Print

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

[AJD]

It doesn't matter whether Madman and Mercenary are counted, since they cancel each other out.

Noooo, that's so wrong! If you add 1 card to each side, then the percentage will be closer to 50% than it was before.

I wouldn't be adding 1 card to each side; I'd be counting Urchin as half terminal and Hermit as half nonterminal. The unit of counting here is Kingdom Action cards, not differently-named Action cards.

But even so, counting each one as half, or not counting either because they're both special, is different than counting 1 as terminal and 1 as non-terminal.

I think I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Dark Ages has 33 Kingdom Action cards, of which 18.3 are terminal by my criteria (counting Knights as 4/5, and Procession, Squire, and Band of Misfits as 1/2 each). The numerator of 18.3 and denominator of 33 don't change if you count Urchin as non-terminal and Hermit as terminal, or if you count Urchin and Hermit as both 1/2 terminal.

[silverspawn]

Rephrasing Smithy like that is, indeed, balls. That's what I was demonstrating. Rephrasing cards like that is balls.

well, no. imgagine a card which says
+2 cards
+1 buy
at the beginning of your next turn, put this into your hand

that could be a legit card, only that it would be too weak for $5 (and you have to rephrase slightly so it only comes back once). now compare it to wharf, and you'll have to admit that wharf is the same only that it requires 1 less action. in this way wharf is half terminal

of course, you can also compare it to this card:
+4 cards
+2 buys
and then you have a card which does the same only that you require half as many to do it. in this way wharf is terminal, only it has, as you put it, a limitation.

which way you choose to look at it seems competely arbitrary. I come from the angle of "how many can you support without villages" and therefore I'd say wharf is half terminal.

[AJD]

which way you choose to look at it seems competely arbitrary. I come from the angle of "how many can you support without villages" and therefore I'd say wharf is half terminal.

See, I come from the angle of "Does it give you +Action when you play it".

[GendoIkari]

It doesn't matter whether Madman and Mercenary are counted, since they cancel each other out.

Noooo, that's so wrong! If you add 1 card to each side, then the percentage will be closer to 50% than it was before.

I wouldn't be adding 1 card to each side; I'd be counting Urchin as half terminal and Hermit as half nonterminal. The unit of counting here is Kingdom Action cards, not differently-named Action cards.

But even so, counting each one as half, or not counting either because they're both special, is different than counting 1 as terminal and 1 as non-terminal.

I think I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Dark Ages has 33 Kingdom Action cards, of which 18.3 are terminal by my criteria (counting Knights as 4/5, and Procession, Squire, and Band of Misfits as 1/2 each). The numerator of 18.3 and denominator of 33 don't change if you count Urchin as non-terminal and Hermit as terminal, or if you count Urchin and Hermit as both 1/2 terminal.

Ok, so you'd just be changing Hermit from 0 to .5, and changing Urchin from 1 to .5? That makes sense then, sorry. It sounded originally like you were talking about the possibility of including both Madman and Mercenary.

[scott_pilgrim]

now compare it to wharf, and you'll have to admit that wharf is the same only that it requires 1 less action.

Wharf also gives you 1 more card (since it stays in you're play area to do something when you already have a 5-card hand).

which way you choose to look at it seems competely arbitrary. I come from the angle of "how many can you support without villages" and therefore I'd say wharf is half terminal.

It doesn't make any sense to compare it to the first one, because the first one uses this new, invented "super-terminal" mechanic.  It's a terminal the first turn you play it, and the second turn you play it; that's not something any official card does, so it's not something that we expect when we're just talking about arbitrary terminals.  The fact that Wharf is "less terminal" than the card you described only implies that Wharf is not a "super-terminal"; it says nothing about whether Wharf is actually terminal or non-terminal.

The significance of being terminal is that each terminal in your deck increases the likelihood of terminal collision.  Adding a Wharf to your deck increases that chance by roughly the same amount as adding any other terminal to your deck would (slightly more since it's a drawer, but slightly less since it misses the re-shuffle more often).  The first card you described increases the chance of terminal collision much more than most (all?) existing terminals, so saying Wharf is "less terminal" than it doesn't mean that it's closer to non-terminal than terminal.

