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 - eHalcyon

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 475
26
One of these is mine.

Quote
Sutler
Types: Action - Looter
Cost: $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may gain a Ruins; put it into your hand.
You may play an Action card from your hand.
You may trash a card you have in play.

In games using this: When a Ruins is trashed, put it on the bottom of the Ruins pile.

The obvious use is to gain and play a Ruins, then "trash" the Ruins, effectively making this into a cantrip with a random bonus.  You can also use it as a Village, or use it a limited trasher.  Seems fun, I like it.

Quote
Profiteer
Types: Action - Attack - Looter
Cost: $5
Each other player gains a Ruins.
Reveal your hand. +$1 for every Ruins in your hand.

Seems extremely weak.  The coin bonus is often worse than Secret Chamber.  Hm.

Quote
Witchfinder
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $5
Each other player with at least five cards in their hand chooses and reveals three cards.  They each trash one of the cards they revealed of your choice.

I don't like the politics that will crop up from this.  I think this has a lot of the same problems that Saboteur had -- it does nothing for you when you play it, and other players will not like getting their cards trashed.  It hurts a lot more because you'll be revealing something decent pretty often, so this is a bit like Pillage in that respect.  I think overall power-level may be fine, but it just wouldn't be fun.

Quote
Vandal
Types: Action - Attack - Looter
Cost: $5
+2 cards.
Each player (including you) may reveal a Victory card from his hand and put it on top of his deck. If you do, +$2. Each other player who doesn't gains a Ruins.

Sounds a little strong to me, but probably fine.  Not that interesting though.

Quote
Ceremonial Sword
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5
Choose one: +3 cards, +1 buy OR for each Action you have in play, you may trash a Treasure from your hand and gain a Spoils per Treasure trashed this way.
Do the option you did not choose.

I think it would make more sense to phrase this as, "Do both in either other..." but OK.  I don't like that this is a Treasure.  I don't see a reason for it not to be an Action.  Is it only so that it can't count itself?  Otherwise, it's kind of a neat way to trash Copper and mass-gain Spoils.

Quote
Counterpart
Types: Action
Cost: $4 
Choose 2 of the following options: Gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile; gain a Silver to your deck; trash a card from your hand
Each other player may perform the option you didn't choose.

When you trash this, perform one of the above options

Gain a Silver to... the top of your deck?  Shuffled in?

I think this is OK, but I wonder how often it'll be used as a Silver-junking attack. :P

Quote
Tenant
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Draw up to four cards. Gain a Copper per card drawn.

If you gained four Coppers, you may trash this card and gain a Landlord.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Landlord
Types: Action
Cost: $0*
+ 1 Card
+ 1 Action
+ 1 Buy
You may play up to four treasures from your hand as if they were Gold. If you do, return this card to the Supply.
(This card is not in the Supply).

I think the line on Tenant should be removed, if I'm reading the intent correctly.  Otherwise, the under-line part should clarify the scope, e.g. "at the end of your turn, if you gained four Coppers during your turn..."

I don't really like how closely tied they are; the synergy feels too forced.  You play Tenant, draw big and gain lots of Copper.  You use Landlord to play your Copper as Gold.  It seems to dictate a strategy.  But maybe not, because that obvious use is kind of weak.  Flooding your deck with Copper is bad, and Landlord is only a bandaid, and a temporary one at that.  You may not draw Copper with your Landlord, and your Landlord goes away while the Copper remains.  That said, I can't think of a good use case for this card, other than ones where you actually want to gain all the Copper (read: Gardens).

Quote
Iron Maiden
Types: Action - Attack - Looter
Cost: $3
Each player discards the top card of their deck. If yours is...
...an Action: +2 Actions;
...a Treasure: +$2;
...a Victory card: +2 Cards
Each other player gains, if theirs is...
...an Action: A Ruins;
...a Treasure: A Copper;
...a Victory card: A Curse

The primary function of this card is to junk, because it's tough to guarantee a specific bonus (though an engine can make this a semi-reliable village).  I think that's fine.  However, I think all that junking is dangerous and unfun.  Early on this is a major Copper-junker, with all the problems that entails.  But this card also distributes Ruins and Curses.  I think the presence of this card all but guarantees a slog, and even strong trashing will have trouble keeping up because there is so much junk to distribute with this card.

