Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: MikeThicke on September 28, 2017, 11:13:35 am
-
Other collectable card games, both online and physical, regularly issue official bans and erratas. I've never understood why Dominion doesn't do the same, though I'm sure there is an explanation somewhere. If casual players are unaware, disagree with a ban or errata, then no harm done, they can ignore it. For more serious players and tournaments, and online where such changes are easy, I think the game would be much better for some minor changes.
(For context, I play exclusively two-player online. I'm level 58 on Shuffle.it, and generally play random matches.)
Here are some cards I would ban or change:
(1) Possession
Everyone's least favorite card. It makes games take forever, it gives a huge advantage to players with detailed rules knowledge (debt, tokens, etc.), it leads to degenerate game states, and it forces weird rules contortions for other cards. If there was ever a card that should simply exit the game, this is it.
(2) Tournament
This card is a combination of (1) overpowered and (2) very swingy. On a large portion of boards, being the first person to connect Tournament and Province is devastating, as one of the big 3 prizes (Trusty Steed, Princess, Followers) does something that otherwise isn't available. Plus, at +1 action/+1 card/+1 coin, Tournament on its own does just about what normally costs 5 (eg. Treasury). At the very least, this card should be costed at 5.
(3) Ill-Gotten Gains
Because IGG empties two piles at once, on many boards a player who rushes it can end the game before the other player could possibly implement alternative strategies. There are just way too many games where IGG dominates any other possible strategy, and those games are totally uninteresting. Of course there are games where IGG isn't good (when there is strong trashing), and occasionally games where IGG is viable alongside other strategies or where IGG has interesting synergies, but those are overshadowed by the more common, boring, one.
(4) Cultist
Like Tournament, Cultist is overpowered and very swingy. It is an attack, draw, and a village, costed the same as cards that do much less. If just one player goes Cultist, the game is usually unwinnable for the other. If both players go Cultist, very often one player will have a turn that chains many together, either emptying the Ruins or junking the other so much they can no longer effectively chain in retaliation.
(5) Sauna / Avanto
In a continuing theme, these cards do too much and are very swingy. They are early game trashing, and late game both village and draw. On many boards, if one player manages to collide Sauna + Silver early and the other doesn't, they can easily win the Sauna / Avanto split, trash much faster, and have a much stronger engine in the endgame. Sometimes there is better early trashing available and you can combat Sauna by not buying it yourself, so that it takes a long time to get to Avanto, but much of the time Sauna is the best or only trashing going, and both players are forced to contest it. The player who loses the split very often has no way to come back, since, as I said, this combination basically does everything.
Of course these are just my opinions, and I'm nothing special at Dominion, but based on my experience these cards really do make the game worse. And I don't just mean I have less fun---they make the games more frustrating, confusing, and especially high variance. I feel pretty strongly they should change or go.
Given the number of cards in Dominion now, I think it's pretty good to have only 5 cards that need changing. But why not make the game better if you can?
-
IGG is really not that strong. Unsupported and uncontested, the rush can’t possibly win before Turn 20, which is eons of time.
Tournament has gotten less game deciding now that games have more than just Tournament going on. Princess is the big one on boards without buy.
I don’t really feel as strongly about anything else either (except Possession), but just wanted to chime in on those two.
-
Other collectable card games, both online and physical, regularly issue official bans and erratas. I've never understood why Dominion doesn't do the same, though I'm sure there is an explanation somewhere.
That's because Dominion isn't a collectible card game.
-
Other collectable card games, both online and physical, regularly issue official bans and erratas. I've never understood why Dominion doesn't do the same, though I'm sure there is an explanation somewhere.
That's because Dominion isn't a collectible card game.
Well it's not a trading card game. But how is that relevant?
-
Well it's not a trading card game. But how is that relevant?
It's actually pretty relevant. If a deck in a CCG is too powerful, every game will be a mirror match of that deck. If a card in Dominion is powerful, you're not even going to see the card most of the time, and even when its present, the games have a lot of variety because the other 9 cards are still different every time.
-
Well it's not a trading card game. But how is that relevant?
