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 - randomdragoon

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3
Power Grid General Discussion / Re: How much do plants get bid up?
« on: June 06, 2013, 04:43:21 pm »
It also depends on how much cash everyone has. If there has been a Step 2 stall and everyone is flush with cash, you can expect the good plants to be bid up higher.

Innovation General Discussion / Re: Base "popped": fan expansion
« on: April 11, 2013, 12:11:28 am »
Oh that's how assimilation works. I am almost sure it's broken somehow, but you at least made sure to put it in the same color as machinery...

Innovation General Discussion / Re: Thought experiment: best color?
« on: April 09, 2013, 04:15:49 pm »
A related and less broken question is, "what if you could only ever apply the dogma effects of a single color?" So you don't have to worry about interactions with forced melds, monotheism, clothing, etc.

Would this apply to say, Satellites?
meh :\

I'd say you can execute a dogma effect if you are forced to by another dogma effect. And you can share opponent's effects. You just can't voluntarily execute a dogma outside your chosen color.

Innovation Articles / Re: Personal Reflection - Mathematics
« on: April 09, 2013, 11:42:55 am »
personaly i'm happy as long as i hit at least age 6,atomic theory is a great draw and meld card and if you use it,there is a chance you overmeld publication,and if you overmeld publication then you can pull math out of your pile again,even if you don't get atomic theory there is still a chance to remove the math obstruction with canning or better yet,use electricity,if you remove the obstruction with electricity not only you have access to math again but you also now have a 8 to feed to math so you can jump immediately from 7 to 9

if you get to 8 then you have quantum theory which let you cheat directly to 10,and at age 9 you have computer which is actualy better than math as long as you don't get unlucky and execute software -> robotics -> A.I

if math overmeld itself early on age 3 or 4... well time to find another plan then,but the potential is huge

anyway i think rather than discussing math in specific we should talk about teching up in general... it's true that earlier scoring wins the game but the planets don't always align perfectly for you,and when that happens the way for a runaway victory is teching up... not to mention you need to tech up to score the achievement anyway beside as far as i'm concerned i am as happy when i draw math as i am when i draw alchemy,use alchemy to meld experimentation,meld physics with experimentation and find atomic theory with physics

This is the type of game i don't really like to play (though I never say I don't know it --- in fact I know it really well), which I call 'gambling innovation'.

It is like a game of 'drawing the cards which you will win from a pile of pokers', without much about manipulating those cards or interaction to your opponent. If you draw this or that, then you win, else you lose. This is the type of meta bounded to that type of game.

A simpler case is that say you math a 8 and you got computer, while you have zero leaves. Are you going to dogma computer while your opponent have 4 leaves, 5 factories and you are losing in score? Say if you melded Bioengineering or Globalization you immediately lose, if you melded robotics or Software and followed these cards you immediately lose too, but if it is something else you are very close to win the game. There is a computable chance that you can win the game or lose the game, just by what you would draw from that age 10 deck.

These plays involve little interaction to your opponent, as you have already said it is all about how far can you tech up yourself and find a card which gives you the victory. It do not involve demanding your opponent or controlling your opponent, just all about yourself. Say 30% skills and 70% luck, just like Texas Poker.

I do not say the chance of winning by such kind of meta is significantly lower as I suggested you can still get some 5-6 out of 10 games by it. It is just too much on the luck side instead of the skill side.

well then you'd have to catch up in score or leaves before using computer and you have many option to do so with stuff like mass media and mobility... or you could search for genetics,that's bound to both give you the last tech up without triggering anything troubling and fix your score problem

and if you are in a spot where you are going to lose anyway,handling the game to luck is a much better alternative to just losing... i mean isn't that the point of fission anyway?
The demand part of fission is compensation for the second dogma effect. In return for you returning anything on your opponent's board, either your opponent gets to draw a 10 (maybe blowing up the world) or he gets to do the same to you, depending on the clock balance. I don't think Fission should be primarily seen as a desperate reset button card.

