1
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Enterprise (Beta)
« on: January 01, 2015, 07:12:09 pm »
Which post has the most current version of the cards posted?
Is it the first post of the thread?
Is it the first post of the thread?
Is there any reason why this effect would be broken on a card?
It would be a real factor in games with both trashers and cursers, especially Sea Hag.
The card I'm thinking of doing is:
Diggings:
Action - $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Return a card from the trash to the supply.
---
When you gain this, if it is your Action phase, you may play it immediately.
I wanted to make it more interesting with Remodel type cards and there aren't that many workshop type cards so there's another little effect.
They stay in play
(Enter a bunch of other people explaining the same thing in more words)
They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play They stay in play
He can never open double TM and collide, but for his opponent, he would get 4 Golds turn 3
How is that bad luck Brian? I don't get how it's bad if those two come up on the board.
What? He pays $4 for a Treasure map turn 1, then $3 plus coin for another turn 2, then turn 3 he lucks out and collides them. How is it even related to the fact that he started a game or not?
but he doesn't luck out
But that's not the meme. The meme is that he starts a new pro game, and then its bad luck that Treasure map and baker are on the board. But it's not. If the meme were "Treasure map Baker on board, Treasure maps never collide" that might be a Bad luck brian.
it's bad luck because of the coinflippiness of the board. since he always has bad luck, a random based board is bad luck for him. his opponent willl collide treasure maps t3, so even if he is the better player, he can't win.
Yeah, I get it now. I guess the long explanation defeats the purpose of a punchy joke that you normally see in memes.
It would be simpler and more what I was wanting if you don't gain anything... I'm wanting the card to be pretty simple.
Also, I find it funny how when anybody posts a card, people bring it down through showing it's over/underpowered, but here it's just the wording somewhere... Nobody's even said what they think of the card.
I think one of the points of math is to start with as few axioms as possible, and prove anything else from that. If we can prove 1 > 0, then we don't have to postulate it.Why? Shouldn't the point be to not have as numerically few axioms as possible (which also brings up the disturbing question of what counts as separate axioms),
QuoteI remember reading a proof (that was really simple) that with any line segment, you can create an equilateral triangle with sides that long. Now, the conclusion is obvious, but if we can prove it with other axioms, we don't need to make that an axiom.But this doesn't actually gain us anything. Why did we have to prove it in the first place? What is wrong with making something obviously true an axiom?
If there is something wrong with making something obviously true an axiom, how does that not invalidate the whole process of making axioms?
Didn't you take it as an additional axiom (and one which actually seems most probably wrong to me) that it is better to have fewer axioms?
There is no way to make the Complex Numbers into an Ordered Field (with the standard field operators), which is why there's no canonical total order. However, if you don't care about relating the ordering to the field algebra, then you're free to use whichever order you choose. I'm partial lexicographic orderings, myself. I mean, if you're not going to relate it to the field, might as go all the way.
My first homework problem in my first graduate math course was to prove that 1 is positive.
Wait, couldn't you just say that 1 > 0, so it is positive?
Most people could; someone in a graduate math course can't.
we actually played 2 games with double amb vs dual lookout and both of them very incredibly close early game and both of them he eventually won, but he's just better at this game, so it doesn't disproof or proof anything
all of that doesn't mean that ambassador isn't in fact better, but i still don't see it and what you wrote here doesn't exactly help making me believe anything.
I don't get it. That's a 6 point advantage and why is opening potion funny in that context?
Just last night I played a clearly less experienced player.
I opened pot-silver, aiming for familiars. He opened moneylender-silver.
My pot missed the reshuffle and was paired with 2 copper / 2 estate.
My opponent is buying just random cards.
My opponent gets a potion during his 3rd deck cycle.
He wins the curse split EIGHT to TWO. Also wins the game by 4 points despite being pretty bad.
Games like this make me question why I even like Dominion.
In the first Hobbit film, Saruman refers to Dol Guldur as "a ruined fortress". Inspired by that:
Ruined Fortress
$1 Action - Ruins
+1 Action
When you trash this, put it into your hand.
...but... that article is a list of lists of lists, not a list of lists of lists of lists?...
Plus I think people here just like making lists.
We should make a list of all the lists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
That article doesn't list itself!
Because that article is a list of lists of lists of lists not a list of lists of lists itself.
I don't recall exactly, but I thought I once saw a list of terms that playtesters used. The two terms I think I remember were splitter and chainer. A splitter was a card that gave +2 actions, and a chainer was a card that gave +1 action, +1 card. So, spliter = village, chainer = cantrip.I think that would be in the thread for onigame's weighted randomizer.
So, now, will anybody else call it the vanillage? It's always annoying when people say village and you aren't sure if it's the normal vanillage or any village.
Did I learn about a different Round Table than you all?
hint
Yet another reminder that there are very young people on this forum, and that the movie is still older than some of us in the median age range. Monty Python and the Holy Grail was released in 1975. Forty years.
Play a Village, draw a Village, play a Village, draw a Village, play a Village, draw a Village, play a Village, draw a Village, play a Village, draw a Village, play a Village, draw a Village, play a Village, draw a Village, play a Village, draw a Village, play a Village, draw a Village, play a Village, draw a Village, have 3$, buy a Village.
Why are there 11 copies of Village in this game? Did you accidentally include the randomizer?
Warfreak2 plays Minion
Warfreak2 discards: Silver, Chapel
Warfreak2 draws Chapel, Minion, Minion, Necropolis
SheCantSayNo discards: Potion, Chapel, Minion, Minion, Minion
SheCantSayNo draws Possession, King's Court, King's Court, Possession
http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20130522/log.505d732a51c359e6597efeb8.1369260885621.txt
my request is pretty easy, I would like to eliminate the weakest 5 cards in the base set, of intrigue and prosperity. instead of arguing on my way to see the game, why not just tell me what are these 5 cards that I can do without it?