Print

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

[bodybuilder]

Hello everyone, I am new to the forum and I need your help to eliminate some card from 3 sets: base, intrigue and prosperity

Unfortunately, I realize that there are some cards that have never bought because unnecessary, or frustrating, or boring. or even some seguno a strategy of its own! for example the chapel, who takes plays in a completely different way, or if they go out the gardens, it is a struggle to those who take more!
then I would like to create games more balanced, removing 5 cards from each set in order to still have 60 different types of cards that will add variability to the games, but they are a good choice, I do not want useless cards on the table, which mean that the obvious choice is always to take a silver card.

do you want to help me?

[michaeljb]

I'm going to take a wild guess that you're the same "bodybuilder" that asked this at BoardGameGeek. I don't think you're likely to get a different answer here than you did over there.

And just to throw in my two cents, I don't think throwing out any cards is a good idea, even the weaker cards that don't get used much sometimes make the games interesting. (Which is, of course, kind of what I saw in responses in the BGG thread)

Edit: in case anyone's interested in the BGG thread
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/968557/the-worst-cards

[Awaclus]

Remove Scout, Thief, Secret Chamber, Spy and Chancellor if you have to remove something. I can't really think of anything else that I never buy in games using only Base, Intrigue and Prosperity.

[bodybuilder]

Remove Scout, Thief, Secret Chamber, Spy and Chancellor if you have to remove something. I can't really think of anything else that I never buy in games using only Base, Intrigue and Prosperity.

thank you! these are the kinds of answers you want! I wait for more advice

[rrenaud]

Here is a decent list of the cards in those expansions. 

Base, Intrigue, and Prosperity card rankings.

Click quality, and it will sort the cards by their ability to help people win games on average according to a simple model I developed.  The model tries to mimic bunch of card rankings from experts in this community based mostly on observed play data from millions of games.

Of course, some of the most winning cards are arguably the most frustrating (Witch, Mountebank).  Some of the bad cards (eg, Workshop) can shine when paired with a good combo, like Gardens.

[WanderingWinder]

The question I would ask is why are you removing things. Your given reason is simply based on false premises - EVERY card has its uses, and virtually all of them can make a *huge* difference. Of course, there are a lots of boards where lots of the cards are basically meaningless - but you can't know this without seeing all the cards! If you start removing the 'weak' cards, then what you end up with is a confirmation of your beliefs, because often they need each other; but most important, all  your games start looking the same, and that makes things less interesting. Some of the best bits of the game are making those weak cards into real stars.

But what I really don't understand,, and what stops me from giving useful advice, is *why* you're wanting to get rid of these cards.

[rrenaud]

Maybe he wants to play 20 to 50 games of dominion in his life, he doesn't care to know what makes the game really tick, and he just wants to have fun with a quick heuristic that avoids trap cards.

Not everyone lives and breaths Dominion, and I think that's okay .

[WanderingWinder]

Maybe he wants to play 20 to 50 games of dominion in his life, he doesn't care to know what makes the game really tick, and he just wants to have fun with a quick heuristic that avoids trap cards.

But in games like this, I think that most of the fun is in finding that out for yourself. Of course, there are other kinds of people who just want to know how to win the few games you ever play, who prefer to just look up the answer to a problem rather than work it out for themselves. And while I don't understand that, I don't have a problem with it - but if he just wants to know what is good and what is bad in order to be a stronger player, than that is fine, but this is, for instance, why I am asking why he is asking. Because there I would point him to say qvist's rankings. But also in that instance, I would expect it to be more along the lines of 'what cards should I buy' and 'what cards should I never buy' than 'what cards should I not play with'.

Not everyone lives and breaths Dominion, and I think that's okay .

This seems like a personal affront.

[DG]

You've already had someone suggest removing secret chambers but I think that discarding cards for coin is an interesting ability and much stronger than many people think. You've already had someone suggesting removing thief but you've said that you like gardens and thieves are strong cards in multi player garden games. Spy is also a decent alternative to silver in the right deck. So yes you can remove cards in the hope of increasing variation in play but ultimately removing cards does reduce variation in kingdoms and reduce variation in play.

[bodybuilder]

The question I would ask is why are you removing things. Your given reason is simply based on false premises - EVERY card has its uses, and virtually all of them can make a *huge* difference. Of course, there are a lots of boards where lots of the cards are basically meaningless - but you can't know this without seeing all the cards! If you start removing the 'weak' cards, then what you end up with is a confirmation of your beliefs, because often they need each other; but most important, all  your games start looking the same, and that makes things less interesting. Some of the best bits of the game are making those weak cards into real stars.

But what I really don't understand,, and what stops me from giving useful advice, is *why* you're wanting to get rid of these cards.

then we say that the talk of eliminating the cards was born with the chancellor and all the cards that are in some way change the deck. I do not like this mechanic regardless, and 2 cards ever that I want to remove are the chancellor and the scout. then taking prosperity, I loved the platinum and the colonies, but I did not like the addition of components such as victory points, so I decided to remove the monument, the bishop and other cards that affect these components.

then I thought, why not create a set of identical cards for each expansion? and I thought toglierne 5 for each set is a good choice as between the various rankings, especially that of rrenaud that is very close to my tastes, I see that many people say that there are cards that have never picked up, so I do not think to do things so strange! some people prefer to have them but do not take them, and those who do not even want on the table (like me). also agricultural unbalanced cards banned from tournaments and are therefore eliminated! what's wrong?

