I was just objecting to Awaclus' comparison, which made it sound like TR and ST are part of some sort of "elite" group of dominion cards. They are below average - otherwise we wouldn't be making this discussion.
They aren't below average, people just compare them to other splitters and other trashers and that's why they seem weaker than they really are.
Inn, Annex and Donate work in exactly the same way. In all cases there is no "remaining deck". Sure there could be a discard pile, but that is beside the point.
On the other side of the spectrum, consider Forge. Forge can be a stronger trasher in the mid-game as opposed to the early game (suppose there's Tactician or something like that)If I could afford Forge before the first shuffle, I'd buy Forge before the first shuffle. I think the only reason we don't see how great it is as an early trasher is that we never have it to try out.
Can you expound on how banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards would allow you to hugely game the system? It means that if both players have banned a card, it won't appear. Otherwise, it still could. So if one player bans Swindler, Cultist, Rebuild and Possession, and you only ban Possession, then Possession will not appear in this game. The other cards still could. If one player bans no cards, all the cards could appear. I don't see how this is gameable, but the ban list in this case also probably doesn't do anything most of the time...
This would be more like those Rebuild "gentleman's agreements" where both players decided in chat they would skip Rebuild. Except, now it gets auto-replaced with a different card if these preferences are expressed in the system before the games start.
The logic of how a ban system could be used to game the rating system is that certain cards tend to systematically favor the more skilled player. Exactly which cards these are, and how much they matter is up for debate, and probably changes at different levels of the game. But under any ban system, a player who wants to maximize their rating will be encouraged to ban cards that they are worse with, or, if they usually play lower rated opponents, that make it easier for the less skilled player to win. I find that concern rather overblown when 5 or fewer cards can be unilaterally banned, and any other cards would need to be banned by all players to be excluded. Fun should be a much higher priority than the accuracy of the ranking system because the purpose of the ranking system is to increase fun, and game to game fun doesn't depend on having the most accurate ranking system.
If I have decided that, say, I am terrible with all of Alchemy, then I am encouraged, even in a system where only cards banned by all players are excluded, to ban Alchemy, even if I enjoy playing with it, in the hopes that I can do better against opponents who simply banned Alchemy because they dislike it, rather than because they are unskilled with it. Or if beyond Cultist and Rebuild, 8 more cards make it easier for the less skilled player to win, I should put all 10 cards on my ban list in the hopes that my opponents will ban them because they dislike them, even though my lower rated opponents would benefit from having them show up in games against me.
For example, this same logic would imply that "gentleman’s’ agreements" to not gain Rebuild could also be used to game the ranking system, if higher ranked (and solely concerned about their ranking) players propose banning Rebuild to increase their chances of winning, even though they find it fun, and lower ranked players go along with it because they don’t find Rebuild fun, even though it would increase their chances of winning. More power to the system enforcing the gentleman’s agreement, I say!
Sorry, I don't understand the bolded in your quote.
He is implying that under your system, he could avoid ever playing games with Possession by blacklisting any player he played against when Possession appeared. He is also implying that Possession is so un-fun that he would be personally obligated to do so, and his pool of available players would therefore be reduced.
What I'd actually like to see is a system where you get to rate each card in terms of how much you enjoy playing with it, and then the average of your and your opponent's ratings determines how likely each card is to show up. Obviously that would take more work to set up.
This is how I think the ban list should work, but without a rating, just a Yes/No. You "ban" some cards, and your opponent "bans" some cards. If both of you have a certain card "banned", you won't play with it. It's not a real ban, but if you and your opponent mutually agree that you would like nothing more than to never see Rebuild, it won't show up, and you'll both have more fun.
But if someone wants to play with a rotation of all the cards, including the most hated ones, they would still get to do that, even at high rankings where maybe a lot of players have Rebuild or Possession or whatever "banned".
The problems with a ban system where one player banning the cards means they absolutely won't show up ever, in auto-matched games, are:
1) Some players may want to play with a selection of all the cards, and don't really have this as a choice if banning cards is popular
2) You could, potentially, game the overall rating system slightly by banning your personal lowest win % cards
Maybe the effects of both of these are very minor. But requiring both players to have "banned" the card to prevent it from showing up would solve these problems. On the flip side, the banning might not do much at all in this case, if hardly anyone uses the feature...
As a compromise, what might work is what Jimmmmm suggested, but only with ratings of 100% and 0% (could still just be implemented as a 5 card ban list). If one player "bans" the card, the chance of it appearing is halved relative to the normal probability of it appearing. If both players ban it, it will never show up. Might be a reasonable compromise, since still any card *could* show up (vs. players who may prefer to see that card), and you would still see your least favorite cards less often.
I flat out disagree. If the feature is to be implemented, I will ban Possession because I hate the card and find it unfun. That means I never want to see it again. With your suggestion, I would then have to restrict myself to playing others who also ban it, which restricts my pool of available players and lengthens wait times.
If we are going to go that route, then why have a ban list?
Banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards that is allowed to be any length shouldn't offend anyone,It lets you hugely game the system, and for sure some people would not like it and rightfully so. I personally would not like it. I don't want to have to ban all the fun swingy cards to be competitive with other people who do so.
You have not changed my opinion. I don't like your idea and still like mine.
What I'd actually like to see is a system where you get to rate each card in terms of how much you enjoy playing with it, and then the average of your and your opponent's ratings determines how likely each card is to show up. Obviously that would take more work to set up.
Do I have to scan the printed Japanese cards? I don't have any.
Not if you don't have them.
I hate to make an Awaclus joke, but you're saying that if he does have them, then he has to scan them?
I've taken notational logic courses three separate times and I still don't remember the fancy name for this
Contrapositive, I think?
*Edit* Nope, it's the inverse, which is a logical fallacy. Just because a statement is true doesn't make the inverse true.
It amazes me how many people fail to realize you can trash without spending the coins that turn. Too many people use it like a Remodel/Farmland (which it is fine for that but is usually better for collecting coins for later).
but there's this cool thing where Sauna/Avanto/Sauna is equivalent to four fucking Laboratories and a Village
Appreciate the suggestions, but I think I like the 'do this twice' format the best. It already exists on Remake. And I think it should go first, so that running through the effects in order one doesn't think they can use an extra action to then choose two more times. So like this:QuoteColliery - +1 card. You may use an extra action to do the following twice, or two extra actions for three times: +2 coins, discard a card. 4 cost.Does this make complete sense? Do they need the 'extra' there?
Colliery - +1 Card, +1 Action. Do this three times: If you have any unused Actions, you may discard a card, for -1 Action, +$2.
How does this read:
"Choose one: +3 cards; or +1 buy +$2. You may use a second action on this to replay it."
It's not at all clear what "you may use 2 actions on this" means. To me, it reads "you may play this card and have it consume 2 actions instead of 1", with no additional effect.
Do you actually mean "You may use an additional Action to play this card a second time"?
Potteries - $6 Action - +3 Cards, You may pay an Action. If you did, +1 Buy, +$2.
Market is a +Buy peddler. That's not that strong, is it?
It's pretty strong. +Buy is useful in a lot of cases, and it's important in almost every engine. When you're building an engine, you'd often get a Market over a lot of other +Buy cards, since it doesn't take up any space in your deck and gives some virtual money to boot. If Peddler is a strong $4 card, I'd say Market is a pretty strong $5 card - not top-tier, but somewhere in the middle of the (rather strong) $5 pack.
Though, trashing your Duchy with Ritual gives you an extra point at the cost of a buy, so there is that.
