discards Gold
Warlord Bot - discards Warehouse
Warlord Bot - plays Warehouse
Warlord Bot - draws Curse, Copper, Warehouse
Warlord Bot - discards Curse
Warlord Bot - discards Copper
Warlord Bot - discards Warehouse
Warlord Bot - plays Warehouse
Warlord Bot - shuffles deck
Warlord Bot - draws Curse, Warehouse, Copper
Warlord Bot - discards Curse
Warlord Bot - discards Copper
Warlord Bot - discards Warehouse
Warlord Bot - draws Curse, Curse, Gold, Copper, Warehouse

Basically Warlord Bot is discarding its whole hand with warehouses every turn.

I've seen this, too. It's like there are a handful of cards that bots always want as many of as possible even if they're bad for their deck.

44

Dominion General Discussion / Re: CARD OF THE WEEK #8: Horse Traders

« on: May 15, 2015, 12:46:51 pm »

... Double Tac deck with Hamlet, Menagerie, and Horse Traders. I was playing with my friend who was new to the game and it was just plain silly.

Did he become hooked? Sounds more like a deterrent to a beginner to me.

This particular friend of mine plays a lot of card games and video games competitively and would rather I stomp him into the ground than sandbag him. He and I still play a good amount.

45

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance / Grand Market and buying Estates

« on: May 15, 2015, 12:44:25 pm »

I'd say "you can't buy this" is its own concept. There are at least two cards and one Event (Grand Market, Contraband, Mission) that make use of it, so we should probably stop defining it in terms of "when you would buy" and instead think of it as an invisible property of each card. It's usually set to "can buy," but certain extraordinary circumstances change it to "can't buy".

Well you can call it whatever you want, it's still the same concept. I described it as a "when-would-buy" effect because that clarifies the timing of the effect relative to the timing of buying the card, which is actually relevant to the Inheritance question.

46

Dominion General Discussion / Re: CARD OF THE WEEK #8: Horse Traders

« on: May 14, 2015, 05:02:30 pm »

It's a pretty versatile card. It's great in slogs and early in engine games before you've cleared out all of your Coppers and Estates. Even once you have a really dense deck, HT can still be really good if you can overdraw your deck; just discard your good cards and then draw them right back, a la Vault. Probably my favorite game I've played with this card was in a Double Tac deck with Hamlet, Menagerie, and Horse Traders. I was playing with my friend who was new to the game and it was just plain silly.

47

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance / Grand Market and buying Estates

« on: May 14, 2015, 03:28:37 pm »

Dude the card straight up does not say that.

I didn't say that it did.

48

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance / Grand Market and buying Estates

« on: May 14, 2015, 02:25:28 pm »

The Copper restriction on GM is more of a "when-would-buy" effect than a "when-buy" effect. In that sense it should not be treated like other when-buy effects, that is, triggering after you've bought the card.

No, it's more of a "while you have any Copper in play" effect.

Well okay, but it could also be interpreted as "When you would buy Grand Market, if you have any Copper in play, instead you don't buy it." It would function the same.

49

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance / Grand Market and buying Estates

« on: May 14, 2015, 02:09:45 pm »

The Copper restriction on GM is more of a "when-would-buy" effect than a "when-buy" effect. In that sense it should not be treated like other when-buy effects, that is, triggering after you've bought the card.

50

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Yet another Adventures review

« on: May 13, 2015, 02:29:46 pm »

Yeah I don't think 4P Dominion is worth playing. If any attack is present you just don't get to do anything that game. Most of the time you're playing Big Money and you break for Duchies because Provinces are never attainable. If there's a junking attack, just forget it. You're in for the long haul on a game where Estates, Curses, and probably Coppers run out. I don't think there's anything fun about that, I'd rather build an engine, but even on an engine board you can't really build anything cool with two Villages. Something about potatoes again.

I assume you're using hyperbole, but if the a 4-player game ends on Estates, Curses, and Coppers, your opponents are either morons or they're trolling you. That's just not how it goes.

Either that or you're playing a game with Noble Brigand and Mountebank. For those who aren't aware, new players will think Noble Brigand is really, really good. To such an extent that they might buy nothing but Noble Brigands until the pile's gone. And then they'll think the game's bullshit when everyone starts revealing double Copper every single time.

Anyway, yeah, I already sort of said this, but I'd like to elaborate. Any more than 3 players in Dominion just makes the game dumb for me. I mean, it might be okay with no attacks, but attacks are a big part of the game and where you see most of the player interaction and I just don't want to play without them. At least not by default. Newbie players always love the shit out of Villages (I actually had to take the time to explain why Villages provide literally no benefit if you don't have any other actions in your deck; one player I played with was trying to tell me that you could use Villages to draw your entire deck and buy really expensive things), so good luck getting enough of your own Villages to build a functional engine. And piles empty SUPER aggressively, especially if you have a solid gainer like Haggler on the board, so it almost always ends up being a race for Duchies, and that's just not my idea of a fun game. And I don't mean that in an "I'm really good at the game so I only want to play it ultra-competitively" sort of way, I mean it's actually no fun even if you don't take it seriously at all. Nothing that cool ever happens, every game feels about the same, and at the point when the game is over nobody understands what I did to deserve the win. And why should they? All I did was start buying Duchies before everyone else.

Anyway, that's my rant. If you enjoy 4-player Dominion then more power to ya, but in general I'd recommend finding a better 4-player board/card game.