Like Peasant, it's not monolithic because you need other cards to win, but it's trashing, and maybe it's the best trashing and you have to go for it with a dumb double or even triple Urchin opening.
One of my big pet peeves is attacks which often get bought for reasons other than the attack, but whose attacks are pretty strong anyway. I should be thinking about the fact I'm attacking my opponent and how the attack would impact their strategy, not just giving them a bad time as a side effect.
Yes, this is a big reason my girlfriend and I stopped playing with attacks - she doesn't appreciate being hit by the same attack every turn, and Minion is great at that. Of course, I only bought the Minions because they stack really well; the attack was an afterthought for me. Of course, I considered simply removing the attack aspect from such cards, including Scrying Pool, but I haven't felt like doing that so I just removed attacks entirely.
In essence, it doesn't seem great to put a unique and useful mechanic on a card, and then also give it an attack that the player doesn't even necessarily want to use.
This looks like a variant of Asper's Subventions. I like that you can copy powerful Treasures like Colony or Fortune but dislike that you are forced to take at least a Silver.
Edict mechanic from Asper. I wasn't planning on having any landscape cards originally, but then this silly idea came up, and I think having some when-you-shuffle Edicts could be cool. This was originally going in RBCI, but the more I thought about it, it might actually be fun to have a deck where your Treasure is constantly multiplying. Might lead to some nice TfB tricks, or a combo with a good Kingdom Treasure. What do you think?
And, oh, don't forget about Projects. With Sewers and Cathedral, Recruiter is hardly the only strong trasher in Renaissance.Arguably true. But none of these cards draw which is the main reason for Recruiter being overpowered. A Necropolis that trashes isn't particularly impressive, a Lost City that does is. And while it is sometimes "just" as Masquerade, when you trash a Coppers or Curse, it is also sometimes more than a Lost City that trashes: Flag Bearer, Fortress, a superfluous Silver, Silk Merchant and so on.
I disagree; Villagers are always moderately useful as they guarantee perfect engine consistency. Also, gaining them en masse via Recruiter is a partial substitute for gaining villages which means that you can gain some other stuff early in the game.
Whenever you manage to trash an Estate with Recruiter, which happens with an extremely high likelihood early on, the card is better than a Lost City that trashes, i.e. better than:
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
Trash a card from your hand.
This is totally bonkers. The only reason this overpowered card is still playable is that it doesn't take the fun out of games like Cultist or Rebuild do.
Also note that the card is at worst a Masquerade (without the passing), one of the strongest $3 trashers.
Research is great. It helps you cycle your deck very fast, it gives you economy, it gives you trashing, so it's basically everything that you want to do in the early game in a single non-terminal card. Later on you can use it to trash cards for draw.Research doesn't give you economy, it is just a Duration Apprentice. The only really powerful trasher in this set is Recruiter.
The winner of the tournament will have the opportunity to play a "trophy match" against me. You may pick any kingdom you like and you may go first; if you win, you get to hold on to the Scout trophy (pictured in the Facebook event) until the next tournament. If you lose, you still get the standard first-place prize for winning this tournament.
Finally found the right time to record another match. Trying to do a bit more analysis, here I completely misread the board initially but then end up doing a completely different strategy anyway that happened to be the right thing to do. For some reason I feel really under pressure when recording these, but I'm sure I'll get used to that in time.
But yeah, power-cards are fine, as long as they need support or power up other cards they are not at all "centralizing". How often is the peasant-line the ONLY thing you buy? Comparing with Page, it's not too uncommon to only rely on it since it provides both draw and payload, with peasant you always need to find a way to use the line optimally somewhere else. You may of course dislike the card how much you want, but to call it centralizing is merely plain wrong..
You buy other cards with Goons, with KC, with just about anything else. I guess they're not "centralizing". I do not understand this point at all. Dominion rewards diversity like nothing else, but you are always picking up a Peasant unless the board absolutely sucks, and even then sometimes devil magic makes it work.
The complaint isn't really just that it's centralizing, it's one tiny part of the complete package that is "wellp I'm a goner now on this no trash board with no outs".
4. Super Long Turns
All of the previous points are claims you can make about Rebuild, or Money strategies. Here's one you can't make: Length of time. Seriously, for all of the annoyances Rebuild and Money games provide, at least they end quick. You're waiting for a century when your opponent plays his King's Court, picks what action to triple, and then proceeds to play out his turn, optimizing all of the way (either in ways that are actually optimization or ways that are not, which only annoys you further) and eeking out extra plays, while he's up by a trillion and you still didn't play your first King's Court yet. Like why continue at that point?
I'm not really sorry to tell you this – there is actually an enormous amount of luck in dominion, and it can absolutely be correct to attribute single games to luck. Over many games, luck will equal out, but not over one game.
I disagree, although maybe only in the semantics. For me, variance means in practice that a better strategy won't win every time. It's expected to lose x amount of times naturally. To compare with poker, it's not lucky to beat AA with 2-7, it's just hitting the variance. However, wouldyou do that in the final all-in hand in the headsup of a tournament that is something I would deem lucky.
