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.

16851

Help! / Re: How to play this board -- lots of powerful attacks

« on: March 07, 2012, 07:32:52 pm »

I definitely would not have picked up a Mandarin here. It's a terminal you don't need, and it delays you from inflicting that all important first Curse. Mountebank/Courtyard was the best opening for 5/2, I think. That would have really hurt your opponent.

Beyond that, Minions were a good choice at $5. I think you definitely don't want the Torturers, since they are badly outmoded by superior cursers (like Mountebank) unless they have village support (which they don't in this case). Although, they are a nice target for Golem (Courtyards are just as good, though, and way cheaper). Going Potion here probably makes sense... in order to get Golem. And Golem is a good way to make Possession more worthwhile.

On the whole, your plays look pretty reasonable, except Mandarin!

16852

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Which cards do and don't do what their name suggests?

« on: March 06, 2012, 11:54:00 pm »

I don't really understand Minion and Apprentice. What they do has nothing to do with their names, and what they do isn't similar, even though their names are.

16853

Rules Questions / Re: Haggler+Black Market

« on: March 06, 2012, 09:44:00 pm »

I would say no. Haggler can only gain cards from the supply.

16854

Game Reports / Re: One Copper left in the Supply (!)

« on: March 06, 2012, 12:14:54 am »

Sounds like a very fun game!  Don't think Noble Brigand was the right buy here though.  All it could grab were silvers, and with such flooded decks that doesn't seem likely, and as you mentioned it flooded the other deck with needed copper.

You are absolutely right. I seemed to forget that Noble Brigand wouldn't steal my opponent's IGGs. So yes, stupid purchase on my part.

16855

Game Reports / One Copper left in the Supply (!)

« on: March 05, 2012, 11:18:21 pm »

This is the closest I have ever came to running out the Coppers--just one darn Copper left in a 2 player game. http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201203/05/game-20120305-200329-bfdc6a8c.html

It was perfect storm of mutual prolonging the game. We rushed IGGs, but started buying Victory cards and didn't actually touch the last 2 IGGs. My opponent picked up Gardens, and eventually had enough Secret Chambers that he was strategically aligning the top of his deck so that my Noble Brigands would cause him to gain Coppers, which helped his Gardens. I did a better job of reaching for Provinces, and some Farmlands, and we both got Duchies.

Circumstances kept breathing new life into the game, as I would catch up, and then his Gardens would reach the next level (point tracker was on). Then I turned to Nobles. Then I had to stop buying Coppers when I had less than $5 because I was behind and it was getting close to being a third pile gone. Has anyone ever bought Secret Chambers because the Copper supply was getting too low and you couldn't end the game?

With 1 Copper left, I had to gamble on buying the last Duchy and putting my Gardens over the edge--close, but just missed. My opponent wins 61 to 59.

Check out those decks. Coppers: 32 for him, 27 for me. 1 short!

16856

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan card: Emerald Mine

« on: March 05, 2012, 01:57:59 pm »

Seems dirty strong on a 5/2 (No more than Witch.  But just sayin)

My first thought is this is kinda situational, but pretty well balanced. Of course only playtesting will tell.

To sum up, it's a bad Trading Post early game, of dubious usefulness mid-game, and it's an expensive Remodel late game. That might be worth buying sometimes, but it's hard to say.

Terrifically varied reactions. I have not yet playtested this card, though I am excited to try it once I get my Dominion sets back from a friend.

My sense is that the card is very situational, but it will have moments where it shines. I think it might have a place in the sort of Gold-into-Province engine that goes with Governor, and sometimes Remodel and Expand. But especially Governor, because it isn't really a problem losing Silvers to get Gold and Duchy, because the Governor is just trying to sync up with Golds, not reach $8.

The extra greening might not hurt a strong Venture deck (and indeed, turning the Silvers into Golds is actually beneficial--and since they go to the discard, you do have a chance of immediately drawing that Gold if you have a Venture in hand). And with Silk Roads and Dukes, when you actually do want to gain Estates and Duchies, I think it would be worth picking up an Emerald Mine.

I also expect it would be quite strong in Colony games. Trashing Gold into Platinum and Province looks to me like a good way to steadily gain points in the end game without hurting your money density too much.

Of course it's all speculation without playtesting. I could be completely wrong. I appreciate the feedback, though!