[WanderingWinder]

The question I would ask is why are you removing things. Your given reason is simply based on false premises - EVERY card has its uses, and virtually all of them can make a *huge* difference. Of course, there are a lots of boards where lots of the cards are basically meaningless - but you can't know this without seeing all the cards! If you start removing the 'weak' cards, then what you end up with is a confirmation of your beliefs, because often they need each other; but most important, all  your games start looking the same, and that makes things less interesting. Some of the best bits of the game are making those weak cards into real stars.

But what I really don't understand,, and what stops me from giving useful advice, is *why* you're wanting to get rid of these cards.

then we say that the talk of eliminating the cards was born with the chancellor

Okay, I get this - chancellor rarely does all that much for you, so what is the point? What I don't understand is why you have to 'eliminate' the card. What actual purpose does that serve? Or are you just saying to not include it when you pick sets of ten cards? Because it's too boring? I get that, I suppose, but I think you will find that there aren't many cards you could get rid of that would have this little impact - perhaps scout and adventurer are about the only other cards that fit here.

and all the cards that are in some way change the deck.

But I don't understand what you mean by this. You want to get rid of cards that change the deck? What do you mean by the deck? And what do you mean by change? Because to my mind, all of them do, and I am not seeing how chancellor stands out in this regard. Could you re-phrase this possibly? Because right now I don't understand your meaning.

I do not like this mechanic regardless,

I presume that you mean deck-flipping; this would have me tell you to expect not to like scavenger, from Dark Ages, which is the only other card that really has this mechanic.

and 2 cards ever that I want to remove are the chancellor and the scout.

But I don't see how this relates. Indeed, I can find very little connection between scout and chancellor overall; the biggest is that both are pretty weak, but this is not at all a mechanical feature.

then taking prosperity, I loved the platinum and the colonies, but I did not like the addition of components such as victory points, so I decided to remove the monument, the bishop and other cards that affect these components.

And these have seemingly no connection at all! It seems to me that the real thing here is that these are just cards that you personally don't like. Which is totally fine, of course! But if that is the connection between them, then you can't possibly expect other people to be able to predict what they are!

then I thought, why not create a set of identical cards for each expansion?

I really don't know what you mean here. None of the expansions have any of the same cards, how could you make a set of identical cards from each expansion. You mean a set of cards you don't like? This is my best guess, but I really don't understand what you are saying.

and I thought toglierne 5 for each set is a good choice

And I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are trying to say here. Anyone have any idea?

as between the various rankings, especially that of rrenaud that is very close to my tastes,

See, but these ranking are based on strength, not how much you people like them. And so you will get cards like the VP chip cards here, as they're good. So I'm again confused.

I see that many people say that there are cards that have never picked up, so I do not think to do things so strange! some people prefer to have them but do not take them, and those who do not even want on the table (like me).

I see very few people who have played more than a handful of games who say that they have never picked up any card. Of course, it is not strange to almost never get a card, sure. But I ask you again, why do you feel a need to not have them on the table? What does it gain you to not have them on the table? I don't understand how this is a benefit over simply not buying them.

also agricultural unbalanced cards banned from tournaments and are therefore eliminated! what's wrong?

I again have no idea what you mean here.

[heron]

I believe that "and I thought toglierne 5 for each set is a good choice" means that bodybuilder wants to take out 5 cards from each set, because  it is similar to the italian verb togliere.

[brokoli]

In the beginning of my "dominion experience", there were some cards I really didn't like, but I then learned how to appreciate them...

[Davio]

Maybe he wants to remove some cards to make it more easy to carry?

When you go over to a friends house, you might not want to bring 9 boxes or 1 giant suitcase of Dominion cards.
So I think making a selection is OK.

Here's my advice: Look in the back of the rules for Intrigue and Prosperity, there are some recommended sets using base or base and Intrigue in the case of Prosperity. You can include a lot of the cards listed there. So instead of looking for cards to remove you can look for cards to include.

[Mic Qsenoch]

Maybe he wants to remove some cards to make it more easy to carry?

But he's a bodybuilder!

[dondon151]

I can completely emphasize with the TC. Often when I'm playing games in real life and I'm generating kingdoms, I would either re-generate the kingdom if there was a total dud or all of the players would agree to replace it with something else at random. You don't have the liberty to thoroughly experiment with all of the bad cards in real life.

Though, the only cards I typically never include are Chancellor, Counting House, and Scout. Even then, if a good kingdom for these cards come up, then we'll choose to play with them.

[SCSN]

I believe that "and I thought toglierne 5 for each set is a good choice" means that bodybuilder wants to take out 5 cards from each set, because  it is similar to the italian verb togliere.

Yeah, looks like he's using Google Translate and misspelled that word.

