Print

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

[2.71828.....]

With shelters:

Without shelters, I think remake would have still worked well stepping estates up to wishing well, oasis or silver, then on to more remakes or caravans, continuing to bandit camps and rogues, before finishing with golds.

However, with shelters remake simply dominates this board.  By turning shelters into squires, we are now able to trash squires for both a 3-cost card and a rogue, which is able to quickly transform into gold as needed.  Going heavy on wishing wells as my 3-cost of preference, I was able to remake my way to 6 provinces in 15 turns

http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20130831/log.515f2508e4b09ee2d2aa5c19.1377978149799.txt

[lespeutere]

You had really, really nice shuffles in the beginning.
t3: You already have 6 differently named cards in your deck, but hold 5 of them after +1 card from WW, so that copper is a 5/6 bet. You're able to get rid of 2 shelters.
t5: You immediately draw both WWs and are able to connect remake and squire. And still you can buy another WW, for a total of 4 WW after t5, then 6 WW after t6.
t6: 2 WW in hand at the beginning of the shuffle, but well - with 6 WW this is not such a surprise.

Don't get me wrong, you played this very well, but you got a nice start. I'm not that convinced about multiple rogues, though. It potentially adds quite some variance to the deck, especially when you have to take something that you really don't want (a silver, e.g.). I think I would've relied on a BC/WW deck.

[DG]

Remakes and rogues can be problematic if you find yourself remaking unwanted cards from your deck only to gain them back with the rogue. It is easy to overload on terminals that way, particularly if your opponent is trashing cards as well.

[2.71828.....]

I was going to attempt to defend my strategy by playing a lot of games vs bots in an attempt to demonstrate that going rogue really would work consistently, but I started losing more consistently than I would win when I dogmatically stuck to my little system.  However, the games I did win I had pretty good shuffle luck and they were relatively fast. 

Moral of the story: sometimes you win with a great strategy, sometimes you shuffle well (on a good but not optimal strategy) and win, and sometimes you just can't understand how your opponent beat you with his awful strategy but amazing shuffle luck.  I think this game fits somewhere in that middle category.

[() | (_) ^/]

I was going to attempt to defend my strategy by playing a lot of games vs bots in an attempt to demonstrate that going rogue really would work consistently, but I started losing more consistently than I would win when I dogmatically stuck to my little system.  However, the games I did win I had pretty good shuffle luck and they were relatively fast. 

Moral of the story: sometimes you win with a great strategy, sometimes you shuffle well (on a good but not optimal strategy) and win, and sometimes you just can't understand how your opponent beat you with his awful strategy but amazing shuffle luck.  I think this game fits somewhere in that middle category.

+1 for honesty

Respect. 

True story.