Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: Bench of Bishops on January 21, 2015, 01:59:54 pm
-
Hey, there are a few places where wiki articles say things that aren't completely correct, such as:
- "Spoils may be gained only through Bandit Camp, Marauder, or Pillage." or "...if you have a Province, you can gain a Prize, a unique card which cannot be gained any other way!" - Diadem and Spoils can also be gained via Thief
- "Fortress - the only card that can never be removed from your deck" - it can be removed from your deck via Ambassador or Masquerade
- "Rogue - a weak card, but the only one capable of stealing non-Treasure cards from other players" - Masq also allows stealing - you just usually end up stealing bad cards. But not always, if you're both well trashed. Or if you were hoping for an estate, for example to use your Baron or Remodel on, and you didn't have one in hand before you played Masq. Of course Masq, and even Amb, can be used with Possession for powerful stealing, though this is an edge case.
Is it nitpicking to want to update those? Ok, it definitely is nitpicking, but would it be reasonable nitpicking?
I guess the changes I'd recommend are minor wording changes like:
- "Spoils may be gained only through Bandit Camp, Marauder, or Pillage, or from another player via Thief."
- "...if you have a Province, you can gain a Prize, a unique card which cannot be gained any other way!" - this one probable doesn't need changing, since it's too awkward to word in a caveat about Diadem - maybe an asterisk? Diadem's page does already mention the Thief loophole.
- "Fortress - the only card that can never be trashed from your deck"
- "Rogue - a weak card, but one of the only ones capable of stealing non-Treasure cards from other players"
-
Feel free to make an account and correct them!
-
Ok, will do! I also edited my initial forum post with my suggested wording changes. I'll get to making the changes in a few hours :)
-
Bear in mind that if any of these are in the Official FAQ or other rules, you should not change that, but instead add a rules clarification. It looks like Spoils already has one for Thief.
-
- "Fortress - the only card that can never be trashed from your deck"
This should say "...that can never be removed from your deck via trashing." It most definitely can be trashed; that's why it works with trash-for-benefit cards.
- "Rogue - a weak card, but one of the only ones capable of stealing non-Treasure cards from other players"
"one of the few" would sound better.
-
It's probably worth saying these in ways that acknowledges that for most intents and purposes, the original generalization is true. Spoils and Diadem can be stolen, but they're reliant on either you or your opponent having the card designed to gain them. Rogue isn't the only way to steal other cards, but it's the most... prominent? Standalone? And Fortress is similarly unlikely to actually leave your deck, even though it technically could.
-
I kind of do see it as nitpicking. Also, the new wording makes it sound as if Thief can straight up gain spoils or Diadem which is not true. It can still them from an opponents deck. I would make it a seperate sentence saying that if someone is attacked by Thief, the Thief can steal those treasures. Or, maybe just mention it in the Thief wiki.
Also, the odds of Fortress is a super nitpick. You would either have to pass or donate the card or be possessed and have that happen to you. So, it is not something that will happen too often, and it should be fairly obvious the card works that way. I think the best wording is that the card can never be "destroyed," in the sense that once it's trashed it goes straight into your hand. I don't know. Something like that.
With that said, people on this board like the nitpick and get into edge cases all the time.
-
Also, the odds of Fortress is a super nitpick.
Not sure exactly what this means or refers to, but it doesn't take an edge-case freak to agree with the OP that it would be better for the wiki not to contain false information.
To say Fortress "can never be removed from your deck" is factually incorrect. Adding "via trashing" would make it correct, so why not do so?
-
"Via trashing" can come off as weakening the statement more than necessary, and it sounds kinda awkward: of course it can't be trashed out of your deck; it says that right on the card. The important thing is to emphasize is that when cards leave your deck, it's almost always through trashing; it's just that there are some rare exceptions. I'm honestly thinking it'd be best to leave the "can never be removed from your deck" intact and then just add a note afterwards along the lines of "(barring Masquerade and Ambassador)".
-
Lots of the card blurbs on the page in question (the Dark Ages page) say stuff that it says "right on the card"; there's no reason for them not to.
Agreed that trashing is to be understood as the common/default way for cards to leave the deck. That's why "via trashing" doesn't feel weakening to me; it feels like the clean/precise/obvious way to make the statement correct. And to me "(barring Masquerade and Ambassador)" feels way more awkward than "via trashing" in that context. But I guess it's a purely subjective argument.
-
Maybe we should just put a disclaimer on the main page: "EVERYONE STATEMENT ASSERTED HERE MOST LIKELY HAS AN EDGE CASE. PLEASE CALM YOUR NERDRAGE THE FUCK DOWN. Thank you."
