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.

16026

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Math request: Nomad Camp

« on: April 17, 2012, 01:28:52 pm »

Alright, look - I can't find the source material right now, despite looking through everything I can find, so I'll abstain for the time being.

I was hoping that somebody else would have encountered this particular paradox, and could help me if they had the proof on hand (I imagine mine got recycled at some point, but I'm usually pretty organized and don't get rid of anything).

If I can find the information, I'll bring it out, but for now, follow the intuitive answer of %40 - However, it's still really %30. 

16027

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Math request: Nomad Camp

« on: April 17, 2012, 01:24:24 pm »

This is annoying me, because I can't find the main source material that we used way back when to prove this. However:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-spring-2010/readings/MIT6_042JS10_chap18.pdf

Problem 18.5. (Do a ctrl+f) is designed to get you to exactly the right section, or:

"Problem 18.5.
I have a deck of 52 regular playing cards, 26 red, 26 black, randomly shuffled. They all lie face down in the deck so that you can’t see them. I will draw a card off the top of the deck and turn it face up so that you can see it and then put it aside. I will continue to turn up cards like this but at some point while there are still cards left in the deck, you have to declare that you want the next card in the deck to be turned up. If that next card turns up black you win and otherwise you lose. Either way, the game is then over.

(a) Show that if you take the first card before you have seen any cards, you then have probability 1/2 of winning the game.

(b) Suppose you don’t take the first card and it turns up red. Show that you have then have a probability of winning the game that is greater than 1/2.

(c) If there are r red cards left in the deck and b black cards, show that the probability of winning in you take the next card is b/(r + b).

(d) Either,
1. come up with a strategy for this game that gives you a probability of winning strictly greater than 1/2 and prove that the strategy works, or,
2. come up with a proof that no such strategy can exist."

Point (D) 2. is asked because, against intuition, the only proof that exists is one showing that no strategy can exist, that is, your odds never change. They were determined at the outset.

(This is basically identical to the problem in the Venture thread, heh.) Anyway, the relevant parts here are 2b/2c, because we already know your first hand is CCCCE, which tells us your remaining cards are CCCEE (in some order).

And yet, if I've flipped over 12 red cards, and 4 black cards, the odds that the next card is black is STILL 50%. The information is predetermined with the original shuffle - This is much more clear when you think of revealing the BOTTOM card, rather than the NEXT card. Shuffle a deck (26/26, or 7/3), and remove the bottom card, without looking at it. What are the odds that it's red/black (or Estate/Copper)? Now reveal X cards, one at a time from the top of the deck. The odds on the removed card don't change. Yes, you could reveal all the other cards, and know with certainty what that last card IS, but it's odds at any given moment are predefined.

Because of that, when evaluating what %chance you have to hit $5, the only relevant information is that bottom card, which since you havn't changed it's odds since the original shuffle, when it had 30%, is still 30%.

So part c is asking you to prove true something that is really false? 22/40

Not exactly. Yes, you have a better chance of winning - That is, there are more cards remaining in your favor than against - But the odds of the next card, or any given, regardless of revealed information, remain 50%.

16028

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Math request: Nomad Camp

« on: April 17, 2012, 01:13:15 pm »

This is annoying me, because I can't find the main source material that we used way back when to prove this. However:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-spring-2010/readings/MIT6_042JS10_chap18.pdf

Problem 18.5. (Do a ctrl+f) is designed to get you to exactly the right section, or:

"Problem 18.5.
I have a deck of 52 regular playing cards, 26 red, 26 black, randomly shuffled. They all lie face down in the deck so that you can’t see them. I will draw a card off the top of the deck and turn it face up so that you can see it and then put it aside. I will continue to turn up cards like this but at some point while there are still cards left in the deck, you have to declare that you want the next card in the deck to be turned up. If that next card turns up black you win and otherwise you lose. Either way, the game is then over.

(a) Show that if you take the first card before you have seen any cards, you then have probability 1/2 of winning the game.