Quote
Barbarian
Types: Action - Looter
Cost: $3
+2 Actions
Trash a card from your hand.

When you trash this, +2 Cards and each other player gains a Ruins putting it on top of his deck.

I like this.  Simple and interesting.

Quote
Calvary
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $6*
+1 Card
+1 Action
Follow the instructions on the top card of the Troops pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)



On the randomizer card: Add an extra Attack Kingdom card pile to the Supply. That pile is the Troops pile. In games using this, when you gain a Victory card, you may exchange a Troops pile card from your hand for a Calvary.

Clarification: Calvary is not in the Supply, so there will be 10 Kingdom cards as usual (or 11 with Young Witch). The "instructions" are the same thing that Enchantress blocks, so (for example) the "while in play" part of Goons would not be emulated by Calvary. Treat the coin values of Treasures (e.g. Relic or Rocks) as instructions as well. "Exchange" is the same keyword used for Travellers.

So this is like Hermit/Madman and Urchin/Mercenary, except it's [any Attack]/Cavalry.  It sounds overpowered at first, but thinking it through it seems OK.  The upgrade cost is pretty steep -- either you green early and hurt your deck, or you get Calvary late when many attacks fall off.  Having to exchange the base attack from your hand is slow as well -- sure you can get a super-Witch, but that means not playing your Witch that shuffle.  The danger of cantrip attacks is mitigated because you can't gain lots of Cavalry without a lot of effort.  Overall I think this could work, though it's weird enough that testing would be needed.  I like it.

Quote
Barbarians
Types: Action - Attack - Looter
Cost: $3
+1 Action
Choose one:
You may return any number of Ruins from your hand to the Supply; or each other player gains a Ruins to their hand.
---
While this is in play, when you play an Action card, gain and play a Ruins.

Weird.  The main effect of this card is below the line, where it enhances each subsequent action card with a bonus.  But it's a double-edged sword because those bonuses are Ruins that clog up your deck, and once Ruins are empty then Barbarians become impotent.  It does come built in with a way to return Ruins to the Supply.  There's also an optional attack to distribute Ruins, which I think over-complicates this card but is probably there for the theme.  That's OK.  Overall, I like it.

Quote
Arsonist
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $3
+$2
Each other player reveals their hand.  If they revealed 3 or more Treasures, they gain a Ruins.

While this is in play, when you trash a card, you may gain a card costing less than it.

Simple enough.  Seems fine to me, and it's different enough from other cards to be interesting.  I like it.

Quote
Junkyard
Types: Action - Looter
Cost: $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may gain a Ruins, putting it into your hand.
Discard any number of cards. +2 cards per Action card discarded, +1 card per every other card discarded.
You may trash this.

When you trash this, +2 cards.

I think this does too much.  It's a Cellar with +1 card which is already decent, with an additional option to gain Ruins for extra cards, and another option to trash itself for even more cards.  I think the card would be better without the self-trashing option and on-trash bonus.  Other than that, I think it's worth testing.

Quote
Contessa
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Choose one: Gain a card costing up to $4 and a Copper, putting them into your hand; or +1 action, +1 buy; or trash this to trash a Victory card from the supply.

while this is in play, victory cards cost $1 less but not less than 0.

This lacks cohesion.  Why all the options?  Option 1 seems to be the main thing, where you can gain bigger cards (thanks to cost reduction) but it comes with a Copper.  That sounds good!  Option 2 seems unnecessary, but at least there's some self-synergy there -- you can use it to get the card in play for more cost reduction and get some +Buy to take advantage of that later, without the Copper penalty.  I think it would be fine without that, but it works.  But then option 3 seems totally superfluous and unrelated to the rest of the card.

