Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

76

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Should I buy Adventures now, or wait for the reprint?

« on: May 10, 2015, 11:48:33 pm »

Am I the only one who finds sitting down and sleeving a bunch of cards to be therapeutic?

I love it, too. Now that I have all the expansions I'm kinda bummed I won't be sleeving anything anytime soon.

Start playing a CCG and you can sleeve cards forever.

77

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Should I buy Adventures now, or wait for the reprint?

« on: May 10, 2015, 10:51:18 pm »

Am I the only one who finds sitting down and sleeving a bunch of cards to be therapeutic?

78

Dominion FAQ / Re: How many sleeves do I need?

« on: May 08, 2015, 02:06:49 am »

I counted 2794.
That's all the Kingdom cards (including Promos), one set of Base Cards, all the Base/special cards from expansions (Platinum, Potion, Prizes, Ruins etc), no Events, no randomisers.

I don't really see how you can get away with sleeving some of them, but not all of them, given that sometimes even the Copper pile runs out.
Unless you specifically mean not sleeving the second set of Base cards from Intrigue.

(Edited because I forgot to add Prizes).

79

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Homage to the Best Card

« on: May 07, 2015, 08:41:18 pm »

That would be Sir Richard Francis Burton, of course.

80

Other Games / Re: Kickstarter Games of Interest

« on: May 07, 2015, 12:14:00 am »

The Titan Series is an interesting concept, but I think it is a huge upfront commitment which expects backers to take a little too much on faith.
I mean, there are some pretty established names there, so I guess we can expect high quality games but, as you say, there is so little specific information about each.

And, even though it might save you quite a bit on the retail price, paying $145 up-front for a set of purchases that will dribble in over the course of 4 years is not very appealing at all.
That's assuming that it doesn't have the sort of schedule-creep that is almost inevitable for Kickstarter campaigns, especially a massively collaborative effort like this.

Oh, yeah, and the stated aim is for a set of "casual, family friendly, gateway games".
I think this is at odds with appealing to the sort of hard-core gamer demographic who might actually be interested in investing money up-front for a board games subscription.

81

Rules Questions / Re: +Card token and when-you-play

« on: May 06, 2015, 10:51:27 am »

Ah, resolving start of turn actions separately does indeed make a practical reason to track TR-Haven/Gear.

Sorry for the diversion, I think your question was a better one which I'd like to hear the answer to.

82

Rules Questions / Re: +Card token and when-you-play

« on: May 06, 2015, 01:51:03 am »

Related situation: You play Gear, setting aside zero cards. Gear will normally be discarded next clean-up. But then you play RC, replaying Gear, this time setting aside one or more cards. What happens? Probably Gear gets modified to stay out after all. Does RC also stay out? It did set up a future effect, but there's only one total future effect, and Gear will (presumably) be tracking that.

Related question: Suppose you play TR-Gear and set aside cards only on one play.  Is there a difference between setting cards aside on the first play vs. on the second play?

Or, just to muddy the waters even further, if you play TR-Gear and set aside one card per play you have two set-aside cards which can be resolved according to the text of a single Gear card.
Does the TR really need to stay out in order to keep track of this?

Actually, for that matter, if you play TR-Gear and set aside all four cards, you don't really need the TR to tell you what the set-aside cards are set-aside for.
From a purely tracking point-of-view, just leaving out the Gear card should cover it.

I mean, it makes sense to leave out the TR when you play it on, say, a Wharf.
You absolutely need it there to remind you that you draw four extra cards and get two extra buys on your next turn, from a purely practical standpoint.

Gear doesn't have a duplicated effect to keep track of at the beginning of your next turn, you simply take into hand however many cards you set aside.
So, why would you ever need to leave out the TR for Gear?

If you TR Gear, setting aside 2 cards each time, 2 go under Gear, and 2 go under TR.  Same deal as with Haven.

Okay, I forgot there was some precedence for this with Haven, but the question is: why?
As I said, it makes sense to keep TR out when you need it to keep track of something intangible, like the number of cards you draw, but slipping two cards under Haven or four cards under Gear seems like a perfectly acceptable way of keeping track of those extra cards.
It makes it seem like the TR being left out is a deliberate penalty, rather than a mechanism for tracking an effect.

83

Rules Questions / Re: +Card token and when-you-play

« on: May 05, 2015, 11:43:20 pm »

Related situation: You play Gear, setting aside zero cards. Gear will normally be discarded next clean-up. But then you play RC, replaying Gear, this time setting aside one or more cards. What happens? Probably Gear gets modified to stay out after all. Does RC also stay out? It did set up a future effect, but there's only one total future effect, and Gear will (presumably) be tracking that.

Related question: Suppose you play TR-Gear and set aside cards only on one play.  Is there a difference between setting cards aside on the first play vs. on the second play?