16857

Variants and Fan Cards / Fan card: Emerald Mine

« on: March 04, 2012, 07:25:47 pm »

I remember when I first played Dominion--I loved Mine! It seemed so good! Too bad it usually isn't. So I've been trying to come up with a sort of better/different Mine-type card:

Emerald Mine -- Action -- $5
Trash a Treasure card or a Victory card from your hand. If you trash a Treasure card: Gain a Treasure card costing exactly $3 more, and a Victory card costing exactly $2 more. If you trash a Victory card: Gain a Treasure card costing exactly $1 more and put it into your hand.

It's similar to Mine, and it costs the same, though it's not "strictly superior," because it does not trash a Treasure card into a better Treasure card and put it into your hand. And it's certainly worse at trashing Coppers than even Mine is, because it turns them into Silvers and Estates that don't even go into your hand. Yuck.

On the plus side, it does something Mine can't do--trashes Estates into Silvers, and that Silver you do get in your hand. It also trashes Silvers into Golds and Duchies, and Golds into Provinces (AND Platinum, if it's a Colony game). So it sort of has the Treasure-gaining plus Remodel aspects of Governor, with the handicap of not being a drawer and a non-terminal the way Governor is. But Governor is an excellent card, and Mine is terrible, so maybe this could be something in between. It might be good for alternate VP strategies with Silk Road and Duke.

Thoughts?

16858

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Young Witch on a strong trashing board (and other questions)

« on: March 02, 2012, 01:10:04 pm »

To be honest, Trader perplexes me. I don't think I play it very well.

16859

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Young Witch on a strong trashing board (and other questions)

« on: March 02, 2012, 01:09:41 pm »

Trader is an odd case, but I don't think it beats cursers on the level of Jack, Masq, and Ambassador. It's probably strongest against Mountebank... you can only give your opponent two Silvers so many times before you lose your mind. And the curses don't get destroyed, like they do with Watchtower, so you will get them eventually. But yeah, it's definitely worth picking up to mitigate cursing Attacks, I think, in the absence of these more powerful defenders.

16860

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Young Witch on a strong trashing board (and other questions)

« on: March 02, 2012, 12:07:27 pm »

The kingdom: Pearl Diver, Moat, Native Village, Develop, Lookout, Jack of All Trades, Remodel, Young Witch, Bureaucrat, Forge, Secret Chamber (Bane card).

1. Given the strong trashing, is it worth it to grab an opening Witch and join that battle?

Nope. Double Jack crushes cursers.

2. If not, Jack is an obvious first $4 buy (to me). Is my $3 then a Lookout or Silver?

Probably a Silver. Actually, Jack/Lookout is probably good, too. Lookout can get some Coppers, and later you can feed it to the Jack.

3. Is it worth it to grab a Secret Chamber early given that it has some use discarding (especially with curses), and it negates YW? (I'm leaning towards yes if I don't buy a YW, and I can always Forge it later.)

Nope. Secret Chamber is only useful if you have massive draw so you can discard lots of cards, and there's no draw here. As a Reaction it's totally useless, and Jack kills curses.

4. Is it ever worth it to Native Village a Curse just to thin your deck? In this case, I think not with all of the trashing, but what if Jack or Develop were the only trasher?

Jack is in a class by itself. Without Jack, the rest of these cards would very much struggle to handle all the curses and I would recommend a Young Witch/Lookout opening. Generally, the only cards that beat cursing are Jack, Masquerade, Ambassador... and Lighthouse is your best defense.

5. I generally ignore Bureaucrat (buying one or the attack against me). Is this wise in 3+ player?

Bureaucrat is probably better than its reputation suggests. In a slow kingdom, it's not a bad pickup. But here, I don't think you need it.

6. Is it worth it to buy a single Develop late to change a Forge into Gold/Prov?

That's an interesting idea, but probably not. I don't think there's any reason to go for Forge here. Besides which, it will be hard to get it early.

16861

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Young Witch on a strong trashing board (and other questions)

« on: March 02, 2012, 11:59:04 am »

Unfortunately, the answer here is Double Jack. I have a hunch that there's nothing fast enough to beat it.

Step 1: Open Jack/Silver. Step 2: Buy another Jack. Step 3: Use it to trash Curses and Estates. Step 4: Win on about Turn 15 or so.

Don't bother buying anything else but Silvers and Gold. Most other cards just slow down Jack's effectiveness buy colliding with it. I suppose you could pick up a Young Witch of your own if enough of your opponents don't buy Jacks, but it probably isn't worthwhile.

