Print

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

[Jack Rudd]

I usually wait to be attacked before I buy attack cards, and even then there are some I wouldn't bother with such as Mountebank. 

Erm, OK.

(You do know that's the single nastiest Attack in the game, right?)

[Kahryl]

I veto random, every time.

I'd prefer to have a completely random kingdom.. but I don't want people to be able to back out of games by seeing the layout beforehand (this makes it not random, too)

[Lekkit]

Vetoing all attacks make the game much more solitaire. I prefer playing with cards that affects the other player(s).

[pooka]

I usually wait to be attacked before I buy attack cards, and even then there are some I wouldn't bother with such as Mountebank. 

Erm, OK.

(You do know that's the single nastiest Attack in the game, right?)

If I wanted nasty I'd play halo.

[rspeer]

But you're suggesting you would let your opponent just spam Mountebank at you without retaliating. Do you ever win that way?

On a board with Witch, would you seriously not buy a Witch until your opponent does?

I mean, this all sounds great as a moral code for living your life, or as a strategy for playing a semi-cooperative game. But it sounds like a sure recipe for losing at Dominion.

[ChaosRed]

I mean, this all sounds great as a moral code for living your life, or as a strategy for playing a semi-cooperative game. But it sounds like a sure recipe for losing at Dominion.

True, but some people value playing a certain way over winning. Personally, I do buy Witch, but my wife never purchases any attack card until I do. It's just her style of play. I think for a lot of us casual players, it's not singularly focused on winning, a lot of this is social and sometimes etiquette is involved as a result. We're just in it for the laughs. You can lose this sense completely on isotropic, which is fine, nothing wrong with strong-competitive play either, but in social games, you often put a governor on things to ensure the game is enjoyable for all parties.

I've seen this in multi-player games a lot. Think of RISK where one opponent could clearly be taken out, but the other players leave them alone and let them rebuild a little, so as to not exclude them out of the game. I've even seen this in Axis and Allies (although less so, because those games are long and a little more cutthroat).

[WanderingWinder]

I mean, this all sounds great as a moral code for living your life, or as a strategy for playing a semi-cooperative game. But it sounds like a sure recipe for losing at Dominion.

True, but some people value playing a certain way over winning. Personally, I do buy Witch, but my wife never purchases any attack card until I do. It's just her style of play. I think for a lot of us casual players, it's not singularly focused on winning, a lot of this is social and sometimes etiquette is involved as a result. We're just in it for the laughs. You can lose this sense completely on isotropic, which is fine, nothing wrong with strong-competitive play either, but in social games, you often put a governor on things to ensure the game is enjoyable for all parties.

I've seen this in multi-player games a lot. Think of RISK where one opponent could clearly be taken out, but the other players leave them alone and let them rebuild a little, so as to not exclude them out of the game. I've even seen this in Axis and Allies (although less so, because those games are long and a little more cutthroat).

But if you aren't trying to win... wait what? It's a game. That's what you do, you try to have fun, and you try to win. In the words of Herm Edwards "You play to win the game!" I just so don't understand this....
But if it works for you guys, more power to you.

[ChaosRed]

But if it works for you guys, more power to you.

Cheers and to clarify winning in some games can be secondary to having a good time playing the game. For example, how competitive do you get at a game played at a dinner party? Usually, you often don't compete as seriously and instead create an atmosphere that produces laughter and fun. Dice games are often like this for example, which is one reason why people like them. Playing a game with kids is another clear cut example. Winning is still an object (perhaps), but a secondary one. Even in sport this can be so. In some soccer games, I do all I can to win, in other games (pickup soccer on Sunday) I actually try to focus on improving certain elements of my game, or focus on one aspect, (even to the detriment of winning). So it can even be a useful tactic to make winning secondary.

When my wife and I play DOMINION, I know she hates attack cards (especially curse cards). When I reach for the Witch, I let her know and she laments this, because she knows she must get one now too. She'll never reach for it first though, it's just not her style. She plays well, but to her the enjoyment of the game is building a fun, functional deck, not destroying someone else's. That's one of the reasons the game appeals to her, the constructive elements are a lot of fun to her, the destructive elements are not.

