Print

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

[EvanC]

Well, this is an immoral way to have an argument.

Why couldn't it be more like this:


#23396 +(36053)- [X]
<Donut[AFK]> HEY EURAKARTE
<Donut[AFK]> INSULT
<Eurakarte> RETORT
<Donut[AFK]> COUNTER-RETORT
<Eurakarte> QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE
<Donut[AFK]> SUGGESTION TO SHUT THE FUCK UP
<Eurakarte> NOTATION THAT YOU CREATE A VACUUM
<Donut[AFK]> RIPOSTE
<Donut[AFK]> ADDON RIPOSTE
<Eurakarte> COUNTER-RIPOSTE
<Donut[AFK]> COUNTER-COUNTER RIPOSTE
<Eurakarte> NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON
<Miles_Prower> RESPONSE TO RANDOM STATEMENT AND THREAT TO BAN OPPOSING SIDES
<Eurakarte> WORDS OF PRAISE FOR FISHFOOD
<Miles_Prower> ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTENCE OF TERMS

(source: bash.org)

[Davio]

I found it very gentlemanlike, at least for the internet.

[eHalcyon]

Your problem is very clearly with first player advantage, not with three pile endings.  Moreover, your problem is with 3 player games which are inherently more chaotic.

A skilled player CAN reliably play against potential three pile endings, in fact turning them to their own benefit.  You can see this borne out again and again in the rankings.  Skilled players know how to end the game while ahead, they win more, their ranking rises. 

As others have already stated, there is no good way to eliminate first player advantage.  The solutions you have proposed are poorly defined and still don't fix the issue.  They just change it to last player advantage, or do nothing at all.

You say "the shorter the game, the smaller the sample size" but that makes absolutely no sense!  What does your population consist of?  Turns?  Early game turns are completely different from late game turns.  It makes no sense to consider them as separate items in a population.  If you are trained in statistics, you should realize that a single game is a single data point.  This is why the solution to first player advantage is to play another game and change who is first player.  That's what they do in chess and that's what is recommended for Dominion. 

Did you read the articles about scrub mentality that people have posted?  I highly recommend that you read them.  You seem earnest to me, not a troll, and you seem like you genuinely want to get better.  If that is the case, you need to realize that 3-pile endings are not "quick and dirty" or "exploiting the rules".  They are a fundamental aspect of the game.

If the luck inherent in 3 player games bothers you so much, play 2 players instead.

[DStu]

The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.

As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...


Your propsoal of allowing the remaing players to have another round after three pile would strongly discourage any three pile in almost every situation. Three piling is an investment, and the other players don't have to take this investment and in addition are sure that the game will end.  So we both have almost equally strong decks, I buy 3 Provinces and the last Cellar for the three pile, you buy 3 Provinces and and an Estate, I lose. Why should I three pile?  And this is the very optimistic assumption that you just buy a $2 cost card to pile, usually you need more of them and more expensive ones...

[Count Grishnakh]

Your problem is very clearly with first player advantage, not with three pile endings.  Moreover, your problem is with 3 player games which are inherently more chaotic.

A skilled player CAN reliably play against potential three pile endings, in fact turning them to their own benefit.  You can see this borne out again and again in the rankings.  Skilled players know how to end the game while ahead, they win more, their ranking rises. 

As others have already stated, there is no good way to eliminate first player advantage.  The solutions you have proposed are poorly defined and still don't fix the issue.  They just change it to last player advantage, or do nothing at all.

You say "the shorter the game, the smaller the sample size" but that makes absolutely no sense!  What does your population consist of?  Turns?  Early game turns are completely different from late game turns.  It makes no sense to consider them as separate items in a population.  If you are trained in statistics, you should realize that a single game is a single data point.  This is why the solution to first player advantage is to play another game and change who is first player.  That's what they do in chess and that's what is recommended for Dominion. 

Did you read the articles about scrub mentality that people have posted?  I highly recommend that you read them.  You seem earnest to me, not a troll, and you seem like you genuinely want to get better.  If that is the case, you need to realize that 3-pile endings are not "quick and dirty" or "exploiting the rules".  They are a fundamental aspect of the game.

If the luck inherent in 3 player games bothers you so much, play 2 players instead.

You realize that any data point can also itself be a collection of data points, right? It all depends on the scope of your analysis. For example, I can be a data point in an experiment, or I can be multiple data points, depending on how the experiment is designed

There's no a priori reason why you can't consider each turn a data point

[DStu]

Your problem is very clearly with first player advantage, not with three pile endings.  Moreover, your problem is with 3 player games which are inherently more chaotic.