It's actually pretty relevant. If a deck in a CCG is too powerful, every game will be a mirror match of that deck. If a card in Dominion is powerful, you're not even going to see the card most of the time, and even when its present, the games have a lot of variety because the other 9 cards are still different every time.
This this this.
No single card in Dominion can dominate "the meta" like what you see in CCGs.
I think the closest example in Dominion is a card that wasn't mentioned: Rebuild. Some large percentage (90%?) of Kingdoms with Rebuild in it will be Rebuild mirror games with only minor wrinkles.
But unlike a CCG, you don't have players coming to the table with Rebuild in their decks. It's only a Rebuild game when it shows up, which is an increasingly small percentage of matches.
-
Other collectable card games, both online and physical, regularly issue official bans and erratas. I've never understood why Dominion doesn't do the same, though I'm sure there is an explanation somewhere.
That's because Dominion isn't a collectible card game.
Well it's not a trading card game. But how is that relevant?
First, welcome to the site!
But anyway, you made it relevant by starting your post with a comparison about what "other collectible card games" do. That comparison doesn't work because Dominion isn't "another collectible card game". But as was said by others already, the primary reason that MTG bans cards from time to time is that tournaments and such become less interesting if all winning decks include many of the same cards. In Magic, a lot of the skill is finding the best possible deck, and then using that deck in every match. Dominion has a completely different skill involved, which is figuring out the best possible deck on the fly as part of the game itself, and which deck is the best one will always be different every game you play.
-
It's worth noting that errata is always bad. It's sometimes a necessary evil, because it's not as bad as the alternative. In a CCG, the alternative is having everybody playing the same dominant deck. That's very bad. In Dominion, the alternative is having some games with these cards being less fun than most games without them. That's bad, but not as bad as having errata.
EDIT: And, well, Dominion has done errata, mostly in the form of the second editions removing weak cards and adding better ones. And Possession has had significant errata to make it not awful with Debt tokens.
-
Other collectable card games, both online and physical, regularly issue official bans and erratas. I've never understood why Dominion doesn't do the same, though I'm sure there is an explanation somewhere.
That's because Dominion isn't a collectible card game.
Well it's not a trading card game. But how is that relevant?
First, welcome to the site!
But anyway, you made it relevant by starting your post with a comparison about what "other collectible card games" do. That comparison doesn't work because Dominion isn't "another collectible card game". But as was said by others already, the primary reason that MTG bans cards from time to time is that tournaments and such become less interesting if all winning decks include many of the same cards. In Magic, a lot of the skill is finding the best possible deck, and then using that deck in every match. Dominion has a completely different skill involved, which is figuring out the best possible deck on the fly as part of the game itself, and which deck is the best one will always be different every game you play.
To continue with this thought, I really think the game would suffer if cards were outright banned or nerfed. Figuring out which cards and combos work the best on the board. It is very rewarding to find these interactions on your own during the game. Yes in CCGs you still think of these interactions and combos, but not during the game when the pressure is on, it's at home when you build your deck, then unleash your deck on your opponent. You don't have the luxury of trying to figure out the weaknesses in your strategy before you play. Nothing against CCGs, but I really prefer game where you have to think on the fly instead of ahead of time.
-
It's worth noting that errata is always bad. It's sometimes a necessary evil, because it's not as bad as the alternative. In a CCG, the alternative is having everybody playing the same dominant deck. That's very bad. In Dominion, the alternative is having some games with these cards being less fun than most games without them. That's bad, but not as bad as having errata.
EDIT: And, well, Dominion has done errata, mostly in the form of the second editions removing weak cards and adding better ones. And Possession has had significant errata to make it not awful with Debt tokens.
Also, with regards to errata specifically (not banning); MTG stopped the concept of giving errata for power level purposes a long time ago; and reversed any errata they had done because of that. Now, errata only exists due to wording updates, much like Dominion did with most 2nd edition cards.
-
Other collectable card games, both online and physical, regularly issue official bans and erratas. I've never understood why Dominion doesn't do the same, though I'm sure there is an explanation somewhere.
That's because Dominion isn't a collectible card game.
Well it's not a trading card game. But how is that relevant?
Because it's also not a collectable card game, and so in any game everyone has the same access to the same cards. Also there's no giant tournament scene so there's no need for official errata or ban lists.