Uhh, maybe it's a theme of draining VP cards?  I just noticed that the cost-reduction is specific to VP.  So Contessa helps you empty Victory card piles, either through gaining them at cheaper prices or through outright trashing them from the Supply.  Even so, I don't think the option adds much to the card.  Without the trashing, I like it. 

Quote
Renovate
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. You may gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card, putting it into your hand. If it is an Action card, play it.

Isn't there already a Renovate in the set?  Maybe I'm mixing it up with random fan cards, as this is a popular fan card name.

I think the function of this card is already done better by Transmogrify.

27
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: November 02, 2016, 10:00:35 pm »
Do any other Excel gurus get to the point where you paste nearly everything with Alt+E, S, V to avoid messing up formats, conditional formats, and special formulas? Or is that just me?

Please elaborate on these specific shortcuts, when they should be used, and when they should not. :)

28
Congrats!  I chipped in a few points to Renovate. :)

29
I played 1.5 new games on Saturday!

Dead of Winter: The Long Night

I'm going to provide a little rules explanation here, but some of it will assume you are at least somewhat familiar and/or able to infer some stuff from context.

The Long Night (TLN) is a stand-alone expansion to Dead of Winter (DoW), a game I already own and like a lot.  DoW is a semi-cooperative game set during a zombie apocalypse.  In each game, there is a scenario with a main objective, plus each player has their own secret objective.  In order to win, you need to fulfill your secret objective, most of which also requires fulfilling the main objective.  There is a possibility of a traitor, in which case they want the main objective to fail (among various other things).  Players control a party of characters that explore a town, searching for items and killing zombies as they try to survive and do what they need to do.

TLN changes the game up in a few ways.  Along with a new roster of characters, updated item cards and a new deck of Crossroads cards (events/stories that may trigger on each player's turn), the game also features 3 modules: bandits, improvements and the Raxxon Corporation.  We played a 4-player game with the latter two modules, without mixing in the original game.

The improvements module provides a few more options for building items with permanent bonuses.  The improvements we saw in our game were all positive, almost strictly so (as know on f.ds, there are always edge cases).  Worst-case, we could just never build them and the game continues on as if the module were not there.  Thus, this module just makes the game easier.

The Raxxon module does a lot more, and it was way better than I expected it to be.  This module adds Raxxon as a new location.  Raxxon was essentially a research facility where they developed some ridiculously great tech, but they also experimented on people and created some unique zombies.  Every round, some of those zombies threaten to break out unless players collectively contribute 2 dice each round to cover specific numbers on the card.  Dice are limited and used to perform many other actions, so this added responsibility makes the game a lot harder.  However, this is balanced by the powerful item deck at this location (which is counter-balanced by having to roll for exposure with every search here).  As a group, we felt that the balance was good.  Chaotic as a whole, but it evened out very nicely.

Our early game was plagued with bad luck.  Early on (second round, IIRC), I was hit with a Crossroads event which gave me 3 options -- 1 with a bad penalty, 1 with a risk to avoid the penalty, and 1 with a bigger risk to avoid the penalty AND gain a huge benefit.  I chose the third for the sake of excitement and atrocious luck killed BOTH of my starting survivors.  Over the course of the game, our group as a whole would have bad luck with dice.  We rolled Bites on the exposure die something like 7 times, with one player rolling it twice on consecutive actions.  2 or 3 times we had someone gain a new character, only to have that character immediately die during the move out of the colony.  It was unbelievable.

But we also had some good luck.  One player had Blue the Chimpanzee as a character.  As a test subject from Raxxon, Blue has improved searching ability at that location.  This player did not suffer from the bad luck the rest of us had with the exposure die, so he was able to support us with powerful Raxxon tech throughout the game.  He also had luck from getting certain items early on to help snowball that particular advantage.

