Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: werothegreat on March 09, 2015, 02:03:44 am
-
(I know, I know, I'm starting yet *another* thread, sue me)
Donald X mentioned he considers Remodel/Vault as a category for cards that can do something with a copy of themselves when they show up together in your hand. I think we can all agree we need a better name than "Remodel/Vault" for the category. We've already had a couple suggestions from myself, SheCantSayNo and crlundy. What do you think?
-
Donald X mentioned he considers Remodel/Vault as a category for cards that can do something with a copy of themselves when they show up together in your hand. I think we can all agree we need a better name than "Remodel/Vault" for the category. We've already had a couple suggestions from myself, SheCantSayNo and crlundy. What do you think?
You guys haven't been talking about this category, so I am guessing you won't start to. I guess you want to name the wiki page.
It's not that they specifically need you to draw two of the same card ala "self-synergy"; maybe I put that poorly. They give you a use for dead actions. They are useful with a copy of themselves but also with other dead actions. You use them on themselves especially often but that's not because they are especially good at that, it just falls out of this being the card you can spam. Spammable terminals, there you go.
-
I think this is a worthy thread, and possibly an area for new discussion. (There was a call for quality forum posts?)
Also, I think Donald just coined this more effectively than we ever will.
-
"Spammable terminals" = "Sperminals"?
-
I figured it was worth getting a wiki page, so I made it (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Spammable_terminal). I didn't add it to the card category navbox in case there's a call to change the name/scrap the page. It's rather dull at the moment, I'm looking for feedback.
The "Examples" section lists all cards that fit the description at the top, regardless of whether players are actually like to spam them. (I don't expect to regularly see anyone Altar an Altar or Stonemason a Stonemason.) I'm guessing the list could be more subjective and take into account their spammability.
-
Can we call it 'Dave'?
-
"Spammable terminals" = "Sperminals"?
You are my new favourite person
-
"Spammable Terminals" isn't quite right. You can't exactly spam Remodel... It just does something with the other terminal in your hand if you want. Though that is certainly a better name for Vailt, which just doesn't care about drawing anything dead at all.
"Cards that dont mind terminal collision nearly as much as regular terminals" doesn't have the same ring to it. I mean this basically applies to any terminal that does stuff with cards in your hand that could be Action cards.
-
"Spammable Terminals" isn't quite right.
How about "Soft Terminals"? Like, they can collide, but it's not too bad.
And the other ones would be "Hard Terminals."
-
Collidable terminals?
-
"Spammable Terminals" isn't quite right.
How about "Soft Terminals"? Like, they can collide, but it's not too bad.
I like Soft Terminals. For example, Horse Traders is a soft terminal because it already makes 2 cards in your hand dead cards. Storeroom is a soft terminal because it gets value from any card in hand, including dead terminals. Etc etc.
Soft also implies a spectrum of usefulness more than "spammable" does, which implies you can buy as many as you want with no consequence.
-
I figured it was worth getting a wiki page, so I made it (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Spammable_terminal). I didn't add it to the card category navbox in case there's a call to change the name/scrap the page. It's rather dull at the moment, I'm looking for feedback.
The "Examples" section lists all cards that fit the description at the top, regardless of whether players are actually like to spam them. (I don't expect to regularly see anyone Altar an Altar or Stonemason a Stonemason.) I'm guessing the list could be more subjective and take into account their spammability.
I would hold off until the community settles on one name. Right now it looks like Supercollider is in the lead. Better to use the name that the community actually uses for the category.
EDIT: Also, I like card lists on the wiki to be in expansion order, then cost order, THEN alphabetical order. I think it works better that way.
-
Alternatively, we could just acknowledge that these are two separate categories (trash-for-benefit and discard-for-benefit) that happen to have a property in common that Donald finds useful from a design standpoint.
-
Alternatively, we could just acknowledge that these are two separate categories (trash-for-benefit and discard-for-benefit) that happen to have a property in common that Donald finds useful from a design standpoint.
I'd also argue cards like Courtyard and Mandarin are "soft terminals" or "supercolliders" or whatever, because they allow you to topdeck a terminal you can't use that turn. But I guess that's juts three separate categories.
I think there is value in thinking of terminals from this paradigm. There's a difference in the number of other terminals you can buy when playing Envoy versus Courtyard - Envoy is a very hard terminal, Courtyard is a somewhat soft terminal. The softer the terminals you have, the more terminals your otherwise mostly Big Money deck can handle.