-
So should the Scout page say "You'll never want to buy this card"?
-
So should the Scout page say "You'll never want to buy this card"?
I'm *so* looking forward to 30 more "How does this combo with Scout?" threads. I don't think we ever did one for Prince.
-
I don't even see the edgecase for Fortress.
Exactly how does Masquerade or Ambassador remove Fortress from your deck?
-
I don't even see the edgecase for Fortress.
Exactly how does Masquerade or Ambassador remove Fortress from your deck?
In the sense that the Fortress will not be in your deck anymore.
"Deck" being defined as "all of your cards".
And yes, it's unfortunate that "deck" is also used to mean "draw pile", an issue perhaps even more worthy of our nerdrage than edge-case-proofing card blurbs on the wiki.
-
Right, so in one sense the statement on the wiki is wrong, but in another sense it is right.
Given that the statement is only wrong for one definition of the word deck (and only in very narrow edgecases), how about we just leave it alone?
Also, Masq doesn't steal cards.
It might ultimately amount to the same thing, but if we're going to insist on nitpicking we might as well nitpick correctly.
If Masq stole cards it would be an attack.
And, well, Spoils has the exception spelled out just after the rule is stated.
Like it or not, that's the official FAQ, and you can't change that without a nice long chat with Jay and Donald.
-
Pass the popcorn, please.
-
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/439/891/be8.png)
-
We could just have an edge-case filter, where all edge cases in the wiki are tagged appropriately, and you can enable/disable edge case visibility in your account options.
-
Right, so in one sense the statement on the wiki is wrong, but in another sense it is right.
"Can never be removed from your draw pile" is right? Every time you draw it you're removing it from your draw pile.
Also, Masq doesn't steal cards.
It might ultimately amount to the same thing, but if we're going to insist on nitpicking we might as well nitpick correctly.
If Masq stole cards it would be an attack.
As far as I know there is no established definition of "stealing" as a Dominion term, so I'm not sure what the basis of this assertion (or the statement on the wiki, for that matter) is.
Anyway, I'm not bothered by any edgecase-able statements on the wiki or by anyone's opinion of them. I was just enjoying some light pedantic pedantry. At least I think I was. But I think I'm getting bored with it now. :P
-
Right, so in one sense the statement on the wiki is wrong, but in another sense it is right.
Given that the statement is only wrong for one definition of the word deck (and only in very narrow edgecases), how about we just leave it alone?
If you define deck as "all of your cards", then Masquerade and Ambassador can remove it from you deck.
If you define deck as "draw pile", then trashing attacks can remove it from your deck (and put it into your hand!), as can Smithy and other draw cards, as can just your regular clean-up phase.
As to whether these things need to be changed in the article, meh. They are edge cases, and I don't think strategy articles need to spell out every edge case unless it's really exceptional.
-
I propose footnotes for edge cases so that the wikis can continue to be readable but not wrong.
-
Also, Masq doesn't steal cards.
It might ultimately amount to the same thing, but if we're going to insist on nitpicking we might as well nitpick correctly.
If Masq stole cards it would be an attack.
As far as I know there is no established definition of "stealing" as a Dominion term, so I'm not sure what the basis of this assertion (or the statement on the wiki, for that matter) is.
Hmm... you're right, it's not an officially defined term, but I was thinking in terms of the way a Thief steals a card directly from your deck.
Which doesn't gel with the way Masq works.
But it doesn't gel with the way Rogue works either.
Man, Rogue kind of sucks...
-
This all raises an interesting question: is your hand your deck? Or is it one of the things you return to your deck at the end of the game, like Island or Duration cards or Prince?
-
This all raises an interesting question: is your hand your deck? Or is it one of the things you return to your deck at the end of the game, like Island or Duration cards or Prince?
By official terminology, the latter. In common usage (including throughout the wiki), also the former.
An even more unfortunate ambiguity is "action". Very often in IRL I hear something like "I have two actions, but I don't have any actions", and it can mean entirely opposite things at different times, even when spoken by the same person. Even in official usage, "Action" has two different meanings. It's a constant source of confusion for newer players.
-
This all raises an interesting question: is your hand your deck? Or is it one of the things you return to your deck at the end of the game, like Island or Duration cards or Prince?
By official terminology, the latter. In common usage (including throughout the wiki), also the former.
An even more unfortunate ambiguity is "action". Very often in IRL I hear something like "I have two actions, but I don't have any actions", and it can mean entirely opposite things at different times, even when spoken by the same person. Even in official usage, "Action" has two different meanings. It's a constant source of confusion for newer players.
Imagine if Adventures adds Action tokens.
