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.

1

Dominion General Discussion / Re: * Plunder Previews #3: Loot *

« on: December 14, 2022, 03:50:42 am »

Donald’s post.

I'm simply loving this! Can't wait to get this set to my tabletop!

So, unless we have some piles with a weird number of cards, I think we can now safely deduce that there won't be any Victory cards in this set. 40 Randomizers, 30 Loot and 30 combined Events/Traits means there are exactly 400 cards left in the set, so I assume all the kingdom cards will be in piles of 10.

2

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion: Plunder

« on: December 13, 2022, 02:40:11 am »

So when are we getting previews?

I think the site said 12-18 of dec

Or read the post immediately above yours...

Yeah, but what does that Donald X guy know anyway?

🤣

3

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion: Plunder

« on: November 04, 2022, 06:41:46 am »

So when are we getting previews?

If I remember correctly, the previews are usually scheduled for the week before the digital release.

4

Rules Questions / Re: Not enough Banes

« on: June 10, 2022, 05:30:14 pm »

Do you mean that the Black Market deck will be constructed after Black Market is selected, and that the bane pile should be selected after Young Witch is selected? If so, and you’re feeling compelled to follow the setup rules for Young Witch exactly as written, there’s no way for Black Market to be selected as the bane, so the question is not applicable.

Yes, that's why I said it was "apparently impossible": because it's not possible for it to be generated by following the setup rules as written. We appear to agree, right?

If you’re not following the setup rules for Young Witch exactly as written, the Black Market pile could definitely be a bane pile, and if so, where is the problem? If I draw Young Witch as one of my ten first randomizer cards for a specific kingdom, I always draw eleven randomizer cards and choose the last 2 or 3 cost card drawn to be the bane. This could very well be Black Market.

Just because someone's following a non-standard setup procedure (especially if they're doing so out of necessity because they encountered an "error") doesn't necessarily mean they're ok with ending up with a kingdom that would have been impossible to generate under normal circumstances. I was just pointing out a case where AJD's proposed solution could result in such an "impossible" kingdom. Some people would balk at that; others would be fine with it.

Thanks, it was as I expected, then. My point is that if you have a situation like they proposed, with Black Market being selected as the bane, nothing except setup is affected by this fact (which is already «compromised» if you find yourself in that situation), and therefore, I don’t see why it should matter at all once you start playing. Because of this, I find the issue a moot point.

Indeed, such a kingdom would work fine if you wanted to play it. I even pointed that out, saying "it doesn't hurt anything aside from being apparently impossible." I wonder if you thought I meant "impossible to play" rather than "impossible to generate."


Mostly, I just thought the edge case was amusing (hey, look, a paradox) and wanted to point it out. I wasn't suggesting there was an actual issue or problem anywhere.

I see. Yes, we’re very much in agreement. 

5

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Am I the only copper strategist? Probably.

« on: June 10, 2022, 05:36:03 am »

Wow that’s quite the debate over one card. Wether it’s a trasher or a remodel, it’s a card that trashes cards. So for now on I’ll just call it a card that trashes cards. So I just called it a trasher because the other title is a little long.

The thing is that you trash a card AND receive a card (unless the Rats pile is empty, in which case you’re probably in a world of hurt). That’s what a remodel variant does. A trasher reduced the number of cards you «own». Rats doesn’t do that.

6

Rules Questions / Re: Not enough Banes

« on: June 10, 2022, 04:32:16 am »

Note that this can allow for the paradoxical case of Young Witch being in the game due to Black Market, but Black Market then being selected for the Bane, so you might want to disallow that case by special exception (or not; it doesn't hurt anything aside from being apparently impossible).

Why is this apparently impossible? The Black Market DECK is not considered a kingdom card pile, and as such can’t be chosen as a bane pile. The Black Market PILE is a kingdom card pile, and could therefore be chosen. I don’t see any potential problems arising from Black Market being the bane pile. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I’d love to learn.

It is certainly possible for the Black Market pile to be the Bane pile.

Exactly as I stated. 

