Print

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

[WheresMyElephant]

But the question is: Is this a new golden deck that we might see?

Sure, why not?
Although it is weaker than the original golden deck as it only produces 4 VP per turn instead of 5.
So in most cases it may be better to go for Gold+Silver+Silver+Bishop+X instead.
But there are probably cases where the 4-VP-version is quicker to set up and where that is more important than the fifth VP per turn.

Well, I don't know much about the Golden Deck but isn't this very different because it doesn't run out the Provinces? The Golden Deck can have problems against a player who's primarily relying on Province points because that player just gets his share of Provinces too quickly and the pile runs out while the Golden Deck opponent is still catching up. This deck by contrast holds steady while more conventional decks try to choke down all eight Provinces.

At a minimum, it seems like this threat absolutely forces your opponent to go for Bishop or some other greening-resistant strategy.

[mnavratil]

Well, there are 2 reasons the golden deck uses provinces: 1 they are the most points to bishop, 2 they deny the other player provinces. There is nothing stopping you from playing the golden deck but instead buying a gold/trashing a gold each turn, but this play would inevitably lose to someone who also built a golden deck based on province trashing.

That being said, I can't imagine a scenario where the grave-robbing is superior to the province deck. But yes, I suppose if both players set that up it could lead to a stalemate.

[Grujah]

Third is you are left with a Province in your last hand which boosts your score additionally.

[SirPeebles]

Three fortresses and four bishops.  Twelve points each turn.

[eHalcyon]

Three fortresses and four bishops.  Twelve points each turn.

That won't give you enough actions to play all 4 Bishops on a Fortress.

KC-KC-Bishop-Bishop-Fortress to Bishop the Fortress 6 times for 18 points.

[SirPeebles]

Oh right, I forgot to take into account that the fortresses themselves take actions to play.  Make that four bishops and four fortresses to get 12 per turn.

[ftl]

Or Throne Room/Throne Room/Bishop/Bishop/Fortress. Then it's a 5-card hand for the 12 points.

If it gets Militia'd, then you are left with Throne Room/Bishop/Fortress, for 6 points.

[blueblimp]

Oh right, I forgot to take into account that the fortresses themselves take actions to play.  Make that four bishops and four fortresses to get 12 per turn.

This is a worrying 2-card combo. It doesn't push the game towards an end, and (a pretty easy to set up!) 12-vp-per-turn is hard to beat.

[ftl]

Well, at the very least, you can always buy more Fortresses if you're ahead to try to pile them out. You do end that turn having $4 to spend. So if theres two other cantrips costing $4 or less, then that'll do. And of course if you AND your opponent go for this, that's like... 8 bishops used up already between the two of you, maybe there'll be two more bishops which got bought earlier and got Bishopped or something. Or you can always buy and destroy them later, at the cost of a few VP.

I suspect that the situation came up rarely enough in playtesting (never?) that it turned out not to be a problem.

[blueblimp]

Well, at the very least, you can always buy more Fortresses if you're ahead to try to pile them out. You do end that turn having $4 to spend. So if theres two other cantrips costing $4 or less, then that'll do. And of course if you AND your opponent go for this, that's like... 8 bishops used up already between the two of you, maybe there'll be two more bishops which got bought earlier and got Bishopped or something. Or you can always buy and destroy them later, at the cost of a few VP.

I suspect that the situation came up rarely enough in playtesting (never?) that it turned out not to be a problem.

Yeah, I'm sure it was play-tested (since probably Fortress got play-tested with every notable TfB card). It still seems pretty awkward to 3-pile if ahead, because if you deviate at the cost of points, you are risking a loss if your opponent doesn't deviate.

[() | (_) ^/]

Well, at the very least, you can always buy more Fortresses if you're ahead to try to pile them out. You do end that turn having $4 to spend. So if theres two other cantrips costing $4 or less, then that'll do. And of course if you AND your opponent go for this, that's like... 8 bishops used up already between the two of you, maybe there'll be two more bishops which got bought earlier and got Bishopped or something. Or you can always buy and destroy them later, at the cost of a few VP.

I suspect that the situation came up rarely enough in playtesting (never?) that it turned out not to be a problem.

Yeah, I'm sure it was play-tested (since probably Fortress got play-tested with every notable TfB card). It still seems pretty awkward to 3-pile if ahead, because if you deviate at the cost of points, you are risking a loss if your opponent doesn't deviate.

I'm pretty sure as far as game theory is concerned, if you're ahead, you don't deviate, accept to match a potential increase (i.e. more than you) of per-turn-VP-chips of the losing player.  The onus is on the losing player to find something to overcome you.  If that's not possible given the cards available and the per-turn point potential of the other player, then you have a de facto victory that might nevertheless result in a "never ending" game.

I, of course, recognize the ultimate game ender: death of one of the players.

[blueblimp]

Well, at the very least, you can always buy more Fortresses if you're ahead to try to pile them out. You do end that turn having $4 to spend. So if theres two other cantrips costing $4 or less, then that'll do. And of course if you AND your opponent go for this, that's like... 8 bishops used up already between the two of you, maybe there'll be two more bishops which got bought earlier and got Bishopped or something. Or you can always buy and destroy them later, at the cost of a few VP.

I suspect that the situation came up rarely enough in playtesting (never?) that it turned out not to be a problem.

