Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: "But it worked"  (Read 999 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JThorne

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • Respect: +498
    • View Profile
"But it worked"
« on: November 30, 2017, 12:41:28 pm »
+4

I hope this will be a fun can of worms to open.

What are some bad plays you've lost to?

Have you ever played a game, on-line or IRL, where you lost to someone who was using a suboptimal strategy (for whatever reason...shuffle luck, playing a weak engine vs. BM and just barely missing the tempo shift, etc.) and tried to be helpful by pointing out misplays, only to be told "but I won, so therefore it worked."

I thought about this because of a thread about Inheritance in which someone describes winning by Inheriting Baron, which I pointed out was just Delve with downside and didn't seem like a particularly effective play.

Some others:

Keeping Cursed Gold in a deck-drawing engine because you can reliably trash the Curse every turn. CG+Curse+Trasher is three cards generating $3. Seems like Copper the hard way to me.

Playing the first of two Pearl Divers and revealing a Victory card...and topdecking it, because then the NEXT Pearl Diver has a chance to reveal a GOOD card.

Logged

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1089
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1633
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2017, 12:46:51 pm »
+3

Keeping Cursed Gold in a deck-drawing engine because you can reliably trash the Curse every turn. CG+Curse+Trasher is three cards generating $3. Seems like Copper the hard way to me.

Uh I wouldn't condemn this on principle. Sometimes draw is abundant and gains are not, and replacing that Cursed Gold with something more efficient might cost you a whole turn. And you probably are stuck with the trasher either way, so you'd have to draw it anyway.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6968
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9095
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2017, 12:58:13 pm »
+3

Before Saboteur was removed, I lost a Rebuild game to Sab.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Chris is me

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2308
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +2686
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2017, 12:59:46 pm »
0

Keeping Cursed Gold in a deck-drawing engine because you can reliably trash the Curse every turn. CG+Curse+Trasher is three cards generating $3. Seems like Copper the hard way to me.

Uh I wouldn't condemn this on principle. Sometimes draw is abundant and gains are not, and replacing that Cursed Gold with something more efficient might cost you a whole turn. And you probably are stuck with the trasher either way, so you'd have to draw it anyway.

This isnít that weird, yeah. You probably already have the trasher, you certainly didnít buy it solely for the purpose of making Cursed Gold work. If the trasher is for any benefit at all, as most single card trashers are, there are certainly many scenarios where this is correct.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

they/them

teamlyle

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
  • Shuffle iT Username: La-Ya
  • Did you know that cashews come from a fruit?
  • Respect: +95
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2017, 01:13:29 pm »
+3

I'm used to 2-player games, so I often have a hard time adjusting to games with more players, since the piles just run out so fast. This one time, I tried playing Highway-Market where the only other strategy was Embassy BM. In a 6-player game. Everyone else played Embassy and got like 2 Provinces each and ended the game. I looked pretty dumb that game :P
Logged
Please join Forum Survivor season 4!

AJD

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2753
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3219
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2017, 01:26:43 pm »
+4

Before Saboteur was removed, I lost a Rebuild game to Sab.

Wait, is that "losing to a bad strategy", or is that "cards that are usually weak can be effective on certain boards"?
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +221
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2017, 01:39:02 pm »
+5

I'm sure a lot of people here have lost to that guy who buys nothing but Bakers.

My most surreal loss was to a Baker Idiot who didn't buy Cultist and ended up with all 10 Ruins with no trashing.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6968
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9095
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2017, 01:41:17 pm »
+8

Before Saboteur was removed, I lost a Rebuild game to Sab.

Wait, is that "losing to a bad strategy", or is that "cards that are usually weak can be effective on certain boards"?

When I lose, it's losing to a bad strategy; when they lose, it's weak cards being effective.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Eran of Arcadia

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 214
  • Respect: +362
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2017, 01:52:03 pm »
+2

I'm used to 2-player games, so I often have a hard time adjusting to games with more players, since the piles just run out so fast.

That's my excuse for losing so many 4 player games to my stepmother-in-law, who does things like open Duchy/Squire and needs to be repeatedly reminded that she doesn't have an unlimited number of actions.
Logged

JW

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 637
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +1102
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2017, 02:04:15 pm »
+1

There is a thread on this topic you may enjoy, "Magical losses."
Logged

DG

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3898
  • Respect: +2419
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2017, 02:12:30 pm »
+6

I remember playing a game against Geronimoo where I'd mistaken the young witch bane as native villages when it was actually fool's gold. He'd correctly bought the fool's gold but since he never had it hand when I played the witch it was only on about turn 12 that I realized what was happening. In the mean time I'd built up my native village mat, bought a forge, given him a pile of curses, and won with a completely mistaken strategy.
Logged

vishwathg

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
  • Respect: +27
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2017, 02:29:25 pm »
+13

My opponent bought Donate T1, trashing his whole deck. This was my second or third game? I was reluctant to trash my cards, which led to me getting negative points through Wall. I lost 0 to -7.

I've always assumed it was his idea of a joke...
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 02:31:28 pm by vishwathg »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6459
  • Respect: +7112
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2017, 03:05:49 pm »
0

How is Inheriting Baron like Delve?
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

crj

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Respect: +501
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2017, 08:33:18 pm »
+1

I thought about this because of a thread about Inheritance in which someone describes winning by Inheriting Baron
Humph. :-p
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1816
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1834
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2017, 08:35:22 pm »
0

How is Inheriting Baron like Delve?