[Awaclus]

Rephrasing Smithy like that is, indeed, balls. That's what I was demonstrating. Rephrasing cards like that is balls.

well, no. imgagine a card which says
+2 cards
+1 buy
at the beginning of your next turn, put this into your hand

that could be a legit card, only that it would be too weak for $5 (and you have to rephrase slightly so it only comes back once). now compare it to wharf, and you'll have to admit that wharf is the same only that it requires 1 less action. in this way wharf is half terminal

of course, you can also compare it to this card:
+4 cards
+2 buys
and then you have a card which does the same only that you require half as many to do it. in this way wharf is terminal, only it has, as you put it, a limitation.

which way you choose to look at it seems competely arbitrary. I come from the angle of "how many can you support without villages" and therefore I'd say wharf is half terminal.

Imagine a card which says
+1 card
If this is your first or second time playing this this turn, put this into your hand.

That couldn't be a legit card because of accountability issues, but let's assume it's online-only. Now compare it to Smithy, and you'll have to admit that Smithy is the same, only that it requires 2 less actions. In this way, Smithy isn't 1/3 terminal, it just gives you a bigger effect for the same cost (1 card and 1 action). This is why more powerful cards have to cost more $ (or P), and this is also why Wharf costs $5 and is still incredibly powerful.

Coming from the angle of "how many can you support without villages" is useful when you're building a big money deck with x copies of a single Action card, but not really very useful in other situations.

[Witherweaver]

now compare it to wharf, and you'll have to admit that wharf is the same only that it requires 1 less action.

The significance of being terminal is that each terminal in your deck increases the likelihood of terminal collision.  Adding a Wharf to your deck increases that chance by roughly the same amount as adding any other terminal to your deck would (slightly more since it's a drawer, but slightly less since it misses the re-shuffle more often). 

This seems to suggest that terminal durations are at least different than standard terminals, though, which was my point.  Also, Merchant Ship doesn't draw cards to offset the reduced probability of collision. 

[silverspawn]

now compare it to wharf, and you'll have to admit that wharf is the same only that it requires 1 less action.

Wharf also gives you 1 more card (since it stays in you're play area to do something when you already have a 5-card hand).

it doesnt, if you play wharf you start with 7 cards, if you play this -> next turn it goes to your hand -> 6 cards -> play it -> 5 cards -> draw 2 -> 7 cards -> start with 7 cards, but have -1 action.

it would be 1 less card if it just "shemed" itself instead of going right into your hand.

It doesn't make any sense to compare it to the first one, because the first one uses this new, invented "super-terminal" mechanic.  It's a terminal the first turn you play it, and the second turn you play it; that's not something any official card does, so it's not something that we expect when we're just talking about arbitrary terminals.  The fact that Wharf is "less terminal" than the card you described only implies that Wharf is not a "super-terminal"; it says nothing about whether Wharf is actually terminal or non-terminal.

The reason such a card doesn't exist is that it's simply a less elegant version of the duration cards we have now. Without any proof, I'm guessing that the motivation to do duration cards in the first place was to decrease shuffle luck. That could be achieved by a card which shemes itself, but it would be unnecssary complicated. That, however, has no weight when you compare them on an objective level.

What does matter is what the card does, and the return-to-hand card actually comes a lot closer to wharf, because it decreases the chance for your next hand to be dead. after all, that's the reason why wharf is one of the strongest cards in the game, because whenever you are at a point where you play 2 each turn, the chance for you to draw a dead hand is next to zero. You have to compare wharf to a card which shemes itself in one way or another, because only then you have the extra ensurance. Even if you can create a white card which has double the effect, and works simliar if you have half as many in your deck, it's still not the same because wharf plays itself twice when you pay an action once.

