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.

1851

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Need help with card concept

« on: August 16, 2018, 10:02:06 am »

How about reducing the ability a bit to make it quicker?
Eg When you would shuffle your deck, remove up to 4 cards from it, shuffle the rest, then place 2 on the top and 2 at the bottom.
That's enough to set-up a village-smithy at the top of your deck and send a couple of stop cards to the bottom.

1852

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Arbitrarily order a kingdom pile then return game to starting conditions?

« on: August 16, 2018, 05:43:07 am »

I have no idea if this is possible, but I thought I'd throw it out there in case anyone wants to try:

The goal is to reorder a kingdom pile, such as interleaving a split pile, or sorting the Knights alphabetically, then return the game to its initial state (aside from that pile).

If it's not possible, how close can you get?

I don't think you can reorder the Castles pile and get back to the initial game state - there's no way of returning the +1VP you get from gaining Crumbling Castle.
[EDIT: Actually maybe it is possible... if Crumbling Castle is gained on a Possessed turn then no-one gets the +1VP token, right?].

No, Possessor gains, and she takes 1vp.

Ah, ok, yes I suppose that makes sense. I was just going with the FAQ "You do not get any other tokens [other than debt] that player would have gotten". But of course the Possessor gets the VP token as a result of gaining Crumbling Castle.

So in conclusion, the original challenge can be done for any kingdom pile other than Castles and Encampment/Plunder.

1853

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV

« on: August 15, 2018, 09:57:22 am »

The funny thing is that, if the door that is revealed to have a goat was chosen randomly, then it doesn’t make any difference whether you swap doors or not, you have a 50% chance either way. It’s only because the host guarantees that he will open a door with a goat behind it that the odds are skewed in favour of swapping doors.

*upvote*

That's exactly right. And if it is unspecified how the door was chosen, the problem actually doesn't have a right answer. Wikipedia acknowledges this (at least by now).

There are reasonable assumptions you can make though. The puzzle presumes that this always happens in all scenarios. Since 2/3 of the scenarios would involve having the car behind one of the two doors, the revealed goat cannot be randomly chosen.

But if the scenario is such that the car can be revealed by the host, then that does imply that the door is chosen randomly.

It boils down to whether there are reasonable assumptions for the puzzle. Since this is based on a real event, has there ever been a case where the host reveals the car?

It's the difference between the host saying:
(i) "I'm going to open this door here... oh look, there's a goat, that's interesting."
(ii) "I'm going to open this door here which has a goat behind it."

True, the host does always reveal a goat, so they are in fact doing (ii), but it might not be clear to a first-time viewer whether the host is doing (i) or (ii).

1854

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV

« on: August 15, 2018, 07:50:16 am »

I once had an internship at this tech company, and the IT guy was trying to convince me that since it could either rain or not rain (two outcomes), the chance of rain was always 50% and weather reports were nonsense.

You can extend that kind of reasoning to prove that there is life outside our galaxy.
Chance of Cows outside our galaxy? Don't really know, two options, call it 50%.
Chance of Pigs? 50%
Chance of Trees? 50%
...
Chance of lifeform n? 50%

Chance of none of them? Well that would be (0.5)^n, which tends to 0 as n increases.
Therefore it's pretty much certain there's at least one lifeform existing outside our galaxy... what do you mean 'they're not independent'?!

1855

Rules Questions / Re: Self-Pin?

« on: August 15, 2018, 03:19:10 am »

It's viable if you Donate everything except Possession.

Unless your opponent did the same

1856

Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Re: Dominion: Renaissance on RGG's website

« on: August 13, 2018, 05:44:38 am »

Conversely, I prefer coin tokens to Coffers. So if an upgrade pack is ever made, and anyone wants to get rid of some first-edition cards in good condition, please get in touch!

So, maybe a request for a 'downgrade pack' for Renaissance, consisting of those Renaissance cards that refer to 'coffers' changed to refer to 'coin tokens' instead?

1857

Forum Games / Re: BM26 Cryptography Mafia

« on: July 26, 2018, 10:02:07 am »

This is building like the slowest wagon I have ever seen.

Another interesting quirk of this setup is that people who post encrypted messages will be posting something that even the mod can't read!