(b) Suppose you don’t take the first card and it turns up red. Show that you have then have a probability of winning the game that is greater than 1/2.

(c) If there are r red cards left in the deck and b black cards, show that the probability of winning in you take the next card is b/(r + b).

(d) Either,
1. come up with a strategy for this game that gives you a probability of winning strictly greater than 1/2 and prove that the strategy works, or,
2. come up with a proof that no such strategy can exist."

Point (D) 2. is asked because, against intuition, the only proof that exists is one showing that no strategy can exist, that is, your odds never change. They were determined at the outset.

(This is basically identical to the problem in the Venture thread, heh.) Anyway, the relevant parts here are 2b/2c, because we already know your first hand is CCCCE, which tells us your remaining cards are CCCEE (in some order).

And yet, if I've flipped over 12 red cards, and 4 black cards, the odds that the next card is black is STILL 50%. The information is predetermined with the original shuffle - This is much more clear when you think of revealing the BOTTOM card, rather than the NEXT card. Shuffle a deck (26/26, or 7/3), and remove the bottom card, without looking at it. What are the odds that it's red/black (or Estate/Copper)? Now reveal X cards, one at a time from the top of the deck. The odds on the removed card don't change. Yes, you could reveal all the other cards, and know with certainty what that last card IS, but it's odds at any given moment are predefined.

Because of that, when evaluating what %chance you have to hit $5, the only relevant information is that bottom card, which since you havn't changed it's odds since the original shuffle, when it had 30%, is still 30%.

16029

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Math request: Nomad Camp

« on: April 17, 2012, 01:05:12 pm »

Or, think of it this way: Take 3 coppers and two estates, and shuffle them. Then pick up 4 coppers and an estate from the supply. (You do this because if your first hand is not CCCCE you can't buy the Nomad Camp). What is the probability that the bottom card of the deck is an estate?

But notably, this is NOT what happened. You didn't take CCCEE shuffled, and then ADD CCCCE to the top. You took CCCCCCCEEE, shuffled, and then revealed CCCCE. This produces different odds, even though we both know that the bottom 5 cards are the same set of CCCEE in some order.

16030

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Math request: Nomad Camp

« on: April 17, 2012, 12:52:19 pm »

This is annoying me, because I can't find the main source material that we used way back when to prove this. However:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-spring-2010/readings/MIT6_042JS10_chap18.pdf

Problem 18.5. (Do a ctrl+f) is designed to get you to exactly the right section, or:

"Problem 18.5.
I have a deck of 52 regular playing cards, 26 red, 26 black, randomly shuffled. They all lie face down in the deck so that you can’t see them. I will draw a card off the top of the deck and turn it face up so that you can see it and then put it aside. I will continue to turn up cards like this but at some point while there are still cards left in the deck, you have to declare that you want the next card in the deck to be turned up. If that next card turns up black you win and otherwise you lose. Either way, the game is then over.

(a) Show that if you take the first card before you have seen any cards, you then have probability 1/2 of winning the game.

(b) Suppose you don’t take the first card and it turns up red. Show that you have then have a probability of winning the game that is greater than 1/2.

(c) If there are r red cards left in the deck and b black cards, show that the probability of winning in you take the next card is b/(r + b).

(d) Either,
1. come up with a strategy for this game that gives you a probability of winning strictly greater than 1/2 and prove that the strategy works, or,
2. come up with a proof that no such strategy can exist."

Point (D) 2. is asked because, against intuition, the only proof that exists is one showing that no strategy can exist, that is, your odds never change. They were determined at the outset.

16031

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Math request: Nomad Camp

« on: April 17, 2012, 12:18:26 pm »

30%.

The bottom card of your deck was decided upon first shuffle, and no new knowledge changes it's original odds of being an Estate.

No, 40% is correct.  The new knowledge that changes the odds is the fact that the first 5 cards of your deck are 4 Coppers and 1 Estate.  It's the same principle by which the odds plummet to 0% if your first hand is CCEEE.