-
Thread where people were talking about banning cards in rated/tournament games:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17506.0
-
(1) Possession
Everyone's least favorite card. It makes games take forever, it gives a huge advantage to players with detailed rules knowledge (debt, tokens, etc.), it leads to degenerate game states, and it forces weird rules contortions for other cards. If there was ever a card that should simply exit the game, this is it.
No argument there, I would ban this, despite the errata, because you can use it to destroy your opponent's deck in other ways, such as moving +action/buy/card/coin tokens on the possessed players deck to hurt them, but it is not an attack, so in 3+ it gets political
(4) Cultist
Like Tournament, Cultist is overpowered and very swingy. It is an attack, draw, and a village, costed the same as cards that do much less. If just one player goes Cultist, the game is usually unwinnable for the other. If both players go Cultist, very often one player will have a turn that chains many together, either emptying the Ruins or junking the other so much they can no longer effectively chain in retaliation.
Actually, Cultist is not a village, you just get to maybe chain a few together, but everytime you do, you risk dead-drawing other actions (unless you already played a village).
(5) Sauna / Avanto
In a continuing theme, these cards do too much and are very swingy. They are early game trashing, and late game both village and draw. On many boards, if one player manages to collide Sauna + Silver early and the other doesn't, they can easily win the Sauna / Avanto split, trash much faster, and have a much stronger engine in the endgame. Sometimes there is better early trashing available and you can combat Sauna by not buying it yourself, so that it takes a long time to get to Avanto, but much of the time Sauna is the best or only trashing going, and both players are forced to contest it. The player who loses the split very often has no way to come back, since, as I said, this combination basically does everything.
Of course these are just my opinions, and I'm nothing special at Dominion, but based on my experience these cards really do make the game worse. And I don't just mean I have less fun---they make the games more frustrating, confusing, and especially high variance. I feel pretty strongly they should change or go.
Maybe it's just me, but I just plain like Sauna/Avanto (even having been on the bad side of the split a time or two). It is very strong, and swingy, true, but it's fun to play (for me)
Rebuild, I agree with you, it could stand to go.
-
Possession is the only card I would ban in an in-person tournament. Not because it's swingy or evil, but because it slows down the game and you basically have to have a judge standing there every time someone's Possessed to check the various loopholes. Possession online only for me, thanks.
-
It's worth noting that errata is always bad.
Pedantry time: "errata are always bad". One of them is an erratum.
-
It's worth noting that errata is always bad.
Pedantry time: "errata are always bad". One of them is an erratum.
The sad part is I noticed that and chose not to correct it. I should have said, "having errata is always bad."
-
No single card in Dominion can dominate "the meta" like what you see in CCGs.
I think the closest example in Dominion is a card that wasn't mentioned: Rebuild. Some large percentage (90%?) of Kingdoms with Rebuild in it will be Rebuild mirror games with only minor wrinkles.
Rebuild isn't that dominant (though I would still choose to ban it from my games because it makes the game less interesting for me). Here is some useful data compiled by a forum user (not me) on gain rates of cards based on the top 20 players on Goko/Making Fun (as of one snapshot from the Isotropish leaderbboard). I can't recall what the time range of the games played, but it was pre-Adventures. Rebuild is gained in only 67.57% of games it appears in. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13mQ1humtQbPLY9nbKscR65dV7hbGPdI3AQkNjMHZpeM/pubhtml?gid=495443102&single=true
Some of that may be players trying other strategies because they are more fun than Rebuild, but the vast increase in alt-VP from Empires and the further engine-friendliness with Adventures and 2nd editions of Base and Intrigue means that it's increasingly likely that kingdoms with Rebuild won't be simple Rebuild strategies.
-
I would argue that "errata is always bad" is still correct, because you're using it as a collective noun. Same thing with "data". It's perfectly acceptable to say "our data is..." .
-
It's true that Dominion doesn't have the problem that other "deckbuilding" (for the pedants) games with one deck completely taking over the metagame. However, the same effect occurs when some cards appear in the kingdom: there is really only one way to build your deck, and so you either end up in a mirror or one player is at a severe disadvantage. While it it often the case in Dominion that there is a clearly best approach for a given board, the games are much less interesting when one card is dominant, especially if that card can create runaway or degenerate situations.