I've used Fission to get rid of a key card to pave the way for a Bioengineering win (he had two leaves as the second from the top card in a splayed pile, and only 4 total leaves; the top and third cards did not have a leaf)
In that situation, I had a 1/9 chance of losing outright by using Fission (2/9 chance of blowing up the board [bioengineering was already on my board], then probably 50-50 afterwards) and the remaining outcome was an outright win; although I was not in a desperate situation I estimated my chances of winning without fission slightly lower than 8/9 (opponent could always pull out skyscrapers and wreck me) so I used fission.

Innovation General Discussion / Re: Thought experiment: best color?
« on: April 09, 2013, 11:24:35 am »
A related and less broken question is, "what if you could only ever apply the dogma effects of a single color?" So you don't have to worry about interactions with forced melds, monotheism, clothing, etc.

Innovation General Discussion / Re: Base "popped": fan expansion
« on: April 07, 2013, 01:45:43 am »
Modeling: Unless you're planning on breaking the "no towers after age 4 rule", I'd say make it "draw 3 cards, each of value [3] or lower" or something to that effect. It's not really good design to present the players with a choice but have some of the choices be absolutely wrong 99.9% of the time. It's rarely relevant enough to spend an action to move the top card of an age to the bottom for that functionality to stay in, IMO.
It should also be "draw and reveal" - just because base Innovation has a bunch of cards that you can cheat doesn't mean you should add more.

Murals - sounds fun, except that I think agriculture is better almost all the time.

Pulley - I suggest [T] Draw a [2], then meld a card from your hand. Makes no difference functionally and the individual actions are simple enough to combine. (See, for example, Domestication)

Ram - This one is cool. You can use it like Writing in age 2 (though this is bad, but with more than 2 players it might be much better), or like Archery to steal tech.

Assimilation - I think it would be cleaner without the "I may repeat this demand" -- getting four actions for one is already insane, even with the mild compensation.

Clans - I tried to think of a better wording, then gave up.

Tilling - Should be "Draw and reveal..." If only innovation had the tech of "look at the top 3 [1]s" but alas, it doesn't.

Taxes - It's similar to mapmaking, but it just ... doesn't seem to have Mapmaking's potential. Mapmaking isn't exciting because it gets rid of your opponent's score 1 point at a time, it's exciting because it's conditionally (i.e. if your opponent pushed clothing or metalworking early) a fast, repeatable scorer, one that gets better the more piles are depleted. Taxes feels like, the demand effect is some minor thing that gets ignored, and maybe the second effect will help me. Mapmaking has a similar demand, but since it's tied to a strong second effect, I care about the demand. Taxes I would use if the second effect helps me, and probably not worry about my opponent's score too much, since killing score by 1 point is really a weak effect.

Great Walls - "Draw and reveal...". Also, the two effects should be the same effect - [T]: Choose a different color for every two [T] on your board. Draw and reveal two [2]. Score each revealed card that is a color you chose.

Archive - a better wording is [B ]: Splay left any one of your colors. Draw a card of value equal to the value of the top card of that color.
Also - Every other splay effect in the game has a "you may", is it intentional that this one doesn't?

Innovation General Discussion / Re: Beating Mathematics
« on: April 04, 2013, 07:29:49 pm »
Also, like in dominion, there is an element of luck as well. There will be games that you cannot win due to a poor draw of the cards on your part and a great draw of the cards on your opponent's part. Luckily, this does not happen often.

Innovation Articles / Re: Quick Reference of all the cards
« on: April 03, 2013, 07:46:49 pm »
Reading through this, I finally figured out why there feels like there are so few left-splays in the base game: Because so few cards have them! (I have personally never gotten Wonder via Invention)

The only cards that splay left in base are Code of Laws (slow), Philosophy (slow), Paper (decent, except that the other left-splays are kind of bad, otherwise it'd be really good), Feudalism (just plain bad esp. in a 2p game), and Engineering (situational). Compound this with the fact that your piles can often be only one card deep (or non-existent) early in the game.