[Stealth Tomato]

The question I would ask is why are you removing things. Your given reason is simply based on false premises - EVERY card has its uses, and virtually all of them can make a *huge* difference. Of course, there are a lots of boards where lots of the cards are basically meaningless - but you can't know this without seeing all the cards! If you start removing the 'weak' cards, then what you end up with is a confirmation of your beliefs, because often they need each other; but most important, all  your games start looking the same, and that makes things less interesting. Some of the best bits of the game are making those weak cards into real stars.

But what I really don't understand,, and what stops me from giving useful advice, is *why* you're wanting to get rid of these cards.

then we say that the talk of eliminating the cards was born with the chancellor and all the cards that are in some way change the deck. I do not like this mechanic regardless, and 2 cards ever that I want to remove are the chancellor and the scout. then taking prosperity, I loved the platinum and the colonies, but I did not like the addition of components such as victory points, so I decided to remove the monument, the bishop and other cards that affect these components.

then I thought, why not create a set of identical cards for each expansion? and I thought toglierne 5 for each set is a good choice as between the various rankings, especially that of rrenaud that is very close to my tastes, I see that many people say that there are cards that have never picked up, so I do not think to do things so strange! some people prefer to have them but do not take them, and those who do not even want on the table (like me). also agricultural unbalanced cards banned from tournaments and are therefore eliminated! what's wrong?

At some point, eliminating cards you don't like makes the game no longer Dominion. Worse, when it's one player eliminating cards, they're naturally warping the game in favor of their own fun and advantage (to the relative detriment of their opponents).

If you think the card is badly made, you need to get better at using the card. Tournament in particular is swingy sometimes but rewards a different type of strategy (attacking the Provinces early) than might be successful in other games. Those changes in strategy are what make Dominion interesting. If you don't want the strategy to change, play a simpler game than Dominion.

[Mic Qsenoch]

DXV forbid someone should want to play anything less than the One True Dominion. It's damnable heresy.

[bodybuilder]

sorry for my english, I'm using google translate!

back to the topic. my request is pretty easy, I would like to eliminate the weakest 5 cards in the base set, of intrigue and prosperity. instead of arguing on my way to see the game, why not just tell me what are these 5 cards that I can do without it?

I do not want to be immoral, but only 18 replies rrenaud gave me a good tip. I would like to get some answers in more in order to have more support to confirm the limited usefulness of a given card.

and this is not to say that the cards that take away are completely useless, but I prefer that instead of a card less useful, there is one more useful. that's all!

[zporiri]

im sorry everyone is arguing with you needlessly. here are the 5 cards you won't miss if you removed them from their sets, in my opinion.

base: chancellor, bureaucrat, mine, adventurer, library

intrigue: secret chamber, great hall, scout, shanty town, wishing well

prosperity: trade route, talisman, contraband, counting house, royal seal

please don't argue with my list anyone, i won't argue back haha. these are my opinion, which the OP wanted. i didn't include cards like thief, because there actually are a lot of games where i would by it compared to some of the other cards i listed from base (trimmed decks and multiplayer games). library is almost always not preferable to smithy, except when you have non-terminal actions that don't draw cards, so i personally don't like library. i don't care if there are any edge cases to what i said, these are my opinion haha.

[Schneau]

If you just want the weakest cards, I'd recommend looking at the Qvist Rankings lists. Just pick some near the bottoms of these lists for each set.

[Kirian]

If you just want the weakest cards, I'd recommend looking at the Qvist Rankings lists. Just pick some near the bottoms of these lists for each set.

It's worth noting that these aren't just Qvist's personal picks, they're based on polling quite a large number of forumites.  Qvist just compiles the numbers.

[WanderingWinder]

sorry for my english, I'm using google translate!

back to the topic. my request is pretty easy, I would like to eliminate the weakest 5 cards in the base set, of intrigue and prosperity. instead of arguing on my way to see the game, why not just tell me what are these 5 cards that I can do without it?

I do not want to be immoral, but only 18 replies rrenaud gave me a good tip. I would like to get some answers in more in order to have more support to confirm the limited usefulness of a given card.

and this is not to say that the cards that take away are completely useless, but I prefer that instead of a card less useful, there is one more useful. that's all!

Certainly, I think most of this - at least for me - is a translation issue. If I had understood that you were just looking for weak cards, I would have thought, and maybe said, that I do think you are probably diminishing your overall enjoyment of the game - BUT, as that is your call to make, I would have at the same time pointed you to Qvist's rankings, as linked to a couple posts above this one. I hope you understand that it's not that we're trying to be obstinate or un-useful, but rather that your purpose wasn't really all that clear. Certainly I don't think anyone is trying to say that anything you were doing is at all immoral, perhaps at most unnecessarily self-limiting.

I certainly hope that you can understand well what it is that we are trying to say!

[DG]

"I would like to eliminate the weakest 5 cards in the base set, of intrigue and prosperity. instead of arguing on my way to see the game, why not just tell me what are these 5 cards that I can do without it?"

If we told you to remove copper and estates you wouldn't get very far. I'm sorry you don't feel happy with our responses but, to Dominion fans, your request is a bit like asking your dentist which teeth are the least useful because you don't want to keep them all. Not many dentists would give you a straight answer.