Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: XerxesPraelor on October 17, 2013, 12:35:53 pm
-
I need help finding edge-cases for my simulator and figured you guys could help.
When would you not want to top-deck an alchemist?
-
You expect your opponent to play Minion.
-
You expect your opponent to play Minion.
...Or Masquerade, if you have enough Alchemists.
-
If you have more than 5, and your opponent plays a top deck attack.
-
If you think your opponent will Possess you.
-
Maybe even when you know you would trigger a reshuffle by one card and your only potion is already in your discard pile, while you could otherwise buy a second potion and stabilise the chain. It depends heavily on the number of alchemists, importance of next turn vs. next shuffle etc., though.
-
When you don't have a Potion in play.
-
Edges cases wanted?
*You have 4 alchemists in play, an empty deck (but a non-empty discard pile) and you suspect that your opponent will play a militia next turn. In that case you might want to just put 3 alchemists back, because then - at the beginning of your next turn - your fourth alchemist will be in your deck instead of your discard pile.
*The current turn is a possession turn (and the next one will be the normal turn).
*You also have Scrying Pools, and you want as much non-actions in your hand as possible, because you're going to draw all actions more easily with scrying pool in that case. Or something similar with Herald.
*You want a specific other card in you hand. For example a curse to discard to opponent's mountebank, a province to reveal to opponent's tournament, a bane to reveal to opponent's YW, a crappy card in hand to trash to your opponent's Bishop, or any reaction card.
* You want to play other actions before you Alchemist chain. For example, Fishing Village + Library or Menagerie. Maybe you know these cards are on the top of your deck.
-
You want to hit them with Golem.
-
You want to buy a Mint without trashing your Potion.
-
You want to buy a Mint without trashing your Potion.
Wait, Mine doesn't trash potions on buy...
Seriously, though, he was talking about when you have potion in play, this is for a simulator.
-
Strategically there isn't any difference (except when buying Mint or gaining Mandarin) between not playing the Potion and directly declining to topdeck the Alchemists. The decision has to be made at the same time, I don't see why it matters that it's a simulator.
-
Strategically there isn't any difference (except when buying Mint or gaining Mandarin) between not playing the Potion and directly declining to topdeck the Alchemists. The decision has to be made at the same time, I don't see why it matters that it's a simulator.
Except when buying Mint, Mandarin, or cards with Potion in the cost. Like Alchemist.
-
Obviously, but if we're buying an Alchemist and don't want to trash our Potion, then we aren't buying a Mint. (Unless we also gain a Mandarin!)
-
Masquerade - don't want to pass a card from 5 alchemists
Golems/heralds - giving cards to dig for
Swindlers/Saboteur/Tribute etc - don't want alchemist on the draw deck
Scheme/Herbalist cards might want to go onto the draw deck in preference to alchemist
Stash - prefer an immediate reshuffle to get 4 stash in hand
Possession - you'd rather spread your cards through the deck
Minions - you'd rather spread your cards through the deck
Militia - rather only 3 alchemists in hand and the rest can be in the shuffled immediately
Bishop/Governor - want a trashing opportunity from your opponent
Moat/Secret chamber - might prefer known cards in hand rather than another alchemist
Looks like a few of those have been posted already. I'm guessing there are plenty more reasons too.
-
defense against knights.
-
defense against knights.
Knights can't trash Alchemists.
-
defense against knights.
Knights can't trash Alchemists.
Exactly. So they're a better defense against Knights if they're not in your hand.
-
defense against knights.
Knights can't trash Alchemists.
Exactly. So they're a better defense against Knights if they're not in your hand.
Oh. I was thinking you had more than 5.
-
defense against knights.
Knights can't trash Alchemists.
Exactly. So they're a better defense against Knights if they're not in your hand.
Oh. I was thinking you had more than 5.
It's still not the right play to let the opponent hit your alchemists in about half of the situations. If you let your opponent hit alchemist by not topdecking it (or topdecking it if you have more than 5), the knight will probably hit alchemist/power card where he could have hit power card/silver or something. Alchemists are good against knights because they can't be trashed by them, but this doesn't always mean you want to make your opponent's knights hit these.
