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 3459 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cascadestyler

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
  • Adventurer had its place!
  • Respect: +49
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #75 on: August 31, 2017, 06:45:27 am »
+3

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

But what if your opponent bans Mine?

This is the first comment I have ever upvoted
Logged
Please do not feed the blue dogs

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6689
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8976
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #76 on: August 31, 2017, 08:38:04 am »
+11

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

But what if your opponent bans Mine?

This is the first comment I have ever upvoted

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM
Logged

Jacob marley

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jacob Marley
  • Respect: +127
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #77 on: August 31, 2017, 02:43:56 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.

Shvegait is essentually correct.  Now, in reality, I would not really blacklist everyone I play where a Possession comes up, because ultimately I don't want to restrict my opponent list for that reason.  However, I pointed out that this is exactly what I would have to do under your method to insure that I don't see possession.  Thus, what I'm really trying to say is that my goal for the ban list is to never see the hated cards, and using the union of ban lists fails in this regard.
Logged

FemurLemur

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 97
  • Shuffle iT Username: FemurLemur
  • Respect: +106
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #78 on: September 02, 2017, 03:27:07 pm »
+1

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned any of the 3 attacks from Prosperity on their ban list.

I don't think that having an intersection of both players ban lists would be too hard to program or explain to users. You could phrase it as "pick up to 5 cards to never play with. Now you can pick as many cards as you want that you won't play with if your opponent agrees not to". At the same time, it being game-able is a valid concern.

I will say this though, the Union list is, in my opinion, at a greater risk of being gamed in a more unscrupulous way. For instance, when crafting my list, why would I bother to put Possession on there if I believe the chances of my opponents doing so on their list are high? Why don't I just create a bot that goes through every player's ban list (assuming they're public), find the most common cards, then be sure that I don't put them on my list. Now I have confidence that I'm X% likely to not encounter all of those cards I would actually want to ban, and I can still ban 5 additional cards that I'm bad with.

And if we overcome the above problem by making the ban lists private, I can still keep a log of all of the banned cards from every game I play. The only solution to that problem that comes to mind is to not tell players what cards are being banned at all, which I'm not a fan of.

I question whether solving these issues would even be worth it. The very nature of Dominion means that I won't actually see my least favorite card often because the card pool is always growing. If we ignore the possibility of a Bane card, the current odds that one specific Kingdom card will be in the game is 4% (which will decrease to 3.53% when Nocturne comes out). Granted, the odds that one of my 5 least favorite cards comes out is 17.25% (15.51% once Nocturne comes out). But if that sounds like a lot to you, remember that not all cards are hated equally. I may have 3 cards I despise and 2 that I feel "meh" about, and that 17.25% just refers to the odds that 1 of those 5 comes out to play.

There's also the issue that it could cause resentment from players who like certain unpopular cards. If I buy Alchemy because I really love Possession (and am apparently a statistical anomaly), and then it never comes out on the table, I'm gonna be frustrated that I spent money on something I don't get to use. There's already only a 4% chance that I get to play with Possession in a game. Now consider if 80% of the community bans it. That means I only have a 20% chance of playing a game where Possession is even an option (ignoring any matchmaking probabilities), just to get a ~4%* chance that it shows up. So in total I would have less than a 1% chance of ever seeing Possession.

I don't agree with the notion that we only have to worry about the hated cards that do get played, and not the beloved cards that don't get played. There are certain cards that I get really happy to see, and if I paid for them, I don't think it's fair that I have lower odds of seeing them just because the people I play against online can't deal with them on the rare occasions they come out.

Final point: I worry that this kind of thing will lead to increased community group think. Surely Donald is familiar with our occasional tendency to just decide that a certain card is broken, too strong, too weak, too worthless, etc. only to later realize that maybe we made a bigger deal about it than it really was. I think that that moment of realization only happens when we play with those cards more. So if the community just decides "this new card from Nocturne is stupidly broken, it's just an auto-buy every game", and everyone starts banning it, then it's going to take far longer for people to start using it enough to fairly assess it.



*The reason this is phrased as approx 4% is because now in this scenario we're using bans, which decreases the card pool by up to 10 cards, depending on if my opponent and I have duplicates or not. So the odds that Possession shows up if neither of us have banned it becomes anywhere from 4%-4.17% before Nocturne, and 3.53%-3.66% after Nocturne
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4494
  • Respect: +17972
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #79 on: September 02, 2017, 03:32:49 pm »
+3