-
So it looks like it's between "supercollider" and "soft terminal", and I find myself leaning towards "soft terminal."
-
Count me in on the "soft terminal" camp. Descriptive and catchy.
-
EDIT: Also, I like card lists on the wiki to be in expansion order, then cost order, THEN alphabetical order. I think it works better that way.
I did some poking around so I think it's more consistent with the other pages now?
Alternatively, we could just acknowledge that these are two separate categories (trash-for-benefit and discard-for-benefit) that happen to have a property in common that Donald finds useful from a design standpoint.
There are some subtle differences. X-for-benefit cards are not necessarily terminal and, like Chris is me said, terminal topdeckers don't fit those categories and neither do Masquerade or Island. Still, I'm not sure that this will be a useful classification of cards for us, but it is for Donald so I think it's worth noting. I could see it being a sub-category on the terminals page, although Donald slipped in that he thinks of terminals, spammable terminals (for want of a better word), cantrips, and villages as four main and distinct categories.
-
The terminal/non-terminal/village distinction is definitely valuable for deckbuilding, and I've found myself keeping in mind the soft terminal distinction as well even without a group name for it.
-
Can we also have a vote on how we managed to get through 4 years without a name for this!
How did we cope!
Luckily the almighty Donald X has shown us what we have been missing to make our lives complete!
-
Can we also have a vote on how we managed to get through 4 years without a name for this!
How did we cope!
Luckily the almighty Donald X has shown us what we have been missing to make our lives complete!
All this time I've had this emptiness inside me... But no more. Thank you Donald for being there for us.
-
Some relevant older quotes on this topic:
Silver isn't awful, and the game has this "only play one action per turn" rule. Those both seem like good things, but together they lead to, sometimes you can do well without many actions. Not playing many actions is just one of the basic solutions to only being able to play one per turn. There are other solutions though, and the main set has them: I can play lots of +1 action cards like Lab, I can play Village and more terminals, I can play Remodels and Remodel Remodel, I can go for Gardens and just live with lots of terminals.
Playing one action per turn is extremely simple and opens the door for making cards like Village and Spy (and less obviously, Remodel and Vault and Bank and Gardens).
-
Supercollision makes sense because, in some cases, something good actually happens when they collide. Like, Cultist.
-
I like soft terminals. So that's what my "something else" vote goes to.
-
Since it seems to now be mainly between two candidates, I've changed the poll. Please vote again!
-
Come on, guys, we all know that when you Remodel a Remodel you get a Higgs Boson.
-
I like soft terminals. So that's what my "something else" vote goes to.
Happy First Post, by the way!
-
I don't like the term "soft terminals". It makes it sound like they're not quite as terminal as other terminals, but they do terminate your Action chain as much as any other terminals do.
-
I could see it being a sub-category on the terminals page, although Donald slipped in that he thinks of terminals, spammable terminals (for want of a better word), cantrips, and villages as four main and distinct categories.
Well obv. lots of villages are cantrips.
CFB - card for benefit. Wait, FB, for benefit.
-
Playing one action per turn is extremely simple and opens the door for making cards like Village and Spy (and less obviously, Remodel and Vault and Bank and Gardens).
Right, Bank is spammable because it doesn't use an action, and then with Gardens you live with some collisions. I don't have a category for Gardens though, it's not common enough. It's on the VP list, and in parentheses for player interaction.
-
"Collision-resilient"? "Collision-tolerant"?
-
Do we really need a term for it? This strikes me as not dissimilar to the thread Adam had a few weeks ago about terminology, where my stance (and that of others), was that if the thing doesn't grow up naturally, it's not going to be good.
-
Do we really need a term for it? This strikes me as not dissimilar to the thread Adam had a few weeks ago about terminology, where my stance (and that of others), was that if the thing doesn't grow up naturally, it's not going to be good.
I dunno, I think I might start using "soft terminal" where appropriate.
-
Do we really need a term for it? This strikes me as not dissimilar to the thread Adam had a few weeks ago about terminology, where my stance (and that of others), was that if the thing doesn't grow up naturally, it's not going to be good.
Is "blue dog" really natural though? Terminology is really one of those things where you find it when you stop looking for it. Any attempt to formally decide on terminology, say with a vote, is likely to fail. Do we use the term "Vanillage". Did we agree on what level City reaches when 1 pile is empty?