We had some good luck with our set of improvements.  We pushed hard as a group to get some nice Bedding for our colony, which provided every player with an extra action die each round (or a way to remove Despair, but that didn't actually come into play for us).  This was essential for us to keep the special zombies locked away.  Also, my two early character deaths pushed us to build the DVD Player -- a cheap improvement to build which had a large cost to use -- 2 fuel and 2 action dice to raise morale by 1.  As luck would have it, we triggered a Crossroad on that same turn which resulted in us obtaining a box of good movies on DVD, so that using the DVD player would raise 1 additional morale.  Over the course of the game, we used it twice to raise morale a total of 4.

For me, my initial loss was very disappointing because one of my characters was an explosives technician who could place explosive traps.  She died before I had a chance to use that ability though.  My replacement character (a  blind Motivational Speaker with a boring power) immediately moved to Raxxon because I had a number needed to keep the special zombie contained that round.  One search at Raxxon provided me with a buffed second character to give me some much needed utility.  This new setup stuck me into a specific role for much of the rest of the game -- my one character stayed at Raxxon with Blue the Chimp to continue locking away special zombies, usually with each of us contributing one die.  Blue searched Raxxon for items to support people all over the colony (passing a few items to my character as well) and my other character stayed outside to find items and kill zombies as needed for food and the crisis, the main objective, and my personal objective (in that order).

In the end, we managed to complete the main objective, but only I and the player with the chimpanzee completed our secret objectives.  My objective was relatively easy to accomplish and I did it on the last round.  The Chimp player had a tough objective, but his abundance of Raxxon items gave him the control to make it work.  One player's objective was to have exactly 4 characters, but a character death and little luck with Outsiders cards kept him from success.  The last player needed there to be more survivors than zombies in the town, but numerous deaths and a zombie-adding crisis on the last turn undermined his efforts. 

There was no traitor.  Even so, our group as a whole tends to be too cooperative in this game.  For example, the players who were not able to fulfill their secret objectives could have been more selfish, withholding items needed for the main objective until their secret objective was complete.  Instead, they contributed to the main objective fairly significantly.  Granted, one of those players is a lot more concerned with good story moments than winning gameplay.

And we did have some excellent story moments.  Early on, his character entrusted his pistol over to the chimpanzee - a ridiculous act if you think about it in-setting.  That chimp proceeded to arm itself with various gadgets and improve himself by reading various books.  Later on, it passed the pistol on to the blind man -- perhaps more trustworthy with a firearm than the monkey, but probably not much better.

I could go on.  Suffice it to say, it was a good time.  Lots of excitement, many ups and downs with luck, good tension, and a nice dash of humour.  Our luck with the Raxxon items was great and it let us overcome some major setbacks, but it felt balanced overall.  We managed to lock away every special zombie so I don't know what they would have been like.  It would have been more difficult if there had been a traitor, or if the group had been a little more self-serving, or if Blue had not found a force-field generator early on.  Other swings in luck could have made the game much easier or much harder, which may be a negative for some. I enjoy DoW more for the story elements though, and TLN certainly delivered on that.



Mansions of Madness

I think we played the second edition?  It's the one that uses an app to essentially act as a DM.

MoM is like an RPG where players are various characters trying to solve a Lovecraftian mystery.  We played the introductory scenario.  I won't go into much detail because I expect that there are major spoilers here, but players start in the lobby of a mansion and the app guides us through various setup and story elements, showing us points of interest to Search and doorways to Explore.  At first we have little idea of what's happening beyond the fact that unusual and frightening things have been happening, but we learn more as we explore the mansion.

I enjoyed it a lot.  The writing was solid and the app was easy to use.  It was a longer game than advertised on the box so there was some fatigue there, but I personally remained engaged throughout.  By coincidence, one player ended up solving all the puzzles (I mean this literally -- sometimes you encounter puzzles which you solve in the app as a mini-game, e.g. solve a code-breaking puzzle to open a locked safe) and another player ended up fighting almost all the time, almost always against the same type of monster.  But since it was a cooperative game, we all discussed general strategy together.