Final point: I worry that this kind of thing will lead to increased community group think. Surely Donald X. is familiar with our occasional tendency to just decide that a certain card is broken, too strong, too weak, too worthless, etc. only to later realize that maybe we made a bigger deal about it than it really was. I think that that moment of realization only happens when we play with those cards more. So if the community just decides "this new card from Nocturne is stupidly broken, it's just an auto-buy every game", and everyone starts banning it, then it's going to take far longer for people to start using it enough to fairly assess it.
It's 5 cards. You can't ban each card you think is strong; you pick 5 and you're done. I don't think people will immediately ban new cards. And if they do that's actually fine; I don't need people to fairly assess cards, I just need them to have fun. I'd rather they missed out on the fun they'd have with Jack than that they skip playing because they hate Possession.
Logged

FemurLemur

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 97
  • Shuffle iT Username: FemurLemur
  • Respect: +106
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #80 on: September 02, 2017, 04:31:54 pm »
0

Final point: I worry that this kind of thing will lead to increased community group think. Surely Donald X. is familiar with our occasional tendency to just decide that a certain card is broken, too strong, too weak, too worthless, etc. only to later realize that maybe we made a bigger deal about it than it really was. I think that that moment of realization only happens when we play with those cards more. So if the community just decides "this new card from Nocturne is stupidly broken, it's just an auto-buy every game", and everyone starts banning it, then it's going to take far longer for people to start using it enough to fairly assess it.
It's 5 cards. You can't ban each card you think is strong; you pick 5 and you're done. I don't think people will immediately ban new cards. And if they do that's actually fine; I don't need people to fairly assess cards, I just need them to have fun. I'd rather they missed out on the fun they'd have with Jack than that they skip playing because they hate Possession.

I can't argue with that! So do you think it's worth the trade-off/risk that the player who loves Possession feels they never get to use it? (Not a loaded question, genuinely want to know your take on this)

Another way of thinking of this is, if I plan on playing Dominion online all day tomorrow, it's already unlikely that I'll see my least favorite card even after playing 16 games in a row (19 games in a row after Nocturne). At 17 (20) games, it becomes more probable that you will see it rather than that you won't.

Now imagine we have ban lists of up to 5 cards, 80% of players have banned Possession, and Possession is my favorite card. It's unlikely that I'll see my favorite card even after playing 86 (97) games in a row. At 87 (98) games, it is now more likely that I will than I won't.

And if 80% sounds unrealistic, how about we say 50% of players have banned Possession. That still means I'm going to need to play twice as many games- 35 (39)- before I'm expecting to see Possession on the table once.

Granted, if 80% of players are banning Possession, it means that only 20% of players are going to be negatively affected by this, so I wouldn't blame you for considering this a non-issue. But to me, it just seems like players should be content with the 16 games in a row that they are likely to never see Possession in rather than needing an avenue for outright removing it. Especially since the card pool is always growing. Whereas if I have to go anywhere from 35 to 98 games before having a >50% chance of seeing a card I like even once... Well, that's quite a long wait


Also, sorry I forgot the "X." :P
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4494
  • Respect: +17972
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #81 on: September 02, 2017, 05:05:31 pm »
+1

I can't argue with that! So do you think it's worth the trade-off/risk that the player who loves Possession feels they never get to use it? (Not a loaded question, genuinely want to know your take on this)
You can play unrated games to see those cards. You don't have to leave it to luck; you can say, this game, include Possession. You can spend the day playing endless Possession games.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9889
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +9899
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #82 on: September 02, 2017, 05:48:28 pm »
+1

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM

I'm not doing it for the upvotes, I'm doing it for the lulz.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The Twitch channel where I stream DominionThe YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's new 2017 album for free

Titandrake

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1976
  • Respect: +2132
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #83 on: September 03, 2017, 03:48:22 am »
+3

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM

I'm not doing it for the upvotes, I'm doing it for the lulz.

Not to derail too much, but I found the contrast interesting.

Awaclus on Discord today:

Quote from: Awaclus
but yeah, basically I agree that if you're looking for actual Dominion strategy discussion that helps you improve as a player, this discord server is the only option

f.ds is too focused on upvote fishing and all the other communities are too anti-competitive

Awaclus on f.ds today: "I'm going to post Mine/Mint jokes."

Just saying, "for the lulz" isn't very different from "doing it for the upvotes".
Logged
I have a blog! It's called Sorta Insightful. Check it out?

LaLight

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 564
  • Shuffle iT Username: LaLight
  • Because I'm a potato
  • Respect: +647
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #84 on: September 03, 2017, 03:53:32 am »
+3

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM

I'm not doing it for the upvotes, I'm doing it for the lulz.

Not to derail too much, but I found the contrast interesting.

Awaclus on Discord today:

Quote from: Awaclus
but yeah, basically I agree that if you're looking for actual Dominion strategy discussion that helps you improve as a player, this discord server is the only option

f.ds is too focused on upvote fishing and all the other communities are too anti-competitive

Awaclus on f.ds today: "I'm going to post Mine/Mint jokes."

