Print

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

[blueblimp]

Hmm I think I see what you're getting at. Speculating, the 3-pile ending rule may have been originally conceived as a way to bring sloggy games to an end without requiring players to build up to Province-buying capability. In 3/4-player IRL Dominion, I imagine that's mostly what it does, because it's too hard to keep track of score in such games, so it'd be hard to know when you can safely end the game with a win.

But in 2-player games, or really in any game where it's feasible to track points, it has a side effect of giving explosive engines a way to win while buying almost no VP. This bypasses the usual Province buying and the associated deck slowdown.

For me, I like the 3-pile rule a lot because it adds interesting endgame tactics, increasing the skill in the game. Sure, sometimes it's luck as to who has the ability to do the 3-pile, but players miss 3-piling opportunities all the time. And if 3-piling weren't an option, it can be just as lucky who wins the Province split.

[Kirian]

I think the only bad ways to win at Dominion are (1) cheating (2) beating someone with a rules adjudication after you knowingly let them go into error (3) acting as kingmaker to unfairly decide the order of other players.

And that last one isn't a bad way of winning, it's a bad way of losing.

Well, I don't really enjoy winning as the result of someone else kingmaking much.

I don't enjoy losing as the result of someone else kingmaking a lot more...

Yes, but the point was that the kingmaker isn't going to be the one winning in any case.

[werothegreat]

Hmm I think I see what you're getting at. Speculating, the 3-pile ending rule may have been originally conceived as a way to bring sloggy games to an end without requiring players to build up to Province-buying capability. In 3/4-player IRL Dominion, I imagine that's mostly what it does, because it's too hard to keep track of score in such games, so it'd be hard to know when you can safely end the game with a win.

But in 2-player games, or really in any game where it's feasible to track points, it has a side effect of giving explosive engines a way to win while buying almost no VP. This bypasses the usual Province buying and the associated deck slowdown.

For me, I like the 3-pile rule a lot because it adds interesting endgame tactics, increasing the skill in the game. Sure, sometimes it's luck as to who has the ability to do the 3-pile, but players miss 3-piling opportunities all the time. And if 3-piling weren't an option, it can be just as lucky who wins the Province split.

The 3-pile rule is in place so that players don't dance around the Provinces indefinitely.

[Count Grishnakh]

Three-piling can be interesting. I think when everyone sees a three-pile ending coming (at least they should see it) then one can't be faulted for pursuing a strategy in line with that inevitable outcome.

However, some people drain three piles gratuitously, this is a very different thing. For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest

Im not quite sure what your saying the other player should do here?
Discard his winning turn and let you have a turn at winning?
You both were aiming for the same thing...he just got there first

You say its how you play the game, but you were playing in the same way as your opponent?

I'm not saying the player SHOULD have done anything differently. I'm just saying why I was frustrated. I would have played differently because I'd rather duke it out and emerge victorious than ride a tidal wave of luck. Just personal preference, I don't mean to be judgmental. If I were in a tournament I would have done as my opponent had done in this case.

We were playing the same way, more or less. He had a few more markets than I did. I had a few more KC's than he did. We played equally well and progressed at a more or less equal rate, what it came down to was he drew two KC's and some markets, which led to more markets and bridges.

Whereas, I drew two KC's and some coppers. And there was no trashing available in that game.

Sorry, im still confused.

You built a deck thats aiming for a KC KC megaturn, but you wouldn t do the mega turn if it came up?
Why build the deck that way?

Is a mega-turn by definition a turn that ends the game? If so, I take that back. I just wanted to have huge turns and accumulate a lot of cards and provinces, not shut the game down with one huge turn

[ftl]

I'd say it's the other way around. It's dishonorable to drag the game on when you could end it with a win.

If  I'm playing against someone and they deliberately let a win pass by them - knowing they could end it - the rest of the game is sort of unsatisfying. We could go on for a bunch more turns before my opponent wins, and then I feel like they just dragged it on for no good reason. And if I win, I feel like I was "gifted" the game - I mean, I'll take the win I guess, but it doesn't feel right at all. (If the other person didn't *see* the three-pile, that's different, then I feel like I took advantage of their mistake and that's all well and good. But if they saw it and just deliberately decided to deliberately not win? That's just weird.)

[Ozle]

Aahh ok thats where the confusion is then.

[markusin]

Also, without the 3-pile rule we'd lose our rush strategies too. No more Workshop/Gardens rushes?