Why is it normally impossible to have Young Witch in the Black Market deck and the Black Market pile being the bane pile? Why would you normally only have one or the other? Because it’s not recommended to have cards with setup instructions in the Black Market deck? I think it’s not recommended because it can potentially be confusing. I don’t see how this example can be confusing, though. Maybe it’s just me…

In normal circumstances, Young Witch causes you to add a new kingdom pile, to be the Bane pile.
So if you have Young Witch in the Black Market deck, it causes you to add a new kingdom pile, which can't be Black Market, because Black Market is already in the kingdom.

Thanks, it was as I expected, then. My point is that if you have a situation like they proposed, with Black Market being selected as the bane, nothing except setup is affected by this fact (which is already «compromised» if you find yourself in that situation), and therefore, I don’t see why it should matter at all once you start playing. Because of this, I find the issue a moot point.

7

Rules Questions / Re: Not enough Banes

« on: June 10, 2022, 04:17:58 am »

Note that this can allow for the paradoxical case of Young Witch being in the game due to Black Market, but Black Market then being selected for the Bane, so you might want to disallow that case by special exception (or not; it doesn't hurt anything aside from being apparently impossible).

Why is this apparently impossible? The Black Market DECK is not considered a kingdom card pile, and as such can’t be chosen as a bane pile. The Black Market PILE is a kingdom card pile, and could therefore be chosen. I don’t see any potential problems arising from Black Market being the bane pile. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I’d love to learn.

It is certainly possible for the Black Market pile to be the Bane pile.

Exactly as I stated. 

Why is it normally impossible to have Young Witch in the Black Market deck and the Black Market pile being the bane pile? Why would you normally only have one or the other? Because it’s not recommended to have cards with setup instructions in the Black Market deck? I think it’s not recommended because it can potentially be confusing. I don’t see how this example can be confusing, though. Maybe it’s just me…

Do you mean that the Black Market deck will be constructed after Black Market is selected, and that the bane pile should be selected after Young Witch is selected? If so, and you’re feeling compelled to follow the setup rules for Young Witch exactly as written, there’s no way for Black Market to be selected as the bane, so the question is not applicable.

If you’re not following the setup rules for Young Witch exactly as written, the Black Market pile could definitely be a bane pile, and if so, where is the problem? If I draw Young Witch as one of my ten first randomizer cards for a specific kingdom, I always draw eleven randomizer cards and choose the last 2 or 3 cost card drawn to be the bane. This could very well be Black Market.

8

Rules Questions / Re: Not enough Banes

« on: June 10, 2022, 03:48:56 am »

Note that this can allow for the paradoxical case of Young Witch being in the game due to Black Market, but Black Market then being selected for the Bane, so you might want to disallow that case by special exception (or not; it doesn't hurt anything aside from being apparently impossible).

Why is this apparently impossible? The Black Market DECK is not considered a kingdom card pile, and as such can’t be chosen as a bane pile. The Black Market PILE is a kingdom card pile, and could therefore be chosen. I don’t see any potential problems arising from Black Market being the bane pile. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I’d love to learn.

9

Rules Questions / Re: Not enough Banes

« on: June 10, 2022, 03:40:18 am »

What am I missing? No matter which sets you own, you will probably own at least Cornucopia, if you own Young Witch. If so, you’ll always be able to play with at least one bane pile:

In the rare event you draw Hamlet, Fortune Teller, Menagerie and Young Witch among the first ten cards, and you only own Cornucopia, your remaining collection will contain exactly zero 2 of 3 cost cards.

If that’s the case, draw an eleventh kingdom pile randomly (which will not cost 2 or 3), and make the last drawn 2 or 3 cost card among the first ten you drew the bane pile.

10

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Hinterlands Second Edition "leaked"

« on: June 07, 2022, 06:01:27 pm »

I'm wondering why Dark Ages needs a second edition. That feels like a solid set with almost no duds. I'm struggling to think of a single card in the set that feels like it needs replacing actually, despite it being a very large set.

I can see these cards leaving, as DXV has actually called them out as design mistakes, could be improved upon or bad-to-print cards:

- Band of Misfits
- Cultist
- Procession
- Rebuild
- Sage
- Storeroom
- Urchin

In addition, do we really need Beggar and Pillage? Will you really miss these cards? That’s nine cards in total, just saying.