Just saying, "for the lulz" isn't very different from "doing it for the upvotes".

Hm, sorry, but sometimes you joke for the sake of joke, not for the upvotes. I mean, if I come up with a good pun, I want to share it with people and I definitely don't think about the upvotes. Why is here a different situation?
Logged
Wow where is all this LaLight love coming from all of the sudden?

Wins: M87, M85, M92, M99, M107, RMM37, RMM39, RMM44, RMM45, BM24, M86, M94, M95, M100, ZM24
Losses: M88, M90, RMM38, NM8, NM9, M97, M106, RMM46, ZM23, NM10, M108
Draws: RMM40
MVPs: RMM39, RMM44
Mod/Co-mod: RMM37, M89, M93, M91, M96, RMM41, M98, M101, M102, M104, M105, M109

Titandrake

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1976
  • Respect: +2132
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #85 on: September 03, 2017, 03:55:17 am »
0

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM

I'm not doing it for the upvotes, I'm doing it for the lulz.

Not to derail too much, but I found the contrast interesting.

Awaclus on Discord today:

Quote from: Awaclus
but yeah, basically I agree that if you're looking for actual Dominion strategy discussion that helps you improve as a player, this discord server is the only option

f.ds is too focused on upvote fishing and all the other communities are too anti-competitive

Awaclus on f.ds today: "I'm going to post Mine/Mint jokes."

Just saying, "for the lulz" isn't very different from "doing it for the upvotes".

Hm, sorry, but sometimes you joke for the sake of joke, not for the upvotes. I mean, if I come up with a good pun, I want to share it with people and I definitely don't think about the upvotes. Why is here a different situation?

Sure, that's fair. I just don't like Mine/Mint jokes. They've been done enough that it's hard not to see them coming, so they all preemptively fall flat.

Edit: Okay I just realized it was Kirian that made the Mine/Mint joke, so this whole thing was a waste of time. I'll accept that "for the lulz" isn't the same as "doing it for the upvotes", but I stand by them being similar.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2017, 04:00:56 am by Titandrake »
Logged
I have a blog! It's called Sorta Insightful. Check it out?

LaLight

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 564
  • Shuffle iT Username: LaLight
  • Because I'm a potato
  • Respect: +647
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #86 on: September 03, 2017, 03:59:57 am »
0

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM

I'm not doing it for the upvotes, I'm doing it for the lulz.

Not to derail too much, but I found the contrast interesting.

Awaclus on Discord today:

Quote from: Awaclus
but yeah, basically I agree that if you're looking for actual Dominion strategy discussion that helps you improve as a player, this discord server is the only option

f.ds is too focused on upvote fishing and all the other communities are too anti-competitive

Awaclus on f.ds today: "I'm going to post Mine/Mint jokes."

Just saying, "for the lulz" isn't very different from "doing it for the upvotes".

Hm, sorry, but sometimes you joke for the sake of joke, not for the upvotes. I mean, if I come up with a good pun, I want to share it with people and I definitely don't think about the upvotes. Why is here a different situation?

Sure, that's fair. I just don't like Mine/Mint jokes. They've been done enough that it's hard not to see them coming, so they all preemptively fall flat.

Different people have different sense of humour. My personal opinion, for one, is that I do like Mine/Mint, Moat and other stuff when it comes up, I mean I at least smile. But I do understand that a lot of people are tired of this set, so I rarely joke them myself.
Logged
Wow where is all this LaLight love coming from all of the sudden?

Wins: M87, M85, M92, M99, M107, RMM37, RMM39, RMM44, RMM45, BM24, M86, M94, M95, M100, ZM24
Losses: M88, M90, RMM38, NM8, NM9, M97, M106, RMM46, ZM23, NM10, M108
Draws: RMM40
MVPs: RMM39, RMM44
Mod/Co-mod: RMM37, M89, M93, M91, M96, RMM41, M98, M101, M102, M104, M105, M109

ThetaSigma12

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1387
  • Shuffle iT Username: ThetaSigma12
  • Respect: +1273
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #87 on: September 03, 2017, 08:04:34 am »
0

Hm, sorry, but sometimes you joke for the sake of joke.
This. Whenever I make a joke, my #1 target audience is me. If I can think of something that I find downright hilarious that's the real goal. Other people are too darn hard to please anyways.
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.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9889
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +9899
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #88 on: September 03, 2017, 09:06:00 am »
+1

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM

I'm not doing it for the upvotes, I'm doing it for the lulz.

Not to derail too much, but I found the contrast interesting.

Awaclus on Discord today:

Quote from: Awaclus
but yeah, basically I agree that if you're looking for actual Dominion strategy discussion that helps you improve as a player, this discord server is the only option

f.ds is too focused on upvote fishing and all the other communities are too anti-competitive

Awaclus on f.ds today: "I'm going to post Mine/Mint jokes."