* MTG regularly bans cards from competitive play, and Hearthstone regularly erratas cards for power level.
* I disagree about the power level of IGG, but it at least isn't super high variance. It is the least problematic of the 5.
* In most decks with Cultist, it is functionally a village because Cultist is either your only action, or very close to it. The point is that it can perform too many functions all by itself---you don't need to think about how to balance your deck between its different needs. Just jam as many Cultists as you can and hope you hit them before your opponent.
* The same holds for Sauna/Avanto. Granted, Sauna/Avanto can be fun, but from a competitive standpoint it's problematic because of (a) high variance and (b) it removes any need to make hard choices in deck building.
-
I would argue that "errata is always bad" is still correct, because you're using it as a collective noun. Same thing with "data". It's perfectly acceptable to say "our data is..." .
Aren't you confusing collective nouns with plurals? "Birds are" but "a flock is". I can't stop you from using a plural as a collective noun, but the two are usually different words. Which would mean that "our data is" is technically incorrect. Of course, languages evolve, descriptivism vs prescriptivism, etc.
-
No single card in Dominion can dominate "the meta" like what you see in CCGs.
I think the closest example in Dominion is a card that wasn't mentioned: Rebuild. Some large percentage (90%?) of Kingdoms with Rebuild in it will be Rebuild mirror games with only minor wrinkles.
Rebuild isn't that dominant (though I would still choose to ban it from my games because it makes the game less interesting for me). Here is some useful data compiled by a forum user (not me) on gain rates of cards based on the top 20 players on Goko/Making Fun (as of one snapshot from the Isotropish leaderbboard). I can't recall what the time range of the games played, but it was pre-Adventures. Rebuild is gained in only 67.57% of games it appears in. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13mQ1humtQbPLY9nbKscR65dV7hbGPdI3AQkNjMHZpeM/pubhtml?gid=495443102&single=true
Some of that may be players trying other strategies because they are more fun than Rebuild, but the vast increase in alt-VP from Empires and the further engine-friendliness with Adventures and 2nd editions of Base and Intrigue means that it's increasingly likely that kingdoms with Rebuild won't be simple Rebuild strategies.
The new cards contribute of course, but I think that the increasing skill level of players is also a major factor and the number is probably way lower than that these days, I think only slightly higher than the percentage of non-engine boards in general. Also, very rarely but sometimes you can buy Rebuild in an engine, but that's so rare it can't have a huge impact on the number.
-
It's worth noting that errata is always bad.
Pedantry time: "errata are always bad". One of them is an erratum.
Get thee back to the 17th century! Here in 2017 we do things differently.
Dictionary.com:
Errata is originally the plural of the singular Latin noun erratum. Like many such borrowed nouns ( agenda; candelabra), it came by the mid-17th century to be used as a singular noun, meaning “a list of errors or corrections to be made (in a book).” Despite objections by some to this singular use, it is common in standard English: The errata begins on page 237.When errata clearly means “errors,” it takes plural verbs and pronouns: Although errata were frequent in the first printing, most of them were corrected in subsequent printings.As a singular noun, errata has developed an English plural form erratas, which is rarely used.
-
It's true that Dominion doesn't have the problem that other "deckbuilding" (for the pedants) games with one deck completely taking over the metagame. However, the same effect occurs when some cards appear in the kingdom: there is really only one way to build your deck, and so you either end up in a mirror or one player is at a severe disadvantage. While it it often the case in Dominion that there is a clearly best approach for a given board, the games are much less interesting when one card is dominant, especially if that card can create runaway or degenerate situations.
None of those cards result in decks that are trivial to build. You can't actually "just jam as many Cultists as you can and hope you hit them before your opponent" or you're going to lose a lot.
-
It's true that Dominion doesn't have the problem that other "deckbuilding" (for the pedants) games with one deck completely taking over the metagame. However, the same effect occurs when some cards appear in the kingdom: there is really only one way to build your deck, and so you either end up in a mirror or one player is at a severe disadvantage. While it it often the case in Dominion that there is a clearly best approach for a given board, the games are much less interesting when one card is dominant, especially if that card can create runaway or degenerate situations.
