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.

51

Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Nocturne Initial Impressions

« on: November 25, 2017, 12:44:38 pm »

some Boons are easier to make use of in the middle of your turn than at the start (for example the trashing Boon, the discard treasure for a $4 Boon, and the discard 3 for Gold boon). And then you can get the +$1 Boons sometimes to get a non-symmetrical bonus.

I'm not convinced many of the Boons are especially worse to play between your turns than in the middle of your turn. It feels to me that could go either way, depending on how you're playing your turn. Maybe once you have an engine running you go out of your way to try to have lots of cards in hand when you play Sacred Grove, but that won't always be possible.

Set against that, it's already been pointed out that you gaining a mandatory Silver while your opponents have the option of gaining one is asymmetric against you.

You write "set against that", but aren't both of your points saying the same thing, that Sacred Grove is not good? Markusin was making an argument for Sacred Grove, saying that some Boons are not such a benefit to the other players since they get them between turns, and you're saying that's not necessarily true.

I actually don't know how "set against that" is supposed to be used in conversation. It's not something I hear very often, and I interpreted it as a generic framing device rather than implying a contradiction like "on the other hand" does.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't imply contradiction or agreement, just a comparison of some sort.

52

Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Nocturne Initial Impressions

« on: November 24, 2017, 10:41:25 am »

some Boons are easier to make use of in the middle of your turn than at the start (for example the trashing Boon, the discard treasure for a $4 Boon, and the discard 3 for Gold boon). And then you can get the +$1 Boons sometimes to get a non-symmetrical bonus.

Then again, does the Boon stuff need to be a net benefit to the current player? I'm staring at Contraband, Courtier, Mandarin, Count, Legionary, Swamp Hag, all priced at $5, all giving you the potential for +$3. Are any actually as good as a flat +$3,+1Buy? Maybe Sacred Grove would have to cost more without the Boons?

I think sometimes I'd rather have Count than a flat +$3 +1 Buy. But I think I agree with your reasoning that Sacred Grove may have to cost more if it didn't give other players the Boons.

Set against that, it's already been pointed out that you gaining a mandatory Silver while your opponents have the option of gaining one is asymmetric against you.

It's a good point, though hopefully people realize that if they're running a deck that absolutely doesn't want Silvers, then Fates are probably not a good choice.

53

Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Nocturne Initial Impressions

« on: November 23, 2017, 01:41:52 pm »

tristan 4.0 is banned.

I'm like 99% sure you're joking, but, you are joking, right? That would be the quickest witch hunt ever if not.

More on topic: I don't know that I think Josh was being condescending until after he was first accused of being condescending, although I should admit I haven't read those other two threads Trivialknot linked to. I agree with Seprix though, deescalation would be good, because this has been a very enjoyable thread so far, and it'd be cool to keep it like that

54

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Google translates Dominion

« on: November 23, 2017, 01:26:50 pm »

I don't suppose for Watchtower, you accidentally left the types as "Card Types" or some such? That seems a lot more likely to produce "Map. Comment"

I can see how it might have turned "Action" into something like "make" or "work", which got changed from one similar verb to another until it ended up as "map", the verb rather than the noun.

The reason I asked is that I believe the words for “map” and “card” are the same in German.

Oh good point, that they are. Although I think Reaction --> Comment takes less of my imagination than Type --> Comment. Would be interesting to hear OP's answer to your question.

Interestingly, when I go straight from English to German, "Card Types" goes to "Kartentypen", which I would guess is enough context for any German or any translation service to know that it's "card type" and not "map type". But who's to say. I'm no linguist, and I was an awful German student.

Funnily enough, my original thought was also prompted by German, and how if "Action" somehow ended up at "machen" due to an intermediate translation, then the meaning could get warped pretty fast. But your reasoning takes less of a leap in logic.

55

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Google translates Dominion

« on: November 23, 2017, 03:14:19 am »

I don't suppose for Watchtower, you accidentally left the types as "Card Types" or some such? That seems a lot more likely to produce "Map. Comment"

I can see how it might have turned "Action" into something like "make" or "work", which got changed from one similar verb to another until it ended up as "map", the verb rather than the noun.