For accountability, should all players reveal their private keys after the game is over? I mean, I don't think anyone would cheat anyway but it would be trivial for town to coordinate a private key claim using encrypted messages and you wouldn't have any idea that the entire town is secretly ICing themselves.

Further, you may need to rule that the only cryptography that is allowed is via a single private key that will be revealed at game end.

1858

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What cards are less effective if you don't play them before the 2nd reshuffle?

« on: July 24, 2018, 06:08:42 am »

Now I'm trying to think of a card that's better when it misses the first shuffle.

Scout?

1859

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Arbitrarily order a kingdom pile then return game to starting conditions?

« on: July 20, 2018, 05:22:17 am »

I have no idea if this is possible, but I thought I'd throw it out there in case anyone wants to try:

The goal is to reorder a kingdom pile, such as interleaving a split pile, or sorting the Knights alphabetically, then return the game to its initial state (aside from that pile).

If it's not possible, how close can you get?

I don't think you can reorder the Castles pile and get back to the initial game state - there's no way of returning the +1VP you get from gaining Crumbling Castle.
[EDIT: Actually maybe it is possible... if Crumbling Castle is gained on a Possessed turn then no-one gets the +1VP token, right?].

1860

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Arbitrarily order a kingdom pile then return game to starting conditions?

« on: July 20, 2018, 04:47:55 am »

Overlords/BoMs as Lighthouse and Ambassador, then as Encampment to return them to the supply.

So this allows almost any supply pile to be reordered arbitrarily, with one exception: You can't reorder the Encampment/Plunder pile in such a way that a Plunder ends up on top, because then you can't play the Overlords/BoMs as Encampments to return them at the end.

Is there another way to return the Overlords/BoMs?

1861

Rules Questions / Re: "in play" on Royal Carriage

« on: July 19, 2018, 07:27:52 am »

I Inherit Crown

I love threads that begin like this.

1862

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Best cards to learn specific rules?

« on: July 18, 2018, 11:07:47 am »

Are we after cards that will allow us to say "aha, caught you out you did that wrong, you have to follow rule X"?

I'd rather see examples of cards which encourage a new player to appreciate a rule, rather than trip them up with it. 'Nice' teaching.

The OP examples are 'nice' like that - "ah, I get to choose to play my Bank last and get more money, that makes me happy".

1863

Dominion General Discussion / Re: How long it takes you to decide your strategy when playing online?

« on: July 11, 2018, 08:39:48 am »

Thinking about strategy before opening is one of my favourite aspects of Dominion, but I generally take my first turn in a minute or less because I assume my opponent probably wants to get on with it.

Following the discussion here, I think in future I'll be open to opportunities to take a bit longer over my first turn. I'll copy-paste something in chat, like "do you mind if I take a few minutes thinking about this board?" Then if I'm up against a like-minded opponent I can enjoy maybe 3-5 minutes of pre-game analysis. If not then I'll just get on with it.

Even on boards where I can choose a good strategy quickly, it may be interesting to look a little longer. Is there a way to get a small edge if (when) my opponent plays the same strategy? Or, if I'm feeling less competitive and more experimental, is there something new here I could try out?

1864

Rules Questions / Re: Duplicate + spirits

« on: July 10, 2018, 09:04:15 am »

It’s really a simple premise (if not a simple implementation): if a card says you’ll do something and you don’t end up doing that, say that it didn’t happen.

I have no problem with the suggestion that the log could clarify that something didn't happen, and why.

Originally you gave two suggestions:

Would be cool if the note changed to something like: “You May... call a Duplicate (you won’t gain anything)” to make clear what’s happening here, or a line in the log saying “Gaining X Failed (Not In Supply)”.

I am against the former and pro the latter.
I am agreeing with the views expressed by Cave-o-sapien and GendoIkari that warning players in advance of unintended consequences would be awkward.

1865

Rules Questions / Re: Duplicate + spirits

« on: July 10, 2018, 07:43:20 am »

You don’t need “you won’t not gain anything” when you would gain something; just the absence of a note saying you wouldn’t. I’m really missing your point here.

My point is that in order to provide warnings, you have to second-guess what the player was expecting would happen, and in many circumstances that is tricky.

