Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Banning 5 Cards  (Read 2890 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cave-o-sapien

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 322
  • Respect: +483
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #50 on: August 30, 2017, 01:13:13 pm »
+3

I think not the union but the intersection should be taken.

This would be catastrophically bad from a user experience perspective. You're better off not having a ban list than implementing  one that is effectively meaningless most of the time.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4297
  • Respect: +16835
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #51 on: August 30, 2017, 01:19:10 pm »
+4

I am sensitive to the issue of gaming the system, which is why I suggest "5 cards" rather than "as many as you want." The biggest issue is fun, making sure players are having as much fun as possible. It's more fun to not play with a card you hate. Playing against a card you hate is way larger than not getting to play with a card you like that most people hate. If you love Possession and everyone else hates it, you can always play unrated games sometimes where you force it to be included.
Logged

JW

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 563
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +930
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #52 on: August 30, 2017, 01:36:08 pm »
0

I am sensitive to the issue of gaming the system, which is why I suggest "5 cards" rather than "as many as you want." The biggest issue is fun, making sure players are having as much fun as possible. It's more fun to not play with a card you hate. Playing against a card you hate is way larger than not getting to play with a card you like that most people hate. If you love Possession and everyone else hates it, you can always play unrated games sometimes where you force it to be included.

That's why my suggestion is: ban the union of each player's 3 (or 5) least favorite cards. Ban the intersection of each player's least favorite cards past the first 3 (or 5). This way there's no gaming of the system, but if two players both dislike several cards, they won't need to play with them, even in rated games.

What about: List one: Indicate up to three of your most disliked cards.
List two: Indicate any other disliked cards

Cards in any players' three most disliked cards never get used for filling in random kingdom events/cards. In addition, cards that are in all players' set of disliked cards never get used.

There is a table option to turn off this feature for tournaments and the like, but games found through any kind of matching always have the feature on.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4297
  • Respect: +16835
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #53 on: August 30, 2017, 02:51:52 pm »
+2

That's why my suggestion is: ban the union of each player's 3 (or 5) least favorite cards. Ban the intersection of each player's least favorite cards past the first 3 (or 5). This way there's no gaming of the system, but if two players both dislike several cards, they won't need to play with them, even in rated games.
The cards I hate, I don't want to play with, even if the other player likes them.

Further designations, e.g. "this card is in my bottom 50%, can I see it 30% less often" are just too much to ask of players. It's not worth explaining to people or programming.

You can game the system even if you only get to ban cards if both players want to ban them.
Logged

JW

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 563
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +930
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #54 on: August 30, 2017, 05:18:26 pm »
0

That's why my suggestion is: ban the union of each player's 3 (or 5) least favorite cards. Ban the intersection of each player's least favorite cards past the first 3 (or 5). This way there's no gaming of the system, but if two players both dislike several cards, they won't need to play with them, even in rated games.

The cards I hate, I don't want to play with, even if the other player likes them.

Banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards that is allowed to be any length shouldn't offend anyone, but allowing a long unilateral ban list would. For example, letting people who don't like potion-cost cards (or don't like discard attacks) not play with them when their opponent has the same preferences would be good, even if you believe that allowing a unilateral ban list of, say, 10+ cards wouldn't be advisable.

But, whatever modes it applies to, "intersection of hated cards" offends no-one except with regards to leaderboard accuracy; union of hated cards also may mean not getting to play with cards you like that lots of people don't. In casual, I may be willing to let my opponent veto cards that I don't veto myself; I may not.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4297
  • Respect: +16835
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #55 on: August 30, 2017, 05:45:41 pm »
+2

Banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards that is allowed to be any length shouldn't offend anyone,
It lets you hugely game the system, and for sure some people would not like it and rightfully so. I personally would not like it. I don't want to have to ban all the fun swingy cards to be competitive with other people who do so.

You have not changed my opinion. I don't like your idea and still like mine.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #56 on: August 30, 2017, 05:50:39 pm »
+6

I don't like your idea and still like mine.