Give me a minute to pull up the necessary information. You're intuition is correct - And if I were to SHOW you those remaining 5 cards, and THEN reshuffle them, it would be 40%. But because the information entered into the system was 7 Coppers and 3 Estates at the first shuffle, the odds of the BOTTOM card have NOT changed, and were determined at that time to be 30%.

And edit while I find what I need:

The original problem was stated thusly:

If I have a 52 card deck, equal red and equal black, shuffled to together randomly, and I start to reveal cards to you one at a time...:
You may tell me to stop at any time, and guess what the color the bottom card will be. Can you ever increase your odds better than 50% that it will be black? What if I show you the NEXT card instead?

-- Against intuition, the answer is NO. It is always 50/50, because those odds were determined with initial information input of 26/26 - and even as you remove cards, and the total remaining may change, it doesn't change the initial odds on any GIVEN card from the remaining to be 50/50.

16032

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Math request: Nomad Camp

« on: April 17, 2012, 12:08:13 pm »

30%.

The bottom card of your deck was decided upon first shuffle, and no new knowledge changes it's original odds of being an Estate.

16033

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Someone do the maths for me?

« on: April 16, 2012, 05:46:21 pm »

Strictly speaking, I would have to imagine:

CCCSE - Turn 3
CCCSE - Turn 4
CE (reshuffle) XXX

You COULD have a 5 card every turn after 2.
You COULD also have none until  7.

CCCCE - Turn 3
CCSEE - Turn 4
CS (reshuffle) CEE - Turn 5
CCCCE - Turn 6
CSSS (reshuffle) X

With University, at worst, you draw your silver and potion (with 3 coppers) on turn 5.
At best, you get it turn 3, play it and gain another turn 5.

I'm not sure there is a GREAT answer to this. It's judgment based, and up to you if your deck wants / needs vanishing villages.

16034

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Someone do the maths for me?

« on: April 16, 2012, 05:18:11 pm »

To be fair, doesn't that vary QUITE vastly on the 5 coin cards that you're purchasing? Terminal draw 5's (Say Embassy or or Margrave) would probably be better for Silver/Silver - So that there is no worry about drawing your University dead (And in Margrave's case, provide a +Buy to boot).

So I'm not really sure quite where to go with this one.

16035

Dominion Isotropic / Re: Who is your nemesis?

« on: April 16, 2012, 04:45:39 pm »

I am my own worst enemy.

I think it's part of what separates the great from the really good to the good.

I've been doing really well recently, and I think that a large part of that is my recent (better) understanding of board flow. I used to see a board, and either choose to play cards I like (ie. Ambassador // Masquerade), or go with a set of cards that I know work together. I never really spared a thought for... "How fast is this board going to play, and what do I need to do in order to be competitive"? There are often many strategies on almost every board, and rarely is there an absolute "correct" one. Instead of playing things I know WILL work, I've recently been looking for what WILL be competitive (and ideally leave me with an edge).

Aiming for Tournament domination is great and all... but if IW, Great Hall and Silk Road are on the board as well...

So I don't feel that there is any OTHER person that truly vexes me more than myself.

16036

Other Games / Re: Video Games

« on: April 16, 2012, 12:35:00 pm »

I started out way back with King's Quest, and Hitchhikers Guide (DOS prompt based) floppys.

After that I moved onto console (snes) falling in love with RPG's (FF3,, Chrono Trigger, Breath of Fire 1&2, Secret of Mana, Illusions of Gaia, etc). I went from there to Playstation, staying mainly in genre, but finding myself drifting towards strategy (I loved Final Fantasy Tactics, and Tactics Ogre (a remake of Ogre Battle for SNES).

It wasn't until the later years of PS that I moved back into PC games (I also started getting into any card/board games I could find at the time). I played Diablo 1 and 2, as well as Statecraft for a long time. Trusting blizzard, I then ended up in the WoW world for a few years (I'm ashamed, I know. Don't laugh). It was during that time I got into my first FPzs,, counter-strike; so much so that I ran 4 servers for about 2 years (2 competitive, closely monitored -ff on of course-, one loose & relaxed, and the last with Warcraft mods).