None of those cards result in decks that are trivial to build. You can't actually "just jam as many Cultists as you can and hope you hit them before your opponent" or you're going to lose a lot.
Interested in a match where I must buy Cultist whenever possible and you cannot buy Cultist? I'm not sure how many I'd win, but I expect it would be a fair number.
-
None of those cards result in decks that are trivial to build. You can't actually "just jam as many Cultists as you can and hope you hit them before your opponent" or you're going to lose a lot.
Interested in a match where I must buy Cultist whenever possible and you cannot buy Cultist? I'm not sure how many I'd win, but I expect it would be a fair number.
Unfortunately, overpowered though it is, winning the Cultist split 10-0 usually leads to game loss.
-
Other collectable card games, both online and physical, regularly issue official bans and erratas. I've never understood why Dominion doesn't do the same, though I'm sure there is an explanation somewhere. If casual players are unaware, disagree with a ban or errata, then no harm done, they can ignore it. For more serious players and tournaments, and online where such changes are easy, I think the game would be much better for some minor changes.
The online game has to match the physical. We can't go into people's houses and change their physical cards, and don't want to generate confusion and arguments when people are used to different versions of a card. And you can always just not play with a card you don't like. So we avoid errata. Dominion 2E adds "you may" to three cards so there's no "are they cheating" issue, Intrigue 2E drops the Masquerade pin, Outpost technically has multiple extra turns from different sources play out differently, and then Possession takes debt into account. While we went through and fixed wordings on cards for all pre-Empires expansions, the other changes were non-functional.
While I did change Possession and Masquerade, the chance of me changing another card for power level reasons is extremely low. If you don't enjoy the power level of a particular card, well, don't play with it, that's my advice. If I somehow end up changing the cards for more expansions ala Dominion and Intrigue (and I sure hope I don't), I will replace cards I think are so strong as to make the game bad, not errata them. Masquerade got by with errata because the change almost never matters.
(1) Possession
I would not do Possession today, it messes with the rules too much.
(2) Tournament
My only issues with Tournament are that it's extremely wordy, and I blew it on Bag of Gold and to a lesser degree Diadem. Tournament makes the better player more likely to win, not less. See: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2798.msg47781#msg47781
(3) Ill-Gotten Gains
Here for simplicity I wish it were just, $6, worth $2, when-gain hands out Curses.
(4) Cultist
I haven't put in the games to get sick of Cultist. I think I have to buy Cultist but that I don't need to go for chaining them. However I recognize that a lot of people are unhappy with it, and like the suggestion someone made, that you either chain or Ruin, not both.
(5) Sauna / Avanto
It's a promo. The whole concept of promos is awful. Part of it is either wasting time on these cards, or accepting that they won't be as balanced. I don't know if I mind Sauna / Avanto, I enjoyed it when playtesting it, but I know people are singling it out as strong.
Given the number of cards in Dominion now, I think it's pretty good to have only 5 cards that need changing. But why not make the game better if you can?
The way to make the online game better is to let each player ban 5 cards from their games; those cards are never randomly picked (but can be forced into a game), even for rated games. I advocate this feature! I don't need anyone playing with e.g. Tournament who doesn't want to.
IRL just don't play with the cards you don't like. There are always going to be people who don't like whatever card; I can't just make the expansions full of bland unobjectionable things. On your list, Tournament is a stand-out card, a card some people have lots of fun with.
-
Well, I guess I'd have to have Province as an option.
-
Well, I guess I'd have to have Province as an option.
I think a fairer rule to you that fits the spirit of the challenge would be something like "you need to buy Cultist three times before you can buy other Kingdom cards on $5+ hands."
-
No single card in Dominion can dominate "the meta" like what you see in CCGs.
I think the closest example in Dominion is a card that wasn't mentioned: Rebuild. Some large percentage (90%?) of Kingdoms with Rebuild in it will be Rebuild mirror games with only minor wrinkles.