Baron + Estate is like Silver + Silver. So buying an Estate after Inheriting Baron is like buying a Silver for $2 -- Delve.
Logged

heron

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 985
  • Shuffle iT Username: heron
  • Respect: +1107
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2017, 08:49:15 pm »
0

How is Inheriting Baron like Delve?

Baron + Estate is like Silver + Silver. So buying an Estate after Inheriting Baron is like buying a Silver for $2 -- Delve.

yea and baron and delve both give you +buy
Logged

Titandrake

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1981
  • Respect: +2151
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2017, 12:30:17 am »
+5

I once lost to a player that opened Estate/Mine.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=15701.0
Logged
I have a blog! It's called Sorta Insightful. Check it out?

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6459
  • Respect: +7112
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2017, 02:16:45 am »
+2

How is Inheriting Baron like Delve?

Baron + Estate is like Silver + Silver. So buying an Estate after Inheriting Baron is like buying a Silver for $2 -- Delve.

yea and baron and delve both give you +buy

I mean sort of, but it's different for multiple reasons that matter:

1) The buy on Delve isn't comparable to the buy on Baron, because you only get that for buying Delve, not for playing Silver. So Baron-Estate gives you a buy, Silver+Silver does not.

2) The buy on Delve is relevant to the fact that you can get more Silvers with Delve easier than you can get as many Estates.

3) Silver+Silver doesn't need an action to play, and can't be drawn dead.

4) You don't have to collide Silver+Silver for them to gives the +; you could have an odd number of Silvers.

5) Estate+Estate is worth 2l; Silver+Silver is worth 0.

6) Inheriting anything instantly gives you 3 (in general) copies of that thing, so it's not just about reducing the price of the thing in the future.

Not trying to say that Inheriting a Baron is good or anything; just that I feel like the comparison to Delve is a stretch because it is considering only 1 aspect what Inheritance does out of many; that it let's you buy "copies" of the inherited card for instead of the real cost.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2017, 02:18:25 am by GendoIkari »
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

JThorne

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • Respect: +498
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2017, 10:48:40 am »
0

Quote
I mean sort of, but it's different for multiple reasons that matter

Well, in this case, it was being touted as a source of economy. The player described playing enough Barons and discarding enough Estates to make $22 and buy double Colonies. If the trashing, draw and extra actions was good enough to get that many Barons and Estates in hand and play them all, my guess is that the engine could have been a LOT more efficient and a lot faster to build. I mean, there had to be Platinums, right? 3xPlatinum, 1xGold, 1 Baron + 1 Estate also gets $22 and double colonies, but with 6 cards instead of 12, requiring buying a LOT fewer actions/draw cards

Now, if the game had Battlefield and another marginally useful $2 or some other indicators that would support a rush, especially if the engine was weak, maybe it makes sense, but it sure seems like an inefficient payload to me.
Logged

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 787
  • Respect: +500
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2017, 12:24:44 pm »
0

Quote
I mean sort of, but it's different for multiple reasons that matter

Well, in this case, it was being touted as a source of economy. The player described playing enough Barons and discarding enough Estates to make $22 and buy double Colonies. If the trashing, draw and extra actions was good enough to get that many Barons and Estates in hand and play them all, my guess is that the engine could have been a LOT more efficient and a lot faster to build. I mean, there had to be Platinums, right? 3xPlatinum, 1xGold, 1 Baron + 1 Estate also gets $22 and double colonies, but with 6 cards instead of 12, requiring buying a LOT fewer actions/draw cards

Now, if the game had Battlefield and another marginally useful $2 or some other indicators that would support a rush, especially if the engine was weak, maybe it makes sense, but it sure seems like an inefficient payload to me.


To even remotely consistently get 3x platinum, 1x gold (and a baron/estate) in hand you still need a boatload of draw cards, a boatload of platinums, and/or a boatload of trashing. Gainers generally don't get you platinum, but can gain you engine pieces + estates + baron...

The TLDR is I can see many more situations where I've drawn a bunch of cards and played baron to buy 2 colonies than where I've played a small amount of draw and played 18 value in coins.
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3323
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +1919
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2017, 12:31:31 pm »
+2

With enough draw, the inherited Barons can all discard the same Estate, and the comparison to Silver - Silver breaks down.
Logged

crj

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Respect: +501
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2017, 12:58:51 pm »
0

(I was the person who won with Inherited Baron.)

Good point - I'd forgotten that aspect. In practice, I recall it wasn't practical to recycle just one Estate endlessly like that, but I only needed to discard two or three then draw them back into hand.

Then again, I've also remembered Crossroads was on that board, which is a big point in favour of Inherited Barons over Silver that I probably should have mentioned sooner. My bad!
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5089
  • Respect: +2576
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2017, 08:41:29 pm »
+1

I just lost a game where the only Familiars were in my deck and the only trashing was develop.  The sifting was Secret Cave and Tracker

Surely that shouldn't work on average.
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6968
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9095
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2017, 12:24:55 am »
+2

I just lost a game where the only Familiars were in my deck and the only trashing was develop.  The sifting was Secret Cave and Tracker

Surely that shouldn't work on average.

It probably doesn't work 90-93% of the time.  And don't call me Shirley.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

greybirdofprey

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
  • Respect: +27
    • View Profile
Re: "But it worked"
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2017, 07:32:42 am »
0

My mother mostly plays by buying seemingly random cards and reacting to problems as she encounters them (like buying lots of terminals, then buying villages when she has a hand of three terminals), and she wins about one in ten games.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.116 seconds with 22 queries.