16862

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What cards benefit the most/least from the sets they appear in?

« on: March 01, 2012, 05:15:53 pm »

Here's a weird one I thought of: Torturer.

Torturer is most powerful when chained with villages and more Torturers. But the only extra actions in Intrigue come from Nobles, Mining Village, and Shanty Town. While it's certainly possible to set up successful Torturer chains in Intrigue, those are among the worst villages for doing so. Nobles is really expensive. Shanty Town is unreliable. Mining Village is okay, but the benefit that makes it cost $4 instead of $3 isn't one you really want to take advantage of if you're Torturer chaining.

Torturer's favorite villages are in other sets: Fishing and Native from Seaside, and Farming and Hamlet from Cornucopia.

Wait. Isn't shanty town pretty good actually for torturer chains? Like ESPECIALLY if you have other villages, too, but good even by itself?

Well, any source of actions is good for Torturer chains, but I think I'd prefer a stack of vanilla Villages to Shanty Towns in the case of Torturers. Right? I could be wrong. I was just thinking that the villages I most want to see with Torturer are in other sets, specifically Fishing and Native and Hamlet.

16863

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What cards benefit the most/least from the sets they appear in?

« on: March 01, 2012, 04:53:59 pm »

Here's a weird one I thought of: Torturer.

Torturer is most powerful when chained with villages and more Torturers. But the only extra actions in Intrigue come from Nobles, Mining Village, and Shanty Town. While it's certainly possible to set up successful Torturer chains in Intrigue, those are among the worst villages for doing so. Nobles is really expensive. Shanty Town is unreliable. Mining Village is okay, but the benefit that makes it cost $4 instead of $3 isn't one you really want to take advantage of if you're Torturer chaining.

Torturer's favorite villages are in other sets: Fishing and Native from Seaside, and Farming and Hamlet from Cornucopia.

16864

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What cards benefit the most/least from the sets they appear in?

« on: March 01, 2012, 02:15:35 pm »

I would also suggest Hoard.

Hoard is very dominating in a good amount of the of Kingdoms it appears--I think the community ranked it the 4th best $6+ card. But it's much, much weaker in Colony games, which are exactly the games you're most likely to play if you just have Prosperity.

16865

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What cards benefit the most/least from the sets they appear in?

« on: March 01, 2012, 02:11:19 pm »

The best example might be Chapel.

Chapel isn't so great for Big Money style decks, and Big Money style decks are consistently dominant in Base dominion. Only with the addition of later sets does the value of Chapel's awesome trashing become typically worthwhile.

16866

Game Reports / Re: One of THOSE games

« on: February 29, 2012, 10:37:25 pm »

The only thing I'm pretty sure of here is that I would probably just ignore Tournament. They're going to take a while, and could be impossible to connect against an IGG or Minion opponent.

I think I would want to just IGG rush, picking up a single Vault, maybe.

16867

Dominion General Discussion / Re: The defining cards of the sets

« on: February 29, 2012, 05:26:42 pm »

Base: Chapel and Smithy.
Intrigue: Masquerade and Nobles
Seaside: Wharf and Fishing Village
Prosperity: Grand Market and King's Court
Alchemy: Scrying Pool and Golem
Cornucopia: Hunting Party and Menagerie
Hinterlands: Haggler and Jack of all Trades

16868

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Card Idea: Valet

« on: February 28, 2012, 10:54:50 pm »

$3 looks right to me. It strikes me as a cousin to Oasis/Oracle. I like the card a lot.

Courtyard may be more powerful much of the time but... you know, the pricing isn't exact. You could price Courtyard at $3 and it wouldn't break the card. I would still buy it plenty of times.

16869

Dominion General Discussion / Re: If you had to fill up a single Dominion box with cards, which would you choose?

« on: February 28, 2012, 07:39:11 pm »

Let's see, some cards from each set that I like or think are important...

Base: Militia, Moneylender, Chapel, Smithy, Throne Room, Witch
Intrigue: Masquerade, Torturer, Nobles
Seaside: Fishing Village, Wharf, Ambassador, Salvager
Prosperity: Hoard, Bishop, Monument, Grand Market, Watchtower
Alchemy: Apprentice, Scrying Pool, Alchemist
Cornucopia: Menagerie, Hunting Party
Hinterlands: Stables, Haggler, Border Village, Silk Road, Crossroads

16870

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shuffle Definition

« on: February 28, 2012, 12:51:33 pm »

Seems like the elegant answer to this is to allow your opponent to arrange your pre-shuffle discard, then you shuffle without looking at it.  You now have every incentive to randomize it as perfectly as possible.