The significance of being terminal is that each terminal in your deck increases the likelihood of terminal collision.  Adding a Wharf to your deck increases that chance by roughly the same amount as adding any other terminal to your deck would (slightly more since it's a drawer, but slightly less since it misses the re-shuffle more often).  The first card you described increases the chance of terminal collision much more than most (all?) existing terminals, so saying Wharf is "less terminal" than it doesn't mean that it's closer to non-terminal than terminal.

we haven't made any distiction between terminals who draw and terminals who don't, so you can't just compensate the fact that wharf has less collision chance because it disappears for your next turn with the fact that it draws. Aside from that, measuring how often your terminals collide is a great idea, which underlines my point, because wharf collides less often than another terminal with +2 cards. Whenever there aren't any villages, you'll always be willing to buy more orange terminals than you would buy white ones.

That couldn't be a legit card because of accountability issues, but let's assume it's online-only. Now compare it to Smithy, and you'll have to admit that Smithy is the same, only that it requires 2 less actions. In this way, Smithy isn't 1/3 terminal, it just gives you a bigger effect for the same cost (1 card and 1 action). This is why more powerful cards have to cost more $ (or P), and this is also why Wharf costs $5 and is still incredibly powerful.

dude, no. a card which comes back in the turn you play it is something completely different. You are forcing players to pay multiple actions within the same turn. I'm simply finding another way to execute a card which already plays itself twice.

[scott_pilgrim]

now compare it to wharf, and you'll have to admit that wharf is the same only that it requires 1 less action.

Wharf also gives you 1 more card (since it stays in you're play area to do something when you already have a 5-card hand).

it doesnt, if you play wharf you start with 7 cards, if you play this -> next turn it goes to your hand -> 6 cards -> play it -> 5 cards -> draw 2 -> 7 cards -> start with 7 cards, but have -1 action.

it would be 1 less card if it just "shemed" itself instead of going right into your hand.

Yeah you're totally right about that, I was thinking your card top-decked itself.

we haven't made any distiction between terminals who draw and terminals who don't, so you can't just compensate the fact that wharf has less collision chance because it disappears for your next turn with the fact that it draws. Aside from that, measuring how often your terminals collide is a great idea, which underlines my point, because wharf collides less often than another terminal with +2 cards. Whenever there aren't any villages, you'll always be willing to buy more orange terminals than you would buy white ones.

That is a fair argument.  I suppose that since the significance of terminals is how often they collide (is there any other significance in distinguishing terminals from non-terminals?), it would seem natural to count drawers as "more terminal", durations as "less terminal", etc.  (And also to count villages as negative terminalness?)  But then I have no idea how you should weight them, it's not obvious to me that a duration is closer to counting as half a terminal than it is to counting as one terminal.

[soulnet]

More important than Durations: I think counting Procession (and TR and KC) as anything other than non-terminals makes no sense at all.

[SirPeebles]

Without any proof, I'm guessing that the motivation to do duration cards in the first place was to decrease shuffle luck. That could be achieved by a card which shemes itself, but it would be unnecssary complicated. That, however, has no weight when you compare them on an objective level.

Improved shuffle luck?  I don't want to speak for Donald X., but I would be floored if this were even partially his motivation.  Repeating an effect next turn is an interesting way of publishing a bunch of vanilla cards (e.g. Wharf, Caravan, Fishing Village, Merchant Ship), as well as implementing novel ideas (e.g. Lighthouse, Tactician, Outpost, Haven).

[silverspawn]

Without any proof, I'm guessing that the motivation to do duration cards in the first place was to decrease shuffle luck. That could be achieved by a card which shemes itself, but it would be unnecssary complicated. That, however, has no weight when you compare them on an objective level.

Improved shuffle luck?  I don't want to speak for Donald X., but I would be floored if this were even partially his motivation.  Repeating an effect next turn is an interesting way of publishing a bunch of vanilla cards (e.g. Wharf, Caravan, Fishing Village, Merchant Ship), as well as implementing novel ideas (e.g. Lighthouse, Tactician, Outpost, Haven).

well, that's what makes them great in my mind, so I'd be really surprised if it were just a side effect. The only way we'll ever know if he continues his interview thing.