A skilled player CAN reliably play against potential three pile endings, in fact turning them to their own benefit.  You can see this borne out again and again in the rankings.  Skilled players know how to end the game while ahead, they win more, their ranking rises. 

As others have already stated, there is no good way to eliminate first player advantage.  The solutions you have proposed are poorly defined and still don't fix the issue.  They just change it to last player advantage, or do nothing at all.

You say "the shorter the game, the smaller the sample size" but that makes absolutely no sense!  What does your population consist of?  Turns?  Early game turns are completely different from late game turns.  It makes no sense to consider them as separate items in a population.  If you are trained in statistics, you should realize that a single game is a single data point.  This is why the solution to first player advantage is to play another game and change who is first player.  That's what they do in chess and that's what is recommended for Dominion. 

Did you read the articles about scrub mentality that people have posted?  I highly recommend that you read them.  You seem earnest to me, not a troll, and you seem like you genuinely want to get better.  If that is the case, you need to realize that 3-pile endings are not "quick and dirty" or "exploiting the rules".  They are a fundamental aspect of the game.

If the luck inherent in 3 player games bothers you so much, play 2 players instead.

You realize that any data point can also itself be a collection of data points, right? It all depends on the scope of your analysis. For example, I can be a data point in an experiment, or I can be multiple data points, depending on how the experiment is designed

There's no a priori reason why you can't consider each turn a data point

In principle, you are right with that, almost wanted to post something like that myself. But I think with the self-reinforcing nature of dominion decks, especially of engines, it will not help you much if you play 20 turns or 4 against the KC-Wharf engine which connected KC-KC-Wharf 3 turns earlier than you...

[eHalcyon]

A card that blocks people from buying provinces or colonies would be overpowered

How about this.... OBSTRUCTIONIST: "while this is in your hand, you may prevent all players from buying cards of your choice except for province and colony. If you select province or colony, players who purchase them must take a curse."

This is phrased very poorly.  As worded, that means that while I have Obstructionist in my hand, you cannot buy anything except for Province or Colony.  It doesn't specify a limit.  You probably want something more like this:

Obstructionist
Reaction
At the start of a player's turn, you may reveal this from your hand and set it aside.  If you did, choose one kingdom card.  That card may not be gained this turn.  Return this card to your hand at the end of the player's turn.


This isn't perfectly worded, but it seems close to your intention.  You need the set aside wording because otherwise you are allowed to reveal the same reaction over and over again.  Another possible implementation of this idea might be to make it a Duration.

There are multiple problems with this card.  It is political -- you can ban something critical for one player but inconsequential for another.  If you have multiples, you can shut down other players.  This is even worse with more than two players, as multiple opponents could do this to ban multiple cards.

It doesn't even solve the problem you are complaining about.  You ban Wharf but on this particular turn I draw my best stuff and can afford a Colony.  On the next turn, I have just enough to buy Wharf but you no longer have Obstructionist in hand.  Meanwhile, I happen to have Obstructionist in hand and ban Wharf when you plan to buy it.  Or maybe you have the means to end the game with a win but I have Obstructionist and prevent you from 3-piling.  On my turn I do the same thing as you and can win the game on piles, but you were unlucky and didn't have Obstructionist in hand that time.  Basically, this "defense" just makes the whole game swingier.

This is even more luck-based than before Obstructionist was a thing.

[Count Grishnakh]

The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.

As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...

Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it

But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant

There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.

[DStu]

The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.

As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...

Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it

But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant

That's only flavour, has nothing to do with strategy

There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Province
edit: and more importantly, because probably less obvious:
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Duchy

Edit2: It's (for me) exactly the funny thing in there games to see how much of which cards I can buy, and if I need to buy early victory points to not get three piled, but ideally get into a position where I can three pile myself. Sometime, yes, it can get annoying when you see a beautiful engine on a board that gets distroyed by this kinds of tactics, but more often it's the fun to get the buys/gains and the money together to have the option to threaten a game end, and with this discourage your opponent to buy further components.

[Count Grishnakh]

A card that blocks people from buying provinces or colonies would be overpowered

How about this.... OBSTRUCTIONIST: "while this is in your hand, you may prevent all players from buying cards of your choice except for province and colony. If you select province or colony, players who purchase them must take a curse."

This is phrased very poorly.  As worded, that means that while I have Obstructionist in my hand, you cannot buy anything except for Province or Colony.  It doesn't specify a limit.  You probably want something more like this:

Obstructionist
Reaction
At the start of a player's turn, you may reveal this from your hand and set it aside.  If you did, choose one kingdom card.  That card may not be gained this turn.  Return this card to your hand at the end of the player's turn.


This isn't perfectly worded, but it seems close to your intention.  You need the set aside wording because otherwise you are allowed to reveal the same reaction over and over again.  Another possible implementation of this idea might be to make it a Duration.