But what if your opponent bans Mine?

kieranmillar

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Shuffle iT Username: kieranmillar
  • Respect: +106
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #57 on: August 30, 2017, 05:56:55 pm »
0

I support the idea of a card you ban never showing up in your rated games, solely because I don't want to play with Possession any more.

Heck, I'd be very happy with this feature reduced to only banning a single card.

Even better idea: Errata Possession to limit it to once per turn.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6869
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +8853
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #58 on: August 30, 2017, 05:58:36 pm »
+3

I don't like your idea and still like mine.

But what if your opponent bans Mine?

Then you won't be able to trash a bunch of Coppers and later make copies of better treasures.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

crj

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +215
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #59 on: August 30, 2017, 06:32:03 pm »
0

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #60 on: August 30, 2017, 06:50:26 pm »
+4

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)

No, this is mint:

2.71828.....

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1190
  • Shuffle iT Username: irrationalE
  • Respect: +1237
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #61 on: August 30, 2017, 06:56:51 pm »
+3

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)

You know how people go through phases? Like, maybe you were in chess club for a year or two, then you did something else, etc. f.ds went through a "mine/mint" joke phase similar to                                         moat.                                       . Some people still haven't grown out of it.
Logged
Man. I had four strips of bacon yesterday. Was one automatically undercooked, one automatically overcooked? No, let's put a stop to that right here, all four strips were excellent.

ThetaSigma12

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1245
  • Respect: +970
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #62 on: August 30, 2017, 07:06:21 pm »
+3

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)

You know how people go through phases? Like, maybe you were in chess club for a year or two, then you did something else, etc. f.ds went through a "mine/mint" joke phase similar to                                         moat.                                       . Some people still haven't grown out of it.
The best was the phase of endless brackets. Favorite card brackets, best village brackets, best bracket brackets, best bracket of best brackets bracket...

yeah, glad that's over.
Logged
If you have a fan card you want to be created, just post about it here! I'd love to take a look at it.

Omastar68

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 97
  • Shuffle iT Username: Omastar68
  • Respect: +41
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #63 on: August 30, 2017, 07:08:18 pm »
0

Rebuild ofc
Page(can Donate be one?)
Familiar
Lurker
Sauna Avanto


nvm all that, KC and Archive
Logged

gkrieg13

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496
  • Shuffle iT Username: gkrieg
  • Respect: +421
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #64 on: August 30, 2017, 07:22:48 pm »
+1

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)

You know how people go through phases? Like, maybe you were in chess club for a year or two, then you did something else, etc. f.ds went through a "mine/mint" joke phase similar to                                         moat.                                       . Some people still haven't grown out of it.
The best was the phase of endless brackets. Favorite card brackets, best village brackets, best bracket brackets, best bracket of best brackets bracket...

yeah, glad that's over.

I'm sure it will start up again next March!  Unless there is a better month for brackets. 

We should figure out which month is the best month for brackets.  I guess I should start a ...  ;D
Logged
twitch: www.twitch.tv/gkrieg

"Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God." - Ether 12:4

Shvegait

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #65 on: August 30, 2017, 07:26:30 pm »
0

What I'd actually like to see is a system where you get to rate each card in terms of how much you enjoy playing with it, and then the average of your and your opponent's ratings determines how likely each card is to show up. Obviously that would take more work to set up.

This is how I think the ban list should work, but without a rating, just a Yes/No. You "ban" some cards, and your opponent "bans" some cards. If both of you have a certain card "banned", you won't play with it. It's not a real ban, but if you and your opponent mutually agree that you would like nothing more than to never see Rebuild, it won't show up, and you'll both have more fun.

But if someone wants to play with a rotation of all the cards, including the most hated ones, they would still get to do that, even at high rankings where maybe a lot of players have Rebuild or Possession or whatever "banned".

The problems with a ban system where one player banning the cards means they absolutely won't show up ever, in auto-matched games, are:
1) Some players may want to play with a selection of all the cards, and don't really have this as a choice if banning cards is popular
2) You could, potentially, game the overall rating system slightly by banning your personal lowest win % cards

Maybe the effects of both of these are very minor. But requiring both players to have "banned" the card to prevent it from showing up would solve these problems. On the flip side, the banning might not do much at all in this case, if hardly anyone uses the feature...