"I have two Actions, but I don't have any Actions, though I do have some Actions."
-
We could just have an edge-case filter, where all edge cases in the wiki are tagged appropriately, and you can enable/disable edge case visibility in your account options.
Edge case: you're interested in some edge cases, but not all.
-
We could just have an edge-case filter, where all edge cases in the wiki are tagged appropriately, and you can enable/disable edge case visibility in your account options.
Edge case: you're interested in some edge cases, but not all.
That calls for an edge-case filter-filter.
-
So should the Scout page say "You'll never want to buy this card"?
I'm *so* looking forward to 30 more "How does this combo with Scout?" threads. I don't think we ever did one for Prince.
Prince actually DOES help to remedy some of the problems certain "nombos" have, mostly a lack of +actions or the need to play a card very often. Scout fits in neither category and so i assume it would still be one of the worst princeable cards.
-
So should the Scout page say "You'll never want to buy this card"?
I'm *so* looking forward to 30 more "How does this combo with Scout?" threads. I don't think we ever did one for Prince.
Prince actually DOES help to remedy some of the problems certain "nombos" have, mostly a lack of +actions or the need to play a card very often. Scout fits in neither category and so i assume it would still be one of the worst princeable cards.
Hey, Princing Scout *does* give you +Actions. But I'm sure spending the time getting to $8 then lining it up with Scout would probably be outpaced by whatever else is on the board by that point if there's no other engine potential.
-
So should the Scout page say "You'll never want to buy this card"?
I'm *so* looking forward to 30 more "How does this combo with Scout?" threads. I don't think we ever did one for Prince.
Prince actually DOES help to remedy some of the problems certain "nombos" have, mostly a lack of +actions or the need to play a card very often. Scout fits in neither category and so i assume it would still be one of the worst princeable cards.
Hey, Princing Scout *does* give you +Actions. But I'm sure spending the time getting to $8 then lining it up with Scout would probably be outpaced by whatever else is on the board by that point if there's no other engine potential.
I would consider princing scout against a rabble engine. Not that I would ever actually do that because that would mean I have to buy scout, and I wouldn't waste a buy on scout.
-
So should the Scout page say "You'll never want to buy this card"?
I'm *so* looking forward to 30 more "How does this combo with Scout?" threads. I don't think we ever did one for Prince.
Prince actually DOES help to remedy some of the problems certain "nombos" have, mostly a lack of +actions or the need to play a card very often. Scout fits in neither category and so i assume it would still be one of the worst princeable cards.
Hey, Princing Scout *does* give you +Actions. But I'm sure spending the time getting to $8 then lining it up with Scout would probably be outpaced by whatever else is on the board by that point if there's no other engine potential.
I would consider princing scout against a rabble engine. Not that I would ever actually do that because that would mean I have to buy scout, and I wouldn't waste a buy on scout.
Scout is only completely terrible if you have to pay for it. When you can get it for a really low opportunity cost (e.g. off Iw or something) there are a number of setups where it does combo: Vineyards, Pools, Harem/Noble/Greathall, and Xroads do work out for Scout. The problem is that any time those are viable, there is almost certainly something better to grab for the vast, vast majority of the game. For instance, if I'm playing a Highway/Nobles setup at a certain point a spare buy I cannot otherwise use does work better as a Scout than nothing (or anything else <$5, I have 4 Hwy in play). Scout/Pool/Gainer/X is a pretty decent improvement on Pool/Gainer/X if you have only light trashing (particularly something like Moneylender) adding "free" nonterminals that may draw to Pool is pretty nice, vacuuming up greens works decently when your draw is huge, and ordering allows you to maximize Pool draw.
I've played a few times with a house rule where Scout costs $0 and that makes somewhat useful. You need Scout to cost more than a buy (maybe $2 or $3) before it becomes truly useless.
-
I've found that Scout/Crossroads is only a combo if you're doing a puzzle where you assume perfect shuffle luck.
-
I've found that Scout/Crossroads is only a combo if you're doing a puzzle where you make your own shuffle luck.
FTFY :)
-
I've found that Scout/Crossroads is only a combo if you're doing a puzzle where you assume perfect shuffle luck.
Where would you have experience with that?
-
Ok, I've updated the wiki. I'm making them in the spirit that, as Rubby said, even if the corrections are extremely minor, it's probably a good idea to improve the accuracy of the wiki. I think this serves the purpose not only of accuracy for accuracy's sake, but also may get players thinking about card combinations they may not have thought about.
I've listed additions in italics and deletions in strikeout. These are all to the Dark Ages (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Dark_Ages) page.