Or, just to muddy the waters even further, if you play TR-Gear and set aside one card per play you have two set-aside cards which can be resolved according to the text of a single Gear card.
Does the TR really need to stay out in order to keep track of this?

Actually, for that matter, if you play TR-Gear and set aside all four cards, you don't really need the TR to tell you what the set-aside cards are set-aside for.
From a purely tracking point-of-view, just leaving out the Gear card should cover it.

I mean, it makes sense to leave out the TR when you play it on, say, a Wharf.
You absolutely need it there to remind you that you draw four extra cards and get two extra buys on your next turn, from a purely practical standpoint.

Gear doesn't have a duplicated effect to keep track of at the beginning of your next turn, you simply take into hand however many cards you set aside.
So, why would you ever need to leave out the TR for Gear?

84

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Male and female cards (again)

« on: May 05, 2015, 02:20:10 am »

I just noticed this after years of Dominion, but there's an unambiguous female on Expand.

If the square jaw on Thief isn't unambiguously male, the long hair on Expand certainly isn't unambiguously female.

85

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What is your favorite new card from Adventures?

« on: May 04, 2015, 07:30:21 pm »

I haven't had a chance to play yet, but I think Transmogrify will just be heaps of fun.
Great engine enabler and a nice insurance policy against terminal collision.

Honourable mention to Guide, which tackles the same problem of drawing a useless hand in a slightly less subtle way.

86

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Name a card that fits its name

« on: May 03, 2015, 06:52:45 pm »

IIRC that was the isotropic art, too.

87

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Quality of card images on wiki

« on: April 29, 2015, 12:40:24 am »

The problem with that is that Goko doesn't include illustrator names or the RGG copyright.

Why on earth would they not? It's not like it's that much harder to have that information accessible.

Besides, it's still RGG's property and still the illustrator's art... 

I presume that they don't include it because it would be illegible at many monitor resolutions.
Is there a credits screen somewhere?

In fact, looking at those Caravan scans above, it's already not super easy to read the illustrators name and those cards look huge on my monitor.

88

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: April 27, 2015, 01:35:20 am »

What was the wording on Royal Carriage that created an infinite loop?

89

Dominion: Adventures Previews / Re: Crazy Adventures Tricks (probably not combos)

« on: April 26, 2015, 10:27:05 pm »

I like the idea of top-decking a trasher on turn one using Travelling Fair.
Amulet works well if we're sticking to Adventures cards.

Otherwise, I picture myself top-decking a Chapel on a 5/2 and cackling maniacally as I trash a Copper and my three starting Estates on turn two.
_{Then recklessly trashing four Coppers on turn three and crying when I realise what I have done.}

90

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: April 26, 2015, 09:16:04 pm »

Why is the strong nuclear interaction invariant to parity and charge conjugation?

91

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Name a card that fits its name

« on: April 26, 2015, 08:32:12 pm »

Choose one:
Graverobber; or
Graverobber

92

Dominion: Adventures Previews / Re: No Smithy?

« on: April 23, 2015, 10:29:31 pm »

Gear's deferral is optional!  You can choose to set aside 2 cards, or just 1 card, or no cards at all.

Oh, I completely overlooked the words "up to".
Man, that card is suddenly so much better than I thought it was.

I think you also need to consider Expedition as well.
If you have a source of +buy and plenty of money you can add two extra cards to your starting hand every turn.

In the presence of Expedition, Grand Market+Peddler = 2*Caravan

...doesn't sound all that great.

Well, it's not something that's going to be the entire basis of your strategy, but it is a way to add extra draw to your deck.

In reality, Expedition is almost certainly just going to be something you buy on those occasions when you have $3 to spend and you don't really want any of the available $3 cards.
Given how frequently this seems to occur though, I think Expedition is going to be a nice Event to have available.
Also, it pairs outrageously well with Mission if you have a source of +buy.

93

Dominion: Adventures Previews / Re: No Smithy?

« on: April 23, 2015, 10:02:22 pm »

Cornucopia has nothing even remotely like a Smithy variant.

I think Followers is at least remotely like a Smithy variant.

I guess mostly what I'm thinking is that engine building is not clear and obvious like it was in the past.

In cornucopia, you could buy lots of hunting parties to know you'll have a big hand; in Alchemy it was alchemists.  In other sets, there was always a village and a big draw.  (In Seaside it was Wharf which was little-but-secretly-big draw)

Here none of the terminal draw quite seems strong enough to just start buying with villages.  If we're going the Lab Route, we can get Lost Cities (which are super strong I know) but don't quite feel like engine-glue in the same way. 

Thinking it through now, I guess the thing that's making it make more sense is noticing that Lost Cities + Gear is effectively the same a Village+Smithy, so the basic pieces are still there.