Suppose I've got used to Upgrading Coppers just to trash them and gain nothing; that is what I expect to happen when I Upgrade a Copper.
But then I have a turn with a Highway in play and Upgrade a Copper, and it turns out that I'm forced to gain an Estate; that is the unexpected thing that I would like to have been warned about.

1866

Rules Questions / Re: Duplicate + spirits

« on: July 10, 2018, 05:46:08 am »

Would be cool if the note changed to something like: “You May... call a Duplicate (you won’t gain anything)” to make clear what’s happening here, or a line in the log saying “Gaining X Failed (Not In Supply)”.

I think the latter option is best.

I'd rather have the log better explain what happened according to the rules than start down the road of warning players of unintended consequences.

Why?

Well, if you go with the former option, you have to decide on a case-by-case basis when to warn a player and when to not. Most people might agree that calling a Duplicate for no gain is worth warning a player, but there are so many other things where it might not be as obvious.

It would be kind of friendly to have such warnings, but it would surely just get confusing/annoying and there would be cases where it is not clear which is the 'expected' behaviour and which is the one to warn about. Eg when Upgrading a Copper, would you have a warning saying "(you won't gain anything)"? What about Upgrading a Copper with a Highway in play: "(you won't not gain anything)"

On the other hand, Lord Rattington might find all sorts of warnings quite helpful.
Chapel: "Confirm Trashing (your score will decrease by 24VP)"
Vault/Torturer: "Confirm Discard (if you keep choosing this you may start to feel like rage quitting)"

1867

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Why I'm quitting Dominion for the foreseeable future (not satire)

« on: July 09, 2018, 07:40:05 am »

RNG

Random number generator?

No, the Raniganj railway station.

Now that is quite remarkable. You know, all that stuff about shuffle luck, opening splits, and the chances of a particular three-card combo coming up in a full-random game... and you're saying that there's this railway station that is somehow determining all of that, for every game of Dominion ever?
Who was it who said 'you make your own shuffle luck'? Did he build that railway station or something?

1868

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Ruined cards

« on: July 09, 2018, 04:35:36 am »

I am not happy with the name, as Dominion mnemonic suggests that such a card should trash a card and gain another one related in value to the trashed card.

Otherwise I would think that in some boards we'd have a Dame Josephine of ruins that no one wants, such as Library in a kingdom where splitters are scarce.

Is that a comment on this post?

New Looter suggestion...
Restore (Action Attack Looter, Costs 5): Each other player gains a Ruins. Gain an un-ruined card corresponding to one of them. (The card you gain may come from the supply or the box).

And then of course the corresponding Ruin:
Underfunded Restoration: Each player (including you) gains a Ruins.

I agree that Restore is not a good name there; like you say it sounds like it should be in the remodel/rebuild/remake and also not an attack-y sort of card.
The idea behind the card was to make a real link between the 'good' cards and the 'ruined' versions we're all coming up with. Restoring a ruin to its original state.

Maybe we could have:
Restore (Action-Looter, Costs 3): Trash a Ruins from your hand. Gain the un-ruined version of it.

And the corresponding Ruin:
Underfunded Restoration: Trash a Ruins from your hand. Gain a Ruins.

Now Restore kind of fits the remodel/rebuild/remake family (except that it cares about name instead of cost).

1869

Rules Questions / Re: Self-Pin?

« on: July 06, 2018, 03:49:42 am »

How about buying some Curses first, then donate everything except the Curses... nice to still have some cards to draw during clean-up each turn, and you can use those Curses to prevent your opponent Mountebank-ing you any nasty Coppers.

1870

Dominion General Discussion / Re: If Iron cards were made today would Night give you buys?

« on: July 05, 2018, 10:18:01 am »

Duration doesn have the “stay out” rule attached (that’s why Possession does not stay out but Outpost does). But even with that rule attached, it doesn’t feel like nearly as primary a rule as when you can play a card.

Ok, right, so I think adding "Duration" to Possession would cause it to stay out, which shows that "Duration" is not merely a reminder. But a change like that would be similar to adding "Attack" to Council Room (or any other card) - it would change some things but wouldn't change anything as fundamental as when you can play the card.