Isn't it even more elegant to shuffle the deck a few extra times and just ignore/not care about what someone thinks they're actually doing when they discard?

Also, thanks to all of you continuing the discussion.  I'd be surprised if you even noticed the ordering of my discards when I play, with the possible exception of how I clean up an action chain (and, honestly, I'm surprised everyone doesn't clean up an action chain the same way).

I'm surprised everyone doesn't just lump their cards into a pile and put them on top of the discard as quickly as possible to keep the game moving. It takes about 2 seconds: Scoop up cards, put cards in discard.

16871

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shuffle Definition

« on: February 28, 2012, 12:30:34 pm »

IANAL, but I remember being told by law students that if you believe that the actions you will take will kill someone, this is attempted murder. At least in Germany.  But of course that was after some beer, so i don't know. Is OT anyway...

IAL, and it depends on the facts, but there comes a point where the act performed and the result desired are so impossibly unconnected that a charge of attempted murder will not fly.  Most of the scenarios I've posited here are ones that get hashed out in Criminal Law classes all the time.

But the scenarios pertaining to Dominion--ordering the discard and shuffling inadequately--are not at all unconnected!

The reason I have a problem with you giving some deliberate order to your discard pile (other than the perfectly reasonable hiding cards under the top card aspect), is that it is very, very easy to subsequently cheat by not shuffling your deck properly.

To use your murder analogies, if you are sitting at the Dominion table with your gun in front of you, and you say, "I'm not going to kill anyone--goodness, no! that would be wrong--but what's the harm in me loading my gun with bullets and aiming it at your head? I'm not going to kill you, you know. Pointing my gun at your head isn't murder!"

I would say that because you are doing the former (ordering your discard/loading your gun and pointing it at me), it's hard to take you at your word that you aren't doing the latter (incorrectly shuffling/murdering me).

16872

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shuffle Definition

« on: February 28, 2012, 12:05:40 pm »

What if I don't understand how Mine works, and I think the gained card goes in my discard pile instead of in my hand.  Intending to cheat, I put the card in my hand instead.  Did I just cheat because I had the intent to cheat and took an action, even though I could legally take that action?

Yes.

You obviously attempted to cheat, so that would be a shame on you.

Look, Dominion is a game of strategy, and some luck. It's a fun game and we all love it. If you play in person, it's also a game of constant, thorough shuffling. If you try to manipulate the outcome of a shuffle, you are playing in bad faith, even if you fail to manipulate the outcome of the shuffle. Don't do it. Gained cards on top, in whatever order, and shuffle, shuffle, shuffle shuffle, shuffle, shuffle, shuffle. (7 times!)

16873

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shuffle Definition

« on: February 28, 2012, 02:50:47 am »

I generally just push all my cards together during clean-up and slap them on top of my discard, so it's possible to do it in a non-deliberate way. That said, you are allowed to be deliberate about the top card of your discard. That's all. The order of the rest does not... and should not... and will not, provided you shuffle adequately... matter.

Agreed here.  I would say, though, that not only can you be deliberate about the top card (the one "shown" to your opponent), but you are able to be just as deliberate about what remains hidden (the cards in your hand when clean-up begins, as there's no requirement to show those to your opponent).  For a simple example: hand starts as Witch-CCCE, play Witch and unluckily draw Witch and C, play 4xC and buy Remodel.  Remodel is currently the top card of your discard pile since it was gained before clean up begins.  I could put my played cards into the discard pile, then my hand, covering up the Witch with the Estate so you didn't know I burned through both that hand.

Other people in the thread were saying that they moved cards around in their discard because they believed it would result in better hands later. I suppose its fine to do this if you really, really, really, really, really shuffle well. But it's sort of in bad taste, because if you bother ordering your cards in such a way, it implies that you believe that ordering the discard matters, and if you believe ordering the discard matters, it implies you believe your shuffling will be less than adequate.

Lack of good shuffling is the issue, not ordering the discard. But if you order the discard with much deliberation--other than the top card--it suggests a lack of good shuffling is about to occur.

