Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All

Author Topic: 2nd Edition Rules  (Read 27512 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9625
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #50 on: September 25, 2016, 05:41:25 pm »
0

I think the "Shuffling" section in the new Dominion rules is new.  It used to be that if I was drawing 3 and had 1 left in my deck, I drew the 1, could look at it, then shuffled and drew the other 2.  That has changed.  So now, for instance, I won't know what I drew on the first card (sans having deck contents memorized) before choosing where to put my Stashes.  Significant change?
You say "for instance," but the only thing it could possibly change is Stash.

The old way worked fine when the only verb was "draw." It was confusing when there were more verbs. Consider Lookout with only one card left.

And over the years I have seen lots of people do it the new way, even though it wasn't in the rules.

But the new way makes cards like Venture and Golem less clear. Do you just shuffle your discard pile immediately upon playing Golem, just in case?
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/

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #51 on: September 25, 2016, 05:42:57 pm »
+1

But the new way makes cards like Venture and Golem less clear. Do you just shuffle your discard pile immediately upon playing Golem, just in case?
No, Golem and Venture reveal cards one at a time.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #52 on: September 25, 2016, 07:23:47 pm »
0

I completely do not understand why anyone thinks the Masquerade pin made Dominion a better game.

As much as you might have enjoyed pulling it off, just in terms of game design, mutually enjoyable play experience for all, etc. it's obvious why the game was much worse off for having it than for not having it. Playing against it could ruin Dominion for players, easily. It was just an awful game mechanic that you guys just enjoyed exploiting, not some treasured part of the Dominion experience that made for quality gameplay. I'm glad it's gone.
I don't mind it being removed but it was an interesting thing that would show up once in a thousand games (because of being a 3-card combo). Not common enough to create degenerate games on a regular basis, but just barely common enough that long-time players will see it a few times, making it fun for analysis and stories.

That said, I've barely played with Adventures and later, so if Royal Carriage makes it a 2-card combo, then a fix was needed for sure.

The Masquerade pin was never a three-card combo. Any discard attack with KC and Masquerade worked just fine for the full pin, but even without a discard attack it was a highly painful combo. A Kinged Masquerade with an empty hand is enough to get your opponent down to 2 cards in hand, and the other 3 cards in his hand will be trashed, so it's still a brutal combined discard-and-trashing attack. Royal Carriage could perform a full pin on its own, that's true.

Most people also think you have to trash down to a deck of only KC-KC-Goons-Masquerade. That's not at all necessary, you can play any engine as long as you trash all your Coppers and Estates, and you make sure that the last card you play is a Kinged Masquerade. The pin was way more flexible and had more finesse than people say.
Any pin short of a full pin was bad because 1. your opponent gets to keep their best cards on each turn, 2. your opponent can often disrupt it by playing a single Masquerade, and 3. the kingdom has KC and Masquerade in it, and as such the strongest alternative strategy is probably very fast and hard to outrace.

It's true that there were several different 3-card combos that could do the pin, but they're still 3-card combos. It wasn't very common. Suppose there are 10 cards that complete the pin with KC and Masquerade. Then the chance of having pin in kingdom was very roughly 10^3 * (1/200)^2 * (10/200) = ~0.1%, so my 1-in-1000 guess was the right order of magnitude. :P

Edit: To be fair, I could be totally wrong on this, because the last time I was any good as a player was pre-Goko. But isotropic had KC+Masq appear together at higher frequency than today, so the 3-card combos should probably be _less_ common today if anything.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 07:30:48 pm by blueblimp »
Logged

NolanA

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
  • Respect: +53
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #53 on: September 26, 2016, 08:38:54 pm »
+2

How good do you think Patrol-BM will be? As it improves two turns without increasing collision fears, I'm guessing pretty good, but I'd love to see some simulations.

I ran simulations of some of the new cards.  My sims of Patrol were basic and did not include changing order of cards.  Patrol-BM was much better than Smithy, Council, or  Militia - Big Money.  It also held its own against Courtyard, Wharf, and Ghost Ship - Big Money, getting a 40+% win rate, so only losing by a small margin.  Bandit-BM and Patrol-BM were roughly tied overall.  However, the results against Bandit were quite different on different starts.  With a 4/3 start, Patrol easily won.  With a 5/2 start, Bandit easily won.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 10:40:40 pm by NolanA »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #54 on: September 29, 2016, 02:32:25 pm »
+1

I think the "Shuffling" section in the new Dominion rules is new.  It used to be that if I was drawing 3 and had 1 left in my deck, I drew the 1, could look at it, then shuffled and drew the other 2.  That has changed.  So now, for instance, I won't know what I drew on the first card (sans having deck contents memorized) before choosing where to put my Stashes.  Significant change?
You say "for instance," but the only thing it could possibly change is Stash.

