Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - sjelkjd

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3
General Discussion / Re: Book De-Recomendation: Joe Abercrombie
« on: November 30, 2012, 12:40:49 pm »
Sure there is a bit of overlap, but the first two are essentially pointless as they set up the third one, which then disregards that set up and moves on.
I thought an important part of the first two books was the development of Jezal into the pawn of Bayaz.  It really drives home how Bayaz is the power behind the throne.
Pretty much everything Jezal does is manipulated by Bayaz into priming him to be King.  There's Bayaz's interference in the fencing contest, Bayaz puffing up Jezal's contributions during the journey, and Bayaz propping up the rebellion to fall apart when Jezal can get credit for dealing with it.
There are some other interesting things going on too...for instance, if they did find the seed during the journey, Tolomei would have taken it, and presumably bad things would have happened.  You can also see how Glokta gets drawn into Bayaz's control over the course of the series as well, through the bank.

Dominion Articles / Re: Trader
« on: August 05, 2012, 07:19:37 pm »
Trader/chapel is very strong.  The idea is to chapel everything, then build up your deck with trader.  Here's an example which gets 8 provinces in 20 turns:

I buy provinces one reshuffle later than I need to(so I can get all 8 without stalling), but if you start earlier it's even faster.  Playing around with some solo games, this is pretty consistent.  You have to be careful about buying too much stuff early.  You'll have a few hands of 3-4(sometimes 5) and you don't want to clog things up.  Most cards don't help much, surprisingly.

Help! / Re: Underestimating Great Halls?
« on: July 26, 2012, 10:00:33 pm »
I think you bought too much money.  If you're playing chapel on this board, I'd buy labs until you can draw your whole deck every turn(and hit him with militia every turn).  So turn 7 I would buy lab, turn 8 don't trash the copper and buy lab.
Once you get the lab draw, you can trash at leisure - so no need to choke yourself early on(like turns 8 and 10).

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Guaranteed Delayed Provinces
« on: July 20, 2012, 10:31:25 am »
Village, Merchant Shipx4
$4 this turn, $8 next turn
4 cards in deck ensure you can draw it all
$8 the turn after that

Dominion World Masters / Re: DominionStrategy Qualifer Results
« on: July 06, 2012, 07:44:30 pm »
If you want my 2cents, any one of the finalists would be a good representative, having proved their skill at 4p dominion to get out of their groups.  So just have a 2p playoff between Personman and ednever.

Help! / Re: After the bad luck, where did I go wrong with Remake?
« on: July 06, 2012, 05:36:14 pm »
I think if you're going remake, you should have bought more of them.  Witch/Big money opening remake feels weak(though to be fair, you got unlucky with the draws).  With multiple remakes, you can trash faster, and you can remake into witch/upgrade/gold rather than having to buy it.
I don't like your turn 10 play of not playing remake to buy a 2nd witch.  You already have scheme and 1 witch, plus a remake.  You're setting yourself up for terminal collision.

Game Reports / Tournament can be a trap
« on: July 06, 2012, 02:50:50 pm »
Tournament is a powerful early game card, acting like a peddler for $4, but quickly drops in value when your opponent has provinces, especially if you don't have provinces of your own.
Cards in supply: Bank, Embassy, Herbalist, Masquerade, Minion, Saboteur, Talisman, Torturer, Tournament, and Venture

My plan on this board is to open Masquerade/Tournament, and transition to a Minion engine.  Tournament provides some interesting options to enhance my deck once I pick up a few provinces, but most of the prizes aren't that interesting.  Terminal draw is not interesting with a Minion strategy without villages, and the only +actions is from Trusty Steed.  Going Embassy/BM is an interesting alternative, but neither of us tried it.  My opponent goes Masq/Talisman, planning to load up on Tournaments.  He eventually picks up some Minions as well.