Based on this reasoning, my guess is this category is doomed to be referred to as the " Remodel/Vault" whenever it is brought up because that was the term that caught everyone off guard.
Remodel/Vault, immortalizing a connection that is worthy of a "what's missing" thread. The most memorable thing about it is how weird it sounds, just like the Navigator/Royal Seal synergy. It might become a classic.
-
But just for kicks, I'd nominate "cannibals" to refer to this category. I'm not even going to explain it, thus emphasizing that this is not a joke.
-
Do we use the term "Vanillage". Did we agree on what level City reaches when 1 pile is empty?
It's obviously a 1-pile City.
-
Do we really need a term for it? This strikes me as not dissimilar to the thread Adam had a few weeks ago about terminology, where my stance (and that of others), was that if the thing doesn't grow up naturally, it's not going to be good.
Is "blue dog" really natural though? Terminology is really one of those things where you find it when you stop looking for it. Any attempt to formally decide on terminology, say with a vote, is likely to fail. Do we use the term "Vanillage". Did we agree on what level City reaches when 1 pile is empty?
Based on this reasoning, my guess is this category is doomed to be referred to as the " Remodel/Vault" whenever it is brought up because that was the term that caught everyone off guard.
Remodel/Vault, immortalizing a connection that is worthy of a "what's missing" thread. The most memorable thing about it is how weird it sounds, just like the Navigator/Royal Seal synergy. It might become a classic.
You don't understand. On the surface, this thread might look like we are trying to find a word to designate terminal actions that minimize the impact of terminal collision. But, if you read between the lines, it will become apparent that what is really being discussed here is the ageless conflict between prescriptivism and descriptivism.
-
Do we really need a term for it? This strikes me as not dissimilar to the thread Adam had a few weeks ago about terminology, where my stance (and that of others), was that if the thing doesn't grow up naturally, it's not going to be good.
Is "blue dog" really natural though? Terminology is really one of those things where you find it when you stop looking for it. Any attempt to formally decide on terminology, say with a vote, is likely to fail. Do we use the term "Vanillage". Did we agree on what level City reaches when 1 pile is empty?
Based on this reasoning, my guess is this category is doomed to be referred to as the " Remodel/Vault" whenever it is brought up because that was the term that caught everyone off guard.
Remodel/Vault, immortalizing a connection that is worthy of a "what's missing" thread. The most memorable thing about it is how weird it sounds, just like the Navigator/Royal Seal synergy. It might become a classic.
You don't understand. On the surface, this thread might look like we are trying to find a word to designate terminal actions that minimize the impact of terminal collision. But, if you read between the lines, it will become apparent that what is really being discussed here is the ageless conflict between prescriptivism and descriptivism.
Yes, I clearly didn't see that angle of this discussion.
-
Did we agree on what level City reaches when 1 pile is empty?
All I remember is that two empty piles is max boomtown.
-
Now when we have soft terminals, I feel the urge to add a couple more equally useful definitions, these being:
"granular terminals" - terminals which can deal with two other dead terminals in a case of triple terminal collision. (Remake)
"liquid terminals" - terminals which can deal with all the other dead terminals in a case of multiple terminal collision. (Forge)
-
Those are all soft terminals.
-
Some terminals are softer than the others.
-
I really think Cultist is the best example of a soft terminal - it's terminal... except with itself.
-
I really think Cultist is the best example of a soft terminal - it's terminal... except with itself.
See I think it's the best example of a supercollider---when it collides, awesomesauce happens.
-
I thought of another term, which, I believe, is actually useful from a deckbuilding standpoint. The term is smooth terminals, and it refers to terminal Actions that you (might) want to slightly "overbuy" compared to regular terminals such as Smithy or Militia. Smooth terminals include, in addition to the ones in the Remodel/Vault category, most terminal Durations such as Wharf and Merchant Ship (not Outpost and Tactician though, because they don't function within the regular strategy principles concerning terminal Actions).
-
Also used for terminals that are good at picking up women.
-
you've been hit by.
you've been struck by.
A smooth terminal.
-
you've been hit by.
you've been struck by.
A smooth terminal.
Is Dame Anna okay?
-
I don't like the term "soft terminals". It makes it sound like they're not quite as terminal as other terminals, but they do terminate your Action chain as much as any other terminals do.
