I was bored at looking through some of the older mafia games, which took place 10 years ago! Doesn't seem like it's been that long.
I'm wondering why Dark Ages needs a second edition. That feels like a solid set with almost no duds. I'm struggling to think of a single card in the set that feels like it needs replacing actually, despite it being a very large set.I agree that the set is very solid but there are two outliers: Rebuild and Cultist are ridiculously overpowered.
Urchin is also OP - a very stupid and unfun card, if you ask me. And does anyone actually like the Knights?
knights are great!
re: cornucopia i think tournament could use a nerfing
Nothing is stopping you from using those cards in your own games, whether that's paper/irl, the TGG client, or the ShuffleIT client.
Isn’t it generally a bad idea to throw 8 stop cards into your deck all at once?All the new while in play and when gain changes are good, especially for Quarry and Mint, though I don't totally get the Hoard one--is there a reason this can't just be on-gain?
Utterly OP with Hunting Grounds and Sprawling Castle.
All the new while in play and when gain changes are good, especially for Quarry and Mint, though I don't totally get the Hoard one--is there a reason this can't just be on-gain?
I'm a bit disappointed that the card that secretly has Junk Dealer's stats is now at the same price point as Junk Dealer.
Crystal Ball can’t trash any junk that’s in your hand already though.
nine new types of Kingdom cards
The artwork for Gang of Pickpockets is…interesting.
Just played a game with Wizards. They're fun, but it seems quite problematic that Student is a trasher that you can lock other players out of getting once you have it. If there is no other trashing, it's basically a mandatory opener, even on 5/2.
One of those extremely dumb games against Lord Rattington where I'm messing around trying to make something vaguely interesting happen and realize I'm actually losing badly to straight BM. But then manage to turn it around like a barge after 33 turns for the win.QuoteCuzz:
6 Golds, 5 Estates, 6 Duchies, 2 Provinces, a Steward, Dame Anna, Dame Josephine, Dame Natalie, Sir Bailey, Sir Destry, Sir Martin, Sir Michael, Sir Vander, 3 Soothsayers, 9 Hirelings, 6 Werewolves, 10 Border Guards, 10 Patrons and 8 Hunting Lodges
Lord Rattington:
5 Curses, 5 Coppers, 6 Estates and 6 Provinces
I'm counting 37 points for both of you. Did Lord Rattingdon end the game? Seems unlikely given the state of his deck and the Provice pile being empty. Were you just so happy with the tie that you mistook it for a win or am I missing something?
Cuzz:
6 Golds, 5 Estates, 6 Duchies, 2 Provinces, a Steward, Dame Anna, Dame Josephine, Dame Natalie, Sir Bailey, Sir Destry, Sir Martin, Sir Michael, Sir Vander, 3 Soothsayers, 9 Hirelings, 6 Werewolves, 10 Border Guards, 10 Patrons and 8 Hunting Lodges
Lord Rattington:
5 Curses, 5 Coppers, 6 Estates and 6 Provinces
Navigator is weak powerwise and sifting isn’t something that other cards don’t do.
Trash at the risk of blowing up good stuff isn’t something any other card does (well, Junk Dealer and Upgrade technically do but then you are actively gambling, having no junk in hand and only hoping to draw into junk) so Lookout is unique to some degree.
Is there a place where I can read your opinions on electoral reforms? I watched the youtube video and I'd love to hear/read more!There is a place here where I crossposted a speech about my best voting reform. http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14544.msg655961#msg655961
C plays a Mastermind.
C draws 5 Coppers.
Speaking as an old person, Dominion is more fun now than it was a decade ago, although it's less addictive.
By remarkable coincidence, Dominion suddenly became less addictive exactly around the birth of my first child.
Speaking as an old person, Dominion is more fun now than it was a decade ago, although it's less addictive.
There is no such thing as a "bad" kingdom, and in fact:
Theorem: All kingdoms are interesting.
Proof:
Suppose there exists an uninteresting kingdom.
Order the countably many kingdoms by the minimal number of decisions it takes to empty the supply in a two player game with perfect shuffle luck.
There then exists at least one minimal uninteresting kingdom with respect to this ordering.
But this property makes these kingdoms interesting.
This is a contradiction.
I see what you did therehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox
But the reasoning doesn't quite work in this case, as there are plenty of kingdoms in which it is impossible to ever empty the supply - specifically, in any kingdom without +buy and without gainers, the 3-pile rule ends the game long before you could empty the supply. Your argument only proves that any kingdom in which you can empty the supply is interesting - but if the uninteresting kingdoms are a subset of the kingdoms in which you cannot empty the supply, there is no ordering and no "minimal number" exists ...
It also fails on another level. The set of "minimal uninteresting kingdoms" could be very large; indeed, it is possible that the number of decisions is exactly the same for each uninteresting kingdom. Then being minimal with respect to the ordering gives no additional information, and hence no justification for making the kingdoms interesting.There is no such thing as a "bad" kingdom, and in fact:
Theorem: All kingdoms are interesting.
Proof:
Suppose there exists an uninteresting kingdom.
Order the countably many kingdoms by the minimal number of decisions it takes to empty the supply in a two player game with perfect shuffle luck.
There then exists at least one minimal uninteresting kingdom with respect to this ordering.
But this property makes these kingdoms interesting.
This is a contradiction.
I see what you did there
But the reasoning doesn't quite work in this case, as there are plenty of kingdoms in which it is impossible to ever empty the supply - specifically, in any kingdom without +buy and without gainers, the 3-pile rule ends the game long before you could empty the supply. Your argument only proves that any kingdom in which you can empty the supply is interesting - but if the uninteresting kingdoms are a subset of the kingdoms in which you cannot empty the supply, there is no ordering and no "minimal number" exists ...
The interesting number paradox sort of requires a unique minimal element, and that is not given here.
I think a major problem is that the two things you get are a bit at odds. Decks that want Skulk are usually engines that need some extra +Buy or have some free terminal space that can be used for attacking, decks that want Gold are usually more money-ish.
I feel like there are certainly engine games I've played where Gold was still my primary payload. Sometimes the engine payload isn't good enough, or it's terminal without villages on the board.