56

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Google translates Dominion

« on: November 23, 2017, 03:04:41 am »

Good to see that the Website of Schatz is helping to fight the good fight

57

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seprix's Tier Lists For Every Dominion Set

« on: November 21, 2017, 12:40:26 pm »

While I'm ranting: I also have a brother who rolls his eyes every time he hears there's a new Dominion Expansion and says something along the lines of "Jeez, they're gonna have to start a rotation soon like all the other CCGs if they want players to be able to keep up".

I think there is some truth to this. If attracting new players to competitive Dominion was important for the business model (as it is for CCGs both paper and virtual) then I think there would be value to a "season" approach.

Well, no doubt there could be business value in a rotation. But I don't think my brother's position is that they need to do it for business reasons so much as it is that the game needs it for balance similarly to how CCGs do. So like, if your position is "it would be good business to rotate" or "it would help players gain familiarity", then I agree. But if your position is "you have to be able to know the cards in the card pool to play a game of Dominion well", then I don't.

The way I think of it is like this: Donald X could release 10,000 new cards tomorrow and it wouldn't fundamentally change the way I think about any one specific round of Dominion, only in how I tackle meta analysis or general Dominion discussion. In every case, I am presented with 10-11 Kingdom Cards (and possibly some Events/Landmarks), and it is my task to figure out the best path to victory under the circumstances. The fact that I currently have familiarity with most of the cards in the card pool is very convenient, but I don't view it as relevant to any specific match itself, because the 10 cards in the supply don't really care about the rest of the cards in the card pool.

In a CCG, you need to know the card pool because you need to know what could possibly be in your opponent's deck (which is hidden information) and use predictions to guide your decision making process. That's not a thing in Dominion. I know what's available to my opponent. It's the same stuff available to me. So there's this specific reason (among others) for CCGs to have rotation that isn't a factor with Dominion, and I believe my brother is overlooking that to some extent.

58

Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Nocturne Initial Impressions

« on: November 21, 2017, 11:51:43 am »

Pixie revealing Flame's Gift, trashing itself and 0-2 cards from your hand, is strictly better than Bomb.

The influence that Dominion Gunpowder has had on Donald's work is unmistakable. That expansion also had a Moat-like Reactions subtheme. And what do we have here!? Faithful Hound- a Reaction with similarities to Moat!

The fact that Pixie+Flame's Gift is so remarkably similar to the premise of Bomb is not meant to make Bomb obsolete so much as it is to celebrate Bomb: to make it an official part of Dominion cannon- as it were.

Gunpowder was also doing Reserves before Adventures made it cool. It's just really cool to see Donald giving subtle nods to Gunpowder over the years.

Still waiting on some kind of official implementation of Sulfur Pit though.

59

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seprix's Tier Lists For Every Dominion Set

« on: November 21, 2017, 11:06:25 am »

I hope this doesn't come across as a loaded question, because it's not meant to be one, but: doesn't Imp fit your definition of a Splitter? Like I thought I understood what your definition was, but then when reading the above, I'm left thinking that I don't understand it fully.

No. A splitter allows you to play two Bridges on the same turn. Imp might prevent you from being able to play one.

It’s frankly amazing that you consider Royal Carriage an unconditional splitter, a card that literally won’t let you play two separate actions if you don’t have a cantrip, but Imp is never a splitter because it doesn’t let you do your favorite thing easily.

Royal Carriage can stack on the same action card though, as seen in the Royal Carriage / Bridge combo. It's still a weird case though.

Imp is sometimes a laboratory. Since when did we ever consider lab a village or splitter?

We didn't. I was just in a hurry, so I accidentally conflated soft terminal with pseudo-village (or "splitter" as Awaclus prefers) in my head. I was mentally comparing Imp to Herald as cards which sometimes play an additional action card. Which is wrong of course- Herald will be a Cantrip at worst and a Splitter at best, Imp will be card draw at worst and a Cantrip (Lab Variant) at best. Imp will get you 0 Actions or 1 pseudo-action, whereas Herald will get you 1 Action and maybe also 1 pseudo-action.

The real question shouldn't be "What is your definition of Splitter", it should be "When you say that Devil's Workshop is bad because it fills your deck with terminals, is that accounting for them being soft terminals?" My mistake for the mixup.



I think I get what Chris is me is trying to say about Awaclus' stated definition of Splitter. Awaclus, would you consider the following card a Splitter even though it would never help you play two Bridges in one turn (and would proactively prevent such a thing for the rest of the turn)?

Picky Village
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may not play additional copies beyond the 1st copy of any Action card except Picky Village for the rest of the turn.

