Print

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

[GendoIkari]

This is just totally outclassed by the other cursers, right?

Giant is not usually a curser.  It's a trashing attack that gets to be a Curser if the trashing fails.

You understand my question well enough to answer it, but you'll spend time criticizing the way I posed it and forgo the time it takes to answer what I asked.

I don't read it that way at all... I didn't see his response as a criticism of the way you posed your question; but rather as a good answer to that question. The point is that for something to be outclassed by cursers; that thing generally needs to be a curser. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges. The helpful question to ask here is how it compares to other trashers; not how it compares to other cursers.

[GendoIkari]

Whether Giant is mostly a curser or a trasher depends on the situation. Against a thick deck, it's mostly a curser, making the attack not much different from Witch. Against a thin deck, it's mostly a trasher, and the attack is comparable to Knight's (in some ways better, in some ways worse). But the attack only hits once every 2 plays. The average +$3 is better than Dame Sylvia's +$2, but maybe not better than Witch's +2 cards and Sir Destry's +2 cards. This makes me think that Giant will be weaker than those cards, unless there is some way to favourably manipulate the Journey token.

Being weaker than auto-buys doesn't say much about its power level though. I think it'll be good enough to run in the right situations, but not an auto-buy. I like that in a card.

I don't get this... the what matters is the percentage of cards in the opposing deck that cost the right amount. How thin or thick the deck is shouldn't change how often it curses vs trashes.

[spiralstaircase]

What I hope the +5 cards card is - $3 action
Turn your Journey token over (it starts face up). If it's face down, +4 cards. If it's face up, +1 card.

If this isn't called Dwarf, then my 2015 prediction is for a million fan cards called Dwarf.

[jonts26]

Whether Giant is mostly a curser or a trasher depends on the situation. Against a thick deck, it's mostly a curser, making the attack not much different from Witch. Against a thin deck, it's mostly a trasher, and the attack is comparable to Knight's (in some ways better, in some ways worse). But the attack only hits once every 2 plays. The average +$3 is better than Dame Sylvia's +$2, but maybe not better than Witch's +2 cards and Sir Destry's +2 cards. This makes me think that Giant will be weaker than those cards, unless there is some way to favourably manipulate the Journey token.

Being weaker than auto-buys doesn't say much about its power level though. I think it'll be good enough to run in the right situations, but not an auto-buy. I like that in a card.

I don't get this... the what matters is the percentage of cards in the opposing deck that cost the right amount. How thin or thick the deck is shouldn't change how often it curses vs trashes.

I think the logic is, a thin deck has gotten rid of estates and coppers and thus generally has a high density of trash able targets and vice versa.

[GendoIkari]

Whether Giant is mostly a curser or a trasher depends on the situation. Against a thick deck, it's mostly a curser, making the attack not much different from Witch. Against a thin deck, it's mostly a trasher, and the attack is comparable to Knight's (in some ways better, in some ways worse). But the attack only hits once every 2 plays. The average +$3 is better than Dame Sylvia's +$2, but maybe not better than Witch's +2 cards and Sir Destry's +2 cards. This makes me think that Giant will be weaker than those cards, unless there is some way to favourably manipulate the Journey token.

Being weaker than auto-buys doesn't say much about its power level though. I think it'll be good enough to run in the right situations, but not an auto-buy. I like that in a card.

I don't get this... the what matters is the percentage of cards in the opposing deck that cost the right amount. How thin or thick the deck is shouldn't change how often it curses vs trashes.

I think the logic is, a thin deck has gotten rid of estates and coppers and thus generally has a high density of trash able targets and vice versa.

I see. But man, that completely assumes that my strategy of thinning out everything BUT Coppers and Estates isn't being used!

[markusin]

Whether Giant is mostly a curser or a trasher depends on the situation. Against a thick deck, it's mostly a curser, making the attack not much different from Witch. Against a thin deck, it's mostly a trasher, and the attack is comparable to Knight's (in some ways better, in some ways worse). But the attack only hits once every 2 plays. The average +$3 is better than Dame Sylvia's +$2, but maybe not better than Witch's +2 cards and Sir Destry's +2 cards. This makes me think that Giant will be weaker than those cards, unless there is some way to favourably manipulate the Journey token.

Being weaker than auto-buys doesn't say much about its power level though. I think it'll be good enough to run in the right situations, but not an auto-buy. I like that in a card.

I don't get this... the what matters is the percentage of cards in the opposing deck that cost the right amount. How thin or thick the deck is shouldn't change how often it curses vs trashes.

I think the logic is, a thin deck has gotten rid of estates and coppers and thus generally has a high density of trash able targets and vice versa.

I see. But man, that completely assumes that my strategy of thinning out everything BUT Coppers and Estates isn't being used!

Step 1) Don't buy any cards
Step 2) Profit

But really, you can have a deck relying on $2's and $7+'s, which already defends well against knights, but defends against the trashing part of Giant even better.

[mathguy89]

Is it just me, or does the attack only happen on the +$5 part of the Giant?

The +$1 has a period after it.  The +$5 has the comma and then describes the attack. 

Ultimately, the rulebook will clarify.

[Witherweaver]

Is it just me, or does the attack only happen on the +$5 part of the Giant?

The +$1 has a period after it.  The +$5 has the comma and then describes the attack. 

Ultimately, the rulebook will clarify.

I don't believe anyone was interpreting it any other way, were they?

[Gherald]

This is the sort of thing where if you need the rulebook to clarify you really aren't taking the time to properly read the two sentences on the card.