To the OP:

The situation you're describing is different though, as it involves one player's mega-turns going off before another players. You were hoping for an epic game, right? I think the problem is more that KC is a mega-turn card, as is Goons. And there was +buy in that game too. There will be other games where a player is playing KC-Saboteur every turn and for that player to empty out the piles would be an act of mercy.

I think it's inevitable that there are certain kinds of Dominion games that we just aren't going to like, as there are so many ways that a Dominion game can play out. Some are just bound to be more luck based that others, too.

But uh, what's this about not getting a few VP cards as insurance to protect you from 3 pile endings like that? That's like, a whole extra layer of the awesome complexity of Dominion that you just have to get used to.

A word of caution: I'm one of those players that would do something like you described. I tend to pay particular attention to how a game can end in 3-piles, sometimes many turns in advance. In fact, I'm glad that 3-pile endings do exist to sweep the rug below players that could otherwise take advantage of their luck to build a super engine. As it's been said, a player who gets their megaturn to go off tends to win anyway. Is it any more fair if a player with a lucky turn could just empty out all the Cities instead of greening, because they don't have to worry about 3-pile endings? Sometimes, the threat of 3-pile endings actually balances out the game a bit.

[werothegreat]

Is a mega-turn by definition a turn that ends the game? If so, I take that back. I just wanted to have huge turns and accumulate a lot of cards and provinces, not shut the game down with one huge turn

You must be rather new to Dominion, then - megaturns are a time-honored tradition in this community.  It's one of Wandering Winder's five core strategies.  It's considered an art to be able to pull one off, and discovering a new one is heralded with great joy.

[Count Grishnakh]

Hmm I think I see what you're getting at. Speculating, the 3-pile ending rule may have been originally conceived as a way to bring sloggy games to an end without requiring players to build up to Province-buying capability. In 3/4-player IRL Dominion, I imagine that's mostly what it does, because it's too hard to keep track of score in such games, so it'd be hard to know when you can safely end the game with a win.

But in 2-player games, or really in any game where it's feasible to track points, it has a side effect of giving explosive engines a way to win while buying almost no VP. This bypasses the usual Province buying and the associated deck slowdown.

For me, I like the 3-pile rule a lot because it adds interesting endgame tactics, increasing the skill in the game. Sure, sometimes it's luck as to who has the ability to do the 3-pile, but players miss 3-piling opportunities all the time. And if 3-piling weren't an option, it can be just as lucky who wins the Province split.

The 3-pile rule is in place so that players don't dance around the Provinces indefinitely.

That's essentially what he said. If that is indeed the reason for the three pile rule I don't see why it would be unreasonable to house rule 4 pile for KC games. I just hate that feeling of a "fragile" game that can be so easily ended. It can be very frustrating too because some games players are neck and neck and people conveniently drain the piles on their turn to beat you by that one or two points they gained in their extra turn.

[Count Grishnakh]

I'd say it's the other way around. It's dishonorable to drag the game on when you could end it with a win.

If  I'm playing against someone and they deliberately let a win pass by them - knowing they could end it - the rest of the game is sort of unsatisfying. We could go on for a bunch more turns before my opponent wins, and then I feel like they just dragged it on for no good reason. And if I win, I feel like I was "gifted" the game - I mean, I'll take the win I guess, but it doesn't feel right at all. (If the other person didn't *see* the three-pile, that's different, then I feel like I took advantage of their mistake and that's all well and good. But if they saw it and just deliberately decided to deliberately not win? That's just weird.)

You're assuming that draining the third pile after a really good turn early is a "true win" when I'm disputing that.. it's arguably a very munchkin way to end a game in some cases so I wouldn't be insulted if my opponent refused to win that way.

It's comparable to when two warriors are sparring and one guy get's a lucky strike, knocking the other warrior on his back. If I let you get up to finish the fight in an honorable way would you feel insulted because I didn't slit your throat when I had you cornered on the ground?

[Kirian]

I'd say it's the other way around. It's dishonorable to drag the game on when you could end it with a win.

If  I'm playing against someone and they deliberately let a win pass by them - knowing they could end it - the rest of the game is sort of unsatisfying. We could go on for a bunch more turns before my opponent wins, and then I feel like they just dragged it on for no good reason. And if I win, I feel like I was "gifted" the game - I mean, I'll take the win I guess, but it doesn't feel right at all. (If the other person didn't *see* the three-pile, that's different, then I feel like I took advantage of their mistake and that's all well and good. But if they saw it and just deliberately decided to deliberately not win? That's just weird.)

You're assuming that draining the third pile after a really good turn early is a "true win" when I'm disputing that.. it's arguably a very munchkin way to end a game in some cases so I wouldn't be insulted if my opponent refused to win that way.