There are multiple problems with this card.  It is political -- you can ban something critical for one player but inconsequential for another.  If you have multiples, you can shut down other players.  This is even worse with more than two players, as multiple opponents could do this to ban multiple cards.

It doesn't even solve the problem you are complaining about.  You ban Wharf but on this particular turn I draw my best stuff and can afford a Colony.  On the next turn, I have just enough to buy Wharf but you no longer have Obstructionist in hand.  Meanwhile, I happen to have Obstructionist in hand and ban Wharf when you plan to buy it.  Or maybe you have the means to end the game with a win but I have Obstructionist and prevent you from 3-piling.  On my turn I do the same thing as you and can win the game on piles, but you were unlucky and didn't have Obstructionist in hand that time.  Basically, this "defense" just makes the whole game swingier.

This is even more luck-based than before Obstructionist was a thing.

Thanks for fixing the wording on the card for me.

Yeah but at as others have pointed out you should be able to see someone going for a quick three pile a mile away. So I could use this card repeatedly over the course of the game to slow down card hoarding and protect the piles that I consider most likely to be exhausted

You object to me having the power to block cards that some opponents need more than others, but as you point out I wouldn't have it in my hand every turn. Plus, how is controlling what other players can buy more imbalanced than having the power to decide when the game ends by simply emptying a pile? That's like having the power to end the world by kicking over a trash can

trying to use it as a last ditch effort for endgame (as you detailed in your example) would be a bit like starting a term paper the night before its due.

[Count Grishnakh]

The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.

As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...

Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it

But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant

That's only flavour, has nothing to do with strategy

There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Province
edit: and more importantly, because probably less obvious:
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Duchy

No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.

In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought

So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.

[DStu]

The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.

As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...

Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it

But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant

That's only flavour, has nothing to do with strategy

There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Province
edit: and more importantly, because probably less obvious:
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Duchy

No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.

In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought

So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.

The protection of the last card is the next-to last card. And btw, the same is true for Provinces...

[Count Grishnakh]

The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.

As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...

Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it

But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant

That's only flavour, has nothing to do with strategy

There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Province
edit: and more importantly, because probably less obvious:
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Duchy

No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.

In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought

So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.

The protection of the last card is the next-to last card. And btw, the same is true for Provinces...

Unless they have +5 buys or something out of control like that!

Even then, there's no way to protect those cards!

[eHalcyon]

The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.

As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...

Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it

But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant

There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.

You are getting overly concerned with flavour.  Don't confuse flavour with mechanics.  I mean, this is a game where Stonemasons have the magical ability to produce two Lighthouses by murdering a Sage.  No, there is no thematic justification for why the game ends after 3 piles are empty.  But neither is there any reason the game should end after the last Province is purchased, so why aren't you getting fussed about that?

There is nothing overpowered about ending the game on piles.  No top tier player goes into a game thinking, "I am going to try to empty piles as fast as possible".  That's just asking for a loss.  They evaluate the board, come up with a strategy, note potential threats.  They adjust their plan based on the opponent's actions and their own shuffle luck.  That includes setting up for a 3 pile, or buying VP to prevent the opponent from 3 piling.  Three pile endings are part of the strategic landscape of Dominion.

[EvanC]

\
No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.

In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought

So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.

You do realize that the flavor is only there to make the game more interesting/colorful/eye catching right? It doesn't have any bearing on competitive play.

You're arguing this rule shouldn't exist because... you can't come up with a good enough flavor explanation for why it makes sense?

[Awaclus]

But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant

But smuggling a province with the aid of some bridges makes sense to you?

[eHalcyon]

The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.

As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...

Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it

But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant

That's only flavour, has nothing to do with strategy

There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Province
edit: and more importantly, because probably less obvious:
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Duchy

No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.

In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought

So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.

The protection of the last card is the next-to last card. And btw, the same is true for Provinces...

Unless they have +5 buys or something out of control like that!

Even then, there's no way to protect those cards!

If they have that many buys, they set themselves up for that and executed a good strategy that you failed to keep up with.  Like DStu said, you protect yourself by not buying the second last... or in the case where they can rapidly deplete piles, you protect yourself by getting more points -- Provinces and Duchies.  Or you set yourself up to be the one to do the 3-pile in the lead, instead of your opponent.  No use complaining about first player advantage here -- sometimes they have it, sometimes you do.  Sometimes the first player gets a spot of bad luck (like Chapel missing the first shuffle) and suddenly the next player has the advantage.  That's the game.

It is not trivial to empty three piles.  It doesn't just happen out of nowhere.  If someone is blindly focusing down piles, they aren't getting points.  A player can't buy the last 4 Pawns and an Estate for the win if you already have a Duchy over them.