As a compromise, what might work is what Jimmmmm suggested, but only with ratings of 100% and 0% (could still just be implemented as a 5 card ban list). If one player "bans" the card, the chance of it appearing is halved relative to the normal probability of it appearing. If both players ban it, it will never show up. Might be a reasonable compromise, since still any card *could* show up (vs. players who may prefer to see that card), and you would still see your least favorite cards less often.

I flat out disagree.  If the feature is to be implemented, I will ban Possession because I hate the card and find it unfun.  That means I never want to see it again.  With your suggestion, I would then have to restrict myself to playing others who also ban it, which restricts my pool of available players and lengthens wait times.

If we are going to go that route, then why have a ban list?

Sorry, I don't understand the bolded in your quote. How would you restrict yourself to playing others who also ban it in auto-matched rated games? You would just see Possession sometimes. Strictly less often than you do now, though. My suggestion didn't have anything to do with lengthening wait times or allowing you to pick opponents based on your card preferences. (Maybe I worded something poorly?) Cards on your ban list you would see half as often as you do now; assuming your opponent doesn't have it on theirs. Cards on both players' ban lists would never appear.

I guess the overall philosophical question is what should rated games be about. If you have a unilateral ban list, for any particular game, it doesn't matter what cards were banned, because they're just not in the kingdom, and it's just like the randomizer didn't pick them. It only really matters at a more macro level, after tens or hundreds of games. If you really wanted to climb the ladder, you'd probably ban the swingiest cards earlier in your climb, then perhaps switch to the cards you're not as good with at the top (or keep banning the swingy cards). Would the effect be large enough to matter and is this a concern to current top ranked players?

Another possibility is just making the most hated card(s) banned by default for all players for rated games. If so many players hate Possession, then it can join Stash as a banned card at least for rated games. That gets around the system gaming issue. I'm not really advocating for this, but it's a way to do it.

Banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards that is allowed to be any length shouldn't offend anyone,
It lets you hugely game the system, and for sure some people would not like it and rightfully so. I personally would not like it. I don't want to have to ban all the fun swingy cards to be competitive with other people who do so.

You have not changed my opinion. I don't like your idea and still like mine.

Can you expound on how banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards would allow you to hugely game the system? It means that if both players have banned a card, it won't appear. Otherwise, it still could. So if one player bans Swindler, Cultist, Rebuild and Possession, and you only ban Possession, then Possession will not appear in this game. The other cards still could. If one player bans no cards, all the cards could appear. I don't see how this is gameable, but the ban list in this case also probably doesn't do anything most of the time...

This would be more like those Rebuild "gentleman's agreements" where both players decided in chat they would skip Rebuild. Except, now it gets auto-replaced with a different card if these preferences are expressed in the system before the games start.



ETA: We actually already have this "intersection ban" system, in a sense. These are the subscription levels. If you're not subscribed to cards, they are soft banned. If both players are not subscribed to a card, it will never appear. I mean, you can't game it really, just pointing out that this is not really a radical departure from how rated games work currently. (i.e. not all rated games pull from ALL cards as it is.)
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 08:09:20 pm by Shvegait »
Logged

JW

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 563
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +930
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #66 on: August 30, 2017, 09:59:48 pm »
0

Can you expound on how banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards would allow you to hugely game the system? It means that if both players have banned a card, it won't appear. Otherwise, it still could. So if one player bans Swindler, Cultist, Rebuild and Possession, and you only ban Possession, then Possession will not appear in this game. The other cards still could. If one player bans no cards, all the cards could appear. I don't see how this is gameable, but the ban list in this case also probably doesn't do anything most of the time...

This would be more like those Rebuild "gentleman's agreements" where both players decided in chat they would skip Rebuild. Except, now it gets auto-replaced with a different card if these preferences are expressed in the system before the games start.