[SirPeebles]

Without any proof, I'm guessing that the motivation to do duration cards in the first place was to decrease shuffle luck. That could be achieved by a card which shemes itself, but it would be unnecssary complicated. That, however, has no weight when you compare them on an objective level.

Improved shuffle luck?  I don't want to speak for Donald X., but I would be floored if this were even partially his motivation.  Repeating an effect next turn is an interesting way of publishing a bunch of vanilla cards (e.g. Wharf, Caravan, Fishing Village, Merchant Ship), as well as implementing novel ideas (e.g. Lighthouse, Tactician, Outpost, Haven).

well, that's what makes them great in my mind, so I'd be really surprised if it were just a side effect. The only way we'll ever know if he continues his interview thing.

Well, we can look at the cards which exist.  If the motivation were to decrease shuffle luck, then we'd expect to seem a few Durations that say "Now and at the start of your next turn: X" where X is some typical card effect.  But we don't see that.  Half of the Durations are "Now and at the start of your next turn: vanilla" and the other half use the Duration type to implement effects that could not have otherwise been implemented (at least not without jumping through hoops).  Now, obviously the X couldn't have been too wordy, but there are plenty of non-vanilla cards whose text could have fit.

Edit:  Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, we can think about what we know about Donald.  What has motivated him elsewhere?  He has talked a lot about vanilla bonuses and the need for less complex cards.  Has he ever expressed a worry about shuffle luck?  Not that I can recall.  Rather, he has expressed a preference for luck several times.  He likes that Swindler's randomness takes the pressure off the game, and was worried that if you always drew your entire deck before reshuffling (and hence saw each card each shuffle) that there might be too little shuffle luck.

[Awaclus]

dude, no. a card which comes back in the turn you play it is something completely different. You are forcing players to pay multiple actions within the same turn. I'm simply finding another way to execute a card which already plays itself twice.

Wharf doesn't play itself twice. It plays itself once, some of its effects are just delayed.

[AJD]

Without any proof, I'm guessing that the motivation to do duration cards in the first place was to decrease shuffle luck. That could be achieved by a card which shemes itself, but it would be unnecssary complicated. That, however, has no weight when you compare them on an objective level.

Improved shuffle luck?  I don't want to speak for Donald X., but I would be floored if this were even partially his motivation.  Repeating an effect next turn is an interesting way of publishing a bunch of vanilla cards (e.g. Wharf, Caravan, Fishing Village, Merchant Ship), as well as implementing novel ideas (e.g. Lighthouse, Tactician, Outpost, Haven).

well, that's what makes them great in my mind, so I'd be really surprised if it were just a side effect. The only way we'll ever know if he continues his interview thing.

Well, we can look at the cards which exist.  If the motivation were to decrease shuffle luck, then we'd expect to seem a few Durations that say "Now and at the start of your next turn: X" where X is some typical card effect.  But we don't see that.  Half of the Durations are "Now and at the start of your next turn: vanilla" and the other half use the Duration type to implement effects that could not have otherwise been implemented (at least not without jumping through hoops).  Now, obviously the X couldn't have been too wordy, but there are plenty of non-vanilla cards whose text could have fit.

Edit:  Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, we can think about what we know about Donald.  What has motivated him elsewhere?  He has talked a lot about vanilla bonuses and the need for less complex cards.  Has he ever expressed a worry about shuffle luck?  Not that I can recall.  Rather, he has expressed a preference for luck several times.  He likes that Swindler's randomness takes the pressure off the game, and was worried that if you always drew your entire deck before reshuffling (and hence saw each card each shuffle) that there might be too little shuffle luck.

Also we can add that at the beginning, you know, Duration wasn't a type, there were just cards that did things, and some of them did them on your next turn.

[silverspawn]

Without any proof, I'm guessing that the motivation to do duration cards in the first place was to decrease shuffle luck. That could be achieved by a card which shemes itself, but it would be unnecssary complicated. That, however, has no weight when you compare them on an objective level.