Rebuild isn't that dominant (though I would still choose to ban it from my games because it makes the game less interesting for me). Here is some useful data compiled by a forum user (not me) on gain rates of cards based on the top 20 players on Goko/Making Fun (as of one snapshot from the Isotropish leaderbboard). I can't recall what the time range of the games played, but it was pre-Adventures. Rebuild is gained in only 67.57% of games it appears in. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13mQ1humtQbPLY9nbKscR65dV7hbGPdI3AQkNjMHZpeM/pubhtml?gid=495443102&single=true
Some of that may be players trying other strategies because they are more fun than Rebuild, but the vast increase in alt-VP from Empires and the further engine-friendliness with Adventures and 2nd editions of Base and Intrigue means that it's increasingly likely that kingdoms with Rebuild won't be simple Rebuild strategies.
Thanks for that. I suspected my number might be high. I wonder if you control for Shelters if it goes up significantly. In any case, I think the point is pretty well-established: even if you despise Rebuild Mirrors, they are less and less likely to happen for a variety of factors, not the least of which is increasing card pool size.
-
There are definitely some very strong or overpowered cards in Dominion. But let's not pretend that this is avoidable, even for the best game designers.
About the concrete cards, Possession is not overpowered (it is the most expensive card after Colony) but difficult to understand and arguably unfun for the possessed player. I think that the cards provides a unique form of interaction for the game (you gotta think about counters like greening earlier, taking on some Debt the move before you think you might get Possessed and so on) which more than justifies its existence.
Tournament is only swingy. IGG is not overpowered. Cultist and Sauna-Avanto are definitely overpowered (as are other cards like Scrying Pool and Rebuild) and unlike Possession don't do something particularly unique enough to justify their overpoweredness ... but as DXV has pointed out the simple solution is to not use them.
-
Well, I guess I'd have to have Province as an option.
I think a fairer rule to you that fits the spirit of the challenge would be something like "you need to buy Cultist three times before you can buy other Kingdom cards on $5+ hands."
I don't think that fits the spirit of the challenge, because that doesn't do very much to prevent him from playing a good strategy on almost any Cultist board.
Instead, I propose a match where he has to go for a strategy that can be reasonably described as "just jam as many Cultists as you can and hope you hit them before your opponent" and I have to do something different (but I can use Cultist as a part of a more complex strategy).
-
Regarding Sauna/Avanto, see game 2 of Dan Brook's match (starts about 32 minutes in) and Donald's comment on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz_nwzRIK0o&list=PLfrY5CAun1zLiG3FfOrgRxzNAirHJIPVH
Game 2, Dan Brooks opens Hermit / Magpie. He only ends up with one Sauna, buying e.g. Pawn over Sauna. The first time he can get Avanto, he gets Festival instead. He ends up with 1 Sauna 3 Avantos to his opponent's 4 Saunas 2 Avantos. He goes on to win the game, for all the world like the presence of Sauna / Avanto didn't make this a dull luckfest.
I don't think that fits the spirit of the challenge, because that doesn't do very much to prevent him from playing a good strategy on almost any Cultist board.
Instead, I propose a match where he has to go for a strategy that can be reasonably described as "just jam as many Cultists as you can and hope you hit them before your opponent" and I have to do something different (but I can use Cultist as a part of a more complex strategy).
Yeah, on 3/4 he needs to open cards that will let him buy Cultists relatively quickly or else this restriction won't mean much.
-
Well, I guess I'd have to have Province as an option.
I think a fairer rule to you that fits the spirit of the challenge would be something like "you need to buy Cultist three times before you can buy other Kingdom cards on $5+ hands."
I don't think that fits the spirit of the challenge, because that doesn't do very much to prevent him from playing a good strategy on almost any Cultist board.
Instead, I propose a match where he has to go for a strategy that can be reasonably described as "just jam as many Cultists as you can and hope you hit them before your opponent" and I have to do something different (but I can use Cultist as a part of a more complex strategy).
Seems reasonable. I can't tonight, but maybe on the weekend if you're freed.
-
(3) Ill-Gotten Gains
Here for simplicity I wish it were just, $6, worth $2, when-gain hands out Curses.