Sadly, most of that is in the past now, as I don't have a lot of free time. I play, if anything, single player flash games now; something I can get up and walk away from if needed. Even dominion I don't get to play as much as I would like.

I still find some time to play old classic board games now and then. Favorites being Cosmic Encounters, Nuclear War, or any rail game (Eurorails, Australia, Nipon, etc). I also enjoy the occasional Space Alert, or Pandemic.

16037

Game Reports / More Thoughts...

« on: April 14, 2012, 03:27:24 pm »

First off, much respect for my opponent. I know how much time and effort it takes to get into the 40's in level. As I commented at the start of the match, I was having a good day (7-1-0) up to that point, and the last thing I wanted to do was play a level 44.

http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201204/14/game-20120414-120624-31305b8f.html

I wanted to go with a straight 2 Merchant Ship strategy, but with his opening of 5/2 to my 4/3 I thought I was doomed right out of the gates. Still, I played with a very fast game in mind, thinking that if I got lucky, and we split the Provinces, my opening of Monument could make the difference.

Everything went pretty straight forward. We ended up with almost identical decks. Ben had a Crossroads (thanks to his 2 coin opening), and a caravan that I didn't have. He also had one more gold, and a few less silvers (maybe those made the difference?)

We both started greening at the same time (technically he was a turn ahead, from second position), and went 2x Province. He picked up his first Duchy over me on turn 13, but I was able to come back and answer with a third straight Province. We both followed up with a Duchy each, and he finished out turn 15 with his third Province, leaving him 1 Duchy up on me overall, and into a full on Duchy dance.

Turn 16 saw us both gain another Duchy, leaving just 3 in the pile. However, I knew that:
A) I was 2 points ahead in VP tokens
B) I had just reshuffled, meaning all 3 terminals were in my deck
C) He hadn't reshuffled since playing a Merchant Ship, AND his Monument

Given my strong draw on turn 17 then, which included a Merchant ship and 8 coins, I decided to risk breaking PPR and gamble for a straight win. I couldn't know that he had drawn a terrible hand obviously, but I thought my deck was set up at that time as good as it ever was gonna get. In the end, I bought my 4th Province turn 17, and my 5th on turn 18 to take a solid victory.

I recognize that, had Ben had 8 coins in hand, and bought that last Province, I would have lost by 1. I still would have been very happy with the overall game though. Perhaps, had I thought about it a little further, I should have realized that I was more likely to snag 2 of the last 3 Duchy's evening us out, and leaving me in the lead on straight VP tokens, with only Estates left (nothing he was likely to catch up on at that point). However, had I done so, and a reverse flip happened where he got two good draws and I was stuck floundering trying to find 8 coins, he very well could have ended on Provinces over me instead.

So, did I make the right decision at the time? It was, I think, a very well played game on both sides. I don't feel that I was overly lucky, although maybe I was. Who ever feels they actually are? So, any thoughts, comments, or ideas anybody here has, I'd love to hear them.

Cheers

Edit:
Quick question, and maybe there is no easy answer. We both had Merchant Ship and Monument collide in our hands twice. I played my Monument, thinking that giving up 2 coins next turn (and I especially believed this early, before greening began, turns 8 and turns 9 for me) was worth gaining 1 VP. Since I thought the game would be close, this seemed right. Ben played his Merchant Ship both times, turns 4 and 10. Given his level of experience, was I wrong?

16038

Game Reports / Re: Can anyone confirm...

« on: April 14, 2012, 02:18:13 pm »

If I were to hazard a guess, it *appeared* that he wasn't concerned with hard coins, and only started greening once he could hit a virtual 8 via Conspirator... but I was really confused.

16039

Game Reports / Re: Dear My Opponent: I am Sorry

« on: April 14, 2012, 02:07:14 pm »

I'm sorry for possibly playing this sub-optimally, and yet still cruising to a victory you just couldn't compete with by opening Mint/FG:

http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201204/14/game-20120414-110336-e587ded7.html

That's a ridiculously strong opening, and while I thought that gaining a few Council/Throne Rooms would make it that much more devastating (I should've grabbed a Steward with my first 5, to be honest), I forgot that Fool's Gold best friend is slim thin decks.