Agree. If anything, I think perhaps Throne Room and King's Court could be called "soft terminals". They're technically terminals, yet they can enable you to play multiple actions. I don't see how Vault is in any way a "soft terminal". It's as hard a terminal as any other. It's just that what it does happens to be to do something with another card in your hand. And for Vault especially, having 2 Vaults in your hand means that the second Vault is as dead a card as any other would be; it might as well be a Victory card or a Curse. Vault 1 is not "making use" of Vault 2.
Spammable terminals is my vote.
-
I thought of another term, which, I believe, is actually useful from a deckbuilding standpoint. The term is smooth terminals, and it refers to terminal Actions that you (might) want to slightly "overbuy" compared to regular terminals such as Smithy or Militia. Smooth terminals include, in addition to the ones in the Remodel/Vault category, most terminal Durations such as Wharf and Merchant Ship (not Outpost and Tactician though, because they don't function within the regular strategy principles concerning terminal Actions).
Contrast with rough terminals, which are terminals that somehow always collide even if you only have 2 or 3 in a big deck, like Witch and Mountebank. That's rough, man.
-
I thought of another term, which, I believe, is actually useful from a deckbuilding standpoint. The term is smooth terminals, and it refers to terminal Actions that you (might) want to slightly "overbuy" compared to regular terminals such as Smithy or Militia. Smooth terminals include, in addition to the ones in the Remodel/Vault category, most terminal Durations such as Wharf and Merchant Ship (not Outpost and Tactician though, because they don't function within the regular strategy principles concerning terminal Actions).
Contrast with rough terminals, which are terminals that somehow always collide even if you only have 2 or 3 in a big deck, like Witch and Mountebank. That's rough, man.
And don't forget about taunting terminals, which somehow mysteriously cause you to get $4 on turns 3 and 4, even when you opened with two Silvers.
-
Do we really need a term for it? This strikes me as not dissimilar to the thread Adam had a few weeks ago about terminology, where my stance (and that of others), was that if the thing doesn't grow up naturally, it's not going to be good.
aka, forcing memes is bad.
-
Do we really need a term for it? This strikes me as not dissimilar to the thread Adam had a few weeks ago about terminology, where my stance (and that of others), was that if the thing doesn't grow up naturally, it's not going to be good.
aka, forcing memes is bad.
(http://36.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltb5k5kh651qbhedwo1_1280.jpg?.jpg)
-
My dastardly plan worked too well and I indoctrinated myself. I now just naturally think in a dichotomy of hard and soft terminals. :(
-
My dastardly plan worked too well and I indoctrinated myself. I now just naturally think in a dichotomy of hard and soft terminals. :(
Well, seems you are now a...
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/1/18/Cultist.jpg/200px-Cultist.jpg)
-
Do we really need a term for it? This strikes me as not dissimilar to the thread Adam had a few weeks ago about terminology, where my stance (and that of others), was that if the thing doesn't grow up naturally, it's not going to be good.
Exactly.
And the reason why no terminology has grown naturally yet is pretty simple: collisions still really suck. Two remodels want to remodel two estates, not one remodel. You want to use your second vault as a vault, not as a copper. Both consolation prizes are way too awful to legitimize a special terminology.
-
And the reason why no terminology has grown naturally yet is pretty simple: collisions still really suck. Two remodels want to remodel two estates, not one remodel. You want to use your second vault as a vault, not as a copper. Both consolation prizes are way too awful to legitimize a special terminology.
Not really. I don't think it's usually a good idea to buy more Remodels so that you can Remodel Remodels, but Vault's discard-for-benefit ability most certainly makes you want to buy more Vaults than you would buy, say, Moats. The reason why the terminology hasn't grown naturally is that the strategic functionality of these types of terminals compared to others is useful when thinking about what you can do with that particular card, but not really very useful when thinking about Dominion strategy in general — i.e. if we're talking about playing Vault/big money, we can say things like "you want to buy at least 3 Vaults", but if we're talking about a card/situation/strategy X, we never say things like "in general, X works well with Remodel/Vault type cards". The principle of "you (might) want to buy more copies of Remodel/Vault type terminals than other terminals" is present in the former statement, but you can communicate the thought without using a term for Remodel/Vault type cards (actually, it's more convenient, too) since you're just referring to a particular card of that type.
-
I think the only real 'soft collision' is stuff like Courtyard and Count.