- "Spoils may be gained only through Bandit Camp, Marauder, or Pillage, or from another player via Thief."
- "Fortress - the only card that can never be removed from your deck via trashing". As noted, technically Fortress leaves your deck (defined as all your cards, not just your draw pile), right before it goes back into your hand, but I think the updated statement is still much closer to accurate than the previous version.
- "Rogue - a weak card, but
the only one of the few capable of stealing non-Treasure cards from other players".
On the page for Spoils (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Spoils):- "Spoils can also be stolen from other players with Thief, or obtained via Masquerade." I'm making this change to the rules clarifications because the official FAQs (which I didn't change, DON'T WORRY everybody :) ) specifically says about Spoils: "it can only be obtained via Bandit Camp, Marauder, and Pillage." That's incorrect; it can only be gained by those cards and by Thief. But since the official FAQ specifically says those three cards are the only way to "obtain" the card, the rules clarification should correct that error: Thief and Masq will do it too (but not Amb or Rogue).
For Rogue, I'd really like to find a way of mentioning that although it isn't the only way to obtain cards from another player's deck (and isn't even the most direct way, since it's a 2-step process that goes through the trash first, and allows other players to gain the card first), it is the easiest single-card way to obtain useful cards from other players. Masq gains you cards more directly - as does your opponent's Amb - but usually you get cards you don't really want. The point of Rogue is that it trashes more expensive cards that you might actually want, and doesn't let your opponent choose a worthless card. (Of course you can also use Knights + Graverobber to gain nice cards from other players, but that's no longer a single card.)
How about some wording like this? "Rogue - a weak card, but usually the only card capable of stealing valuable non-Treasure cards from other players". I suggest "usually" because a well-trashed Masq deck requires you to pass decent cards, and that happens often enough to me or my opponent that I wouldn't call that an edge case - it's sort of a natural byproduct of a Masq deck if you're not careful, especially if you're using Masq as part of an engine that plays it frequently.
-
I've found that Scout/Crossroads is only a combo if you're doing a puzzle where you make your own shuffle luck.
FTFY :)
This is amazing. I post something that has actual value in Dominion with a little bit of snark peppered in to get some +1s, since we are indeed F.DS and snark is rewarded.
Then someone comes along and makes a better joke than me. Great. I was the first to +1 that. Well played.
But why did nobody +1 my post? I still thought it was pretty funny... :-\
:P
-
OK, after I reassured everyone in my last post that I wasn't editing any Official FAQ material, I'm now wondering about the "Additional Materials" section in the Dark Ages page. Is that also official material? In that case, I should undo my change to Spoils.
-
I've found that Scout/Crossroads is only a combo if you're doing a puzzle where you make your own shuffle luck.
FTFY :)
This is amazing. I post something that has actual value in Dominion with a little bit of snark peppered in to get some +1s, since we are indeed F.DS and snark is rewarded.
Then someone comes along and makes a better joke than me. Great. I was the first to +1 that. Well played.
But why did nobody +1 my post? I still thought it was pretty funny... :-\
:P
We are not without compassion, and thy pleas for just retribution have moved our heart. We shall grant thee a small token of our appreciation. Use it wisely.
-
OK, after I reassured everyone in my last post that I wasn't editing any Official FAQ material, I'm now wondering about the "Additional Materials" section in the Dark Ages page. Is that also official material? In that case, I should undo my change to Spoils.
I just checked - it's not. I did put your addition in parentheses, though, since the *normal* way to get them is through those three cards, and not Thief.
-
I've found that Scout/Crossroads is only a combo if you're doing a puzzle where you make your own shuffle luck.
FTFY :)
This is amazing. I post something that has actual value in Dominion with a little bit of snark peppered in to get some +1s, since we are indeed F.DS and snark is rewarded.
Then someone comes along and makes a better joke than me. Great. I was the first to +1 that. Well played.
But why did nobody +1 my post? I still thought it was pretty funny... :-\
:P
I'm a big fan, Adam, sorry I intercepted your +1's. For what it's worth I went back and +1'd your post! ;)
-
They can't all be the best solicitation-of-respect-after-explaining-why-you-deserve-it post.
-
And for what it's worth, Adam, I took your post about the combo as straight statement of fact.
-
if you draw prince with scout and no other actions (say a swindler game.... omg sidenote... swindler is mean with prince on the board... at least with peddlers you can just buy them all) you should surely prince the scout; it's better than waiting around for a better prince target.
-
if you draw prince with scout and no other actions (say a swindler game.... omg sidenote... swindler is mean with prince on the board... at least with peddlers you can just buy them all) you should surely prince the scout; it's better than waiting around for a better prince target.