I wish it said, "This pile doesn't count toward ending the game." Almost all games I've played where someone gains IGG have ended with IGG, Curse and Duchy empty. Sometimes it's Estate or alt VP instead of Duchy but that doesn't really change how the game goes. I think a lot of distaste for IGG comes from how it's basically endgame as soon as that pile gets low. If there was still time to build your deck after junking, like with other junkers, I'd probably enjoy IGG way more.
(4) Cultist
I haven't put in the games to get sick of Cultist. I think I have to buy Cultist but that I don't need to go for chaining them. However I recognize that a lot of people are unhappy with it, and like the suggestion someone made, that you either chain or Ruin, not both.
I was at least one of the people to say this, but that was a while ago so I'd be impressed if it's my post you're remembering. Still glad you like it.
-
Regarding Sauna/Avanto, see game 2 of Dan Brook's match (starts about 32 minutes in) and Donald's comment on it:
Game 2, Dan Brooks opens Hermit / Magpie. He only ends up with one Sauna, buying e.g. Pawn over Sauna. The first time he can get Avanto, he gets Festival instead. He ends up with 1 Sauna 3 Avantos to his opponent's 4 Saunas 2 Avantos. He goes on to win the game, for all the world like the presence of Sauna / Avanto didn't make this a dull luckfest.
Borrowing from my other post, Sauna just isn't a good dominion card without the "you may play an Avanto from your hand" line of text.
And if you make your opponent buy most of the Saunas, your deck will likely be in good shape to deny most of the Avantos.
Of course, this game I could have ignored Avanto altogether and threatened an Estate pileout with Festival/Hunting Grounds, but I didn't see that until after the game.
-
Borrowing from my other post, Sauna just isn't a good dominion card without the "you may play an Avanto from your hand" line of text.
And if you make your opponent buy most of the Saunas, your deck will likely be in good shape to deny most of the Avantos.
Of course, this game I could have ignored Avanto altogether and threatened an Estate pileout with Festival/Hunting Grounds, but I didn't see that until after the game.
I totally disagree with this.
Conditional non-mandatory cantrip (multi-)trashing for 4 is already brilliant in and of itself.
A conditional, retroactive village that makes a draw engine run hyper-smoothly is also brillant for 4.
So that's two great effects combined into one card and it is dubious to claim that one effect is stronger than the other.
The notion that you should allow your opponent to get all of the Saunas such that you can make them worthless via snitching away the Avantos with a deck that has a better economy is only valid if there are other trashers and villages in the Kingdom.
-
* In most decks with Cultist, it is functionally a village because Cultist is either your only action, or very close to it.
If your opponent buys Cultist, you're very likely to have multiple Actions other than Cultist.
-
I think Sauna would be a reasonably interesting tasker as a pile on its own without the Avanto thing (maybe cheaper). I also think Sauna/Avanto would be a pretty interesting draw/village option without the trashing on Sauna. As is, it is totally fine, but a bit to "does everything" for my taste. There are obviously boards like Dan's where there are good ways to get draw/actions/trashing and you can do something else. Also, the payload is always different, so it doesn't make the game boring in general.
I think in general split piles would gain something from being 6/6 instead off 5/5 it makes for even numbers in 2 and 3 players, and adds another card to improve "make your opponent dig through the whole top half" strategies.
-
Conditional non-mandatory cantrip (multi-)trashing for 4 is already brilliant in and of itself.
Not at the beginning of the game. First you have to buy a Silver, then you have to collide the two. There are plenty of other cheap trashers that are faster.
The main thing I dislike about Saunavanto is that there are an odd number of each. If Sauna is the only splitter, then the first player can have a strong advantage. This is a potential problem with all split piles, but it's particularly bad with this one.
I think in general split piles would gain something from being 6/6 instead off 5/5 it makes for even numbers in 2 and 3 players, and adds another card to improve "make your opponent dig through the whole top half" strategies.
Ah, semi-ninja'd. Yes, this would have been a better idea. Come to think of it, I'm a bit surprised Donald didn't do this. This already sort of has precedent in Port. Though the unfairness factor of 10 would be even worse with the Port pile.