A single game on Dominion Online is never something I would consider lucky, there is no real stake at risk at all. Even if something absurd happens you are merely just hitting the variance that is built in into the game.
In this case though, even if my game was in a league match I wouldn't consider myself lucky at all. to hit province four times in a row with my deck wasn't unusual at all and it annoyed me quite a lot to be scoulded at because of it.
Anyway, this might be just my pet peeve and that is quite alright. I most likely have this distinction between the terms to not go mad when my decks refuse to collaborate...
It's not clear to me from this what you mean when you think of "luck". What you describe as "variance" is what other people are calling "luck". In general, "contains luck" is another way of saying "contains randomness". I suppose you can call it "variance" as well, but that's still the same thing as either "randomness" or "luck".
Sure, but in the context of an opponent getting a rare outcome I think it' simply wrong to consider them "lucky". They really isn't, they is
just playing a game with variance. In experienced (and civil) poker players don't call each other lucky when they win far out hands. It wouldn't be possible to play the game without tilting constantly if you saw it any outer way that those things happens, constantly. Same in Dominion. Sure, if a random game is important to you tilt away, but it's silly to me. I simply would expect more of players that know the game on some higher level, and I would say that the term "luck" is something that blocks certain players to think clearly about the game. But if not and you use luck and variance interchangeable, this doesn't really matter. It was only a rant after all.
Ok but how do you define luck? By your definition, winning the lottery isn't lucky either. So... what IS an example of luck? You still haven't defined what you mean by "luck", or given an example of something that involves "luck". It sounds kind of like you are saying that "luck" is just a whiny way of talking about variance.
Keep has a lot more potential for points.Does it though? The actions are only Treasures during your turns, not at the end of the game.
Ah yes, you are correct. Too bad though.
I'm not really sorry to tell you this – there is actually an enormous amount of luck in dominion, and it can absolutely be correct to attribute single games to luck. Over many games, luck will equal out, but not over one game.
I disagree, although maybe only in the semantics. For me, variance means in practice that a better strategy won't win every time. It's expected to lose x amount of times naturally. To compare with poker, it's not lucky to beat AA with 2-7, it's just hitting the variance. However, wouldyou do that in the final all-in hand in the headsup of a tournament that is something I would deem lucky.
A single game on Dominion Online is never something I would consider lucky, there is no real stake at risk at all. Even if something absurd happens you are merely just hitting the variance that is built in into the game.
In this case though, even if my game was in a league match I wouldn't consider myself lucky at all. to hit province four times in a row with my deck wasn't unusual at all and it annoyed me quite a lot to be scoulded at because of it.
Anyway, this might be just my pet peeve and that is quite alright. I most likely have this distinction between the terms to not go mad when my decks refuse to collaborate...
It's not clear to me from this what you mean when you think of "luck". What you describe as "variance" is what other people are calling "luck". In general, "contains luck" is another way of saying "contains randomness". I suppose you can call it "variance" as well, but that's still the same thing as either "randomness" or "luck".
Part of the fun is weathering the luck.
I'm not really sorry to tell you this – there is actually an enormous amount of luck in dominion, and it can absolutely be correct to attribute single games to luck. Over many games, luck will equal out, but not over one game.
Unlike previous sets, it seems like some of the cards/projects that weren't previewed in Renaissance seem more insane than the ones that were. Capitalism comes to mind, but also Scepter, Border Guard, Fleet.
What was the main rationale/process behind which cards get previewed?
Cathedral + Fortress could be a thing.
Inventor looks crazy in the same way that Bridge does. But after thinking about it, it doesn't have quite the same megaturn potential. 5 bridges and $7 in treasure gives you 4 provinces; 5 Inventors and $7 in treasure gives you only 2 provinces and a bunch of components. It might be better for building, worse for scoring.
Going further, 7 Bridges and $1 treasure gets you 8 Provinces, 7 Inventors and $1 gets you only 4 Provinces. Not providing the coin/buy of Bridge is a huge loss.
I mean, it is very abusable. Hero can gain Grand Markets and Goons for you. Grand Markets give you + Buys and you can play Goons without consuming any Actions. An amazingly oveerpowered combo.
Some cards like Harvest or Tormentor already get a huge boost, but the boost for Hero and Goons is just incredibly sick.
Eh, I'm not seeing the issue here. You usually don't get to play a Hero until your 4th shuffle. By that point, you should easily be able to afford a Goons or a Grand Market even without the Hero.
Cathedral/sewers... At the cost of your first two turns, you could gain the ability to trash two cards at the start of your turn.
Also, question: can you place multiple project cubes on the same project? If so, imagine two cubes on capitalism to turn actions into silvers.
Any time you play an Action - Treasure card, it is both an Action and a Treasure, regardless of which phase it is. Getting +1 Action in your Buy phase does not let you play other Action cards then. Capitalism works on your turn, but affects cards everywhere; for example if you have Capitalism and play Bandit, you could trash another player's Improve, and it is not relevant if that player has Capitalism or not.