[Count Grishnakh]

\
No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.

In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought

So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.

You do realize that the flavor is only there to make the game more interesting/colorful/eye catching right? It doesn't have any bearing on competitive play.

You're arguing this rule shouldn't exist because... you can't come up with a good enough flavor explanation for why it makes sense?

I'm fine with the 3 pile rule (although I feel there should be a 4 pile rule for KC games)

BUT... Since you and other players consider it to be a central aspect to winning the game, its frustrating that the last "piece" or last few "pieces" (i.e. the last few cards in the third pile) are the only thing stopping your opponent from winning... they can be "destroyed" and there's NOTHING you can do to protect those pieces or that pile.

In Chess there are plenty of things you can do to protect the king. In Dominion, how much can you really do to protect the third pile that you foresee being emptied in the near future?

Nothing. You just stand there in horror while you watch it get depleted

[DStu]

Unless they have +5 buys or something out of control like that!

Even then, there's no way to protect those cards!

When we talk about 6 buys, we usually talk about $12++, that's investment. And despite that many buys flying arounds, lots of engine pieces have already be bought. Assuming equally strong decks, some of these engine pieces you bought could have be Duchies or Provinces, that your opponent has to gain and now we are already talking about $15+++ that have to be played by your opponent next to their 5 +buys.  Assuming equally strong decks, you also have $15+++ and 6 buys.  So you could have either bought 2 Provinces earlier (instead of the 1 Duchy) (meaning we are talking about $26++ for your opponent to overcome you and three pile in the same round).
Or: the decks wheren't equally strong, due to first player advantage or shuffle luck or better play...

Of course the difficult thing is now to balance when to buy how many engine pieces and how many Victory points in which situation, but as many people have told you the last 10 pages, that is what makes it interesting.

[eHalcyon]

\
No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.

In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought

So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.

You do realize that the flavor is only there to make the game more interesting/colorful/eye catching right? It doesn't have any bearing on competitive play.

You're arguing this rule shouldn't exist because... you can't come up with a good enough flavor explanation for why it makes sense?

I'm fine with the 3 pile rule (although I feel there should be a 4 pile rule for KC games)

BUT... Since you and other players consider it to be a central aspect to winning the game, its frustrating that the last "piece" or last few "pieces" (i.e. the last few cards in the third pile) are the only thing stopping your opponent from winning... they can be "destroyed" and there's NOTHING you can do to protect those pieces or that pile.

In Chess there are plenty of things you can do to protect the king. In Dominion, how much can you really do to protect the third pile that you foresee being emptied in the near future?

Nothing. You just stand there in horror while you watch it get depleted

Solution: buy victory cards so that your opponent can't end the game on a win.  Instead, you can be the one to empty that third pile.

[Davio]

Okay, I have been reading a bit and it seems to me that the following is the OP's main issue:

Buying a single measly non-important card can be the "killing blow".

But let's compare Dominion to boxing, yes, it sounds weird, but tarry along would you?
In Boxing, there is often a "knockout punch", which is similar to buying a Colony or Province for the win. But also, a lot of times, boxers win on points, which is comparable to snagging a few Victory points here and there. Buying that Vagrant is similar to blocking or dodging an opponent's last (possible knockout) punch. That single block didn't give you the win, but rather the points you gathered along the way.

Three-piling while ahead is more like a coup de grâce, ending your opponent's misery. If I'm clearly behind with no chance of winning and there's a 3-pile opportunity, I hope my opponent takes it. If not, it's a bit of an insult to let me keep struggling or force me to resign.

[yed]

Aside: I don't get why people think Treasure Map is a luck card that lets you play a strategy of "get two, connect them right away, win" sometimes. Even if you do connect them t5, I suggest most of the time you're still losing.....

But connecting them on T3 or T4 in Baker game is strong.

[SCSN]

Reading Nabokov's The Gift, I crossed the following passage:

In Chang during a fire (some wood prepared for the construction of a Catholic mission was burning) I saw an elderly Chinese at a safe distance from the fire throwing water assiduously, determinedly and without tiring over the reflection of the flames on the walls of his dwelling; convinced of the impossibility of proving to him that his house was not burning we abandoned him to his fruitless occupation.

It somehow made me think of this thread.

[Grujah]

So that's what I'm saying, is in games like this, whoever's pieces line up just right first wins.. its totally luck driven and this strategy does skew the game in the direction of luck.. that's all I'm saying.

This is true for many other Dominion games, that do not include 3-pile at all.

[Drab Emordnilap]

Can anyone tell me why this has gone 9 pages?

Because your posts per page setting is far too low.