Here is the deck composition as of Turn 7:
sjelkjd: 7 points : 1 Province, 4 Minion, 1 Tournament, 1 Masquerade, 1 Estate, 7 Copper
sm: 2 points : 1 Minion, 1 Talisman, 5 Tournament, 1 Masquerade, 1 Silver, 2 Estate, 6 Copper

Now it goes quickly downhill for our tournament player.  I am able to buy provinces on turn 8 and 9, pretty much shutting down the tournaments:

  --- sm's turn 9 ---
   sm plays a Tournament.
   ... getting +1 action.
   ... sjelkjd reveals a Province.
   sm plays a Minion.
   ... getting +1 action.
   ... discarding the hand.
   ... drawing 4 cards.
   ... sjelkjd discards the hand.
   ... sjelkjd draws 4 cards.
   sm plays a Tournament.
   ... getting +1 action.
   ... sjelkjd reveals a Province.
   sm plays a Minion.
   ... getting +1 action.
   ... discarding the hand.
   ... drawing 4 cards.
   ... sjelkjd has 4 cards in hand.
   sm plays a Tournament.
   ... getting +1 action.
   ... sjelkjd reveals a Province.
   (sm reshuffles.)

I go on to block 15/20 of his tournament plays starting from turn 9, including some turns where I have a province before and after his minion.  His tournaments are basically curses at this point.

What could my opponent have done better?  If you're going tournament, you need to buy provinces.  On turn 8, he trashes a copper from Masq and buys a Minion, which could have been a province with no trashing.  After that he is pretty hosed, since his deck is relying on tournaments, and they mostly fizzle.  He doesn't have any money, and all those extra cards clog up the few minions that he does have.  Minion also allows me to cycle faster, so I have trashed more aggressively with Masquerade, which makes my Minions and tournaments even more effective.

I am only defeating the particular argument I quoted, and am not trying to settle the whole thing with the discard comparison.

Just that "Isotropic dominion uses the exact same rules as IRL dominion, and all players already know, at all times, to constantly preserve that" is not right.  If I ask you what's on top of your discard pile, for us to replicate offline dominion you need to tell me at least one card that could be there.  If you denied me access to that information IRL you would be cheating.  If you deny me access to that information on isotropic, you are not cheating.  Because it's a different variant of Dominion, one where you discard Trader and Watchtower to a Militia, and I still have no clue whether I should buy an IGG or not.

The argument, "theory forbid the use of the point tracker in this particular tournament" is not covered by my discard pile counterexample.  Only the argument "All offline rules apply online, and thus players in the online tournament need to preserve all the offline rules".
Well, I said "by default," as in, if the experience with that rule is significantly poorer(ie, the discard thing), then we should consider changing it, otherwise not.  I'm not saying preserve all the offline rules.  I'm saying do so if there is no good reason not to.  The idea that people can more easily cheat online does not strike me as a good reason to change the rules to allow the cheating.

Try asking someone to turn their discard pile faceup in isotropic dominion, see if they oblige because the offline rules obligate them to.

  Furthermore, Isotropic Dominion rules are the offline rules by default.
Ok, this is an interesting idea and is linked to Personman's argument.  The argument goes like this.  There are certain things you have to do in real life dominion that translate poorly to a computer version.  One example is viewing the top card of the discard pile.  In real life it's trivial to decide what you want on top of the discard pile.  If you discard cards from your hand during cleanup phase, you can gain an advantage by choosing which cards to discard - ie, I drew both of my moats, played one, and my opponent has a witch, but doesn't want to play it if I have a moat in hand.  I can discard my unplayed moat under an estate to hide that information from him.  In the computer version, that implies you need to control the order of every discard.  That would suck, so the solution is to not show the discard pile.  This is a concession made to the online format, because in online, discarding in an arbitrary order is easy, discarding in a chosen order is annoying.  In offline dominion, both are about equal.
The part where this breaks down is to extend it to any arbitrary rule.  Isotropic does include a point counter, but does not include a deck tracker.  The Tournament rules explicitly discussed the point counter and did not mention the deck tracking extension(since it is not a part of isotropic).  Claiming that the kinds of changes(such as above) authorize using any extension is dubious logic.  In the first case, it is officially supported by the site.  In the PCE case, it is not officially supported by the site, and the only mention was to the closest thing to it(the official point counter), in which it was explicitly mentioned that it(the PC) would be used.  The obvious takeaway is that a point counter, deck tracker, etc cannot be used in a tournament setting unless explicitly allowed by the rules.
But that's not even what we're discussing.  That line of argument is about whether point trackers and deck trackers should be used for online tournament play in general.  In this specific case, the organizer explicitly said not to use it.  The rules said not to use it.  Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Well, I too got nothing useful out of your post. Please try again, but with more logic & reasons, preferably relating to the logic and reasons I have put forth that you are claiming to refute.
Sure, a strawman argument is a logical fallacy used to promote a position by constructing a false version of the opponents position and knocking it down.  In this case, the opponent's position is "x was ruled illegal in this tournament, thus you should not do x in this tournament."  The strawman constructed was "x is illegal in offline dominion, thus you should not do x in this tournament."  I am not claiming that doing x in this tournament is wrong because you should not do X in offline dominion.  I am claiming that you should not do X in this tournament because the tournament organizer said not to do it.  Your argument is invalid because you are taking my position, and constructing a strawman.  This is a logical fallacy.