Edited card text for clarity. Card's wording probably still sucks, but you get the idea of the thought experiment.

60

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seprix's Tier Lists For Every Dominion Set

« on: November 21, 2017, 10:18:43 am »

I wish all of the people who rejected base Dominion because they felt it was too simple or predictable would have started with 2nd edition. Perhaps their opinions would be different now.

A few years back, my Mother-in-law bought Base Set to try relating to my wife (Mother-in-law does enjoy other lighter board games like Splendor, Kingsburg, and 7 Wonders, so we had no reason to think Base Set Dominion would be a bad fit). After having played a couple rounds with my Sister-in-law, MiL calls up my wife and complains "the game is just too easy. It's so obvious what you have to do and one strategy is easily the best". I assume they're talking about Chapel, because you know, it's Base Set.

Next time we're over at MiL's house, we ask to play a game of Dominion with her. Much to my horror, her "obvious winning strategy" is the Village Idiot. She just buys Village after Village, then only once the pile is empty does she start buying other Action cards and/or Treasures. Needless to say, one of us beats MiL by a significant amount despite intentionally playing a little sub-optimally. So we politely try to tell her between games that the Villages gain you no benefit if they're the only Action cards in your deck. She's skeptical. So I explain to her that, yes, you will have tons of Actions now, but after playing all of those Villages your deck is still just 7 Coppers and 3 Estates, so "what are you going to do with all of those extra Actions? You only have Treasure and Victory cards." Her conclusion: "You're just trying to get into my head so you can get all of the Villages first!"

We played a few more games, in which she stuck to her guns and lost every time. Despite my constant assurance that Chapel was in fact the strongest card in the box, she kept saying it was a worthless card. I even demonstrated a typical chapel Big Money deck in a game for her. No dice, Chapel is super weak and you only won because you got the Golds first. I couldn't get her to realize that the reason I was able to get those Golds first was because of Chapel.

So I'm not so sure that many of the people who were convinced that Dominion is too simple or predictable really know what they're talking about


While I'm ranting: I also have a brother who rolls his eyes every time he hears there's a new Dominion Expansion and says something along the lines of "Jeez, they're gonna have to start a rotation soon like all the other CCGs if they want players to be able to keep up". I try explaining to him that the core mechanic of Dominion is basically a rotation- as in you rotate 10 cards every game, and that you don't have to have the entire card pool memorized to play it, because thinking on the fly is a key part of the game. He doesn't see it that way. He also feels that Arctic Scavengers is a better Deck Builder because of how much smaller the cardpool is.

...I don't like to talk about Dominion with most of my family...

61

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seprix's Tier Lists For Every Dominion Set

« on: November 20, 2017, 11:22:57 am »

Well, I didn't forget that it was a cantrip, I just don't feel that that fact makes up for the fact that you generally have to use your Buy to get a card that rarely does much for your deck. Even if it was just a gain, gainers can usually get you something better (Ironworks could get you a $4, if you're using Haggler you probably bought more than a $3 unless your deck is super junked, etc.) But point taken that Pirate Ship is not a cantrip while the Diver is. I just think that, even being non-terminal, the opportunity cost of buying that Pearl Diver makes it generally not worth it unless you open on a 5/2.

But it basically never fails the Nothing Test. Usually you will end up with at least a couple of Pearl Divers in your deck just because you hit $2 or $3 and it's the only thing at that price point that passes the Nothing Test.

Fair enough. I can agree with that reasoning. So for you, is the F Tier reserved for cards that nearly always hurt more than they help?

Or perhaps a better question: is it fair to say that a card which never fails the Nothing Test is a card that you would never put in the F Tier?

62

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seprix's Tier Lists For Every Dominion Set

« on: November 20, 2017, 11:00:33 am »

I think you have accidentally switched up Pooka and Devil's Workshop.

What?

I'm just saying that Pooka is super good and Devil's Workshop is not.

There is no universe in which that is true.

Except for the universe in which trashing and draw is good and stuffing your deck with terminal Actions is not.

I hope this doesn't come across as a loaded question, because it's not meant to be one, but: doesn't Imp fit your definition of a Splitter? Like I thought I understood what your definition was, but then when reading the above, I'm left thinking that I don't understand it fully.



