Print

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

[Minotaur]

Alright, here's a pick/ban method that I've been using as my go-to kingdom card selection method. I'll give the 4-player version, but you can modify it however. I'm not sure if anyone else has suggested similar already.

Shuffle whichever randomizers you may want in the kingdom. Each player gets six randomizers (which only that player sees), and then two are played face up from the deck; these are in the "tentative kingdom". Each player takes turns. Each player has up to four picks and up to four bans.

To pick a card, less than ten cards must be in the tentative kingdom, it must be your turn, and you must play your randomizer of choice face-up.

To use one of your two bans, play one of your randomizers face-down on top of the card you want removed from the tentative kingdom. Put the two cards in front of you as a visual reminder that you used a ban. No one needs to see which randomizer you used to do this.

If you have picks remaining and there are less than ten randomizers in the tentative kingdom, then you must use a pick or a ban during your turn.

If there are ten cards in the tentative kingdom on your turn, you may use an unused ban, or you may pass. But you may not add an eleventh card to the kingdom.

Whenever a tenth card is added to the tentative kingdom, each player gets a chance to ban (if any remain), including the player who picked the tenth card. If no bans go out, then the tentative kingdom becomes the kingdom for the game, which is played as usual.

This method tends to lead to player X's least-favorite card never making it into the game. However, it also tends to lead to semi-random games where stupidly redundant cards do not make it into the kingdom. Playing with this method all the time will tend to cause half the cards to almost never get played, but it generally leads to fairly satisfactory games for all involved.

(picks per player - bans per player) * number of players + number of initial tentative kingdom cards = 10, and two bans is probably a good number generally, unless you want to go crazy.

[Tables]

Things like this get suggested occasionally, and they always get shot down for pretty much the same reason: What does it really add, compared to say a simple veto or full random? There's little strategic incentive in your picks, since once the game starts, everyone starts on level ground*, so mostly it serves only to avoid cards you dislike, which a simple veto does pretty much as well.

*Not quite true in terms of turn order, e.g. player 1 is much more likely to ban Treasure Map or other high variance cards, while player 4 will want to ban things like Ill-Gotten Gains and the like more.

[Minotaur]

Things like this get suggested occasionally, and they always get shot down for pretty much the same reason: What does it really add, compared to say a simple veto or full random? There's little strategic incentive in your picks, since once the game starts, everyone starts on level ground*, so mostly it serves only to avoid cards you dislike, which a simple veto does pretty much as well.

*Not quite true in terms of turn order, e.g. player 1 is much more likely to ban Treasure Map or other high variance cards, while player 4 will want to ban things like Ill-Gotten Gains and the like more.

Full random tends to lead to a lot of totally useless cards like Scout or whatever. Combos that you like are more likely to get into the game. You have some control over whether +buy, attacks, +cards, etc. make it into the game. Full random or just banning out cards and then going random is a lot different.

If you do the picks really strategically around first-turn advantage, then you might not get a balanced board, but if you pick around what will be the most sensible and interesting board, then you tend to get it.

[Warfreak2]

I think it's a good idea. There is strategy involved: you want to create a board with an unusual combo/strategy that your opponent could miss. Therefore you'd be more likely to see unusual combos and strategies, which is nice.

[Asper]

I don't like the kingdom to be fully random, but honestly this seems like a game in a game.

We just do it like this:
Everyone can chose one card to veto which will not be used in any case. Then everyone draws cards in turn, and may either use or not use the card he drew. This way you have some influence, but if you always refuse the cards you draw, the kingdom will simply be chosen by other players.

Also we spent the weekend playing with only the Base set and Cornucopia (no other sets available) and came to the conclusion that doing full random from always only two sets was nice, too. Most recommended sets are built this way (others include only one set), and now i think i know why. It just isn't a wild mish-mash of themes this way, it's 2-3 noticeable ones, and it's nice. I'd love to do Intrigue / Dark Ages next.

[Tables]

Full random tends to lead to a lot of totally useless cards like Scout or whatever.

If you're instantly calling a card useless, then 1) You're going to miss situations where it could have shone and 2) You're not going to learn about when the cards are good. Even ignoring that, why is having a dead card a bad thing? Having fewer viable kingdom cards often makes for tighter, more interesting games, as long as you still have at least about 6 worthwhile kingdom cards.