The logic of how a ban system could be used to game the rating system is that certain cards tend to systematically favor the more skilled player. Exactly which cards these are, and how much they matter is up for debate, and probably changes at different levels of the game. But under any ban system, a player who wants to maximize their rating will be encouraged to ban cards that they are worse with, or, if they usually play lower rated opponents, that make it easier for the less skilled player to win. I find that concern rather overblown when 5 or fewer cards can be unilaterally banned, and any other cards would need to be banned by all players to be excluded. Fun should be a much higher priority than the accuracy of the ranking system because the purpose of the ranking system is to increase fun, and game to game fun doesn't depend on having the most accurate ranking system.

If I have decided that, say, I am terrible with all of Alchemy, then I am encouraged, even in a system where only cards banned by all players are excluded, to ban Alchemy, even if I enjoy playing with it, in the hopes that I can do better against opponents who simply banned Alchemy because they dislike it, rather than because they are unskilled with it. Or if beyond Cultist and Rebuild, 8 more cards make it easier for the less skilled player to win, I should put all 10 cards on my ban list in the hopes that my opponents will ban them because they dislike them, even though my lower rated opponents would benefit from having them show up in games against me.

For example, this same logic would imply that "gentleman’s’ agreements" to not gain Rebuild could also be used to game the ranking system, if higher ranked (and solely concerned about their ranking) players propose banning Rebuild to increase their chances of winning, even though they find it fun, and lower ranked players go along with it because they don’t find Rebuild fun, even though it would increase their chances of winning. More power to the system enforcing the gentleman’s agreement, I say!

Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #67 on: August 30, 2017, 10:11:46 pm »
+2

For example, this same logic would imply that "gentleman’s’ agreements" to not gain Rebuild could also be used to game the ranking system, if higher ranked (and solely concerned about their ranking) players propose banning Rebuild to increase their chances of winning, even though they find it fun, and lower ranked players go along with it because they don’t find Rebuild fun, even though it would increase their chances of winning.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I once refused such a proposal when I had 5/2 and my opponent was convinced that I only refused because of my opening even though I actually did because I think Rebuild games are fun enough. In principle though, you could game gentlemen's agreements that way by proposing them when you have an unfavorable opening and refusing when you have a favorable one.

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1675
  • Respect: +1669
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #68 on: August 30, 2017, 10:38:46 pm »
+1

Sorry, I don't understand the bolded in your quote.

He is implying that under your system, he could avoid ever playing games with Possession by blacklisting any player he played against when Possession appeared. He is also implying that Possession is so un-fun that he would be personally obligated to do so, and his pool of available players would therefore be reduced.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6869
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +8853
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #69 on: August 30, 2017, 10:42:10 pm »
+4

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)

It's not a particularly obscure meta-joke... it was common in the Isotropic era to accidentally click on Mint rather than Mine, and vice versa, when they showed up next to each other--so close in name, and Iso could be played with no graphics.  This became an in-joke, and perpetuating these sorts of in-jokes is a hobby of mint.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Shvegait

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #70 on: August 30, 2017, 11:02:21 pm »
0

Sorry, I don't understand the bolded in your quote.

He is implying that under your system, he could avoid ever playing games with Possession by blacklisting any player he played against when Possession appeared. He is also implying that Possession is so un-fun that he would be personally obligated to do so, and his pool of available players would therefore be reduced.

Ah, I see. But this does imply that having a reduced player pool is still preferable to him compared to playing sometimes with Possession, still an improvement compared to the current situation. Otherwise, he would decide not blacklisting those players would give him greater utility than blacklisting them.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4297
  • Respect: +16835
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #71 on: August 30, 2017, 11:05:15 pm »
+7

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)

No, this is mint:


They had Dominion mints at Essen in 2009.


Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4297
  • Respect: +16835
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #72 on: August 30, 2017, 11:15:54 pm »
+1

The logic of how a ban system could be used to game the rating system is that certain cards tend to systematically favor the more skilled player. Exactly which cards these are, and how much they matter is up for debate, and probably changes at different levels of the game. But under any ban system, a player who wants to maximize their rating will be encouraged to ban cards that they are worse with, or, if they usually play lower rated opponents, that make it easier for the less skilled player to win. I find that concern rather overblown when 5 or fewer cards can be unilaterally banned, and any other cards would need to be banned by all players to be excluded. Fun should be a much higher priority than the accuracy of the ranking system because the purpose of the ranking system is to increase fun, and game to game fun doesn't depend on having the most accurate ranking system.
My concern is that people would feel like they should ban a bunch of cards (from games where their opponent also did) to get an advantage, and this would result in them having less fun. How much of an advantage it would actually be isn't a factor.

