So, I assume, it's generally wise to do this, if possible.
What does the X stand for?It's a variable. The unknown.
That would be American football. I do like soccer, but not as much as football. (Fantasy soccer does exist, but I don't think you can join proper leagues where you draft players.)
Ok I'll pass then, my knowledge of American football is probably too limited!
(there are thousands of fantasy leagues for all major sports, both free and charging. Not quite sure why people are seeming thinking it's limited to just specific sports!)
Well, fantasy football holds a very unique place in American culture, something I don't think fantasy soccer possibly replicates in the UK or any other country.
I'd be down for it.
It seems like the more bloated your deck, the more you want spoils. The downside of spoils is that it's one-shot. The longer it will take to cycle, the better it is.
Dark Ages: Fortress is a pretty fun defense against Knights.
The farther you are into the game, the less value that silver is going to give you.
I was under the impression that Silver gave $2 throughout the game.
Imagine that the game is almost over, and you're only going through your deck once more. Then Spoils is definitely better than Silver, right? The fact that it goes away doesn't matter, because you're only seeing them each once anyways. If you've still got 10 shuffles left, though, the Silver is going to appear 10(ish) times, where the Spoils would only appear the once.
So, the later in the game you are, the less times the Silver gets to appear, making the downside of Spoils less relevant.
But, when you're greening and no longer buying gold, silver is better ...
I'm interested in this. But reading the rules is horrible. Maybe you want to replace the HTML.
is a "technology card" any card that has a tech cost?
Absolutely. He's one of the better age A leaders in a vacuum, and leaders are definitely a strong opening play.
COUNT.
It's simple, easy to use an does exactly what it says.
Also, genetic linkage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_linkage#LOD_score_method_for_estimating_recombination_frequency
Since I'm not seeing the word logistic in there, are you willing to explain how OD/LOD is related to the logistic function? I did linkage analysis for about a year and a half and always simply treated it as a Bayesian probability analysis.
(Granted, the word Bayesian isn't in that article either, which makes me less than impressed with that WP article).
Another: Store names with bad grammar annoy me. I mean, in Dutch, we append the letter s without an apostrophe (if possible) to show property, like "Berts Winkel" to show that it's a shop (winkel) owned by Bert. But, suffering from over Anglicization perhaps, often it will turn into "Bert's Winkel". The thing that bothers me is not only that the owner didn't know the correct form, but also roughly 80% of the people think it's correct!
To me, the worst is when people unnecessarily put things in "quotes". WTF are you doing?
Would all players be ok with going in geographical order like in the other game, so that (ipofanes and Tables) and (cayvie and Jorbles) have their turn after each other each, randomizing inside the pairings and randomizing starting player?
It's odd really. I know logistic functions well from teaching so many semesters of differential equations, but I never used them elsewhere when I was a student, nor do I ever use them in my research. I hope that some of you use this stuff, and that it's more than just a contrived plaything for my students.
I don't think that "always buy attacks" is a good rule of thumb, but I do think that it's important to be aware of all the attacks when you plan your strategy. One easy pitfall to fall into when you're new to the game is to only think about your own deck and your own turns and ignore the effects of interaction. At the start of the game, it can be useful to think, for each attack card, "what will I do if he buys this attack?". If you can't think of something good, maybe you should go for that attack in your strategy.