Combos that you like are more likely to get into the game. You have some control over whether +buy, attacks, +cards, etc. make it into the game. Full random or just banning out cards and then going random is a lot different.

This is an entirely unconvincing argument, because it's not really true. You can try and put things you like in, but your opponent can ban them just as easily. If you're brooding an awesome engine, and your opponent vetos the entire village, everything you wanted has changed. In fact, it's much more likely your oppponent(s) can deny things you want, than you get those things, especially if they know it's the things you're good at in the game.

If you do the picks really strategically around first-turn advantage, then you might not get a balanced board, but if you pick around what will be the most sensible and interesting board, then you tend to get it.

Working towards maximising your chance of victory is surely the best and most sensible thing to do? So move the words "most sensible" to after "really strategically". But this just highlights another, even bigger issue: What's the point if you weren't intending it to be strategic? You're adding a 5-10 minute setup minigame to a 20-30 minute game, which probably doesn't significantly increase the chance of getting an interesting kingdom, especially compared to something like simple veto (deal 10+no. players cards, each player vetos one in turn order), which takes perhaps 2-3 extra minutes, even less in 2 player.

[Minotaur]

Working towards maximising your chance of victory is surely the best and most sensible thing to do?

According to whom? Getting a more pleasing board is fine thing to do.

So move the words "most sensible" to after "really strategically". But this just highlights another, even bigger issue: What's the point if you weren't intending it to be strategic? You're adding a 5-10 minute setup minigame to a 20-30 minute game, which probably doesn't significantly increase the chance of getting an interesting kingdom, especially compared to something like simple veto (deal 10+no. players cards, each player vetos one in turn order), which takes perhaps 2-3 extra minutes, even less in 2 player.

You know how often I get Moat with no attack cards with this method? Or scout with no hybrid victory cards? Never. Maybe if I were playing a more serious game and treated Dominion like a full-time job, the picks/bans would be more about denying first-player strategies or whatever, but I play with casual players who don't like seeing dead cards on the board.

[Tables]

Working towards maximising your chance of victory is surely the best and most sensible thing to do?

According to whom? Getting a more pleasing board is fine thing to do.

I was assuming you're trying to win, which in general I've found to be true. Sorry if that assumption was wrong, but in general, unless I'm playing with children or new players (where I'm more prone to just experiment, or make some funny interaction happen instead), I'll always be playing to win, and so would most people I know.

So move the words "most sensible" to after "really strategically". But this just highlights another, even bigger issue: What's the point if you weren't intending it to be strategic? You're adding a 5-10 minute setup minigame to a 20-30 minute game, which probably doesn't significantly increase the chance of getting an interesting kingdom, especially compared to something like simple veto (deal 10+no. players cards, each player vetos one in turn order), which takes perhaps 2-3 extra minutes, even less in 2 player.

You know how often I get Moat with no attack cards with this method? Or scout with no hybrid victory cards? Never. Maybe if I were playing a more serious game and treated Dominion like a full-time job, the picks/bans would be more about denying first-player strategies or whatever, but I play with casual players who don't like seeing dead cards on the board.
[/quote]

So you're missing out on interesting games where there's fewer key cards? You haven't addressed where I already said, this can be a good thing, it can make things more interesting. You don't need alt-VP for Scout to sometimes be interesting, or attacks for Moat to do a thing. Yes, normally you do, but I can think of a few times, just of the top of my head, when I've grabbed Moat for it's +2 cards only, or Scout on boards with no alt-VP. And often, those are some of the most memorable games, because something weird has happened and the sudden epiphany of using one of those cards is awesome.

If your group wants to play like this, go ahead. I'm not going to tell you it's bad for you, or you must play the game exactly as intended. But I stick by what I've said.

[ashersky]

Full random tends to lead to a lot of totally useless cards like Scout or whatever. Combos that you like are more likely to get into the game. You have some control over whether +buy, attacks, +cards, etc. make it into the game. Full random or just banning out cards and then going random is a lot different.

If you do the picks really strategically around first-turn advantage, then you might not get a balanced board, but if you pick around what will be the most sensible and interesting board, then you tend to get it.

Reported for the bolded statement.  Bannable offense, methinks.