Yeah, I'm sure it was play-tested (since probably Fortress got play-tested with every notable TfB card). It still seems pretty awkward to 3-pile if ahead, because if you deviate at the cost of points, you are risking a loss if your opponent doesn't deviate.

I'm pretty sure as far as game theory is concerned, if you're ahead, you don't deviate, accept to match a potential increase (i.e. more than you) of per-turn-VP-chips of the losing player.  The onus is on the losing player to find something to overcome you.  If that's not possible given the cards available and the per-turn point potential of the other player, then you have a de facto victory that might nevertheless result in a "never ending" game.

I, of course, recognize the ultimate game ender: death of one of the players.

If the game is failing to end, then the only reasonable outcome is to agree to re-game or agree to draw (or wait until someone dies). So, if you're ahead by a large enough margin that you can end the game with a victory, it's to your advantage to do so, because winning is better than drawing. If you can't end the game with a victory, then in no sense have you won the game--it's a draw.

[SirPeebles]

I feel like Bishop/Fortress may actually be relatively dominant, particularly since it provides so much of its own trashing and never needs to go above $4 a turn.  It can even function as a weaker golden deck with fewer components.  If both players go for it, you could just smack your own fortresses on your turn while trashing junk on your opponent's turn.  Someone will have to figure out the proper balance in a Bishop/Fortress mirror match to strike a balance on reaching the 12 VP/turn quickly [bishoping your own junk] while gathering as much VP as possible on your way to that deck [bishoping your fortress and relying on your opponents bishops for thinning].

[Beyond Awesome]

Okay, let me say this right now, THIS IS THE WORST COMBO EVER.

It is very, very problematic. I played this on the Beta, against a bot. But, if both players go for this, pretty much, the game will never go anywhere until one player decides to resign. This is the first time that such a combo exists. Someone mentioned earlier about a board that should be banned with Scavenger/Stash, well, let me tell you, this is worse. If both players go this route, especially in a tournament, well, things will go nowhere, let's just say that.

I will go so far to say that this is worse than the KC/Masq pin because there is an actual way to win going down that path.

[Davio]

It would be especially annoying if the tournament tiebreaks on VPs. 

[gamesou]

Okay, let me say this right now, THIS IS THE WORST COMBO EVER.

It is very, very problematic.

I don't think it's THAT problematic (disclaimer: I never played the combo).

I think genuinely infinite games will be rare. There are many boards where there is an alternative path to the infinite mirror game

1) there is something faster
2) there is a counter (e.g. discard attacks, Saboteur/Knights, possibly Masquerade) 
3) there is a way to improve the deck once it's running, and play an even better golden deck which will lead to gold or province consumption (e.g. Alchemist)
4) there is a cheap cantrip so that the leading player can end the game on 3 piles (there is a little risk of collision after buying the 9th Bishop, but that's not a big deal). Granted, there may not be a leading player.

At worst, one may add an "offer draw" option. But I find this new direction more exciting than problematic

[axlemn]

Modified Golden deck: 4 Bishops, 4 Fortresses. 

[Davio]

Modified Golden deck: 4 Bishops, 4 Fortresses.

But you need to play the Fortresses to get the actions?

[dondon151]

But you need to play the Fortresses to get the actions?

Play Fortress. (2 Actions)
Play Bishop, trashing Fortress (returns to hand). (1 Action)
Play Fortress. (2 Actions)
Play Bishop, trashing Fortress (returns to hand). (1 Action)
Play Fortress. (2 Actions)
Play Bishop, trashing Fortress (returns to hand). (1 Action)
Play Bishop, trashing Fortress (returns to hand). (0 Actions)

You only need 4 Fortresses.

I don't think that this is really a problem. The player that is ahead can buy out all of the Fortresses, emptying a pile. Then he can just start buying any 2 other cards one at a time and empty out those piles; granted there is a very small probability that he'll draw 4x Bishop plus dead card, unless the dead card is a cantrip, in which case, no problem - he can end the game by doing that easily.

[axlemn]

Not a game-breaker by any means.  But definitely a nice curiosity that could be useful even in competitive games. 

[eHalcyon]

Or play three fortresses, trash the fourth one four times.

[BubbleBoy]

The thing that's great about the Golden Deck is that it only requires one kingdom card to be pulled off. The more cards you require for a combo, the exponentially more unlikely it is for that combo to even be possible in a game. That being said, I really like the Bishop/Fortress idea.

[eHalcyon]

The thing that's great about the Golden Deck is that it only requires one kingdom card to be pulled off. The more cards you require for a combo, the exponentially more unlikely it is for that combo to even be possible in a game. That being said, I really like the Bishop/Fortress idea.

Trying it with only Bishop is usually a bad idea though. :-P

[Grujah]

Okay, let me say this right now, THIS IS THE WORST COMBO EVER.

It is very, very problematic. I played this on the Beta, against a bot. But, if both players go for this, pretty much, the game will never go anywhere until one player decides to resign. This is the first time that such a combo exists. Someone mentioned earlier about a board that should be banned with Scavenger/Stash, well, let me tell you, this is worse. If both players go this route, especially in a tournament, well, things will go nowhere, let's just say that.

I will go so far to say that this is worse than the KC/Masq pin because there is an actual way to win going down that path.

Possesion had the habbit of getting both players to crap their deck so much and refuse to improve, leading to a stalemate.

[Beyond Awesome]

I think this should be called the Golden Fortress Deck.