Not to mention Invention's second effect is kind of unsynergetic with its first: If its second achievement-claiming effect wasn't there, you'd probably still get Wonder pretty soon once you've gotten your left splays to face right.

(shameless bump because I refer to this topic a lot)

Innovation General Discussion / Re: Base "popped": fan expansion
« on: April 03, 2013, 10:18:16 am »
You know, actually, I'm thinking I should simplify Lookout post to something like your earlier suggestion.

Stalling the game indefinitely would not be allowed.  On a casual level, people will be like, "stop being a dick, you have monument already, just name Clock".  On a competitive level, there would be an official specific rule about it, just like innovation needs an official specific rule to deal with Rocketry/Machine Tools stalemates.
At least rocketry/machine tools requires two people to agree that a stalemate is in their best interest.

Another clarification: Staves should either specify either "If you returned 5 cards this way [with this dogma action] or [this turn]"

Innovation General Discussion / Re: Base "popped": fan expansion
« on: April 03, 2013, 12:44:09 am »
For Lookout post: "If any card was revealed due to the demand, draw and reveal cards of value equal to the last card revealed this way until you reveal a card that shares an icon with it. Put that card into your hand and return the rest."

Staves: You still have to deal with the rules question of whether a player is allowed to indefinitely stall the game by refusing to name an icon that would allow him to draw the last age 1 card.

Scrolls: Sure, it's your call, either way the difference is minor.

Innovation General Discussion / Re: Base "popped": fan expansion
« on: April 02, 2013, 07:09:31 pm »
Lookout post: You can combine the last two effects. It won't make a significant difference in play, since any card skipped over the first time will be skipped over the second time. However, combining the two effects means players won't have to remember which cards they drew but can't keep. (I can imagine some guy playing this card for the first time, applying the dogma effects one line at a time, and then going 'oh crap i'm supposed to remember which cards I drew??')

Crop rotation: In any case, the "if" clause should go in front: If your score isn't zero, ...

Staves: idk, it just feels aesthetically "wrong" to be able to return the same card 5 times and claim the monument achievement. (Or returning the same card indefinitely by refusing to name the correct icon type)

Scrolls: It doesn't really matter either way, just that "draw and meld" is a pretty established pattern and you need a good reason to do something that's almost the same thing but not quite.
I realize now that your original wording means you can deviously share the third effect, but I'm not sure it's worth it.

Innovation General Discussion / Re: Base "popped": fan expansion
« on: April 02, 2013, 05:10:46 pm »
Lookout Post: I'm not sure if anyone would ever choose to transfer all cards, since revealing a card only means the demander only gets to draw 1 card (possibly of a higher age). There's also probably a better way to phrase the bottom part...
T: If any card was revealed due to the demand, draw and reveal [1]s until you reveal a card that shares an icon with a card revealed by the demand. Put that card into your hand and return the other revealed cards.
That said, I'm still having trouble seeing when "transfer all cards" is ever going to be chosen, unless they have only 1 card or something. (If they have 0 cards, the "reveal a card" option will fail too, so it makes no difference)
A perhaps-more-interesting option would be the following:
T: I demand you reveal your hand!
T: Draw a [1].

Ramps: It's pretty similar to Road Building minus the red-green transfer shenanigans. There are probably some fun things you could do by intentionally sharing this late in the game.
(Now that I say that, shouldn't this be true about Road Building as well? Actually, it's rare to be able to share a tower card lategame while having a top card with 3 towers on it. Hmmm....)

Crop rotation
L: If you have at least one card in your score pile, ... (gotta remember those bonuses, unless you really do mean you can draw two [1] if you have a bonus)

Ingenuity: Reminds me of mathematics. I question how useful it will be in practice though, since many cards with a B on them allow you to tech up by themselves anyway.

Storytelling: I feel this is really strong. Early, it develops your board while scoring (since tuck==meld when your color is empty), similar to clothing. Unlike clothing though, it's still useful late. It's probably better than agriculture most of the time.
I'd consider
L: Tuck a card from your hand. Score the top card of its color.
Mostly weaker but maybe has some fun shenanigans if strong things get tucked.

