Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[markusin]

I use the "2-row" tree system when using simple +2 Action villages. Villages are arranged in a row, and terminal are placed under the villages. It works great there.

For chains of cards like Throne Room, I do resort to the vertical symmetric tree style.

[popsofctown]

I don't know if I'd call it a tree or not, but I pair Villages and terminals together and consider each pair to have costed me +0 Actions.

I think when I play with Crossroads I give the Crossroads a holding capacity of 2.  So I guess I can see how that's a tree.

But like, if you are playing a Village and "treeing" two villages off of it and then Smithy's off of the lower level bridges I don't think you are making your board state easier to interpret (With KC and TR you might be haven't played with those as much)

[allanfieldhouse]

But like, if you are playing a Village and "treeing" two villages off of it and then Smithy's off of the lower level bridges I don't think you are making your board state easier to interpret

Classic tree setup: So let's say you have 3 villages and 3 smithies you want to play. Each village can have one card on each of its lower 2 corners. So your first village has two villages played off of it. Then the next village has 2 smithies played off of it. Finally, your last village has one smithy and one free corner where you can play another action card if you wish. So without counting any actions at all, you know you can play one more terminal (or another village, which would continue the tree).

A visual would help a lot, but hopefully you get the idea from the description.

[Doom_Shark]

You can do a tree layout that doesn't use so much vertical space if there are no cards giving more than 2 actions by doing the following:
+2 action cards can have one card to the right and one below, +1 action cards can have one to the right. Put only terminals in the "below" spots. This way, you only need 2 rows of cards.

That is exactly what I do. I find it very efficient with space.

SAAAME. If I haven't played any villages yet, I tend to stack cantrips vertically, otherwise, I add them to the tree. With things like tr, I branch the tree in multiple directions.

[AJD]

You can do a tree layout that doesn't use so much vertical space if there are no cards giving more than 2 actions by doing the following:
+2 action cards can have one card to the right and one below, +1 action cards can have one to the right. Put only terminals in the "below" spots. This way, you only need 2 rows of cards.

That is exactly what I do. I find it very efficient with space.

I like this idea, but I often find that on big engine turns—the turns where it's most important to keep track of how many actions you have left, and hardest to do it in your head—I run out of left-to-right space just by playing my non-terminals.

[McGarnacle]

My favorite is when I play 6 villages, just assume I have enough actions, but then play so many terminals I may be running out. Then I need to re-count everything.

[Watno]

You can do a tree layout that doesn't use so much vertical space if there are no cards giving more than 2 actions by doing the following:
+2 action cards can have one card to the right and one below, +1 action cards can have one to the right. Put only terminals in the "below" spots. This way, you only need 2 rows of cards.

That is exactly what I do. I find it very efficient with space.

I like this idea, but I often find that on big engine turns—the turns where it's most important to keep track of how many actions you have left, and hardest to do it in your head—I run out of left-to-right space just by playing my non-terminals.

In that case, you can just do a line break and add another pair of rows like this below

[allanfieldhouse]

You can do a tree layout that doesn't use so much vertical space if there are no cards giving more than 2 actions by doing the following:
+2 action cards can have one card to the right and one below, +1 action cards can have one to the right. Put only terminals in the "below" spots. This way, you only need 2 rows of cards.

That is exactly what I do. I find it very efficient with space.

I like this idea, but I often find that on big engine turns—the turns where it's most important to keep track of how many actions you have left, and hardest to do it in your head—I run out of left-to-right space just by playing my non-terminals.

Any card that gives exactly +1 action doesn't need to go in the tree -- they can just be played anywhere you have table space (assuming you still have an action available to play it). The big advantage of the tree setup is that it keeps track of cards that add or subtract actions for you. Since a +1 action card simultaneously adds and subtracts one from the total, there's no need to include it in the tree.

[ackmondual]

Another thing that annoys me is when I'm playing Dominion with my cats, they take forever thinking about their turn and suddenly play cards from their paw randomly, occasionally also from their deck and discard pile, and then grab like 5 Estates from the Supply with only 1 buy! And their short term attention span is atrocious! But if I refuse to let them play, my mum gets angry at me so I concede.

In a way, Dominion beginners are like cats.

True, but unlike Dominion beginners, cats still know what to do with Rats!