11

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Hinterlands Second Edition "leaked"

« on: June 07, 2022, 02:27:18 am »

I think these nine are leaving:
- Cache
- Fool’s Gold
- Ill-gotten Gains
- Mandarin
- Margrave
- Noble Brigand
- Nomad Camp
- Oracle
- Trader

But to be honest with you, I hope both Silk Road and Tunnel are among the cuts. This way they can remove eight kingdom cards and add nine. 92 physical cards would then be removed and 99 will be added, meaning both the new set and the update pack would have only one blank card each.

12

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Multiplayer or 2 Player, Online or Table?

« on: June 03, 2022, 05:21:24 am »

Almost exclusively offline, preferably 3-6 players. Occasionally 2 players. When online, preferably 3P, but the waiting leads me to play some 2P there as well.

13

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seaside 2E Preview 3

« on: May 19, 2022, 10:43:01 am »

Fall expansion?!?

Fall expansion!

Y'know, assuming not too many delays.

It’s an expensive and fantastic time to be a Dominion addict!

14

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seaside 2E Preview 3

« on: May 19, 2022, 06:57:09 am »

Fall expansion?!?

15

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seaside 2E Preview 1

« on: May 16, 2022, 06:43:19 am »

It makes me sad that Monkey is doing something very different than Way of the Monkey. But I guess calling the card Squirrel would not have made it Seaside-y enough.

Then it should be Parrot.

My bet for the next removed cards is on: Navigator, Explorer, Pearl diver, Ambassador, Treasure map, Pirate ship, Sea hag.

Only six more cards are getting the axe, and it’s been more or less deduced which six remaining cards will be removed.

16

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Prosperity 2E

« on: May 08, 2022, 03:55:57 am »

I just want to explain what I meant. I don’t wish for the nine cards I mentioned to be removed, but it seems like several people believe that. I just stated which nine cards I think would be removed, assuming, hopefully erroneously, that the number of cards would remain at 300. I like Holger’s idea to just include the nine new cards without subtracting any existing ones. I’m crossing my fingers for that.

17

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Prosperity 2E

« on: May 06, 2022, 04:29:38 am »

My guesses for removed cards are:

Contraband
Counting House
Goons
King’s Court
Mountebank
Royal Seal
Trade Route
Venture
Worker’s Village

18

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seaside 2E Announced

« on: March 20, 2022, 06:44:25 pm »

It seems that there was another leak on the website of ASS Altenburger on Thursday here: https://www.spielkarten.com/uncategorized/dominion-seaside-2-edition/
Link to the image file in full size: https://www.spielkarten.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NP22111_SM_Dominion_HPNews_Sea_1080x1080.jpg

Three existing cards are confirmed.
Wharf, Native Village, Island

Two new cards were revealed.

Piratin (female form of Pirate)                                   
Type: Action - Duration - Reaction                         
Cost: unknown (covered by another card)
(Card text undecipherable, probably something with         
Zu Beginn deines Zuges nimm dir eine Geldkarte, die bis zu $6 kostet auf deinen Nachziehstapel.
(At the begin of your turn gain a Treasure card costing up to $6 on top of your deck.))
---
?? (Second part undecipherable)                   

-------------------------------------------------------

?? (Name undecipherable)               
Type: Treasure - Duration                     
Cost: $3                     
(Card text undecipherable, probably: Jetzt und zu Beginn deines nächsten Zuges. / Now and at the begin of your next turn.)
1 $         
+1 Buy                                   

Even though both these cards are durations, it seems like I was correct in suggesting that this set will finally have both a treasure and a reaction. I’m looking so forward to this updated set!

19

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Guess who's back. A tier 10 card un-banned from dominion online?

« on: March 10, 2022, 04:41:32 am »

Was looking through the new card levels thing and look who is listed and somehow at the "tenth" level, or ostensibly the most elite level of cards.  I know they said that there were programming annoyances with it, and no one liked it anyway.  This has to be a site error right?  I don't need to figure out where to slide silvers into my deck again do I?

You know the Level list isn’t about power level, right? It’s about complexity level, as you can see if you study the lists and the explanations.

I’m a bit sad it was removed from the list, as I have and use the physical card. As Davio said, it was probably there for completeness’ sake.

20

Rules Questions / Re: Duration and Way of the Squirrel

« on: March 08, 2022, 04:52:37 pm »

I am thoroughly confused; did you just respond with back-to-back posts each giving an opposing answer?

Yes! In between, I talked to other people.