Improved shuffle luck?  I don't want to speak for Donald X., but I would be floored if this were even partially his motivation.  Repeating an effect next turn is an interesting way of publishing a bunch of vanilla cards (e.g. Wharf, Caravan, Fishing Village, Merchant Ship), as well as implementing novel ideas (e.g. Lighthouse, Tactician, Outpost, Haven).

well, that's what makes them great in my mind, so I'd be really surprised if it were just a side effect. The only way we'll ever know if he continues his interview thing.

Well, we can look at the cards which exist.  If the motivation were to decrease shuffle luck, then we'd expect to seem a few Durations that say "Now and at the start of your next turn: X" where X is some typical card effect.  But we don't see that.  Half of the Durations are "Now and at the start of your next turn: vanilla" and the other half use the Duration type to implement effects that could not have otherwise been implemented (at least not without jumping through hoops).  Now, obviously the X couldn't have been too wordy, but there are plenty of non-vanilla cards whose text could have fit.

Edit:  Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, we can think about what we know about Donald.  What has motivated him elsewhere?  He has talked a lot about vanilla bonuses and the need for less complex cards.  Has he ever expressed a worry about shuffle luck?  Not that I can recall.  Rather, he has expressed a preference for luck several times.  He likes that Swindler's randomness takes the pressure off the game, and was worried that if you always drew your entire deck before reshuffling (and hence saw each card each shuffle) that there might be too little shuffle luck.

Well, I'm not going to argue about that, since It was just a guess in the first place. YOu might very well be right. Off topic, If swindler is supposed to take pressure away from the game, it doesn't work for me at all. I just feel like it makes the game harder, because you constantly have to consider whether it's worth buying something that could be swindled into something you don't want, or if you rather just buy gold. Counting vp's becomes more difficult too.

[Awaclus]

I just feel like it makes the game harder, because you constantly have to consider whether it's worth buying something that could be swindled into something you don't want, or if you rather just buy gold.

Would you rather buy something that you want but could be swindled into something you don't want, or just simply buy something that you don't want? If you need the Gold, go for it. If you don't need a Gold, don't.

[silverspawn]

I just feel like it makes the game harder, because you constantly have to consider whether it's worth buying something that could be swindled into something you don't want, or if you rather just buy gold.

Would you rather buy something that you want but could be swindled into something you don't want, or just simply buy something that you don't want? If you need the Gold, go for it. If you don't need a Gold, don't.

sure, but if you have $5 you need to decide whether you get a $5 card which could be swindled into a duchy or rather a silver.

generally silver is awesome but not so much in dominion -.-

[Asper]

In case anybody cares anymore, i too consider Throne Room, King's Court, Procession and Golem non-terminal. If a card enables you toplay two Smithies in a row, you basically won an action.

Necropolis i find hard to estimate. as it is a starting card, you would assume it to be relevant, but then again you only get up to one and only every few games.

Also the explanation why there are more nonterminals in later expansions is obvious: Because Chancellor is such an awesome card, Donald tried to increase the chance of a Chancellor+all-nonterminals-board, where he actually is better than Silver. The same goes for Woodcutter (another powerhouse), of course.

[liopoil]

King's court I would consider a village even, because it lets you play two more actions

[Awaclus]

King's court I would consider a village even, because it lets you play two more actions

Village lets you play one more action.

I just feel like it makes the game harder, because you constantly have to consider whether it's worth buying something that could be swindled into something you don't want, or if you rather just buy gold.

Would you rather buy something that you want but could be swindled into something you don't want, or just simply buy something that you don't want? If you need the Gold, go for it. If you don't need a Gold, don't.

sure, but if you have $5 you need to decide whether you get a $5 card which could be swindled into a duchy or rather a silver.

generally silver is awesome but not so much in dominion -.-

The $5 card, unless you have a very good reason to buy a Silver instead of the $5 card. The odds of your opponent's Swindler hitting it are like 1/14 or less, you should make the play that's superior 13/14 of the time, not the one that's superior 1/14 of the time.