My biggest complaint is that the app had no undo button.  At one point I accidentally clicked to end a phase when one player had not yet taken her turn, and there was no way to backtrack.  I don't think this had a major impact after all, but it's hard to say because there is a fair amount of stuff that happens behind the scenes in the app.

We won without much difficulty, but the scenario was only 2/5 difficulty anyway.

30
Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Mock-ups 2.0
« on: October 27, 2016, 08:34:13 pm »
http://i.imgur.com/8GuUNOV.png

Here's the previous mock-up for how it was cropped:


31
Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Mock-ups 2.0
« on: October 27, 2016, 07:39:25 pm »
I still prefer the art I custom made for Crystal Ball. :P

These are all looking great!   I noticed that there are a lot of prizes in the mix.  Did they have that many prize competitions?

IIRC, there was one single competition to pick 5 winners, for a full set of Prizes.

32
Other Games / Re: pokemon go
« on: October 25, 2016, 12:34:21 am »
Anyone still playing? 

I'm level 32 and still going.  Currently saving 10k eggs and various fodder pokemon for the upcoming Halloween event.

33
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion and Intrigue second editions
« on: October 18, 2016, 08:19:25 pm »
Also, just now realizing that people have been pointing to poacher as evidence that a fixed-cost Peddler is a bit too strong for $4 but too weak for $5...I point you all to Baker as the original evidence of that.

I actually think it's evidence that fixed-cost Peddler is totally appropriate at $4, and the Secret History suggests the same:

Quote from: Donald X.
Poacher: This is in a player interaction slot, vacated by Spy. I thought of having some vanilla bonuses with the penalty of discarding a card per empty pile. The vanilla bonuses had to be essentially fair at the price of the card, since you might never empty a pile until the game was over. So really it required a vanilla card I hadn't made yet. Well there was one of those, and it was +1 Card +1 Action +$1 for $4. So there it is. Avoiding making that card all these years finally paid off.

34
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Meta?
« on: October 18, 2016, 05:38:11 pm »
I'm not the biggest RPS expert, but for a few reasons:

  • RPS is usually played best of 7, so past throws and psychology come into play, as well as "popular" opening algorithms (Rock Rock Rock, or Paper Scissors Scissors)
  • Humans are extremely bad at making "random" decisions unassisted. They just can't do it.

That was my point though.  The meta develops because players aren't optimal and can't do perfect random.  But against a player that is perfectly random, you can't do better than pure random yourself.  Why doesn't this apply to Dominion, where players are  also unable to be optimal?

If you define "optimal" and "meta" to account for that sort of exploitation (of other players psychology, etc.) then it should also apply for Dominion, in which case Dominion can certainly have a meta.

This is less true in Dominion because in RPS, the best strategy is 100% based on what strategy your opponent chooses. In other words, knowing what your opponent will do, plus a very basic and obvious strategy for using that information, guarantees a win every time. In Dominion, this isn't true. With very rare boards, you can have A>B>C>A, but not normally. Normally if A is best, then A is best no matter what your opponent does.

I contend that even though there's less impact in Dominion, it's not totally absent.  Sometimes you have boards with A>B>C>A, so that already supports my point, even if it's rare.  But more commonly -- and more importantly! -- I believe that players usually won't perfectly identify and execute the optimal strategy.  Moreover, I reject the idea that Dominion is merely "multiplayer solitaire".  Your opponents choices matter and should be considered in your strategy.

35
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion and Intrigue second editions
« on: October 17, 2016, 07:41:43 pm »
Poacher

Very interesting card. I watched several players buy at least two, and nobody wanted to be the first to pile something out. We ended up with several one-card piles. I'm going to watch for TfB the next time it appears, because I feel like I might start the Poacher rush, then TfB mine and buy the last one just to inflict Oases on opponents.
This seems weird (though I kinda get the psychological effect). I think with everyone having the same amount of Poachers, you generally want to be the one that ends a pile first. It's like inverse City: With City, you don't want to end a pile first beause then your opponent will be profiting first; with Poachers, they will suffer first.