-
So there are two primary tactics with Sauna/Avanto:
1. Contest the pile, aiming to win the split
2. Ignore the pile, forcing the Sauna player to pick up 4-5 Sauna and 2-3 Silver before Avantos
Tactic #1 seems to be the most common, although I like playing with #2, when possible
There are a lot of boards where it's not entirely clear to me which is better
-
So there are two primary tactics with Sauna/Avanto:
1. Contest the pile, aiming to win the split
2. Ignore the pile, forcing the Sauna player to pick up 4-5 Sauna and 2-3 Silver before Avantos
Tactic #1 seems to be the most common, although I like playing with #2, when possible
There are a lot of boards where it's not entirely clear to me which is better
Regarding tactic #2: There's nothing stopping you from grabbing Avantos if you could use the terminal draw. Indeed, you can put your opponent in a tough spot if you grab 3+ Avantos; now their investment in Saunas won't pay off as much.
-
So there are two primary tactics with Sauna/Avanto:
1. Contest the pile, aiming to win the split
2. Ignore the pile, forcing the Sauna player to pick up 4-5 Sauna and 2-3 Silver before Avantos
Tactic #1 seems to be the most common, although I like playing with #2, when possible
There are a lot of boards where it's not entirely clear to me which is better
Agree. I've had success with #2 before, but it's really hard (for me at least) to predict when it will work. You basically have to make that call on Turn 1 or 2, and if you're wrong, you've conceded the pile to them (and probably the game).
-
I think in general split piles would gain something from being 6/6 instead off 5/5 it makes for even numbers in 2 and 3 players, and adds another card to improve "make your opponent dig through the whole top half" strategies.
I think that would make the bottom 6 cards too inaccessible in 2-player games. It might be right for Sauna/Avanto, but I think it's too much for some of the others.
I've long wondered if 2-player Dominion would be improved by having 8-card supply piles as the standard, with the split piles as 4/4. It would be an interesting variant to try.
Relevant quote from 2011:
You could ask why I didn't lower every pile for 2 players, rather than just victory piles. That's more of a bother and doesn't really get you anything more. And I like that with 2 players I can get more copies of a popular Action card than with 4 players.
I also tested 8-card non-victory piles during development. It's something I could have lived with, but 10 was better. With 8 it becomes harder to get the cards you want with 4 players. In a bad way.
Where I found it on f.ds (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=81.msg766)
Original source (https://boardgamegeek.com/article/6909122#6909122)
-
So there are two primary tactics with Sauna/Avanto:
1. Contest the pile, aiming to win the split
2. Ignore the pile, forcing the Sauna player to pick up 4-5 Sauna and 2-3 Silver before Avantos
Tactic #1 seems to be the most common, although I like playing with #2, when possible
There are a lot of boards where it's not entirely clear to me which is better
Regarding tactic #2: There's nothing stopping you from grabbing Avantos if you could use the terminal draw. Indeed, you can put your opponent in a tough spot if you grab 3+ Avantos; now their investment in Saunas won't pay off as much.
Exactly. I've said it before on here that the Avanto split is more important.
-
Exactly. I've said it before on here that the Avanto split is more important.
This generalization is invalid. Sometimes there are plenty of Villages but no draw and you're going to want to win the Avanto split while getting one or two Saunas for trashing.
Other times, there are no Villages and all the +buy and good payload in general is terminal; in those games getting 3 of the Saunas is usually decisive. Neither is more important in general, it all depends on the rest of board.
Similarly, sometimes you need to rush the pile hard, sometimes you're better off ignoring it entirely. I've won far more games by ignoring Saunas when my opponent went for them than I have by going for Saunas when my opponent ignored it, which probably means the pile is overrated (although still easily in the top 5 best 4$ imo).
The games where the three Saunas just win suck but that requires a board that didn't have a whole lot going on to begin with so the game may not have been great anyways. Most (~3/4) Sauna/Avanto games are not silly rushes and have relevant decision points.
-
I think in general split piles would gain something from being 6/6 instead off 5/5 it makes for even numbers in 2 and 3 players, and adds another card to improve "make your opponent dig through the whole top half" strategies.
In the specific case of Sauna/Avanto, since it's a promo you could cheaply and easily get a few more of each and play it that way if you liked.