Game Reports / Re: IGG Rush
« on: July 04, 2012, 09:30:36 pm »
One way to check would be to look at council room's effect with for IGG in general(it's down at the moment).  Usually when I see people complaining about IGG = no skill, they misplayed.  In your game it's pretty obvious - you're close to 3 piling and he's buying platinums instead of provinces.

arguments of the form "X is illegal in Offline Dominion so it is clearly illegal in Isotropic Dominion" ... [is] 100% invalid
Nice strawman.  The argument is X is illegal in Isotropic dominion(National qualifiers variant), as stated by the tournament organizer.  Furthermore, Isotropic Dominion rules are the offline rules by default.  Claiming that you get to reinvent all sorts of rules because you're playing on a computer is silly.

It's like

Me: I think X.
Someone: Why?
Me: Because Z.
Someone: But I think Z is wrong. So why do think X!?!?!?!?!?!?
No, it's more like this:

Personman: I think X.
Someone: X is against the rules
Personman: But Z!
Someone: What does Z have to do with anything?

I took all actions he declared non-DQable to be, by definition, not cheating. I really cannot figure out why I have to say this so many times.

He said "don't use the point counter."  Why do we have to say that so many times?  What part of that don't you understand?

This is apparently hard for everyone (I really don't know why) but for me THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR SAYING HE WON'T DQ YOU IS THE SAME AS IT BEING LEGAL.

That is what we are pointing out.  You may think that it is legal based on what he said; no one else does.  If theory meant to allow using the PCE, then why wouldn't he just say it is allowed?  He said explicitly not to use it.  You may think you are some sort of clever rules lawyer, but "don't use the point counter" means exactly that.

Here's the ruling: don't use the point counter, because it screws up
the intended purpose (identify who is best equipped to compete at
nationals).  But if you do use it, there will be no penalty, because
your opponents could have likely been taking notes the whole time

This is explicit permission to use the extension. There's no other sane way to read it.
Yes, there is.  The sane way to read it is "don't use the point counter."  What part about don't use the point counter don't you understand?

Personman, it's pretty clear to me that you are in the wrong.

>>On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Dominion Strategy
>>dominionstrategy wrote:
>>I would ask that you don't play with it.

Done.  End of topic.  The tournament organizer said don't use it.  The rest is your mental gymnastics to try to rationalize why you want to use the PCE despite being told not to.

Help! / Re: wharf engine with curser
« on: July 04, 2012, 12:43:07 pm »
A few thoughts...
The biggest thing that stands out is that he won the city war.  That means he is at an advantage in a long game.  You also know that curses will likely run out, triggering L2 cities.  You need to decide whether to contest cities or not, and stick to it.  Notice how he buys cities first, then wharves, while you mix wharves and cities.  If you weakly contest cities, like you did, you end up in the worst of both worlds.  You're spending your early $5s on villages, and late game, he'll get much more benefit than you will from them.  You either need to match him city buy for buy, or ignore them completely.  You buying 3 cities helps him activate that much sooner.
Next, you know he will have fully activated cities, since cities were bought out, and curses will run out.  So you don't want a long game.  The longer the game goes, the worse it is for you.  Ideally you finish it before curses run out.  So, I don't like the double wharf buy on T14.  You're building an engine when you know he's got you beat in engine quality.
The other thing to consider is the ease of 3 piling.  L3 cities are a huge boon for 3 piling, especially with peddler.  That should have set off warning bells.  If your opponent can 3 pile, you need to build up a VP lead.  That way he spends his time trying to catch up and reduces what he can spend 3 piling.
Double Mountebank is very strong.  On this board, I would probably always buy 2 of them.
About engines.  It is very hard to build an engine with mountebank on the board and no trashing.  And if you're not building an engine, I wouldn't bother with city.  You will get filled up with curses and coppers.  Make him spend 10 turns paying $5 for village, open with 2 mountebanks, buy a couple wharfs once your deck is bigger, and I think you're golden.