Just saying, "for the lulz" isn't very different from "doing it for the upvotes".

I also post Mine/Mint jokes on Discord where I can't get upvoted, so I think that's enough to prove that my motivation for them doesn't stem from the upvotes.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The Twitch channel where I stream DominionThe YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's new 2017 album for free

chipperMDW

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +323
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #89 on: September 03, 2017, 10:43:30 am »
+9

Maybe each person should be able to ban 5 memes they never want to see.
Logged

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1712
  • Respect: +1716
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #90 on: September 03, 2017, 11:55:13 am »
0

I'm a fan of jokes, but I can't see any difference between posting them because you want upvotes vs. because you think they are funny. Upvotes in this context are just a reflection of how funny people think it is. I think it is especially ridiculous within the context it was mentioned on discord, which was related to the frequency of this behavior derailing threads here on f.ds. Your motivation for posting does not have any bearing on whether a post is on topic.

People who do not like jokes posted in strategy threads will not change their opinion of your jokes based on your motivation for posting them. This is mostly obvious because your intention is not something they can know.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2017, 11:59:09 am by Deadlock39 »
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9889
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +9899
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #91 on: September 03, 2017, 12:24:04 pm »
+1

I'm a fan of jokes, but I can't see any difference between posting them because you want upvotes vs. because you think they are funny. Upvotes in this context are just a reflection of how funny people think it is. I think it is especially ridiculous within the context it was mentioned on discord, which was related to the frequency of this behavior derailing threads here on f.ds. Your motivation for posting does not have any bearing on whether a post is on topic.

People who do not like jokes posted in strategy threads will not change their opinion of your jokes based on your motivation for posting them. This is mostly obvious because your intention is not something they can know.

The context in which it was mentioned on Discord had nothing to do with derailment. The problem is not that people post jokes, the problem is that people are inclined to not post stuff that isn't a joke or something that the average player already agrees with. Which is a problem because the average player's view on Dominion strategy is not the goal that we should all be striving to reach.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The Twitch channel where I stream DominionThe YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's new 2017 album for free

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3150
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3443
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #92 on: September 03, 2017, 02:49:00 pm »
0

Sorry I am a bit confused, what is this thread about, again?
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2348
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +3881
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #93 on: September 03, 2017, 03:59:49 pm »
+2

It's about banning the union of the 5 most disliked f.ds puns from the forum.
Logged

Cave-o-sapien

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 518
  • Respect: +806
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #94 on: September 03, 2017, 04:14:17 pm »
+1

If the ban N cards is implemented on ShuffleIt, then I'd like to see which cards I currently have banned at the matchmaking screen, with the option to un-ban them right there. I think it should also be visible somewhere for the opponent: perhaps at the start of the gamelog?
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4075
  • Respect: +4442
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #95 on: September 04, 2017, 10:28:44 am »
0

Rebuild
Page
IGG
Cultist
Leave this one for whatever I feel like excluding in that moment.

crudefilmschool

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
  • Shuffle iT Username: chrismikethomas
  • Respect: +7
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #96 on: September 11, 2017, 11:28:31 am »
+2

I adore this idea, PLEASE implement it.

I'd ban Sauna, Donate, Possession, and beyond that I don't really care. Maybe Governor or Montebank.
Logged

ackmondual

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +119
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #97 on: September 12, 2017, 04:05:16 am »
0

Sauna/Avanto (does that count as two??)
No. It's the same pile.  Going strictly by the rules, you can't have a game with just Avantos, or Suanas (although that could make for neat variant :p)

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?
Hmm, solution presented?  It sounds like it may make more sense to not ban 5 cards, but ban 5 players.
Logged
Village, +2 Actions.  Village, +3 Actions.  Village, +4 Actions.  Village, +5 Actions.  Village, +6 Actions.  Village, +7 Actions.  Workers Village, +2 Buys, +8 Actions.  End Action Phase.  No Treasures to play.  No buy

ackmondual

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +119
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #98 on: September 12, 2017, 04:12:04 am »
+3

I'm hardcore:

Province
Duchy
Estate
Copper
Curse
Whereas I'm more of a form over function player.  To that end, I'd suggest:
randomizers
blanks
starting cards
1st edition cards
2nd edition cards

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

But what if your opponent bans Mine?

This is the first comment I have ever upvoted

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM
We should have Abandoned Mine!
Logged
Village, +2 Actions.  Village, +3 Actions.  Village, +4 Actions.  Village, +5 Actions.  Village, +6 Actions.  Village, +7 Actions.  Workers Village, +2 Buys, +8 Actions.  End Action Phase.  No Treasures to play.  No buy
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  All
 

Page created in 0.127 seconds with 21 queries.