Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6  All

Author Topic: Preview: Messenger  (Read 73317 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4386
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #100 on: April 03, 2015, 12:29:54 pm »
+2

More math. Same as before, 'S' denotes Silver, and I'm treating terminal silvers as actual silvers.

S/S (I ripped these from an old post on the main page):
Chance of hitting at least one $9+: 0%
Chance of hitting at least one $8+: 0%
Chance of hitting at least one $7+: 8.8%
Chance of hitting two at least $7+: 0%
Chance of hitting at least one $6+: 42.4%
Chance of hitting two at least $6+: 0%
Chance of hitting at least one $5+: 91.2%
Chance of hitting two at least $5+: 14.9%

S/S/S
Chance of hitting at least one $9+: 0%
Chance of hitting at least one $8+: 3.3%
Chance of hitting at least one $7+: 22.3%
Chance of hitting two at least $7+: 0%
Chance of hitting at least one $6+: 65.5%
Chance of hitting two at least $6+: 2.9%
Chance of hitting at least one $5+: 97.1%
Chance of hitting two at least $5+: 33.9%

S/S/S/S:
Chance of hitting at least one $9+: 0.7%
Chance of hitting at least one $8+: 9.5%
Chance of hitting at least one $7+: 22.3%
Chance of hitting two at least $7+: 0.3%
Chance of hitting at least one $6+: 79.9%
Chance of hitting two at least $6+: 11.3%
Chance of hitting at least one $5+: 98.9%
Chance of hitting two at least $5+: 49.4%

jamfamsam

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Shuffle iT Username: jamfamsam
  • Respect: +1214
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #101 on: April 03, 2015, 01:01:32 pm »
0

Has Donald ruled on the Messenger/Trader issue and I missed it?
Logged
"There is no extra charge for awesomeness..."

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6364
  • Respect: +25699
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #102 on: April 03, 2015, 01:16:08 pm »
+3

Has Donald ruled on the Messenger/Trader issue and I missed it?
No.

"It" is the card you gained, so if you Trader that card no-one else gets anything. You can Trader the Messenger itself without disrupting anything.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4386
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #103 on: April 03, 2015, 02:36:24 pm »
+1

The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.

Gherald

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 676
  • Awe: +35
  • Respect: +1399
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #104 on: April 03, 2015, 04:05:13 pm »
+4



This is based on a comment he made during AdamH's Gokodom streaming match, where he suggested that Adam's optimal play was to use ambassador to return "at least one Silver."



Am I doing it right?

Logged
My opponent has more loot than me

-Stef-

  • 2012 & 2016 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1574
  • Respect: +4419
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #105 on: April 03, 2015, 04:20:05 pm »
0

Am I doing it right?

Yes you're doing it right but I can't believe WW is in this case.
Sure there are some engines you can stop with free silvers (village/smithy/no trashing) but most of them just say thank you very much.
Against say a Steward and a Workers Village it's already really bad.
Logged
Join the Dominion League!

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4386
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #106 on: April 03, 2015, 04:27:09 pm »
0

Am I doing it right?

Yes you're doing it right but I can't believe WW is in this case.
Sure there are some engines you can stop with free silvers (village/smithy/no trashing) but most of them just say thank you very much.
Against say a Steward and a Workers Village it's already really bad.
It's not so much about harming the engine as it is about helping the BM.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9707
  • Respect: +10765
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #107 on: April 03, 2015, 05:25:48 pm »
0

The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.

Your problem here is that you have to buy a terminal for every Silver you want to dish out, and you don't want many terminals. Once you have 1 or 2 (or less if you have terminal draw), you'd much rather have just a Silver than a Silver and a Messenger.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4386
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #108 on: April 03, 2015, 05:41:00 pm »
0

The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.

Your problem here is that you have to buy a terminal for every Silver you want to dish out, and you don't want many terminals. Once you have 1 or 2 (or less if you have terminal draw), you'd much rather have just a Silver than a Silver and a Messenger.

So I just buy a silver. Really, though, I imagine you can get quite a number of terminals - 3, 4? The silver isn't all that damaging anyway, it's more that it's not so helpful. And I, the money player, get to open triple Silver, following up with quite a bit more. I get my deck quite thick with silvers nice and quickly. And it's quite a while before I would rather have no Messenger than Messenger. Also, I have a decent amount of pile control for a money deck.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9707
  • Respect: +10765
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #109 on: April 03, 2015, 06:27:50 pm »
0

The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.

Your problem here is that you have to buy a terminal for every Silver you want to dish out, and you don't want many terminals. Once you have 1 or 2 (or less if you have terminal draw), you'd much rather have just a Silver than a Silver and a Messenger.

So I just buy a silver. Really, though, I imagine you can get quite a number of terminals - 3, 4? The silver isn't all that damaging anyway, it's more that it's not so helpful. And I, the money player, get to open triple Silver, following up with quite a bit more. I get my deck quite thick with silvers nice and quickly. And it's quite a while before I would rather have no Messenger than Messenger. Also, I have a decent amount of pile control for a money deck.

But you don't get Silver any quicker than you would by just buying Silver normally.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4386
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #110 on: April 03, 2015, 06:30:56 pm »
0

The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.