This doesn't disqualify your point at all, but it's also worth keeping in mind that this means that you're spending that turn buying a worse card and you'll have one more downgraded-Poacher in your deck.

36
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Meta?
« on: October 14, 2016, 07:37:10 pm »
I'm not the biggest RPS expert, but for a few reasons:

  • RPS is usually played best of 7, so past throws and psychology come into play, as well as "popular" opening algorithms (Rock Rock Rock, or Paper Scissors Scissors)
  • Humans are extremely bad at making "random" decisions unassisted. They just can't do it.

That was my point though.  The meta develops because players aren't optimal and can't do perfect random.  But against a player that is perfectly random, you can't do better than pure random yourself.  Why doesn't this apply to Dominion, where players are  also unable to be optimal?

If you define "optimal" and "meta" to account for that sort of exploitation (of other players psychology, etc.) then it should also apply for Dominion, in which case Dominion can certainly have a meta.

37
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Meta?
« on: October 12, 2016, 09:03:08 pm »
There's PLENTY of hidden information in Dominon, that's ridiculous. You have no certainty over what cards the opponents will buy in the future, even if you know all their options, and you can use knowledge of the metagame as one of many factors in predicting their likely strategy. That alone is sufficient evidence of metagame influences in Dominion.

Future information does not count as hidden information. Think about chess. Or any board game. If you know for certain what your opponent will do then there is not much of a game right?

You seem to confuse between concepts. Meta is called meta because it is something that affects the game that is outside the game. Think about rock-paper-scissors. If you just play one game, you will do as good as you can by always play rock. But if your opponent knows this then you will lose all the time.

This is what meta is about: you have several mutual exclusive strategy options which counters each other (while nash equilibrium would be a probability mixture of them). How you choose one among is really by preference, and is the hidden information I am talking about. The population preference is the current metagame.

Not so much in Dominion. The population can certainly have a preference on different strategies, but it is pure suboptimality. For a given board, one can always react to the way the other player is playing. The optimal strategy is a script of actions taken when seeing what opponent plays, that will give you the highest win percentage. This grand optimal strategy does not depend on any preference of the opponent so there is no meta.

So are you saying that Rock-Paper-Scissors has a meta?  Because your last paragraph could apply to it just as well:

The population can cetainly have a preference on different strategies, but it is pure suboptimality.  For a given series of RPS games, the optimal strategy is to pick your action with perfect randomness every round.  This grand optimal strategy does not depend on any preference of the opponent so there is no meta.

But in practice, people don't play optimally, they don't do perfect random.  So your RPS strategy can exploit that, depending on the meta.  Doesn't that also apply to Dominion?  People don't play optimally, they may favour certain strategies based on their own preferred style or perceived strength of cards.  Isn't that a meta?

38
Dominion General Discussion / Re: More new promos?
« on: October 11, 2016, 12:34:25 pm »
The two 7 Wonders leader cards look like leader effects that already exist too.

39
I think this card would generally be weak, outside of certain combos and engines that consistently draw your deck.  Then, it's super powerful.  Have you considered the implications when combined with King's Court? :P

Moving the +1 card after the discard would make it a little better, but not that much.

40
I think my favorite of the finalists is Rally, except there doesn't seem much point in having +1 Buy and a debt cost on the same event.

You could pay off the debt and buy more stuff. :P

yeah... but the point of debt is to pay it later, so if you want people to buy other stuff afterwards, just increase the prize

I think it works this way because debt cost means you can always use it, even when you have no money, while +buy means you can use it more than once if you are willing to pay off some debt immediately.

41
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: October 04, 2016, 04:47:11 pm »
Ok. So I finally decided to bite the bullet and I'm picking up a (regular) new 3ds today, the Super Mario bundle one.

If I could only get like...3 games to start, what are the best ones?

Basically all I play on 3DS is Pokemon.

42
I think my favorite of the finalists is Rally, except there doesn't seem much point in having +1 Buy and a debt cost on the same event.