[liopoil]

King's court I would consider a village even, because it lets you play two more actions

Village lets you play one more action.

one more than a cantrip, but it two more than a terminal, which is what I mean. If you play a village, you get to play three actions total - village and two terminals. If you play a KC you play three actions - one card three times. I'm counting village as actually playing an action because you draw a card.

[Awaclus]

King's court I would consider a village even, because it lets you play two more actions

Village lets you play one more action.

one more than a cantrip, but it two more than a terminal, which is what I mean. If you play a village, you get to play three actions total - village and two terminals. If you play a KC you play three actions - one card three times. I'm counting village as actually playing an action because you draw a card.

But you also lose a card (the Village). What about Necropolis?

[markusin]

I've got my own interpretation of all this.Here are my working definitions of terminal and non-terminal:


- Terminal Action - A card that, when played, decreases the number of additional terminal actions you can play on the same turn.

- Non-Terminal Action - A card that, when played, does not decrease the number of additional terminal actions you can play on the same turn.

Action splitters( or "villages") are a subset of non-terminal actions.

- Action Splitter - A card that, when played, increases the number of additional terminal actions you can play on the same turn.


You kinda have to add a special rule to the game that stipulates "When you cannot play any additional actions on your turn, you cannot play any additional non-terminals on that turn either". Notice the emphasis on the current turn. I'll explain why I define them like that shortly.


What are the consequences of these definitions? Well, all existing cantrips and cards that give +1 action are clearly non-terminal. What's key is that the number of non-terminals you can have in play is unbounded by the number of actions available, assuming the available number of actions is not zero.

Also, KC/TR/Golem/etc. are not only non-terminal, but action splitters as well. For example, playing one TR lets me play at least two additional terminal actions. An unbounded chain of them can play an unbounded number of terminals. I mean, a hypothetical hand of 50 Throne Rooms and 50 Militias can have all 50 Militias played and then some.

The big point I wanted to discuss is what durations fit into the "Terminal" category. By my definition Wharf, Tactician, and Merchant Ship are terminal, but Fishing Village and Caravan are non-terminals.

A hypothetical card that had an effect like "+1 action. At the start of your next turn, -1 action" would actually be non-terminal. Why? Because on the turn you play that hypothetical card, you can play as many other copies of it as possible, as well as any number of other non-terminals as well. Admittedly, my definition breaks down when the Tactician effect is considered (-1 action now, +2 actions next turn).

In theory, a delayed village (-1 action now, +2 actions next turn) can have two more copies of the delayed village played next turn, which can in turn lead to another 4 copies of the delayed village being played the turn after. At least, that doesn't happen with Tactician due to the hand discarding that can only be overcome with specific action splitters (Herald, Golem). But Wharf? Without action splitters, you can only have at most 2 copies of them in play at one time (one will have had to been played last the turn, the other in the current turn). Compare that to, say, Market that can have an unbounded number of them in play at once. The difference between infinity to 1 (The case for most terminals) and infinity to 2 (Durations like Wharf and Merchant Ship) is virtually nothing. It's also impossible to put into play 2 Wharves on the same turn, because there is no way to put Wharf in play in the first place without losing an available action first.

The notion of "half-terminal" doesn't have much theoretical significance, although when put to practical analysis it means you can reduce the number of terminal collisions with half-terminals. I also feel like introducing the notion of "half non-terminal", for any hypothetical card that says something like "set aside a copy of this card from your hand. If you do, +1 action. Discard the cards set aside this way during clean-up". The closest we have to a card like that is Nobles.

tl,dr: I say KC/TR/Golem/etc. are non-terminal, and are even action splitters. Wharf is terminal. Tactician is effectively terminal due to the discard-the-hand thing, but would otherwise be non-terminal.

Edit: Formatting

[SirPeebles]

- Terminal Action - A card that, when played, decreases the number of additional terminal actions you can play on the same turn.