Your problem here is that you have to buy a terminal for every Silver you want to dish out, and you don't want many terminals. Once you have 1 or 2 (or less if you have terminal draw), you'd much rather have just a Silver than a Silver and a Messenger.

So I just buy a silver. Really, though, I imagine you can get quite a number of terminals - 3, 4? The silver isn't all that damaging anyway, it's more that it's not so helpful. And I, the money player, get to open triple Silver, following up with quite a bit more. I get my deck quite thick with silvers nice and quickly. And it's quite a while before I would rather have no Messenger than Messenger. Also, I have a decent amount of pile control for a money deck.

But you don't get Silver any quicker than you would by just buying Silver normally.

I get silver-or-silver-equivalents quite a bit faster.

Flip5ide

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Highest Rank/Rating: 58/5600
  • Respect: +136
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #111 on: April 04, 2015, 04:39:03 am »
0

There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)
Logged
"If at first you don't succeed, find out if the loser gets anything." - William Lyon Phelps

ehunt

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Shuffle iT Username: ehunt
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #112 on: April 04, 2015, 05:14:03 am »
0

There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

Messenger is so funny compared to base set cards. It's got the Chancellor and the Woodcutter bonus.  Most of the time, the on-buy is going to be neutral-ish if your deck looks like your opponent's, and a mild boon to you if it doesn't. If you're playing against someone who's better than you at tactics, it might pay even more than usual to imitate their strategy, lest they find ways to use extra estates that you can't.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2015, 05:15:08 am by ehunt »
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9630
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #113 on: April 04, 2015, 08:54:06 am »
+2

There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9707
  • Respect: +10765
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #114 on: April 04, 2015, 09:09:03 am »
0

There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3296
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4443
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #115 on: April 04, 2015, 09:12:16 am »
+1

There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".

Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.

(That's the standard rule, anyway)
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9707
  • Respect: +10765
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #116 on: April 04, 2015, 09:19:29 am »
+1

There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".

Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.

(That's the standard rule, anyway)

Assuming you're correct, Flip5ide was right, not I. Or, I was right in my first instinct, but I did say in my post that I thought Wero was right, which makes me wrong.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1691
  • Respect: +1162
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #117 on: April 04, 2015, 09:36:37 am »
+7

Oh come on. Do we really need a Previews: Messenger [Serious] thread already?
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9630
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #118 on: April 04, 2015, 10:01:48 am »
0

There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".

Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.

(That's the standard rule, anyway)

I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9707
  • Respect: +10765
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #119 on: April 04, 2015, 10:05:32 am »
+1

There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".

Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.

(That's the standard rule, anyway)

I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.

So what you're saying is that we need more commas.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Flip5ide

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Highest Rank/Rating: 58/5600
  • Respect: +136
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #120 on: April 04, 2015, 10:18:47 am »
0

There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".

Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.

(That's the standard rule, anyway)

I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.

So what you're saying is that we need more commas.

I just use the rule of thumb, →  if you can replace the word, answer the question, or rephrase the sentence to have: he, then use who; him, use whom. I could be wrong. For instance, "There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking," becomes  ". . . he was asking."
« Last Edit: April 04, 2015, 10:22:39 am by Flip5ide »
Logged
"If at first you don't succeed, find out if the loser gets anything." - William Lyon Phelps

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3296
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4443
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #121 on: April 04, 2015, 10:43:59 am »
0

There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking.  ;)

Whoever*  ::)

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".

This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".

Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.

(That's the standard rule, anyway)

I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.

"Whoever" is longer than "him, who", so I'm not sure what you mean by "abbreviates". And I'm not sure what you mean by "ambiguity" either; I don't see how "for whoever was asking" is any more ambiguous than "for him who was asking" (but I do think it has a different meaning).
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6364
  • Respect: +25699
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #122 on: April 04, 2015, 11:25:11 am »
+2

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".
Not so!

"Whom" is used in certain old expressions, such as "for whom the bell tolls," and in situations where you want to make a statement with your word choice. Otherwise people say "who." "Whom" is dying.

Similarly, "ye" is used in certain old expressions, such as "hear ye, hear ye," and in situations where you want to sound old-timey. Otherwise people say "you." "Ye" is dead.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3296
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4443
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #123 on: April 04, 2015, 11:46:13 am »
0

"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them".  Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"?  No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".
Not so!

"Whom" is used in certain old expressions, such as "for whom the bell tolls," and in situations where you want to make a statement with your word choice. Otherwise people say "who." "Whom" is dying.

I don't quite agree—whom is pretty robust with pied-piped prepositions, as in To whom should I direct this request? Admittedly, pied-piping prepositions is itself pretty rare—people would mostly just say Who should I direct this request to?, with the preposition stranded at the end of the sentence—but it's far from obsolete. (It's certainly less obsolete than whom is in non–pied-piping contexts, for instance.) And as far as I can tell you almost always get whom and almost never who in that situation.

(Also, maybe this should be moved to another thread.)
Logged

shmeur

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
  • I'm a Dominion card lol.
  • Respect: +115
    • View Profile
Re: Preview: Messenger
« Reply #124 on: April 04, 2015, 11:52:24 am »
+3

Maybe he's a hinting that today's preview card will be the Prescriptive Grammarian: each player gains a curse for every grammatical error made.
Logged
"I can move mountains; I can work a miracle."
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6  All
 

Page created in 0.102 seconds with 21 queries.