So, you're really looking for a card that can consistently draw a large number of cards into your hand (when paired with a village if it's terminal).

I guess by that definition maybe Storyteller is the closest match?

Haunted Woods and Gear both defer your draw to your next turn, but if you can get to the point where you are playing one (or more) every turn you have a pretty decent engine going.

Ranger definitely draws big, but obviously lacks consistency.
Works better when throned (or Royal Carriaged).

You could also count Hireling.
It's expensive to set up, but if you can get multiples you have the very definition of consistent draw.
Ferry is a good enabler for this.

And if you're counting other non-terminals like Alchemist, you can't really ignore Lost City.

I think you also need to consider Expedition as well.
If you have a source of +buy and plenty of money you can add two extra cards to your starting hand every turn.

94

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Definition of Combo discussion

« on: April 23, 2015, 07:02:26 pm »

In any case, pure dictionary definitions aren't great for this discussion.  If we do that, we can say any two cards make a combo whether they work together or not, because the definition of "combo" is "any combination".

Exactly. Pure dictionary definitions don't work.
Context matters.
Which is why I felt the need to explain what I thought the definition of combo was in the context of Dominion strategy.

Clearly my concept of that contextual definition differs from some other people's, which is fine.
The thing I have difficulty with is advocating the view that synergy should mean "any cards that work well together" and combo should mean "any cards that work well together".
Isn't it useful to the discussion to have different words mean different things?

(Again, in the context of Dominion strategy discussion, obviously it's okay for words to have synonyms generally).

95

Dominion: Adventures Previews / Re: Adventures Non-standard Openings

« on: April 22, 2015, 11:41:54 pm »

Yeah, I quite like that aspect of a lot of "friendly interaction" cards, that there is a certain skill in finding the right way or the right timing to help your opponent in a way that maximises your benefit and minimises theirs.

Messenger provides an even more strategic version of this.
Finding the right card to gain with Messenger that you know you'll get better use out of than your opponent is going to be tricky.

96

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Definition of Combo discussion

« on: April 22, 2015, 10:47:30 pm »

As the antagonist in this drama, I am willing to accept that correcting someone's definition or otherwise trying to impose a particular definition is probably the wrong way to go about it.
However, I think it is always useful to make sure that everyone is on the same page regarding what it is they are actually discussing.

The reason I felt the need to define the word combo in the Storyteller+Bank thread is because I could already see the discussion degrading into an argument where each person was using a different definition of the word.
Basically an argument might look like this:

Person A: It is a combo!
Person B: It isn't a combo!

When actually the argument is really going down like this:

Person A: It is a synergy!
Person B: It isn't a strategy!

So, without clarifying what each person means by "combo" they could end up arguing endlessly, despite the fact that they fundamentally agree with each other. They might easily both be able to agree that those two cards have an excellent synergy, but not really enough to define an entire strategy.

But, yes, it's probably not good form to be so prescriptive in pronouncing a definition.
I guess the better way of doing it is to ask the person to expand on their meaning, rather than telling them they're using a term incorrectly (according to your own meaning).

97

Dominion: Adventures Previews / Re: Adventures Non-standard Openings

« on: April 22, 2015, 10:19:29 pm »

I agree now. I was envisioning a weaker board when I made that point. So the question is would you buy it against silver, and also how about as player 2 on turn 2.

Yeah, I think "it depends on the board" always applies.
And for player two it is less of a risk playing it on turn two.

The other thing that makes it tricky is that you're going to really want Lost City in your deck.
If there are any decent attacks or other key terminal cards out there, the choice is easy and you buy those first, but if there are no other good options at $5 it's going to be a hard one to pass up.

98

Dominion: Adventures Previews / Re: New mechanics

« on: April 22, 2015, 07:16:51 am »

Actually just realized the same question exists with Remake (which I've always pronounced as a noun), though the difference is less... pronounced if you will - and somehow we've all survived.

Hmm... I think this must be a regional thing, because to me the verb remake and the noun remake have identical pronunciation. I can't work out where the difference would be. Do you say one with a shorter E sound?

99

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Storyteller + Bank?

« on: April 22, 2015, 07:04:46 am »

Yeah, fair enough.

I think another big challenge with Storyteller in general is knowing when to stop. Because it uses up all your money when you play it, it would be easy to draw your deck only to realise you don't have enough treasure left to spend. It's a weird situation where your payload is also fuel for your engine, but it can't be both at the same time.

100

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Storyteller + Bank?

« on: April 22, 2015, 06:24:27 am »

Sorry, but having witnessed a massive argument over whether some combination of cards have a "synergy" or a "special synergy" I kind of think establishing definitions is helpful. I didn't mean to be condescending.

The way I read microman's reply was "I disagree that this isn't a combo, because these cards work really well together". And, well, as far as I can gather that's a synergy, not a combo.