Territorialism: Seems incredibly situational. I'd probably only use it if I can get to an achievement before my opponent, but otherwise it seems that it will generally help your opponent especially since he gets to choose which card to meld. If your opponent doesn't have much of a choice, he either has (a) not many points, so why are you attacking his score pile, or (b) has only a couple of high-value cards in his score pile, in which case you're just giving him a powerful top card.
It's also interesting to note that no card actually lets you meld a single card from your score pile currently, what age would that be in?

Messengers: A potentially scarily fast scoring engine (that doesn't even slow you down, like agriculture/pottery!) once the low age cards are depleted. Compare to pottery: If N is your current age and all cards <N are depleted, pottery is score an [N] and net 0 cards in your hand, while this card is score an [N] and net 1 card in your hand. Sure the card you net is the worse of two options, but there are always uses for cards in hand.

Staves: Play it when the [1] deck has 1 card in it, instant monument.

Swimming: Why the clothing hate? It seems out of place.
The two other effects should be reversed, so that it's not possible for a player to end the action with zero top cards. No other age 1-2 card has the ability to leave a player with zero top cards.

Scrolls: I think it should just be "If any card was drawn due to the demand, draw and meld a card of value one higher than the last card drawn due to the demand". It's cleaner.
It's worse, yes, but age 1 cards aren't supposed to be amazing or anything.

C: Claim a standard achievement, if eligible.
C: You may return a top card from your board and draw two cards of value equal to the returned card.
C: You may return two cards of from your hand and draw and meld a card of value equal to the lower of the two returned cards

I think the third effect should be "You may return two cards of equal value from your hand and draw and meld a card of that value". It's minor.

Innovation General Discussion / Re: Saddest Innovation Moment
« on: April 01, 2013, 05:55:08 pm »
Well, melding a alchemy is worse, if you do not have castle at all.

Claiming World by translation is at least easier than claiming by 12 clocks. Generally, melding all cards from score pile do not help you to claim the "World", unless you get have a lot of cards in your score pile. It is easier if you just meld it from your hand.
Alchemy without another castle isn't necessarily terrible, as "meld a card then score a card" does have its uses.

is this like saying an early bought province scores the same amount of VP as a later bought province?
Maybe, except in this game the first province costs $2, the second $4, the third $6, ... Preventing your opponent from grabbing a cheap achievement is a good reason to get the achievement yourself!

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Buying Copper w/ Apothecary?
« on: August 13, 2012, 08:04:36 pm »
apocathary/scrying pool is pretty good if there isn't otherwise a different way to get rid of your copper. Apocathary to draw the coppers (and the potion) into your hand, and scrying pool's deck inspection is typically good enough to deal with your 3 estates. (But you wouldn't buy additional copper in this case)

Rules Questions / Re: Discarding 1 card to an opponent's Vault
« on: June 18, 2012, 12:57:26 am »
If a player has only one card in hand, and chooses to discard 2 cards, he does as much as possible (discard 1 card). Then the game asks, "Did he discard 2 cards?" The answer is no, so he doesn't get to draw a card.

The main point is that the phrase "If you do" means "If you performed the action" not "If you made the choice to perform the action"

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Really bad card ideas
« on: June 13, 2012, 02:03:19 am »
Inception $5
+1 card
+1 action
Play a sub-game of Dominion, using whatever cards are still left in the supply. If you win the sub-game, +cards equal to the number of players in the game.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Alternate First Game Kingdom
« on: May 26, 2012, 03:22:24 am »
Game 3: Chapel game. After playing nice the first two games and trying my best to let them win I blow their doors off with a simple Chapel -> BM strategy. It may sound sinister, but it teaches them a valuable lesson and really helps them graduate from noob to beginner.

But regular BM beats Chapel-BM, doesn't it?  Or at the very least, Chapel is far from the best X for BM+X.