[Jorbles]

I tend to veto cards that are highly luck based like Treasure Map, Tournament (though not all the time) and Black Market or cards that I just find to be unfun (Saboteur, and  Possession, mostly, but sometimes Familiar).

 If none of those types of cards are in I often just veto randomly or veto the card I think is least likely to be bought by anyone (Chancellors, Explorers, Libraries with no deck hand attacks, Vineyards with no plus buys, etc.)

[dondon151]

On a board with Witch, would you seriously not buy a Witch until your opponent does?

I play almost exclusively irl with friends (3 or 4-player), and a lot of the time we won't touch an Attack card unless someone else does. We know that usually, if one player buys Witch, then everyone else has to buy Witch to compete, so our game states are narrowed down to two options:

1. Everyone ignores the Attack card, and we all build our efficient decks
2. Everyone gets the Attack card, and we go through a phase of being bogged down until either the Curses run out or our decks become fat enough that a discard attack isn't being played every turn, and then we trudge to some sort of finish

In kingdoms with Sea Hag, it's not uncommon for all of us to ignore Sea Hag in our opening buys. I typically end up going last and sometimes getting a $4 hand on turn 2, giving me the only Sea Hag before the reshuffle, and most of the time the Curses will still split 6-7-7 after the other 2 players follow my lead on turns 3 and 4.

[pooka]

Like I said, I actually think attack cards aren't worth it in many cases in a 2p.  They tend to be terminals, for one thing.  It really would have to be the best card that I am able to buy.  You have a limited number of turns, is a +$2 action or draw 2 discard 2 really that great, just to hurt your opponents deck? (it depends, but I'd submit that if woodcutter stinks, so do a lot of these attack cards and I mean stink as a benefit to you and a use of hand space, not just stinking mean.)  I also decided today that I would veto ghost ship if given the chance. 

It used to be that I didn't want to attack people, and I've somewhat gotten over that.  I'll play Goons any chance I get. 

[dondon151]

Like I said, I actually think attack cards aren't worth it in many cases in a 2p.  They tend to be terminals, for one thing.  It really would have to be the best card that I am able to buy.

The numbers don't lie; attack cards are definitely worth it.

[pooka]

I think those numbers are driven a lot on certain combinations and >2p games.  Here's a game I just played, and I admit that I started to question my strategy when he saboteured a gold, a grand market, and a province.  But I think he just ran out of turns, and buying those cards cost him turns.  (I didn't plan on the pileout either, but he drained the first two.)  I kind of bailed on my strategy which was supposed to be quarry to grand market.  I wasn't planning on farmland, but I kept hitting $4 without copper or $7 with.

http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201111/17/game-20111117-214220-cca1a7f3.html

[ftl]

It depends on the attack.

Saboteur is not one of the attacks that is good, unless it can be KC or throned, I think. Mainly because it gives you no benefit. Spy is of course not that great. Bureaucrat isn't that great.

Militia and Cutpurse are pretty good as openers. Goons both gives you VP AND attacks - pretty epic. 

And of course, as mentioned, lots of the cursers are pretty elite, because at WORST you force your opponent to match what you do, and if they don't, they end with a dead deck.

Woodcutter is bad because it's usually a waste of time to buy - it's worse than a silver because it takes an action, and  you usually don't use the +buy benefit. Attacks are good because they hurt the other guys, you can't ignore that part of it. Yeah, it's obvious that if a witch didn't give out curses, it would be worse than a moat - but giving out curses is awesome.

[biopower]

I think those numbers are driven a lot on certain combinations and >2p games.  Here's a game I just played, and I admit that I started to question my strategy when he saboteured a gold, a grand market, and a province.  But I think he just ran out of turns, and buying those cards cost him turns.  (I didn't plan on the pileout either, but he drained the first two.)  I kind of bailed on my strategy which was supposed to be quarry to grand market.  I wasn't planning on farmland, but I kept hitting $4 without copper or $7 with.

http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201111/17/game-20111117-214220-cca1a7f3.html

I doubt your assertion about numbers being driven by combos and >2p games, because lots of simulation data also suggest adding attacks increases your winrate.