The old way worked fine when the only verb was "draw." It was confusing when there were more verbs. Consider Lookout with only one card left.

And over the years I have seen lots of people do it the new way, even though it wasn't in the rules.

Yeah, it's a lot easier this way. And enough people do it IRL that I'm kind of sick of saying "wellllll... technically you're not supposed to do that, but it doesn't really matter do whatever". So this is another "thank you Donald" moment rather than "WTF Donald".

Won't there be a lot more of saying that now?
They: "I discard these 8 cards with Cellar, and then draw... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... oh, I have to shuffle."
You: "wellllll... technically you're not supposed to do that, but it doesn't really matter do whatever".

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
  • Respect: +1757
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #55 on: September 29, 2016, 10:33:38 pm »
0

When I draw (more than 1), I almost always deal cards face down as I count, then pick them up. I'd recommend this if you want to conform to the rules exactly. I recommend not making any comments about the exact rule when playing because it generally just doesn't matter. Explaining the rule once is probably fine.

spiralstaircase

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Respect: +453
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #56 on: September 30, 2016, 09:18:11 am »
+5

I don't much like replacing "if you do" with "to" or "for".  But I've noticed I especially don't like it on Mill:

Quote
You may discard 2 cards, for +$2.

In ye olde days, we'd have known that this meant 1 card gets you nothing, 2 cards get you $2.  But in the newfangled style, it really sounds like 1 card gets you $2, 2 cards get you $4.
Logged

navical

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
  • Respect: +268
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #57 on: September 30, 2016, 09:57:49 am »
+1

I don't much like replacing "if you do" with "to" or "for".  But I've noticed I especially don't like it on Mill:

Quote
You may discard 2 cards, for +$2.

In ye olde days, we'd have known that this meant 1 card gets you nothing, 2 cards get you $2.  But in the newfangled style, it really sounds like 1 card gets you $2, 2 cards get you $4.

I assumed when I read Mill that not using "if you do" was deliberate and discarding 1 or 0 cards (if that was all you had left in your hand) still got you $2. Apparently that was wrong :/
Logged

ObtusePunubiris

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
  • Respect: +187
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #58 on: September 30, 2016, 10:57:59 am »
+3

I don't much like replacing "if you do" with "to" or "for".  But I've noticed I especially don't like it on Mill:

Quote
You may discard 2 cards, for +$2.

In ye olde days, we'd have known that this meant 1 card gets you nothing, 2 cards get you $2.  But in the newfangled style, it really sounds like 1 card gets you $2, 2 cards get you $4.

I assumed when I read Mill that not using "if you do" was deliberate and discarding 1 or 0 cards (if that was all you had left in your hand) still got you $2. Apparently that was wrong :/

I like the new wording and think it's very clear.  If the intent was that you get +$2 no matter how many cards you discard, it would have read something like "You may discard up to 2 cards, for +$2." If the intent was for each discarded card to give you +$2, it would have read something like "You may discard 2 cards, for +$2 each."
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #59 on: September 30, 2016, 11:26:01 am »
+1

I don't much like replacing "if you do" with "to" or "for".  But I've noticed I especially don't like it on Mill:

Quote
You may discard 2 cards, for +$2.

In ye olde days, we'd have known that this meant 1 card gets you nothing, 2 cards get you $2.  But in the newfangled style, it really sounds like 1 card gets you $2, 2 cards get you $4.

I assumed when I read Mill that not using "if you do" was deliberate and discarding 1 or 0 cards (if that was all you had left in your hand) still got you $2. Apparently that was wrong :/

I like the new wording and think it's very clear.  If the intent was that you get +$2 no matter how many cards you discard, it would have read something like "You may discard up to 2 cards, for +$2." If the intent was for each discarded card to give you +$2, it would have read something like "You may discard 2 cards, for +$2 each."

You are comparing to other cards because you know the other cards. Obscurity issues are relevant for new people, not experienced people, I think.
Logged

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3457
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #60 on: September 30, 2016, 11:26:06 am »
0

I don't much like replacing "if you do" with "to" or "for".  But I've noticed I especially don't like it on Mill:

Quote
You may discard 2 cards, for +$2.