True. It's not great, but a free action, potentially more non-green cards in hand and some anti-Swindler rearranging are better than two potentially dead cards in your deck.
-
It's not anti-Swindler, is it? You rearrange the cards on top of your deck, then if you don't draw them that turn you draw them during cleanup, all before your opponent has a chance to attack.
-
Now I'm just thinking about Princing a Swindler.
-
There is one Province left.
The Peddler pile is empty.
You are behind by 3 points on your Outpost turn.
You play a Village, and now have a hand containing Cutpurse, Outpost, and Scout.
Playing Cutpurse reveals your opponent's hand of Swindler, Silver, Silver, Silver, Estate.
Saddened by your opponents purchasing power, you play your last hope, Scout, which Reveals a Peddler, 2 Golds, and a Silver.
You realize the amazing anti-Swindler effect of Scout and are pleased that it has once again proved it is the best card in Dominion and allowed you to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
You put your Peddler back first, and then your treasures.
You play Outpost to limit your Clean-up Phase drawing to 3 cards, and buy an Estate.
-
There is one Province left.
The Peddler pile is empty.
You are behind by 3 points on your Outpost turn.
You play a Village, and now have a hand containing Cutpurse, Outpost, and Scout.
Playing Cutpurse reveals your opponent's hand of Swindler, Silver, Silver, Silver, Estate.
Saddened by your opponents purchasing power, you play your last hope, Scout, which Reveals a Peddler, 2 Golds, and a Silver.
You realize the amazing anti-Swindler effect of Scout and are pleased that it has once again proved it is the best card in Dominion and allowed you to snatch victory from the jaws of Defeat.
You put your Peddler back first, and then your treasures.
You play Outpost to limit your Clean-up Phase drawing to 3 cards, and buy an Estate.
And then you win on your Outpost turn and draw the Peddler?
-
There is one Province left.
The Peddler pile is empty.
You are behind by 3 points on your Outpost turn.
You play a Village, and now have a hand containing Cutpurse, Outpost, and Scout.
Playing Cutpurse reveals your opponent's hand of Swindler, Silver, Silver, Silver, Estate.
Saddened by your opponents purchasing power, you play your last hope, Scout, which Reveals a Peddler, 2 Golds, and a Silver.
You realize the amazing anti-Swindler effect of Scout and are pleased that it has once again proved it is the best card in Dominion and allowed you to snatch victory from the jaws of Defeat.
You put your Peddler back first, and then your treasures.
You play Outpost to limit your Clean-up Phase drawing to 3 cards, and buy an Estate.
And then you win on your Outpost turn and draw the Peddler?
No it's already an outpost turn. You play a second outpost to get the 3-card hand, but you don't get the extra turn.
-
So should the Scout page say "You'll never want to buy this card"?
I'm *so* looking forward to 30 more "How does this combo with Scout?" threads. I don't think we ever did one for Prince.
Prince actually DOES help to remedy some of the problems certain "nombos" have, mostly a lack of +actions or the need to play a card very often. Scout fits in neither category and so i assume it would still be one of the worst princeable cards.
Hey, Princing Scout *does* give you +Actions. But I'm sure spending the time getting to $8 then lining it up with Scout would probably be outpaced by whatever else is on the board by that point if there's no other engine potential.
I would consider princing scout against a rabble engine. Not that I would ever actually do that because that would mean I have to buy scout, and I wouldn't waste a buy on scout.
A Princed-Scout / Rabble engine actually seems quite viable, since the Scouts provide actions to play the Rabbles, which your opponent can't easily counter without building the same engine himself. You probably need something else in there as support to really make it better than Rabble+BM, true.
-
There is one Province left.
The Peddler pile is empty.
You are behind by 3 points on your Outpost turn.
You play a Village, and now have a hand containing Cutpurse, Outpost, and Scout.
Playing Cutpurse reveals your opponent's hand of Swindler, Silver, Silver, Silver, Estate.
Saddened by your opponents purchasing power, you play your last hope, Scout, which Reveals a Peddler, 2 Golds, and a Silver.
You realize the amazing anti-Swindler effect of Scout and are pleased that it has once again proved it is the best card in Dominion and allowed you to snatch victory from the jaws of Defeat.
You put your Peddler back first, and then your treasures.
You play Outpost to limit your Clean-up Phase drawing to 3 cards, and buy an Estate.
And then you win on your Outpost turn and draw the Peddler?
No it's already an outpost turn. You play a second outpost to get the 3-card hand, but you don't get the extra turn.
Oh, that makes sense.
-
I've been adding some articles on game mechanics. Feel free to contribute thoughts of your own.