You did well to allow me only 6 Fool's Gold, but there still wasn't much contest, and it wasn't your fault.

I'm sorry.

16040

Game Reports / Can anyone confirm...

« on: April 14, 2012, 01:42:33 pm »

That this game should NOT have ended in my Victory?

While I imagine we both played this board well sub-optimally (I decided to try Cache + BM which has been said around these parts isn't as terrible as might be thought), I feel that I had NO business winning this game.

Granted, my turns 6-10 were STUPID. The fact that I drew every possible method of 5 Coins, and not 6 was driving me crazy. Still, while his initial plan seemed clear, I wasn't sure mid-game where he was going with it.

http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201204/14/game-20120414-103103-3cc96784.html

I decided after snagging 2 Provinces on 11/12, that I could probably try a Duchy rush and aim for a 3/5 Province split in his favor. His Lookout killed his 3 Estates, meaning to counter the 12 point Province swing, I was only going to need 3 Duchies to force a tie. And since my deck was so full of Coppers, I couldn't be sure when I would hit TWO more 8 coin hands (though I was confident that I would get at least 1 more soon). That meant that I was looking at 4 turns worth of buys, which would out-race his 5 turns of Province buys required.

In the end, that payed off, and maybe it was the turning point for me. Still, thoughts on what you might have done differently (especially thoughts regarding playing the Cache strategy in my 5/2 starting situation), and if you think I just got dead lucky by poor play on the other side would be greatly appreciated!

16041

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Not a misclick

« on: April 14, 2012, 12:28:53 am »

Is mine the only one so far that has THE BEST PLAY to be returning one BECAUSE you're behind, and absolutely know that the extra turn provided will net you a win?

16042

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Not a misclick

« on: April 13, 2012, 09:25:58 pm »

I like mine! I claim that in this case, ambassadoring the colony is the best move, though others may disagree :-p

You are far ahead in points, more than 20 points ahead of your two opponents, who are tied. There is one Colony remaining, but you won't have enough coin to buy it, so you decide to Ambassador a Colony of yours to end the game with a win. But you don't want to play kingmaker and break the fair tie between the other two players by giving one of them a free Colony, so you return one of your Colonies to the supply; both opponents gain a Colony; the game ends, with you the victor and both opponents tied for second/third.

The game is called Dominion. Not "Let's be nice and let my opponents share in equal defeat." I want to CRUSH THEM. I *am* Kingmaker, and I'M THE KING.

16043

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Not a misclick

« on: April 13, 2012, 06:39:01 pm »

Your opponent had played a lighthouse the turn before, and there is only one colony left in the supply, which you know he can buy his next turn (bureaucrat hand reveal showed you). You are running an alternate vp strategy, say vineyards, which are worth 10+. You can buy 2 of 4 this turn, with 2 herbalist and a scheme in play, and you are trailing by 19.

16044

Game Reports / Was the key here the second Amb?

« on: April 13, 2012, 02:22:15 pm »

I played a game not too long ago, that my opponent resigned from after it seemed he wouldn't be able to come back:

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120411-153714-b383db5a.html

Granted, I wasn't working some magically quick deck, but I didn't think (at the time), that I was THAT far ahead. In truth, at the outset, I had serious consideration to play almost the exact engine he went for (Worker's Village + University for Actions, Vault for +draw and discard, and Watchtower to bring the handsize back up). I decided at the last second though, that I wanted to try and keep it a little bit simpler. I opted instead for a Peddler rush (I know, usually not as strong on a Colony board), hence the unusual, and often bad, worker's village buy at the outset.

Actually, my theory behind it was: A) I wanted them for Cantrip +buy, and B) opening Amb/Amb might slow my economy down too much - Amb/*nothing* would give me a little bit of breathing room. I hadn't been planning on grabbing a second Ambassador at first, however with 3 coppers on turn 3, and knowing I could get a Silver turn 4, I decided to gamble.