In ye olde days, we'd have known that this meant 1 card gets you nothing, 2 cards get you $2.  But in the newfangled style, it really sounds like 1 card gets you $2, 2 cards get you $4.

I assumed when I read Mill that not using "if you do" was deliberate and discarding 1 or 0 cards (if that was all you had left in your hand) still got you $2. Apparently that was wrong :/

I like the new wording and think it's very clear.  If the intent was that you get +$2 no matter how many cards you discard, it would have read something like "You may discard up to 2 cards, for +$2." If the intent was for each discarded card to give you +$2, it would have read something like "You may discard 2 cards, for +$2 each."

That wording is even more different.

You may discard up to two cards, for $2

is different than

You may discard two cards, for +$2

because it offers a choice the other one doesn't. You can activate the ability with 2+ cards in hand and choose 0 or 1 cards from the hypothetical wording - the actual wording does not allow you to choose to discard less than 2 cards if you activate it.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

pm me if you wanna do stuff for the blog

they/them

spiralstaircase

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Respect: +453
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #61 on: September 30, 2016, 11:26:31 am »
+1

I like the new wording and think it's very clear.  If the intent was that you get +$2 no matter how many cards you discard, it would have read something like "You may discard up to 2 cards, for +$2." If the intent was for each discarded card to give you +$2, it would have read something like "You may discard 2 cards, for +$2 each."

...and if the intent was that you get +$2 only if you discard both cards, it would have read something like "You may discard exactly 2 cards, for +$2."

Any of those three would be unambiguous.  But the wording we got could refer to any of the three.

The thing I find most frustrating is that if I were explaining it to a new player, what I'd say would be "You may discard two cards, and if you do discard two cards, then you get two monies" which is exactly how the cards used to be phrased.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #62 on: September 30, 2016, 11:31:11 am »
0

I like the new wording and think it's very clear.  If the intent was that you get +$2 no matter how many cards you discard, it would have read something like "You may discard up to 2 cards, for +$2." If the intent was for each discarded card to give you +$2, it would have read something like "You may discard 2 cards, for +$2 each."

...and if the intent was that you get +$2 only if you discard both cards, it would have read something like "You may discard exactly 2 cards, for +$2."

Any of those three would be unambiguous.  But the wording we got could refer to any of the three.

The thing I find most frustrating is that if I were explaining it to a new player, what I'd say would be "You may discard two cards, and if you do discard two cards, then you get two monies" which is exactly how the cards used to be phrased.

It's a new card. This is the only way it's ever been phrased.

In new Dominion terminology, "for" and "to" mean that you must have actually successfully done the thing to get the bonus. Pretty simple.
Logged

ThetaSigma12

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1681
  • Shuffle iT Username: ThetaSigma12
  • Respect: +1809
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #63 on: September 30, 2016, 11:37:23 am »
0

I don't much like replacing "if you do" with "to" or "for".  But I've noticed I especially don't like it on Mill:

Quote
You may discard 2 cards, for +$2.

In ye olde days, we'd have known that this meant 1 card gets you nothing, 2 cards get you $2.  But in the newfangled style, it really sounds like 1 card gets you $2, 2 cards get you $4.

I assumed when I read Mill that not using "if you do" was deliberate and discarding 1 or 0 cards (if that was all you had left in your hand) still got you $2. Apparently that was wrong :/

I like the new wording and think it's very clear.  If the intent was that you get +$2 no matter how many cards you discard, it would have read something like "You may discard up to 2 cards, for +$2." If the intent was for each discarded card to give you +$2, it would have read something like "You may discard 2 cards, for +$2 each."

You are comparing to other cards because you know the other cards. Obscurity issues are relevant for new people, not experienced people, I think.
This. Every time I teach somebody new Dominion it's amazing how they pick up things like Crown even though so many people complain how confusing these things can be.
Logged
My magnum opus collection of dominion fan cards is available here!

mameluke

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #64 on: September 30, 2016, 11:39:29 am »
0

The new wording is fine. I'm pretty sure if the discarding part was irrelevant to the +$2, they'd be on separate lines. Consider Horse Traders.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #65 on: September 30, 2016, 11:41:32 am »
0

I like the new wording and think it's very clear.  If the intent was that you get +$2 no matter how many cards you discard, it would have read something like "You may discard up to 2 cards, for +$2." If the intent was for each discarded card to give you +$2, it would have read something like "You may discard 2 cards, for +$2 each."