I'm kinda split between your's and Seprix's opinions. I certainly wouldn't consider Pooka an F, but I wouldn't put it at S or A because it costs $5. If it were $4 I'd put it in A or S. At $5 I consider it a solid B. Granted I haven't played much Nocturne yet and this opinion could change. I also wouldn't call Devil's Workshop an S or an F. Maybe more like A or B (but again, subject to change with more experience)

63

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seprix's Tier Lists For Every Dominion Set

« on: November 20, 2017, 10:50:10 am »

Though I could be missing something there with Pearl Diver.

You're missing the fact that it's a cantrip.

Well, I didn't forget that it was a cantrip, I just don't feel that that fact makes up for the fact that you generally have to use your Buy to get a card that rarely does much for your deck. Even if it was just a gain, gainers can usually get you something better (Ironworks could get you a $4, if you're using Haggler you probably bought more than a $3 unless your deck is super junked, etc.) But point taken that Pirate Ship is not a cantrip while the Diver is. I just think that, even being non-terminal, the opportunity cost of buying that Pearl Diver makes it generally not worth it unless you open on a 5/2.

64

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seprix's Tier Lists For Every Dominion Set

« on: November 20, 2017, 10:42:17 am »

"This is a terrible idea, just drop it altogether." - Seprix
This was the response I got when I was trying to get a community tier list.

Yeah and it honestly wasn't just Seprix either. A lot of people (myself included) chose to make the discussion about whether or not Tier Lists were pointless. And Seprix got around that here by basically being like "I don't wanna hear it. That debate is off-topic here", which is kinda unfair to you since I'm sure you also didn't want your thread to get dominated by that debate, and it happened anyway. So, sorry you had that experience.

Not saying any of this to throw shade or start drama or anything (I found Seprix's apology mature and classy). I just know if I were in your shoes I'd still be kinda miffed about the whole thing, so I thought I'd mention it just to say I empathize with you and am sorry your thread got met with so much resistance while this one wasn't.

65

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seprix's Tier Lists For Every Dominion Set

« on: November 20, 2017, 09:19:16 am »

Not sure I'd have put Pirate Ship with Embargo and Navigator. I'd personally have it in D and Pearl Diver in F. Though I could be missing something there with Pearl Diver. It just seems like the utility gained from, say, Cutpurse is about on par with Pirate Ship, whereas Pearl Diver is a bit lesser. True it's cheap, but at some point it's not the Coin cost that makes something expensive, so much as it is the fact that you're wasting a perfectly good Buy/Gain on it.

My personal list would also put Treasure Map at D, but I kinda have an irrational love for Treasure Map, and it's not something I'd argue strongly about. I dunno, the only thing I would say is that, when sifting is there without trashing, and there's no other stellar actions in the Kingdom, Treasure Maps can be good (edge cases, I know), but I struggle to think of scenarios where Pearl Diver or Embargo can be just as good, even with support from other cards.

Boom. Completely based off of barely any playing time. I'll change this up later, it's not official right now.

This image would be useful if we'd been playing with these cards for years and knew the artwork.  But right now it's pretty useless...

Well, true as that may be, it would take away from the presentation for Seprix to make just this one be text. Plus, will it really take you very long to learn all of these cards? You haven't had Empires for years, and I'd be willing to bet you know all of the cards by their images. I feel like I already know roughly 1/3 of Nocturne by their images. Maybe not so well that I could recite the entire card text by memory, and I might make silly mistakes like forgetting a card grants +1 Action, but well enough that I could say "Oh yeah, that one is the village that gives a Hex on-gain"

66

Dominion Articles / Re: Bard is not weak

« on: November 18, 2017, 07:02:13 pm »

Wandering Minstrel & Fortress & Bandit Camp (apparently the only three vanilla villages to meet in a set?)

I think you meant to say "vanillages."

I thought we were supposed to call them Vanilitters?

67

Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: What did we get wrong before?

« on: November 16, 2017, 09:54:37 am »

No one saw Jack of all Trades, Rebuild or Ill Gotten Gains as single card strategies when they first came out. They were first thought to be weak, neutral and useless, respectively, IIRC.

And then it swung to, these are OP single card strategies that are impossible to counter when they are out and are ruining Dominion.

How many times has Dominion been ruined now? I've lost track.

My favorite will always be this one. So melodramatic.