-
It's still not the right play to let the opponent hit your alchemists in about half of the situations. If you let your opponent hit alchemist by not topdecking it (or topdecking it if you have more than 5), the knight will probably hit alchemist/power card where he could have hit power card/silver or something. Alchemists are good against knights because they can't be trashed by them, but this doesn't always mean you want to make your opponent's knights hit these.
So what are the edge cases where you'd prefer not to top-deck your alchemists as defense against knights? ;)
-
If you have more than 5 alchemists: You want that the knights hit a specific card (cards that became bad like Moneylender/Sea Hag or cards like Sir Vander, Fortress or Rats)
Less than 5 alchemists: No reason (except for the discarding attack of me Sir Micheal, if you have more than 3 alchemists)
-
Top of deck inspection attacks matter for more than 5 alchemists.
-
defense against knights.
Knights can't trash Alchemists.
The Knights cards state: "Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a card costing from (3) to (6) Coins and discards the rest."
According to the Alchemy rulebook, a card that costs [(X) Coins + Potion] costs higher than a card that costs (X) Coins but lower than a card that costs (X+1) Coins.
So, Alchemist costs more than (3), but less than (4) Coins, which is within trashing cost-range of the Knights.
I don't see why Alchemist can't be trashed by the Knights...
-
According to the Alchemy rulebook, a card that costs [(X) Coins + Potion] costs higher than a card that costs (X) Coins but lower than a card that costs (X+1) Coins.
No, that is not what the Alchemy rulebook says. This is what it says:
"References to a cost range in coins does not include cards with P in the cost.
Example: a card that refers to cards costing 'from 3 to 6' would mean cards costing exactly 3, 4, 5, or 6. No cards published so far use this phrasing, but if one does in a later expansion, the range will not include cards with P in the cost."
-
According to the Alchemy rulebook, a card that costs [(X) Coins + Potion] costs higher than a card that costs (X) Coins but lower than a card that costs (X+1) Coins.
No, that is not what the Alchemy rulebook says. It says "References to cards costing “up to” some cost only include P if P is in the given cost. If P is in the cost, a player can drop the P and it is still "up to," but a player cannot add P if it is not there."
Then, can you please explain to me what it says?
Cause i'm definitely missing something here... :D
-
According to the Alchemy rulebook, a card that costs [(X) Coins + Potion] costs higher than a card that costs (X) Coins but lower than a card that costs (X+1) Coins.
No, that is not what the Alchemy rulebook says. It says "References to cards costing “up to” some cost only include P if P is in the given cost. If P is in the cost, a player can drop the P and it is still "up to," but a player cannot add P if it is not there."
Then, can you please explain to me what it says?
Cause i'm definitely missing something here... :D
I edited my post and changed it to a more relevant quote from the Alchemy rulebook. I hope that helps.
-
defense against knights.
Knights can't trash Alchemists.
The Knights cards state: "Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a card costing from (3) to (6) Coins and discards the rest."
According to the Alchemy rulebook, a card that costs [(X) Coins + Potion] costs higher than a card that costs (X) Coins but lower than a card that costs (X+1) Coins.
So, Alchemist costs more than (3), but less than (4) Coins, which is within trashing cost-range of the Knights.
I don't see why Alchemist can't be trashed by the Knights...
3P is more than 3.
3P is more than 2P, and less than 4P.
3P cannot be compared with 4.
Comparable with Complex numbers, potions being imaginary part.
-
3P is more than 3.
3P is more than 2P, and less than 4P.
3P cannot be compared with 4.
Comparable with Complex numbers, potions being imaginary part.
Like all analogies, this one has its limits. 3+i can be made to appear greater than 3 if you compare ||3+i|| to ||3||, but then how is it that 3+i can't be compared with 4?
X+P "costs more" than Y if Y <= X. (The reciprocal is also true: Y "costs less" than X+P if Y <= X.)
X+P "costs less (more)" than Y+P if X<Y (X>Y).
X+P never "costs less" than Y.
X+P is never in the range Y to Z.
Complex numbers give the sense that there are two separate dimensions of cost, and the second two rules are intuitive in this analogy, but the first two rules are not. If there is a better mathematical analogy I'm not aware of it.
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16948609/popcorn.jpg)
-
3P is more than 3.
3P is more than 2P, and less than 4P.
3P cannot be compared with 4.
Comparable with Complex numbers, potions being imaginary part.