Currently my ruling is, Durations using Way of the Squirrel do not stay out.

Thanks a lot! By far the most logical ruling, IMHO.

21

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seaside 2E Announced

« on: March 08, 2022, 09:17:12 am »

Would be nice to do this…

Why hide removed cards?
I did it. But I don't know why. ^^'

It’s a spoiler. People might want to join in on the conversation about Seaside 2E and speculating without necessarily wanting to know the specifics before the official release. I didn’t mean to be singling anyone out, I just felt that they didn’t consider this aspect, but I see now that my post may have appeared to be a bit rude. That wasn’t my intention, so I’m sorry. I know we don’t know the authenticity of the image for sure, but it’s probably the best source we have until the official announcement(s).

22

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Seaside 2E Announced

« on: March 08, 2022, 06:53:16 am »

Although it’s possible that the photo is legitimate, I’m still going to wait until Donald releases the information on what was removed. And what was added. Until Donald releases the information I’m not going to assume those are the cards going. Although I am a little surprised to see ghost ship and ambassador kicking the bucket if that photo is legitimate. And I wouldn’t mind seeing those both go as long as they added a couple of new attack cards. Considering that are so many new attack cards in the dominion Allies expansion, it’s not unreasonable to assume they add more attack cards to seaside, especially if cutpurse is the only one that survives. It makes lighthouse almost obsolete if cutpurse is the only attack card.

Renaissance has at least 2, guilds and alchemy only had 2 each. Prosperity and empires and hinterlands have 3 each. Cornucopia and intrigue and menagerie and seaside currently have 4 each. Nocturne has 6.  Adventures technically has 7. And Allies has at least 7 attacks from what the teaser said. With dark ages having the most attack cards. If you include the knights, one of which is two attacks. It’s at least 8 attack cards. If you still count the knights as one attack card they still have 7 attack cards. Now of course I’m including cards that have attack In the name. I’m not including possession or I’ll gotten gains for instance. Still with alchemy and guilds being the smallest expansions they at least have 2 attack cards. Which means it’s reasonable too assume they will add at least one new attack card to seaside. Especially if only cutpurse survives. Still I’m going to wait until Donald announces the cards removed and the new cards added.

Would be nice to do this…

23

Rules Questions / Re: Duration and Way of the Squirrel

« on: March 08, 2022, 06:03:32 am »

Only Duration cards or cards emulating other Duration cards (such as Band of Misfits) can be kept between turns, so a card like Bandit, if played with a Way, is always discarded.

Agreed. But not an Outpost played with Way of the Squirrel? I don’t understand this. The Squirrel overrides the Outpost, so you keep Outpost in play because… of its nice color? It’s not a card that has anything left to do, only emulating a card-shaped thing that has, but that card-shaped thing isn’t a Duration, so if a Bandit is discarded because it emulates the Way, I’d say an Outpost is as well. It has replaced it’s original effect with that of the Way.

24

Rules Questions / Re: Duration and Way of the Squirrel

« on: March 08, 2022, 05:37:38 am »

When it comes to Way of the Chameleon, you’re obviously right. Sorry, my bad. I haven’t seen such a ruling for Way of the Mouse, though. Maybe I just missed it. If I’ve read the rules correctly, the only thing that matters, when it comes to the Way of the Mouse, as far as I can tell, is if the set-aside card is a Duration, not if the card you play as a Mouse is a Duration. The set-aside card isn’t in play, so the ruling will only affect the played card. Are you saying that if I play a Merchant Ship using the Way of the Mouse, which has a Moat set-aside, the Merchant Ship stays in play? Maybe it is so, but I really don’t see the logic behind that ruling. Can someone please link to where this is stated? I really want to understand this.

The Way of the Squirrel is quite different, though, IMHO. I don’t think it should matter whether you play a Menagerie or a Lighthouse using the Way of the Squirrel. If it does, why? Or are we going to apply the Duration rule to any action card played as a Squirrel?

No, it's only if the set-aside card is a Duration that the played card stays.
But it's still the same principle as Way of the Chameleon.

For Chameleon the relevant rule is that Durations (that aren't done) stay in play.
For Mouse the relevant rule is that "leaving it there" cards (like BoM) stay in play as long as the card they played stays in play. (When a BoM plays a Fishing Village from the supply, the BoM stays in play.)