I seem to remember an article that said something like "IGG shows just how bad a card has to be in order to give a Curse on-gain". It's interesting for me to reflect back on that, because even though I initially thought IGG was good, I totally conformed to that article writer's belief under the assumption that they must know better than me. I eventually came around, but it serves as a personal reminder to take initial opinions with a grain of salt.

68

Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: future plans

« on: November 14, 2017, 09:43:45 am »

Yes yes, we're spinning it right here.
Let's make some more posts for people to upvote.
Or do you think people have standards and the posts actually need to contain information?

The biggest thing is to only make one point per post. If you make two points, someone may agree with one but not the other, and so deny you the upvote.

Unless one of the points is going to be slightly controversial and the other is going to be humorous in nature. Then you can bank on people upvoting the humor even if they don't agree with the serious point. Down that road lies (theoretical, virtual) profit.

69

Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Is it okay to buy Possession?

« on: November 14, 2017, 09:21:59 am »

I know what Alchemy needs in order to breath new life into the Potion mechanic: Potion Debt

70

Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Is it okay to buy Possession?

« on: November 14, 2017, 09:17:18 am »

Mercenary costs one Urchin trash
Madman costs one Hermit trash
Imp costs a Devil's Workshop play (or an Exorcist trashing a 3+ cost)
Prizes cost a Province discard
Quest costs 2 Curses

--
I don't know why people dislike Alchemy so much... Possession aside, Familiar should cost 2P but that's about it.

Ahhh thank you! So he was saying that the opportunity cost for those cards is a second currency?

I'm not sure I agree that Upgrade/Traveller style cards count as a secondary currency. For one, Urchin, Hermit, DW, Province, and Curse all do something alone and have their own functions, which are modified into also having gaining power. On the other hand, Coins and Potions (as in the abstract spent/unspent things given to you by cards, not the cards themselves) are always buying power (which you can sometimes also use in functional ways like with Storyteller). When you play an Urchin Card, you don't get one "Unspent Urchin", and then look in the supply and see Mercenary which has a cost of 0 Coin currency and 1 "Urchin" currency.

Even Debt doesn't really count as a currency, because it's really more of a cost modifier in the same way that Overpay is. Ie it's shorthand for "If you don't have enough Coins for this, you can pay what you have now and pay the rest later over as many turns as you want, but you can't Buy again until this is fully paid for", but the payment is still being made in Coins. Coins and Potions are really the only existing currencies.

(Dear god, please don't let this turn into a debate about fiat money...)

71

Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Is it okay to buy Possession?

« on: November 11, 2017, 07:53:53 pm »

I agree.

Me personally, I don't care about the strength of Alchemy cards so much as I care about there not being many of them. For a 2nd type of currency, there's really very few cards that use it, and the ratio shrinks with every expansion (for obvious reasons).
[...]

I don't know. I'm not bothered that there is only one card that uses Urchin as secundary currency. Or Hermit, or Devil's Workshop, or Province (ok, it's five, but you know what I mean), or Curses.

I'm not really sure what you're saying. Could you please clarify?

72

Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Is it okay to buy Possession?

« on: November 11, 2017, 03:28:10 pm »

Personally, I think Alchemy wouldn't be as horribly received if it had better cards. That looks like a truism at first, but the point is that the potion mechanic, while not necessarily universally loved, still has lots of fans. But Alchemy is a tiny expansion, and of that expansion, at least two cards are so weak they are basically not there, one is Possession, and Scrying Pool has all that makes Spy bad, just on a card that's useful enough to be played often. If the set had more than just a few cards that are actually fun to play with, people wouldn't dislike it as much.

But yeah, we'll never know. I know I wouldn't bet money on Alchemy second edition.

I agree.

Me personally, I don't care about the strength of Alchemy cards so much as I care about there not being many of them. For a 2nd type of currency, there's really very few cards that use it, and the ratio shrinks with every expansion (for obvious reasons). At the time of release, about 10% of released cards used Potions, and I think 15%-25% might be best for a secondary currency. Today, about 3% of cards use Potions. The problem is that buying that potion has to really be worth it, but you don't want the Potion costing cards to be so good that the Potion becomes an auto-buy. So the interesting decisions seem to come from having 2 or 3 Alchemy cards out. Obviously, as Donald X has pointed out many times, you could just houserule it so that if an Alchemy card comes out then you put out at least one more. But you know, at this point in time we've seen all of those combinations so many times.

