Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2]  All

Author Topic: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold  (Read 6087 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5199
  • Respect: +2664
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #25 on: October 08, 2015, 12:52:30 pm »
0

So there is no wording that works :(
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6428
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7779
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #26 on: October 08, 2015, 12:59:47 pm »
+1

So there is no wording that works :(

Just "Gain a card costing up to $6P."
Logged

skip wooznum

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
  • All my posts are phone posts
  • Respect: +111
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #27 on: October 08, 2015, 01:25:56 pm »
+1

Tables' helpful diagram was here:

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9621.msg307002#msg307002
let's be honest. You just linked there because you wanted us to read how you explained a joke  ;)
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9135
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2015, 01:30:31 pm »
+5

So there is no wording that works :(

Just "Gain a card costing up to $6P."

Or "Gain a card costing less than $6P that is not a victory card".  This allows Gold and Potion costs, excluding Possession, which I think is what pops was going for.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5199
  • Respect: +2664
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2015, 01:31:09 pm »
0

Holy #%^$ eHalcyon is a genius!
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6428
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7779
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2015, 01:36:01 pm »
0

So there is no wording that works :(

Just "Gain a card costing up to $6P."

Or "Gain a card costing less than $6P that is not a victory card".  This allows Gold and Potion costs, excluding Possession, which I think is what pops was going for.

I figured the "that is not a victory card" part was implied. 

Edit: But, oh, I didn't know Possession was intended to be excluded.
Logged

faust

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1922
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +2651
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2015, 09:07:05 pm »
0

You can still gain Possession though. Every game with Bag of Holding also includes Princess.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5199
  • Respect: +2664
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #32 on: October 08, 2015, 09:28:28 pm »
0

You can still gain Possession though. Every game with Bag of Holding also includes Princess.
Hahaha, true.  If they play both in one turn, they've earned it.
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1830
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1862
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2015, 10:09:47 pm »
0

Or "Gain a card costing less than $6P that is not a victory card".  This allows Gold and Potion costs, excluding Possession, which I think is what pops was going for.

"Up to $5P" would match existing cards more closely, right? I think "less than" is only used in reference to another card's cost, not in reference to a set cost.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5199
  • Respect: +2664
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #34 on: October 08, 2015, 10:29:53 pm »
+2

"Up to 5P" doesn't allow you to gain a Gold.  "Less than 6P" does.  That's what Ehalcyon's hack was unexpected and clever to me.

It sticks with the convention, "Use 'up to' unless you have a reason to use 'less than'", because there's a reason to use "less than" here.
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4290
  • Respect: +4719
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #35 on: October 09, 2015, 11:32:29 am »
+3

Potions are Peas, coins are Coconuts. Six Coconuts are not more than four Coconuts and a Pea. Neither are they less. Because neither is a real subset of the other.

The whole Potion-comparison thing is in the rulebook. Why are people still getting this wrong?

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5199
  • Respect: +2664
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #36 on: October 09, 2015, 12:19:09 pm »
0

Because I haven't bought a physical copy of Alchemy
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6428
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7779
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #37 on: October 09, 2015, 12:24:05 pm »
+2

Also, out of peas.
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1830
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1862
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #38 on: October 09, 2015, 05:04:40 pm »
+3

Potions are Peas, coins are Coconuts. Six Coconuts are not more than four Coconuts and a Pea. Neither are they less. Because neither is a real subset of the other.

The whole Potion-comparison thing is in the rulebook. Why are people still getting this wrong?

Because imaginary numbers are hard.
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6428
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7779
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #39 on: October 09, 2015, 05:07:42 pm »
+5

Potions are Peas, coins are Coconuts. Six Coconuts are not more than four Coconuts and a Pea. Neither are they less. Because neither is a real subset of the other.

The whole Potion-comparison thing is in the rulebook. Why are people still getting this wrong?

Because imaginary numbers are complex.

Fixed that for you.

(But I'm guessing that was the joke.)
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4290
  • Respect: +4719
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2015, 06:54:42 am »
+2

Potions are Peas, coins are Coconuts. Six Coconuts are not more than four Coconuts and a Pea. Neither are they less. Because neither is a real subset of the other.

The whole Potion-comparison thing is in the rulebook. Why are people still getting this wrong?

Because imaginary numbers are hard.

So are Coconuts. Allthough i don't see why either statement is relevant to understanding Potion costs. If you need imaginary numbers, i get the feeling you are overthinking this a bit.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6706
  • Respect: +7480
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #41 on: October 10, 2015, 09:05:20 pm »
+3

Potions are Peas, coins are Coconuts. Six Coconuts are not more than four Coconuts and a Pea. Neither are they less. Because neither is a real subset of the other.

The whole Potion-comparison thing is in the rulebook. Why are people still getting this wrong?

Because imaginary numbers are hard.

So are Coconuts. Allthough i don't see why either statement is relevant to understanding Potion costs. If you need imaginary numbers, i get the feeling you are overthinking this a bit.

Imaginary numbers are simply another example of a situation where you have numbers that are counted along 2 separate axis, just like coins + potions.
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

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4290
  • Respect: +4719
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #42 on: October 11, 2015, 04:34:33 am »
0

Potions are Peas, coins are Coconuts. Six Coconuts are not more than four Coconuts and a Pea. Neither are they less. Because neither is a real subset of the other.

The whole Potion-comparison thing is in the rulebook. Why are people still getting this wrong?

Because imaginary numbers are hard.

So are Coconuts. Allthough i don't see why either statement is relevant to understanding Potion costs. If you need imaginary numbers, i get the feeling you are overthinking this a bit.

Imaginary numbers are simply another example of a situation where you have numbers that are counted along 2 separate axis, just like coins + potions.

I see. Thank you for explaining it. Makes sense, then.

JW

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 678
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +1175
    • View Profile
Re: Bag of Holding - variant on Bag of Gold
« Reply #43 on: January 12, 2018, 03:32:55 pm »
0

I remembered this thread recently because Nocturne brought us a card with the text "gain a card costing up to $6" in Wish. Magic Lamp is taken, but maybe this card should now be called "Genie On-Demand?"
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All
 

Page created in 0.228 seconds with 20 queries.