...and if the intent was that you get +$2 only if you discard both cards, it would have read something like "You may discard exactly 2 cards, for +$2."

Any of those three would be unambiguous.  But the wording we got could refer to any of the three.

The thing I find most frustrating is that if I were explaining it to a new player, what I'd say would be "You may discard two cards, and if you do discard two cards, then you get two monies" which is exactly how the cards used to be phrased.

It's a new card. This is the only way it's ever been phrased.

In new Dominion terminology, "for" and "to" mean that you must have actually successfully done the thing to get the bonus. Pretty simple.

With new terminology/rules, if you play this and you have only 1 other card in hand, you are allowed to discard that 1 card for no benefit, right?
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

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #66 on: September 30, 2016, 11:58:09 am »
+1

I like the new wording and think it's very clear.  If the intent was that you get +$2 no matter how many cards you discard, it would have read something like "You may discard up to 2 cards, for +$2." If the intent was for each discarded card to give you +$2, it would have read something like "You may discard 2 cards, for +$2 each."

...and if the intent was that you get +$2 only if you discard both cards, it would have read something like "You may discard exactly 2 cards, for +$2."

Any of those three would be unambiguous.  But the wording we got could refer to any of the three.

The thing I find most frustrating is that if I were explaining it to a new player, what I'd say would be "You may discard two cards, and if you do discard two cards, then you get two monies" which is exactly how the cards used to be phrased.

It's a new card. This is the only way it's ever been phrased.

In new Dominion terminology, "for" and "to" mean that you must have actually successfully done the thing to get the bonus. Pretty simple.

With new terminology/rules, if you play this and you have only 1 other card in hand, you are allowed to discard that 1 card for no benefit, right?

Yes, although the number of situations where it's advantageous to do that is vanishingly small. Which is why Mill has "for", whereas Trading Post has "If you did".
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #67 on: September 30, 2016, 12:00:22 pm »
+2

The thing I find most frustrating is that if I were explaining it to a new player, what I'd say would be "You may discard two cards, and if you do discard two cards, then you get two monies" which is exactly how the cards used to be phrased.

It's a new card. This is the only way it's ever been phrased.

In new Dominion terminology, "for" and "to" mean that you must have actually successfully done the thing to get the bonus. Pretty simple.

I think you know what he meant. That concept used to be phrased differently. It's even changed on the 2nd edition versions of old cards.

"If you do", "for" and "to" are not defined in Dominion terminology. Nowhere in any rulebook are those defined. Sure, you can read the card FAQs to find what the words mean on that particular card, but that doesn't mean that you know what similar words mean on all other cards. And it doesn't mean the card text shouldn't be as clear as it possibly can be (given space restrictions). So "do x to get y" should be clear (at least as clear as "do x; if you do, y") in a vacuum and without reference to any "new Dominion terminology".
« Last Edit: September 30, 2016, 12:23:05 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #68 on: September 30, 2016, 12:25:17 pm »
0

The thing I find most frustrating is that if I were explaining it to a new player, what I'd say would be "You may discard two cards, and if you do discard two cards, then you get two monies" which is exactly how the cards used to be phrased.

It's a new card. This is the only way it's ever been phrased.

In new Dominion terminology, "for" and "to" mean that you must have actually successfully done the thing to get the bonus. Pretty simple.

I think you know what he meant. That concept used to be phrased differently. It's even changed on the 2nd edition versions of old cards.

"If you do", "for" and "to" are not defined in Dominion terminology. Nowhere in any rulebook are those defined. Sure, you can read the card FAQs to find what the words mean on that particular card, but that doesn't mean that you know what similar words mean on all other cards. And it doesn't mean the card text shouldn't be as clear as it possibly can be (given space requirements). So "do x to get y" should be clear (at least as clear as "do x; if you do, y") in a vacuum and without reference to any "new Dominion terminology".

This a thousand times over.

Also, what's with the comma in Mill? That's just wrong.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #69 on: September 30, 2016, 12:35:20 pm »
0

The thing I find most frustrating is that if I were explaining it to a new player, what I'd say would be "You may discard two cards, and if you do discard two cards, then you get two monies" which is exactly how the cards used to be phrased.

It's a new card. This is the only way it's ever been phrased.

In new Dominion terminology, "for" and "to" mean that you must have actually successfully done the thing to get the bonus. Pretty simple.