Nah, chapel-BM beats just plain ol' BM, but not by that much. The main issue is that most players with only two games under their belt can't beat BM anyway.

Dominion Articles / Re: tactics: turning off the autopilot
« on: May 15, 2012, 12:17:52 am »
autoplay all my peddlers, oops, there's my salvager...

I agree that Spice Merchant is probably the card to skip. Remake is better at early trashing (although as you found out, kind of poor at late game trashing) and you want copper fodder for your Stables anyway.

Dominion Articles / Re: Questions about Gardens
« on: April 26, 2012, 02:27:39 pm »
I played a Gardens game the other day with a combo that's probably well known, but I hadn't considered:

Bureaucrat/Gardens - It's a pseudo buy, and puts silvers into your deck, allowing you to keep up your average card value. I bought 4 before greening, although I imagine mileage may vary. You still have to be concerned with where to empty piles, (Gardens, possibly Estates, and X) - Although perhaps switching off Gardens back to a few more Bureaucrat's mid game once your deck is a bit more stuffed might do well, especially in a non-mirror matchup.

With B-crat I've always been paranoid that the opponent might somehow create a engine that can play multiple B-crats per turn and lock down the Gardens deck, although in practice it doesn't happen. Trader is an even better silver-gainer for a Gardens strategy.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Am I right to be upset?
« on: April 22, 2012, 11:00:19 pm »
I think people have to realize is that Embargo's text does not say "Players can't buy this pile for the rest of the game", it says that you take a curse for buying that pile. I think scores would have been a lot closer if you just sucked it up and took a curse with that Silver (You can even get rid of Curses with Ambassador). The level of swinginess is on par with if someone played a Witch in 3p, but the other opponent had a Moat and you didn't.

Also, I probably would have preferred Amb/Amb or Amb/Silver over Amb/Sea Hag given your description of the board.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Math request: Nomad Camp
« on: April 17, 2012, 01:02:17 pm »
This is annoying me, because I can't find the main source material that we used way back when to prove this. However:

Problem 18.5. (Do a ctrl+f) is designed to get you to exactly the right section, or:

"Problem 18.5.
I have a deck of 52 regular playing cards, 26 red, 26 black, randomly shuffled. They all lie face down in the deck so that you canít see them. I will draw a card off the top of the deck and turn it face up so that you can see it and then put it aside. I will continue to turn up cards like this but at some point while there are still cards left in the deck, you have to declare that you want the next card in the deck to be turned up. If that next card turns up black you win and otherwise you lose. Either way, the game is then over.

(a) Show that if you take the first card before you have seen any cards, you then have probability 1/2 of winning the game.

(b) Suppose you donít take the first card and it turns up red. Show that you have then have a probability of winning the game that is greater than 1/2.

(c) If there are r red cards left in the deck and b black cards, show that the probability of winning in you take the next card is b/(r + b).

(d) Either,
1. come up with a strategy for this game that gives you a probability of winning strictly greater than 1/2 and prove that the strategy works, or,
2. come up with a proof that no such strategy can exist."

Point (D) 2. is asked because, against intuition, the only proof that exists is one showing that no strategy can exist, that is, your odds never change. They were determined at the outset.

This is correct, but it is not the same situation here. In order to buy Nomad Camp you must have CCCCE in your first hand. This is akin to, in the above problem, saying you don't even get to play the game unless the first card turns up red; in this case, you will easily have higher than a 50% probability of winning.

Or, think of it this way: Take 3 coppers and two estates, and shuffle them. Then pick up 4 coppers and an estate from the supply. (You do this because if your first hand is not CCCCE you can't buy the Nomad Camp). What is the probability that the bottom card of the deck is an estate?

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Cache use?
« on: April 13, 2012, 12:29:55 pm »
Try opening Cache/?? on a 5/2 split with no other strong strategy that pops out at you. It's much stronger than you might think. (And you don't have to worry about the ?? being a terminal, either. Use pawn's +1 card/+$1 without fear!)

Pages: [1] 2 3

Page created in 0.044 seconds with 19 queries.