Of course, we all know the history of how Alchemy got this way, with it originally being the last big expansion planned and then getting split in half. No use crying over spilled milk. I mentioned that only about 3% of cards today use Potions, but at the same time I can't fault Donald X for that. Why would you release more cards from the least popular expansion when you have plenty of fun new ideas that don't have that negative association? Especially given that- up until Adventures- there was a lot of hesitation to do anything resembling an "expansion to the expansion".

All I can say is that I definitely wouldn't want an Alchemy 2nd Edition. If there were ever going to be anything else Alchemy related, I would want it to be a new expansion of cards using Potions. A 2nd Edition wouldn't fix all of the issues in my opinion.

Not that I'm betting my money on that either. But I'd be happy if it existed.

73

Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Is it okay to buy Possession?

« on: November 11, 2017, 03:01:33 pm »

I don't like the idea of 1 card being given special "sorta-banned" rules, yet also only for online play. If the card is unfun and the majority of people just don't like it, just errata it out of existence like what happened with Scout, Great Hall, etc. People can still play with those cards at home if they want, nothing's stopping them.

If it's still an official Dominion card that exists for all official purposes, then having it be the one and only card that can't show up in full random online games makes online games more different from IRL play than it has to be, and gives it a special status that no other card in the game has.

IRL you can simply not put out cards you don't like. The online version is moving in the direction of matching that, being more like the physical version, not less. The idea is to only allow 5 cards banned, rather than as many as you want, because if you can ban lots of cards you can game the system (you can game the system with just 5 bans but it won't amount to much).

We don't have this feature yet (due to it needing an interface) and Possession is the card most likely to make many banned lists. People are agreeing not to play with it and having 9-card kingdoms and that makes the game less fun. So.

Again you can still play with Possession online by manually adding it to your game. It's not gone, it just doesn't get picked out for you.

As somebody who was originally skeptical of this idea, I've come around to seeing it as a good thing. Even people who game it are at best gaming 10 cards* out of existence (5 of which would be the least popular cards, and 5 of which are the ones they suck the most with- if you're lucky the 5 most hated cards are also among your 10 worst cards). You're probably not going to become the highest rated player just by ditching the 5-10 cards you're the worst with. Plus it's not like you're the only player given that luxury. If we really wanted, we could all attempt to game the system to our cold little hearts content until the system is so chaotic and unanalyzable that it doesn't matter. Meanwhile everyone else is having a more pleasant experience, and the players who just focus on playing the game and getting better will probably actually do better than if they worried about calculating optimal bans.

Plus, Masquerade turns are too freaking slow relative to their fun factor online, so I'm kinda glad I can ban that...

*Obviously in reality the real numbers are much more complicated, because it'll be more like "You are x% likely to see card A, y% likely to see card B, etc." but let's not split hairs here. At best you guarantee 10 cards you never play with by gaming the system.

74

Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Previews #4: Werewolf, Skulk, Cursed Village

« on: October 30, 2017, 07:35:46 pm »

You keep saying Swindler, but the topic was Locusts. Swindlering a Royal Blacksmith gets you another one. Not so with Locusts. Other than that, I did read the entire post this time, and I remain as unconvinced as you - unconvinced that getting Royal Blacksmith removed from your deck doesn't falls into all three categories of low frequency, high severity, and low player agency. Swindler is actually way more predictable.

Not to mention that Famine, War, and maybe Bad Omens can skip over the Royal Blacksmith just like Swindler would.

Multiple Swindlers also won't get in each others' ways, whereas multiple Hexes can.

Not that it matters. Because, y'know, I already cautioned against fixating on Swindler itself. I was just talking about any card with low probabilities of messing up your plans.

75

Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Previews #4: Werewolf, Skulk, Cursed Village

« on: October 30, 2017, 07:31:17 pm »

You keep saying Swindler, but the topic was Locusts. Swindlering a Royal Blacksmith gets you another one. Not so with Locusts. Other than that, I did read the entire post this time,

Swindler was to get us off of the topic of a theoretical new card and onto one which we are all already familiar with, in order to get you to stop misrepresenting what I had previously said as some kind of one size fits all rule of how to address Locusts.

Are you sure you read it? I could swear I edited the post and addressed the Swindler thing already, like, 3 hours before you posted your response...

As for your main response regarding frequency, severity, and player agency, that's totally fine if you are unconvinced, but you are the one who made a claim (that Locusts was too swingy), so it's not really my job to convince you in this exchange.