With just 5 cards, you ban the ones you hate the most and so much for that. There probably aren't tons of cards you hate, if you're playing Dominion. If you feel like you have to ban Smithy because it's so swingy even though you enjoy it, that's bad, but at least I've limited the damage to 5 cards.

Obv. people already have complete control of what cards are used for unrated games, and can play nothing but unrated games. The ban list is for rated games and thus needs to keep gaming-the-system low. The 5-card ban list is a concession to the fact that some people hate some cards but prefer to play rated games.
Logged

Shvegait

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #73 on: August 30, 2017, 11:18:49 pm »
+1

Can you expound on how banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards would allow you to hugely game the system? It means that if both players have banned a card, it won't appear. Otherwise, it still could. So if one player bans Swindler, Cultist, Rebuild and Possession, and you only ban Possession, then Possession will not appear in this game. The other cards still could. If one player bans no cards, all the cards could appear. I don't see how this is gameable, but the ban list in this case also probably doesn't do anything most of the time...

This would be more like those Rebuild "gentleman's agreements" where both players decided in chat they would skip Rebuild. Except, now it gets auto-replaced with a different card if these preferences are expressed in the system before the games start.

The logic of how a ban system could be used to game the rating system is that certain cards tend to systematically favor the more skilled player. Exactly which cards these are, and how much they matter is up for debate, and probably changes at different levels of the game. But under any ban system, a player who wants to maximize their rating will be encouraged to ban cards that they are worse with, or, if they usually play lower rated opponents, that make it easier for the less skilled player to win. I find that concern rather overblown when 5 or fewer cards can be unilaterally banned, and any other cards would need to be banned by all players to be excluded. Fun should be a much higher priority than the accuracy of the ranking system because the purpose of the ranking system is to increase fun, and game to game fun doesn't depend on having the most accurate ranking system.

If I have decided that, say, I am terrible with all of Alchemy, then I am encouraged, even in a system where only cards banned by all players are excluded, to ban Alchemy, even if I enjoy playing with it, in the hopes that I can do better against opponents who simply banned Alchemy because they dislike it, rather than because they are unskilled with it. Or if beyond Cultist and Rebuild, 8 more cards make it easier for the less skilled player to win, I should put all 10 cards on my ban list in the hopes that my opponents will ban them because they dislike them, even though my lower rated opponents would benefit from having them show up in games against me.

For example, this same logic would imply that "gentleman’s’ agreements" to not gain Rebuild could also be used to game the ranking system, if higher ranked (and solely concerned about their ranking) players propose banning Rebuild to increase their chances of winning, even though they find it fun, and lower ranked players go along with it because they don’t find Rebuild fun, even though it would increase their chances of winning. More power to the system enforcing the gentleman’s agreement, I say!

I get how you could game the system with union bans, it's only the intersection bans I was questioning. If the only downside is that lower ranked players may ban swingy cards to their own detriment, it doesn't seem like that big of a downside. I was mostly questioning the assertion that in an intersection ban system that you would be compelled to ban these cards to be competitive. The ban doesn't do anything against players that ban 0 cards, so then there must be some game theory reason why the banning meta-game would gravitate to all the top players banning all (max #) of the swingiest cards. I wonder if that is really true, because at some point having the swingy cards in the game is better for you, but perhaps not if you are more often facing lower ranked players (but who also decide to ban the swingy cards).
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 11:21:40 pm by Shvegait »
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6869
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +8853
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #74 on: August 30, 2017, 11:20:39 pm »
+1

They had Dominion mints at Essen in 2009.

Oh man.  There's a piece of amazing memorabilia.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All
 

Page created in 0.107 seconds with 20 queries.