However, now I'm not sure it was such a gamble.

Thoughts? Did I get lucky? Play well? What do you think?

16045

Help! / Re: Is double Haggler the obvious play here?

« on: April 13, 2012, 12:11:30 am »

I probably would've opened FV/Cutpurse honestly. This board is going to play fast, but with no real +buy, and a lack of real +draw, I think a variation of BM is going to beat an engine. Especially when you did yourself no favors by helping him amp up his cities. Note on turn 3, FV+CP would have netted you a gold, AND prevented him from buying his own FV (which  coincidentally, allowed him to play both Hagglers later on, instead of just one.

He got a better jump with 5/2, no doubt - but you spent most your time trying to catch up and mirror, which ultimately just helped him more. Had you forced him to power up his own cities, his deck would've been stronger eventually (although without a second pile gone, not noticeably), but you could've gotten a good VP lead. Remember, All the Hagglers ok the world can't snag him free VP cards.

16046

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: allfail's puzzle #3: the Complete Dominance

« on: April 03, 2012, 12:45:41 pm »

That's just it. The issue is a little too black and white. Either he can have anything he wants/needs, or he can't. That is, either he wins, or he looses (If he must start from having passed every turn, all he has is 7 copper, 3 estate in his deck. He cannot, under any circumstances, prevent you from winning). So I was trying to open it up a little by saying that he was not *directly* trying to win, rather, he was trying to stop you from doing so (and stopping you by winning himself is invalid under those circumstances).

I agree that little is going to stop Possession (or more directly, KC+Possession). I don't believe that you having "the worst" shuffle luck is synonymous with him having "perfect" shuffle luck, but I think trying to solve "Opponent trying to prevent you" is more to the heart of the puzzle. You could, however, have a single moat in your hand to stop most "attacks" (obviously Possession and Masquerade are not attacks), but it would stop Goons, Militia, Margrave, etc.

My argument that he has the deck he wants stems from:

3. In the engine-setup phase, your opponent is sufficiently incompetent. You can assume it is equivalent to he is passing every turn. In this phase you can have any numbers of coins and buys, but you are not allowed to buy any Colony.

Hence, my earlier assertion:

Your opponent "effectively" passes for simplicity's sake (that is, he is not hampering you during your "construction" phase), but when you're ready to move into a buying phase, his deck is set up as well.

16047

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: allfail's puzzle #3: the Complete Dominance

« on: April 03, 2012, 11:54:17 am »

The problem is, it's two ends of one spectrum:

Either your opponent cannot do anything except pass until your engine is built, in which case there is NOTHING he can do to stop you from winning;

OR

Your opponent "effectively" passes for simplicity's sake (that is, he is not hampering you during your "construction" phase), but when you're ready to move into a buying phase, his deck is set up as well.

In the second case, yes, your opponent can have a deck that is designed to buy a single Colony, or all 8, or do whatever he wants; therefore, I read the condition of "your opponent will do whatever he can to stop you from getting all the Colonies" to mean that his intent is STOPPING you, not trying to win himself. (And for the record, if he bought a Colony, you could still pull Possession / Ambassador shenanigans to get it back, or Possession / Masquerade).

When all is said and done, I'm looking at creating a strategy that takes the nastiest set of circumstances that your opponent can produce directly against you, and try overcome them. The first strategy that I listed, I believe would often (not always) negate a KC-KC-Goons-Masq play. It would NOT deal with KC-KC-Possession x3.

So I ask you, what would?

16048

Solo Challenges / Re: Solo Challenge 10 - A uadbaoS telleB Tribute

« on: April 03, 2012, 10:37:28 am »

Perhaps Ozle can open it up for an extra day to allow legitimate entries.

I'm fine with him closing this one out. Yes, I misinterpreted his conditions, but he seems busy recently, and I don't want a challenge to get dragged out longer than necessary. I've clarified rules with him in the past when I was unsure, but failed to do so this time; I feel the onus is on me to make sure I understand fully, not him.