It's comparable to when two warriors are sparring and one guy get's a lucky strike, knocking the other warrior on his back. If I let you get up to finish the fight in an honorable way would you feel insulted because I didn't slit your throat when I had you cornered on the ground?

Most people would be insulted by the runner who is out to a strong lead, then in the last 100 meters turns around and walks backward for the win.  "Refusing to win" is just silly.  Win if you can win.

Seriously, I once again can't tell if we're being trolled.  You've heard the same answer, with justification, multiple times.

[werothegreat]

Hmm I think I see what you're getting at. Speculating, the 3-pile ending rule may have been originally conceived as a way to bring sloggy games to an end without requiring players to build up to Province-buying capability. In 3/4-player IRL Dominion, I imagine that's mostly what it does, because it's too hard to keep track of score in such games, so it'd be hard to know when you can safely end the game with a win.

But in 2-player games, or really in any game where it's feasible to track points, it has a side effect of giving explosive engines a way to win while buying almost no VP. This bypasses the usual Province buying and the associated deck slowdown.

For me, I like the 3-pile rule a lot because it adds interesting endgame tactics, increasing the skill in the game. Sure, sometimes it's luck as to who has the ability to do the 3-pile, but players miss 3-piling opportunities all the time. And if 3-piling weren't an option, it can be just as lucky who wins the Province split.

The 3-pile rule is in place so that players don't dance around the Provinces indefinitely.

That's essentially what he said. If that is indeed the reason for the three pile rule I don't see why it would be unreasonable to house rule 4 pile for KC games. I just hate that feeling of a "fragile" game that can be so easily ended. It can be very frustrating too because some games players are neck and neck and people conveniently drain the piles on their turn to beat you by that one or two points they gained in their extra turn.

Then pick a different game to play.  Some games are going to be faster than others.  DoubleJack games tend to be rather quick.  Mountebank/Cultist/Colony games tend to be rather slow.

[Ozle]

I'd say it's the other way around. It's dishonorable to drag the game on when you could end it with a win.

If  I'm playing against someone and they deliberately let a win pass by them - knowing they could end it - the rest of the game is sort of unsatisfying. We could go on for a bunch more turns before my opponent wins, and then I feel like they just dragged it on for no good reason. And if I win, I feel like I was "gifted" the game - I mean, I'll take the win I guess, but it doesn't feel right at all. (If the other person didn't *see* the three-pile, that's different, then I feel like I took advantage of their mistake and that's all well and good. But if they saw it and just deliberately decided to deliberately not win? That's just weird.)

You're assuming that draining the third pile after a really good turn early is a "true win" when I'm disputing that.. it's arguably a very munchkin way to end a game in some cases so I wouldn't be insulted if my opponent refused to win that way.

It's comparable to when two warriors are sparring and one guy get's a lucky strike, knocking the other warrior on his back. If I let you get up to finish the fight in an honorable way would you feel insulted because I didn't slit your throat when I had you cornered on the ground?

It depends on the rule of the fight doesnt it? If someones trying to kill me and i get in a lucky blow ...too bloody right ill end it there and then!!


But instead of a vague far fetched scenario, lets try for a little more practical that we actually know the rules for

Your in a boxing match (not for a title or anything, think the end of Rocky III)
You hit the opponent and he is staggered.
Do you
A) apply the knockout punch and win
B) allow him a bit of time to get his breath back, knowing you could knock him out at any time you want
C) Allow him enough time to get fully rested and out the fight on an even keel again

[markusin]

I don't know. If my turn was so good that I can win now, or I can win ten turns from now, am I not doing a favour by ending the game early? Or, if I can forfeit now by causing a 3-pile on a loss now or have the game go on for another 10 turns of sloggyness, am I in the wrong to end the game on a loss when I don't want to try winning the game anymore?

[Awaclus]

It's comparable to when two warriors are sparring and one guy get's a lucky strike, knocking the other warrior on his back. If I let you get up to finish the fight in an honorable way would you feel insulted because I didn't slit your throat when I had you cornered on the ground?

Yeah. I would consider that extremely arrogant and disrespectful, and I would feel that I was being treated like an animal in a typical video in which animals aren't treated very nicely, I won't post a link here but I'm sure you can use your imagination or google "torturing a cat" or something.

[Kirian]

It's comparable to when two warriors are sparring and one guy get's a lucky strike, knocking the other warrior on his back. If I let you get up to finish the fight in an honorable way would you feel insulted because I didn't slit your throat when I had you cornered on the ground?