Like all analogies, this one has its limits. 3+i can be made to appear greater than 3 if you compare ||3+i|| to ||3||, but then how is it that 3+i can't be compared with 4?
X+P "costs more" than Y if Y <= X. (The reciprocal is also true: Y "costs less" than X+P if Y <= X.)
X+P "costs less (more)" than Y+P if X<Y (X>Y).
X+P never "costs less" than Y.
X+P is never in the range Y to Z.
Complex numbers give the sense that there are two separate dimensions of cost, and the second two rules are intuitive in this analogy, but the first two rules are not. If there is a better mathematical analogy I'm not aware of it.
The costs form a partial order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_ordered_set). This diagram shows what costs more than what:
(http://i42.tinypic.com/2u6ph0j.png)
You can see that e.g. 3P costs more than 2P, 3P costs more than 3, but 2P neither costs more, less or the same as 3.
-
The costs form a partial order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_ordered_set).
Perfect. The next time I'm asked about this, I'll just make the analogy to partial ordering and all confusion will instantly evaporate. :)
-
The costs form a partial order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_ordered_set).
Perfect. The next time I'm asked about this, I'll just make the analogy to partial ordering and all confusion will instantly evaporate. :)
It was said in the other thread, but consider the cost of a card to be an element of N_0x{0,1}, where N_0 is the natural numbers plus {0}. The first coordinate is the cost in coins and the second coordinate is the cost in potions. (You could expand {0,1} to all of N_0, but it isn't necessary as long as the highest potion cost is one potion.) So Possession's cost would be (6,1), Village's cost would be (3,0), Vineyard's cost would be (0,1), etc.
The partial ordering in question is the product order:
(x,y) <= (a,b) if x<=a and y <=b.
The ordering has the corresponding strict ordering: (x,y) < (a,b) if (x,y)<=(a,b) and (x,y)!=(a,b)
So in the example from before 3p costs more than 2p is saying (2,1) < (3,1) (since 2<=3, 1<=1 and (2,1)!=(3,1)). 3P costs more than 3 corresponds to (3,0)<(3,1).
2P and 3 aren't related in the ordering since neither (2,1) <=(3,0) nor (3,0) <=(2,1) are true.
There are other partial orderings (lexicographical, for example), so you may not instantly evaporate the confusion by just saying it's a partial ordering :)
-
There are other partial orderings (lexicographical, for example), so you may not instantly evaporate the confusion by just saying it's a partial ordering :)
[that's the joke] :P
-
There are other partial orderings (lexicographical, for example), so you may not instantly evaporate the confusion by just saying it's a partial ordering :)
[that's the joke] :P
I think the joke was that the person he was talking to wouldn't understand what a partial ordering is. I chose to misunderstand the premise of his joke and assume the person he was talking to would understand partial orderings enough to know that the explanation leaves ambiguity as to which partial ordering it is :P
-
What my brain sees:
It was said in the other thread, but consider the cost of a card to be an element of...
....
Math... my old nemesis... WHYYY??!?!
.....
There are other partial orderings (lexicographical, for example), so you may not instantly evaporate the confusion by just saying it's a partial ordering :)
What I understand: lexicography means making dictionaries!
I like the picture though: Pictures are always nice and comforting.
(http://i42.tinypic.com/2u6ph0j.png)
-
You have five cards left in your deck, know that you will have enough buying power with those five, and want to buy a card and not have it and the Alchemist miss the reshuffle.
You don't want to decrease the value of a Philosopher's Stone which you know you will draw next turn. (Example: you have 25 cards, and the last five are PS, Gold, Copper, Province, Estate. If you discard the Alchemist, you can draw those five and the PS is worth 4, so you can buy a province. If you keep the Alchemist and don't get all three treasures with it, you only have 7, and when you play the Alchemist, you now have those five cards plus one more, but the PS is only worth three, so if your extra card is a victory card, you can't buy a province.)
-
The word edge can also mean 'blade', as in "the edge of my sword". For this reason I keep wanting "edge cases" to mean, like, 'scabbards'.
-
I like the picture though: Pictures are always nice and comforting.
(http://i42.tinypic.com/2u6ph0j.png)
The picture (I prefer diagram actually) is very useful. I should point out I wasn't the one who made it, though. IIRC it was SirPeebles, but I might be wrong in that as well.