(By the way, I got really thrown by your "doesn" - read it as 'doesn't', but actually you mean 'does' right? what a way to hedge your bets!)

1871

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: July 05, 2018, 03:55:41 am »

Anyone seen Donald recently?

Maybe we should get back to questions, or take the discussion elsewhere.
I think this is a great thread and am really impressed that Donald has the patience to be answering questions for us still nearly 6 years after the interview started. Thanks Donald.

Question for Donald:
Have you come across any other game designer engaging so much with a community that plays their game? For you, was it a deliberate decision to get so involved, or did it just happen?

1872

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Ruined cards

« on: July 05, 2018, 03:44:26 am »

Idle Duchess: In games using this, when you gain a Duchy, you may gain an Idle Duchess.

1873

Dominion General Discussion / Re: If Iron cards were made today would Night give you buys?

« on: July 05, 2018, 03:26:56 am »

To me, Night is clearly a “Basic type”; but as it’s only part of 1 expansion, the Wiki seems fine to keep it with the other single-expansion types.

I see Basic types as types that have rules attached to cards telling you what you can do with them. This means these types:

Action (you can play this during the action phase)
Treasure (you can play this during the buy phase)
Night (you can play this during the night phase)
Victory (you count this in your score at the end of the game)

I’d include Curse also, because the type also tells you to count it in your score at the end of the game. It could have technically just been a VP card for the exact same effect, but that would have been more confusing for people.

All the other types exist for convenience, either to remind you of something (duration, reserve, reaction); or to allow mechanics to to involve types (attack, knight, castle).

I think that's a good summary.

Some questions for clarification:
- Does "Duration" have rules attached? i.e. is it "Duration cards stay out until the clean-up phase of the last turn in which they do something", or is it "Cards stay out until the clean-up phase of the last turn in which they do something (and 'Duration' is just there as a helpful reminder)"?
- It almost follows from your summary that every card must have at least one basic type, otherwise you can't do anything with it. But in order for that to be true we would need to include "Reaction" as a basic type. Do you think "Reaction" should be a basic type? i.e. "Reaction (you can do things with this in the particular situations described on the card)".

[EDIT: So with your list of basic types, I think Hovel is the only published card without a basic type. But actually, even if "Reaction" were to be counted as a basic type, we could still potentially have a card without any basic type. Eg Duchess without the above-the-line bit. Or more simply the Confusion cards Donald has referred to in secret histories.]

1874

Dominion Articles / Re: Making the Most of Your Turns

« on: July 03, 2018, 06:43:09 am »

Be aware of the impact your turn is having on your opponent's hand

There are lots of ways of applying this, but here is one example:
If you intend to play some Council Rooms and Militias this turn, consider playing some of the Militias before some of the Council Rooms, rather than leaving all the Militias to the end. The advantages include:
- force your opponent to choose their discards with less information
- cause your opponent's weak cards to get shuffled in rather than missing their shuffle
- reduce the chance of you opponent having useful reactions in hand when you play the Militias

1875

Dominion General Discussion / Re: If Iron cards were made today would Night give you buys?

« on: July 03, 2018, 04:21:31 am »

In terms of Night being a Nocturne only thing, I'm actually curious to see if it will be. New card types are one of the only things that do seem to stick across multiple expansions. I.e. Duration cards.

According to http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Card_types, we have:

Basic types:
Action • Treasure • Victory • Curse
Multi-expansion special types:
Attack • Duration • Reaction
Single-expansion special types:
Prize • Shelter • Ruins • Looter • Knight • Reserve • Traveller • Gathering • Castle • Night • Heirloom • Fate • Doom • Spirit • Zombie

Lots of special card types. The things that makes "Night" stand out from the other special types are:
- it is the only one that appears on cards on its own. (Note that we could also theoretically have a pure "Reaction" card, but we don't.)
- it is the only one that comes with its own turn phase.

Of the single-expansion types, "Night" does seem the most likely to reappear in future expansions. (Apart from "Night", I reckon "Reserve" and "Traveller" stand the best chances).

How Basic is Night?
Are Dominion turns "4-phase", or "3-phase + Night phase"?

[EDIT: Removed the link to Baldrick learning addition].