I think you know what he meant. That concept used to be phrased differently. It's even changed on the 2nd edition versions of old cards.

"If you do", "for" and "to" are not defined in Dominion terminology. Nowhere in any rulebook are those defined. Sure, you can read the card FAQs to find what the words mean on that particular card, but that doesn't mean that you know what similar words mean on all other cards. And it doesn't mean the card text shouldn't be as clear as it possibly can be (given space requirements). So "do x to get y" should be clear (at least as clear as "do x; if you do, y") in a vacuum and without reference to any "new Dominion terminology".

This a thousand times over.

Also, what's with the comma in Mill? That's just wrong.

It matches reserves. That was discussed a bunch when reserves came out.
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

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #70 on: September 30, 2016, 12:38:06 pm »
0

I like the new wording and think it's very clear.  If the intent was that you get +$2 no matter how many cards you discard, it would have read something like "You may discard up to 2 cards, for +$2." If the intent was for each discarded card to give you +$2, it would have read something like "You may discard 2 cards, for +$2 each."

...and if the intent was that you get +$2 only if you discard both cards, it would have read something like "You may discard exactly 2 cards, for +$2."

Any of those three would be unambiguous.  But the wording we got could refer to any of the three.

The thing I find most frustrating is that if I were explaining it to a new player, what I'd say would be "You may discard two cards, and if you do discard two cards, then you get two monies" which is exactly how the cards used to be phrased.

It's a new card. This is the only way it's ever been phrased.

In new Dominion terminology, "for" and "to" mean that you must have actually successfully done the thing to get the bonus. Pretty simple.

With new terminology/rules, if you play this and you have only 1 other card in hand, you are allowed to discard that 1 card for no benefit, right?

Yes, although the number of situations where it's advantageous to do that is vanishingly small. Which is why Mill has "for", whereas Trading Post has "If you did".

Pretty much the only one I can think of is if you have a Tunnel in hand.
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

spiralstaircase

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Respect: +453
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #71 on: September 30, 2016, 12:47:18 pm »
+3

In new Dominion terminology, "for" and "to" mean that you must have actually successfully done the thing to get the bonus. Pretty simple.

Yes, sure.  My complaint isn't that new Dominion terminology is unclear when understood as Dominion terminology, it's that it's unclear when read as ordinary English; and given that old Dominion terminology didn't require that distinction, the old terminology was better in terms of clarity.  New dominion terminology is better in terms of brevity.

If you prefer brevity to clarity, hey, that's fine by me.  Just don't expect me to give you a favourable code review.
Logged

ObtusePunubiris

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
  • Respect: +187
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #72 on: September 30, 2016, 01:12:49 pm »
0


I like the new wording and think it's very clear.  If the intent was that you get +$2 no matter how many cards you discard, it would have read something like "You may discard up to 2 cards, for +$2." If the intent was for each discarded card to give you +$2, it would have read something like "You may discard 2 cards, for +$2 each."

You are comparing to other cards because you know the other cards. Obscurity issues are relevant for new people, not experienced people, I think.

Great point.  I did exactly that.

EDIT: Removed a poor analogy
« Last Edit: September 30, 2016, 01:19:38 pm by ObtusePunubiris »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #73 on: September 30, 2016, 01:56:22 pm »
+4

If you prefer brevity to clarity, hey, that's fine by me.  Just don't expect me to give you a favourable code review.

I decline every pull request that uses variable names longer than 1 letter due to lack of brevity.
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

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Rules
« Reply #74 on: September 30, 2016, 01:59:10 pm »
0

"I play Militia."
"Oh, thanks, let me just play Warehouse twice, and, yeah, I'm already down to 3 cards.  Thanks!"

You need 5 or more cards in hand to use Diplomat's reaction. But it's still very useful against Militia because after you discard down to 3 you're guaranteed to trigger Diplomat's +Actions.

So if my opponent plays Council Room, Council Room, Militia:
  • I'm being attacked, so I reveal my Diplomat from a hand of 7 cards.  I draw 2 and discard 3.
  • I'm still being attacked, so I reveal my Diplomat from a hand of 6 cards.  I draw 2 and discard 3.
  • I'm still being attacked, so I reveal my Diplomat from a hand of 5 cards.  I draw 2 and discard 3.
So I've drawn 6 cards total, and discarded 9?  Does that work?

Oh man, long Governor chains followed by a Militia are going to be super-annoying/slow to resolve if your opponent has a Diplomat in hand.
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
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All
 

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 21 queries.