And honestly, I don't think there is that big of a difference *on this puzzle*. I've played a Province strategy that's 1 turn faster than I managed to 3-pile, and I can run the simulator to 2 turns faster. It's within a margin that I'm comfortable with. Besides, part of the fun is seeing inventive ways some of you come up with. So if I've missed the mark in either case by more than I expect, then hats off, and I'll look forward to the next challenge.

16049

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: allfail's puzzle #3: the Complete Dominance

« on: April 03, 2012, 10:20:44 am »

Perhaps this is a little bit less susceptible Masquerade pins:

Cards in play from previous turn:

Caravan x9

Cards in deck:

Curse x10
Upgrade x9
Highway x10

With 28 cards in your deck, 9 of which are curses, each hand on average should have at least 1, if not 2 curses in the starting 5 (~%32); This should provide enough of a buffer that even a KC+Masquerade combo can be softened (If it's fed by a Goons first, you still won't be crippled, and you'll be drawing 9 cards to open your turn). Even hand reduction attacks shouldn't hurt, and anything he sends over via Ambassador will be handled just like the curses. Once it's your turn, starting with 14 cards (or 12 if you had to discard), you can, with perfect shuffle luck, play out your Highway's, followed by Upgrading Curses into Colonies - Which, to me, is about as cruel as you can be. 1 turn, 8 cards, 12 point swing per card - However, if you want to make this work more frequently without the shuffle luck, add 9x Farming Village's to your deck (to skip curses), maybe 9x Scrying Pools, and perhaps 9x Embassy's (although now you've added a terminal, which could hurt your starting hand more than it helps your entire deck).

Couldn't the other person buy the other caravan?

True enough - Although as Jonts points out, with Highway x10 ANY card can be Upgraded into a Colony, so perhaps the Curse pile need not be empty. And honestly, with just 5 or 6 Caravan's, you would be in a good starting spot. Especially if your deck has the Farming Village's / Scrying Pools.

Also, I'm not 100% clear, but my assumption was that while your opponent has been "effectively" passing each turn you build your engine, once you're revved up, his deck "magically" is as well. That is, his deck has everything he wants to counter-attack you / prevent you from winning. Yes, under those circumstances he could buy... well, he could win all by himself in a single turn many, many different ways - but I don't think his goal is to win / end the game. It's to prevent you from winning.

Now, if he is starting from 7 Copper, 3 Estate, hand size 5, there is nothing he can do, and you'll win every time (especially if you leave, say, 2 caravan's in the supply).

That is why I assume the worst thing he can do to you, is KC + Goons + Masquerade. I can't think of anything else that could potentially disrupt your deck more. Unless he plays Possession. :-P

16050

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: allfail's puzzle #3: the Complete Dominance

« on: April 03, 2012, 09:35:22 am »

Perhaps this is a little bit less susceptible Masquerade pins:

Cards in play from previous turn:

Caravan x9

Cards in deck:

Curse x10
Upgrade x9
Highway x10

With 28 cards in your deck, 9 of which are curses, each hand on average should have at least 1, if not 2 curses in the starting 5 (~%32); This should provide enough of a buffer that even a KC+Masquerade combo can be softened (If it's fed by a Goons first, you still won't be crippled, and you'll be drawing 9 cards to open your turn). Even hand reduction attacks shouldn't hurt, and anything he sends over via Ambassador will be handled just like the curses. Once it's your turn, starting with 14 cards (or 12 if you had to discard), you can, with perfect shuffle luck, play out your Highway's, followed by Upgrading Curses into Colonies - Which, to me, is about as cruel as you can be. 1 turn, 8 cards, 12 point swing per card - However, if you want to make this work more frequently without the shuffle luck, add 9x Farming Village's to your deck (to skip curses), maybe 9x Scrying Pools, and perhaps 9x Embassy's (although now you've added a terminal, which could hurt your starting hand more than it helps your entire deck).