Help! / Re: Do you go for Ill-Gotten Gains or Goons on this set?
« on: June 28, 2012, 09:21:49 pm »
I would totally go for an engine here.  There are tons of great 2s and 3s to buy with goons, great source of +actions, the trasher is slow, but with alchemist drawing most of your deck(and fishing village being a duration - fewer cards to draw), pick up an early trade route and go to town.  You've got goons and oracle to slow down the IGG rush, and the rusher will power up your trade routes.

It's certainly more fun than playing IGG.

edit: After thinking about it, I would open FV/Potion, pick up another potion with my next 4, and get a trade route.  After that, I'd get some fishing villages, another trade route, and pick up a goons relatively soon, and an oracle if you aren't winning the trashing war.  Once you can draw your whole deck every turn, you buy FV/goons/hamlet/oracle(for points).  Not sure if it's fast enough, but i bet it is.

edit2: looks like it's pretty close on a 4/3 vs 5/2 board.  Alchemist is actually really slow with the curses.  Not sure if you have a better strategy opening 4/3 against a 5/2 going IGG rush though.

Help! / Re: Tactician/Vault
« on: June 24, 2012, 09:30:54 pm »
One other thought - you had the endgame tempo advantage(buying provinces first).  On the turn you bought the 4th remaining province, you could have schemed your apprentice with the plan of apprenticing a province and buying double province(discarding everything to vault).

Help! / Re: Tactician/Vault
« on: June 24, 2012, 08:45:21 pm »
You had 2 vaults in hand T14.  You could have apprenticed vault instead of estate, since you had a scheme in hand to keep your 1 vault around.  That would have given you +$3 and 1 VP, buying an estate would put you up by 2.

Game Reports / Re: Sometimes Saboteur IS the deciding card
« on: June 22, 2012, 10:10:46 pm »
Simulator shows that just buying Mountebank, silver, and gold is a pretty dominant strategy against mountebank/saboteur/moneylender/nobles(90% win ratio).

Game Reports / Re: Sometimes Saboteur IS the deciding card
« on: June 22, 2012, 09:37:35 pm »
I dunno, develop is a pretty weak opening, and your opponent has basically no purchasing power for the whole game(never buys gold).  The early mountebank hit was pretty clutch(and lucky), and your opponent doesn't replace it, instead buying Nobles(why? seems like a weak choice on this board).

Game Reports / Re: Dear My Opponent: I am Sorry
« on: June 22, 2012, 02:51:11 pm »
So I never really thought I would post here because I don't like passive-agression or appearing to humblebrag, but...

Dear Obi Wan Bonogi,

I'm so sorry that you didn't hit $6 until turn 19, and only hit it once more during the game. That was some really rotten luck. You blamed buying two quarries but even with that, you had some *terrible* luck. Thanks for being a fun opponent and a great sportsman!
That's what he gets for buying scout.

Help! / Re: Caravan
« on: June 22, 2012, 02:46:24 pm »
about nav/van, well I don't think they work well, but not SO poorly. Not big negative synergy. And obviously you keep that, it's a great hand for that deck.
Yes, agreed on the not big negative synergy.  My point was sometimes Navigator will let you do things like "I need a province next turn to win, so I'll reject any hand that can't buy province," and the presence of caravans makes it harder to determine for some subset of potential hands.  If those caravans were silver, you can be certain of a next-turn province buy.

Pages: [1] 2 3

Page created in 0.048 seconds with 18 queries.