If it's face up, +. If it's face down, <everything else>.

[GendoIkari]

Is it just me, or does the attack only happen on the +$5 part of the Giant?

The +$1 has a period after it.  The +$5 has the comma and then describes the attack. 

Ultimately, the rulebook will clarify.

You are definitely correct. Welcome to the forum!

[ConMan]

Is it just me, or does the attack only happen on the +$5 part of the Giant?

The +$1 has a period after it.  The +$5 has the comma and then describes the attack. 

Ultimately, the rulebook will clarify.

Well, your opponent can reveal a Moat even if you're getting the $1 effect. Or, to more effect, they can reveal a Secret Chamber, or Horse Traders. Just like if you played a Minion and chose to get $2, except in this case you don't get to choose.

[popsofctown]

Buying 0 or 2+ copies of Giant seems to increase the chance you will play it an even number of times, which is good.  Right?

[GendoIkari]

Buying 0 or 2+ copies of Giant seems to increase the chance you will play it an even number of times, which is good.  Right?

I don't think this is right...  with 2 Giants, I'm not sure that your chances of playing it an even number of times increases over just 1 Giant. Let's say for 1 Giant, there's a 50% chance of playing it an even number of times... this should be about true on average. For 2 Giants, each one still has that 50% chance of being played an even number of times. So there are 4 options, each with a 25% chance of occurring:

Giant 1 played odd #, Giant 2 played odd # - Even number of Giants played
Giant 1 played even #, Giant 2 played even # - Even number of Giants played
Giant 1 played odd #, Giant 2 played even # - Odd number of Giants played
Giant 1 played even #, Giant 2 played odd # - Odd number of Giants played

Still comes out to 50/50.

Now if you're drawing your entire deck each turn, then this changes; because you won't ever end the game while your Giant hasn't been found in the current shuffle. In that case, 2 Giants would mean you always play even; 3 would mean you have a 50/50 chance of playing even or odd.

[markusin]

If you play 3 Giants each turn, then you alternate between even and odd each turn (odd+odd=even). It isn't always an odd number of Giant plays.

[Seprix]

Is it just me, or does the attack only happen on the +$5 part of the Giant?

The +$1 has a period after it.  The +$5 has the comma and then describes the attack. 

Ultimately, the rulebook will clarify.

He's right! Giant is kind of bad...

[GendoIkari]

If you play 3 Giants each turn, then you alternate between even and odd each turn (odd+odd=even). It isn't always an odd number of Giant plays.

Oops, fixed.

[joel88s]

This is the sort of thing where if you need the rulebook to clarify you really aren't taking the time to properly read the two sentences on the card.

If it's face up, +. If it's face down, <everything else>.

OR.... we could be patient and welcoming to new posters.
Sounds to me like he read it perfectly well, but doubted himself because an attack card that attacks every other time is a bit of novelty.

[mathguy89]

This is the sort of thing where if you need the rulebook to clarify you really aren't taking the time to properly read the two sentences on the card.

If it's face up, +. If it's face down, <everything else>.

OR.... we could be patient and welcoming to new posters.
Sounds to me like he read it perfectly well, but doubted himself because an attack card that attacks every other time is a bit of novelty.

Yeah, thanks Joel.  I've been around Dominion for a long time.  Been playing since the beginning.  Lurked around here on and off for awhile.  Giant is definitely a novelty with the alternating attack.  I like it though.  I was a bit surprised to be met with condescension for asking a simple question.  It wouldn't be the first time there was ever a grammatical ambiguity on a card in a board/card game, so I figured it was worth asking about. 

[Gherald]

My response was directed at "Ultimately, the rulebook will clarify."

There's things we need a rulebook or rulings to determine. This card, on careful reading, isn't one of them.

[GendoIkari]

This is the sort of thing where if you need the rulebook to clarify you really aren't taking the time to properly read the two sentences on the card.

If it's face up, +. If it's face down, <everything else>.

OR.... we could be patient and welcoming to new posters.
Sounds to me like he read it perfectly well, but doubted himself because an attack card that attacks every other time is a bit of novelty.

Yeah, thanks Joel.  I've been around Dominion for a long time.  Been playing since the beginning.  Lurked around here on and off for awhile.  Giant is definitely a novelty with the alternating attack.  I like it though.  I was a bit surprised to be met with condescension for asking a simple question.  It wouldn't be the first time there was ever a grammatical ambiguity on a card in a board/card game, so I figured it was worth asking about.

Well stick around; I've found this forum on average to be far more friendly and welcoming than most!

[Witherweaver]

And if we call you stupid, it's only to encourage the learning process.

[Gherald]

If it's face up, +. If it's face down, <everything else>.

Whoops, that helps understand the syntax - but I just realized I flipped the up/downs

If it's face down, +. <otherwise, everything else>

[Seprix]

If you can't play Giant more than once a turn, it's probably not worth going for, I think. Just like if you can't play a Pillage a turn, it's probably a bad idea.

[liopoil]

If you can't play Giant more than once a turn, it's probably not worth going for, I think. Just like if you can't play a Pillage a turn, it's probably a bad idea.

I disagree with both of these statements.

[Seprix]

If you can't play Giant more than once a turn, it's probably not worth going for, I think. Just like if you can't play a Pillage a turn, it's probably a bad idea.

I disagree with both of these statements.

I said probably, and Stef himself doesn't like going for Pillage unless he can get them every turn usually, so I based it off of that.