If you are deliberately using your discard order during clean-up to try and give yourself better hands post-shuffle, that's lame.  If you have a way of making it work, that's cheating.  So we agree there.

But I think we can agree there is at least one legitimate, and legal, reason for manipulating the discarding portion of clean-up: deciding what will show and what will remain hidden to your opponent.

No argument there!

16874

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shuffle Definition

« on: February 28, 2012, 02:26:05 am »

Right. I don't think people here were disagreeing with that. You are allowed to put your clean-up cards on top of your deck in any order. You may even do this to strategically "hide" cards from your opponents, because they can only see the top card.

What others, including myself, are saying, is that you shouldn't deliberately space out your terminals, or something, because you don't want to draw them together. How you arranged them shouldn't matter, because you are obligated to shuffle your deck thoroughly. So a discard arrangement that seeks to take advantage of your own bad shuffling is tantamount to cheating.

That makes sense, sort of, but seems to have an inherent contradiction built in.  I can clean up my cards in any order <i>I choose</i> but I should not <i>deliberately</i> do anything to affect the order in which they go into the discard pile, because any discard pre-arrangement could be advantageous.  So what order is the correct non-order of discarding during clean-up?  Isn't placing my cards on top of my discard pile going to be a deliberate act, no matter the order?  The question then becomes "how I can discard my cards without doing something that may be cheating, even accidentally?"

No one wants to draw their terminals together (generally), which is why we shuffle so much and hope for the best.  Whether the terminals start out next to each other in the discard pile before shuffling has no real affect if shuffling is adequate (as has been pointed out often).  So how could discarding them in any order (including far apart) within one clean-up matter, or be called cheating?

I generally just push all my cards together during clean-up and slap them on top of my discard, so it's possible to do it in a non-deliberate way. That said, you are allowed to be deliberate about the top card of your discard. That's all. The order of the rest does not... and should not... and will not, provided you shuffle adequately... matter.

Other people in the thread were saying that they moved cards around in their discard because they believed it would result in better hands later. I suppose its fine to do this if you really, really, really, really, really shuffle well. But it's sort of in bad taste, because if you bother ordering your cards in such a way, it implies that you believe that ordering the discard matters, and if you believe ordering the discard matters, it implies you believe your shuffling will be less than adequate.

Lack of good shuffling is the issue, not ordering the discard. But if you order the discard with much deliberation--other than the top card--it suggests a lack of good shuffling is about to occur.

16875

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shuffle Definition

« on: February 28, 2012, 01:34:17 am »

There seems to be a bit of confusion (at least for me) within this argument.  While the topic is titled "Shuffle Definition," there's a bit more discussion on discard rules than shuffling, I think. 

Taco Lobster's argument (in which I see the most merit) is that there is no rule on how or in what order cards from your hand and in-play must be discarded.  For example, if you choose to discard after being Torturer'ed, you may choose the order in which the two cards you discard enter the discard pile, so long as both cards enter the "top" of the pile.  That is not random, you chose the order.  It is NOT cheating.

I believe the same should be said for clean-up.  There is no rule, other than "on top" of the discard pile, for how you clean-up your turn.  (Is there?)  My actions are lined up in chronological order in my play area, my treasures in a pile below that, and victory cards still in hand.  As long as they all go on top of the discard pile (and not the bottom, or cut into the middle), I don't see how an opponent can claim I cheated if I blend the cards being cleaned-up into any order I want.  That includes putting the two terminal attacks at the top and bottom of the <i>stack of cards being cleaned up before placing the entire stack on top of the discard pile.</i>  (Responding to the original idea of splitting terminals.)

You shouldn't (can't) place one of those terminals at the bottom of your discard pile, since the bottom isn't the top.  I don't see why you can't split them up within the same clean-up.  To look at it another way, if you were to discard one card at a time, you could do so in any order, starting with a terminal attack as your first dicard and ending with a terminal attack as your last card.

Right. I don't think people here were disagreeing with that. You are allowed to put your clean-up cards on top of your deck in any order. You may even do this to strategically "hide" cards from your opponents, because they can only see the top card.

What others, including myself, are saying, is that you shouldn't deliberately space out your terminals, or something, because you don't want to draw them together. How you arranged them shouldn't matter, because you are obligated to shuffle your deck thoroughly. So a discard arrangement that seeks to take advantage of your own bad shuffling is tantamount to cheating.