In theory, we could say that playing a card with a Way means that the card is now doing what the Way says. This is like the instrucions on the card changing. In that case it's clear:
Chameleon: The played Duration is setting up a future effect, so it stays.
Mouse: The played card plays a set-aside Duration "leaving it there" (and the Duration is setting up a future effect), so the played card stays.
Squirrel: The played Duration is setting up a future effect (at end of turn), so it stays.

On the other hand, if we say that the card doesn't do anything when we play it since we're following the Way's instructions instead, then neither Chameleon, Mouse or Squirrel would cause the played card to stay: It's not the played card doing the thing that would cause it to stay in play.

I say that the second option is true. The reason why Chameleon, Mouse or Squirrel still cause the Duration to stay, is because we have a special rule about Ways and Durations, which I mentioned earlier in this thread (with a linkt to a post by Donald).

AJD says that the first option is true (maybe with different words). Well, then we don't need the special rule.

The result for these three Ways is the same in any case.

The reason why I say the first option is true, is that Donald has said this, and that otherwise Enchantress could override the Way and vice versa (and we know that they can't). The Ways/Enchantress make us follow other instructions instead of the played card's instructions. If we apply a Way, we're not following the card's instructions anymore, so if we then also apply Enchantress, Enchantress does nothing. Donald has confirmed that Chameleon works the same way. It's the same vice versa, or if we played with two Ways and tried to apply both.

Perfekt, da er vi enige om både kameleonen og musa.

So, what’s your take on a card like Bandit played using Way of the Squirrel? Neither the played card nor the Way are Durations, and in my opinion that leads us to discard the Bandit at the end of the turn it’s played, before applying the effect of the Squirrel. We just have to remember to draw two cards at the end of the turn. Do you agree? Does playing Outpost as a Squirrel work the same way? If not, why not? I’d argue it does, because we’re now following the instructions on the card-shaped thing (the Way), not the card itself (the Duration). I believe both Bandit and Outpost should be discarded during the clean-up phase the turn they’re played, if you used Way of the Squirrel instead of the card’s instructions.

25

Rules Questions / Re: Duration and Way of the Squirrel

« on: March 08, 2022, 03:24:12 am »

I believe this would sort itself out if the official rules stated:

- Each Way gives Action cards an additional option: you can play the Action for what it normally does, or play it to do what the Way says to do.
and
- If the card you are playing is a Duration card, it only stays in play if at least one of its plays was for what it normally does. If it does stay in play, you will have to remember for your next turn how many times you actually played the Duration for what it normally does.

or

- Each Way gives Action cards an additional option: you can play the Action for its own abilities, or play it to do what the Way says to do.
and
- If the card you are playing is a Duration card, it only stays in play if at least one of its plays was for its own abilities. If it does stay in play, you will have to remember for your next turn how many times you actually played the Duration card for its own abilities.

I don’t know if I understand this correctly, but to me, it seems like these two rule sets say exactly the same thing, just in different ways. If I’m correct, keeping to one of these wordings (or the other; it doesn’t really matter which one of them you use) will make it clear you won’t keep the duration card in play for multiple rounds, if you only played it for what the Way says to do, no matter the timing of the effect of the Way, whether it’s played as a Chameleon, Mouse, Squirrel or any other Way.

But the rule is that you do keep the Duration in play with Chameleon and Mouse. I doubt Donald is going to change that.

When it comes to Way of the Chameleon, you’re obviously right. Sorry, my bad. I haven’t seen such a ruling for Way of the Mouse, though. Maybe I just missed it. If I’ve read the rules correctly, the only thing that matters, when it comes to the Way of the Mouse, as far as I can tell, is if the set-aside card is a Duration, not if the card you play as a Mouse is a Duration. The set-aside card isn’t in play, so the ruling will only affect the played card. Are you saying that if I play a Merchant Ship using the Way of the Mouse, which has a Moat set-aside, the Merchant Ship stays in play? Maybe it is so, but I really don’t see the logic behind that ruling. Can someone please link to where this is stated? I really want to understand this.

The Way of the Squirrel is quite different, though, IMHO. I don’t think it should matter whether you play a Menagerie or a Lighthouse using the Way of the Squirrel. If it does, why? Or are we going to apply the Duration rule to any action card played as a Squirrel?