You could pay off the debt and buy more stuff. :P

43
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles
« on: September 29, 2016, 09:16:38 pm »
So how about this: it's a big money game and your options are smithy or library. Disregarding cost, library is strictly better, as it allows you to skip actions. With Pathfinding available,  Smithy becomes better because it draws more cards.

Is that the kind of thing you're looking for?

I would not say that a reasonable definition for "strictly better" would allow the specific qualification of "it's a big money game".  But it's not my question; maybe it's OK with Dingan.

44
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion and Intrigue second editions
« on: September 29, 2016, 06:41:23 pm »
The one issue I have with Theif's 'replacement', is you can't get non-base Treasures.  That was sort of the advantage Theif had over Noble Brigand.. you could steal any Treasure. 

Is "Gain a Treasure" too powerful for Bandit?  Also, why not just have the trashing optional?  Sometimes you may want to trash their Copper, though maybe those cases are rare enough to not make it worth it.

Reliably gaining Gold is still an advantage for Bandit.  And yeah, probably the cases where you want to trash Copper are too rare... and also making it optional would get political.

45
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles
« on: September 28, 2016, 08:17:47 pm »
I don't understand your q

Give a reasonable definition for "strictly better".  Using that definition, is there a pair of cards where one is strictly better than the other, but is no longer strictly better if it has an Adventures token on it?

I'm gonna say that the answer is probably no.  But if there is an answer, it probably uses the -$2 token for something where the card's cost actually matters.

46
Non-Mafia Game Threads / Re: Codenames VI
« on: September 27, 2016, 06:39:57 pm »
So, funny thing, when I stepped out I thought it would only be for 1-2 games.  But then you guys kept going, and I didn't mind too much because I was spending most free time on Pokemon Go.  I'm not really checking this thread much, but if anyone ever needs a substitute then message me and I'll be happy to jump back in.  I remain occupied by Pokemon Go so it's all good either way. :D

47
Can your opponent see whats in the piles or are they guessing blind?

They're revealed.  But I was just about to post this new version which I think would be super fun, but would also come with major risk of Analysis Paralysis:

Quote
+1 Action
Look at the top 5 cards of your deck and split them into two piles.  Reveal 3 of the cards.  The player to your left chooses one pile to put into your hand.  Discard the rest.

It could alternatively reveal 4 cards of the 5, if revealing only 3 is too strong.

@ThetaSigma, your paraphrasing is fine but it should say "chooses", not "choose".

48
Now this was brought up before, but I'll bring it up again. What do want the text to be? As-is I think it's too good, and weaker it might be too simmilar to Advisor.

I think that's something that I shouldn't decide myself.  Input from others (especially people who have actually tested it) would be appreciated.  Maybe try flipping the roles though?

Quote
+1 Action
Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck and separate them into two piles.  The player to your left chooses one pile for you to discard.  Draw the rest.

Maybe this is too similar to Advisor as well though, I dunno.

49
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion and Intrigue second editions
« on: September 26, 2016, 02:13:56 am »
Quote
Quote
Secret Passage Action
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Take a card from your hand and put it anywhere in your deck.


Overall, I really, really like "put it anywhere in your deck" and I can't believe it didn't exist already.

(Stash)

I meant a card that puts other cards anywhere, rather than just on top or on bottom.  Stash especially doesn't count because it's only on the reshuffle, which is a totally different dynamic than Secret Passage.

50
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: September 26, 2016, 12:30:14 am »
Yeah all starters IIRC have a 7/8 chance to be male.

Why is it like that? Almost all the other Pokemon have 50/50% gender rates.

There are a lot of monsters with higher chance of being male. Only a handful has higher chance to be female.

More than a handful, but yeah there are more lines that tend toward male.  As Chris noted, the reason is to make them harder to breed, and there's a lot of them because all starter and fossil lines 7:1 for males.  There are also some Pokemon that are all male or all female.  Lists here.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 475

Page created in 0.189 seconds with 18 queries.