Yeah. I would consider that extremely arrogant and disrespectful, and I would feel that I was being treated like an animal in a typical video in which animals aren't treated very nicely, I won't post a link here but I'm sure you can use your imagination or google "torturing a cat" or something.

See also the Firefly episode "Shindig."

[Count Grishnakh]

I don't know. If my turn was so good that I can win now, or I can win ten turns from now, am I not doing a favour by ending the game early? Or, if I can forfeit now by causing a 3-pile on a loss now or have the game go on for another 10 turns of sloggyness, am I in the wrong to end the game on a loss when I don't want to try winning the game anymore?

If it's a one-sided game, I agree with you.

If it is early in the game I prefer to not take the easy way out I'd rather rely on the strength of the deck I've built than win by technicality and due to the fact that I got to have an extra turn.

[Count Grishnakh]

It's comparable to when two warriors are sparring and one guy get's a lucky strike, knocking the other warrior on his back. If I let you get up to finish the fight in an honorable way would you feel insulted because I didn't slit your throat when I had you cornered on the ground?

Yeah. I would consider that extremely arrogant and disrespectful, and I would feel that I was being treated like an animal in a typical video in which animals aren't treated very nicely, I won't post a link here but I'm sure you can use your imagination or google "torturing a cat" or something.

What? It's the honorable thing to let a man get back on his feet....rather than die cornered with a blade to his neck. If however, he is already seriously wounded, then a mercy kill would be more respectful.

[Kirian]

If it is early in the game I prefer to not take the easy way out I'd rather rely on the strength of the deck I've built than win by technicality and due to the fact that I got to have an extra turn.

That word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.  Sometimes, the strength of the deck is entirely in setting up for a mega-turn, or creating a deck that goes for a fast three-pile.  That's not a technicality, that's a strategy unto itself and enriches the game by presenting a different strategic choice.

[Count Grishnakh]

If it is early in the game I prefer to not take the easy way out I'd rather rely on the strength of the deck I've built than win by technicality and due to the fact that I got to have an extra turn.

That word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.  Sometimes, the strength of the deck is entirely in setting up for a mega-turn, or creating a deck that goes for a fast three-pile.  That's not a technicality, that's a strategy unto itself and enriches the game by presenting a different strategic choice.

Technicality: a small detail in a rule, law, etc., and especially one that forces an unwanted or unexpected result

When I say I'd rather win on the strength of my deck, I'd rather put it to the test and show that I can consistently control the game and consistently stay ahead of my competition, rather than win by being a munchkin about the rules...

Thats just my personal preference. The shorter you force the game to be the more it is about luck. And if you give the decks time to express their merits then the outcome is determined more by skill.

Think about it from the standpoint of statistics.. the smaller the sample size the more randomness... the larger the sample size, the less randomness.. so by allowing a longer game your win is more "valid"... This is all just my opinion... I am not trying to convince anyone.. I was more curious about what everyone else thought.

[pingpongsam]

3 piling is a de facto strategy. Look at it this way, the correct etiquette is to end the game when you can (aka don't draw it out when you can win). Seeing as a 3 pile ending can easily happen ahead of single piling the Provinces or whatever then it is correct etiquette to 3 pile.

I didn't know that 3 piling was even debatable as a tactic. That it is up for debate is obnoxious to me.

[Count Grishnakh]

3 piling is a de facto strategy. Look at it this way, the correct etiquette is to end the game when you can (aka don't draw it out when you can win). Seeing as a 3 pile ending can easily happen ahead of single piling the Provinces or whatever then it is correct etiquette to 3 pile.

I didn't know that 3 piling was even debatable as a tactic. That it is up for debate is obnoxious to me.

There can be obnoxious ways to three-pile your way to victory though. Let's be real here.

There's strategy and then there's exploiting rules a bit too much.

[pingpongsam]

In this game each player has access to the exact same resources and abides by the exact same rules. There is no exploitation of the rules with equal access.

[Count Grishnakh]

In this game each player has access to the exact same resources and abides by the exact same rules. There is no exploitation of the rules with equal access.

If you go out of your way to drain three piles on a big turn early in the game you are exploiting your own luck and giving yourself an extra turn by manipulatio of the rules...

I'm not saying its wrong but it is purposely skewing the game in the direction of randomness.. Read my remark above regarding statistics

[Ozle]

Expoiting luck is a lot different from exploiting rules....and there is no manipulation of the rules. The rules do not change at all, and winning on a three pile is a perfectly acceptable way to win as described in thise rules.

Pretty sure Donald X Vaccinarino 3 piled me once...