Your log is based on saboteurs, and saboteur is one of the worst attacks; I don't think you can really make a statement about attacks in general based on Saboteur (or Pirate Ship, or Thief, or Noble Brigand). If anything, it supports the thesis that the numbers are accurate: Saboteurs have a 0.83 ± 0.00 win rate with and a 1.11 ± 0.00 win rate without.

[ftl]

the enjoyment of the game is building a fun, functional deck

Hah! My thoughts are exactly the same, but that's exactly why I like attacks.

In the absence of attacks, it seems like it's often counterproductive to build a fun, functional deck. BM+[some smithy variant] are just so good and so fast that there's no time and no reason to get down to a sleek deck that does cool things. You buy your one smithy on the first shuffle, one more smithy on the third shuffle, and try to win the duchy dance.

The presence of good attacks makes it worthwhile to go the extra mile and buy some villages and buy those trashers even if they're slow and try to make sure you draw your deck (so you can play that attack each turn). The presence of attacks means everyone gets stuck for longer in the $3-$5 range, which is the range engine components are at, making it less harmful to slow down and get villages instead of silvers and wind up with a cool engine.

[pooka]

But I'm not talking about no attacks, I'm talking about not resorting to them.  Now if I eat all 10 curses, yeah I'll generally lose.  But most cursing cards cost, what, $2 more than a card that otherwise does the same thing.  If you win more with that card, it's because you have more money to throw around.  That's my guess. 

[olneyce]

Like I said, I actually think attack cards aren't worth it in many cases in a 2p.  They tend to be terminals, for one thing.

Well, curses are also terminals in a way.  Except much worse. So if you buy a couple terminals and your opponent gets a deck full of curses, that seems like a pretty clear win for the attack card.

[jotheonah]

I'm always tempted to veto nasty attacks, but then I'll never learn to use or counter them.  I try to play at least a few games with every card. In practice I'll try to veto a card that doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the set, or cards that I find incredibly boring, like Duchess.

Also, maybe it's just my stubborn contrarian nature, but when there's a "super-dominant" card on the board I'll often leave it on and then see if I can win without buying it, just for a challenge.  Like recently I (largely) ignored Tournament in a Colony game, went for Goons/Gardens, and beat my opponents with all their fancy prizes. That might be a bad example because Goons is also super dominant, but the point is, obvious strategies are playing it safe.  You'll never discover a really cool new strategy without trying some goofy fails in the meantime, IMO.

Sidenote: When I first started on Iso (read: like last month), I had a real love affair with the Treasure Map. And every time I played in veto mode my opponent would ax it. It made me sad.

[popsofctown]

I was thinking about the big tournament.

Most of the people, including me, aren't skilled enough to expect to win.  However, if I'm not actually somehow a dormant Dominion genius held back by lack of pressure or something, I have no chance of placing first anyway.  Therefore, I should assume that I am such a genius when I make veto decisions.  Therefore, I should veto against variance in the tournament.  And so should the majority of people playing.  Creating a paradox!!!

Of course, if I were to get to semis or finals, then I would flip back to increasing variance, since I'm more likely to be a lucky dormant level 40 player than a dormant level 50 player at all etc.

[fellowmartian]

I veto for fun. What my perception of fun is varies. Often I veto high variance cards like TM or KC. Or cards that can make things dull or samey like JoAT or Torturer (if the kingdom doesn't offer something alternative to spice things up). Or cards that have cropped up a lot recently.

[popsofctown]

I don't see how KC is any higher variance than something like Bank.  Or most powerful X/big money.

[Thisisnotasmile]

I don't see how KC is any higher variance than something like Bank.  Or most powerful X/big money.

In my mind, Bank is the money-based-strategy version of KC.

[Saucery]

I veto clearly dominant cards, or cards with high RNG. However I rarely veto high variance cards which are crappy on average (Pirate Ship) - I'm happy to take those odds.

[dondon151]

I don't see how KC is any higher variance than something like Bank.  Or most powerful X/big money.

Because unless you have +draw in the kingdom, Bank is not usually worth more than a Gold, and if you do have +draw in the kingdom, you'd have way too much cash. It's also not quite as powerful if you manage to draw lots of coin in hand and not quite as weak if you don't manage to draw lots of coin in hand.

Whereas with KC, if you draw it dead, you don't get a consolation prize, and if you draw it with something good, it's really good.