Print

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

[PSUmvp]

I'm assuming the stats can be run fairly easily to answer this one definitively, but what is the card that you (1) most often see vetoed and (2) veto yourself?

(1) Very rarely do I see a veto game come up with Ambassador that it does not get vetoed.  Personally I love the Ambassador games, especially with +action, Throne Room and Kings Court. 

(2) I almost always veto University, I just find it to be boring.  University games tend to focus on who can get a good shuffle to get two quick universities and then load up on Laboratories or whatever the strong $5 is.  I am sure not many people will agree with me on this one, but I don't see any ingenuity with university.  Though depending on recent games and having played a card too much I can also lean towards very dominant (and non-combo cards): Minion and  Fool's Gold come to mind.  I also do not like the games that end up in a race for $2 and $3 cards, so I will always take out the Vineyards, Ironworks/workshop combos.

We have all seen the threads related to favorite or least favorite card.  But I think the veto mode on isotropic goes beyond favorite/least favorite, it is so much more about strategy.  I understand that there will definitely be games that you veto a card strictly based on the others available.  But without any obvious choices, which cards are most often nixed from the game before it starts?

[HiveMindEmulator]

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=594.msg8195#msg8195

That's old data, but certainly dougz has it.

[jsh357]

I only veto Pirate Ship in multiplayer games and hit random every other time.  Most commonly I see people veto Cursing attacks, Saboteur, and Possession. 

[popsofctown]

I still don't get why people hate possession so much.  Probably psychological, sigh.  "You're using my cards!"

People wouldn't veto functionally 9$ card that said "+1 Buy.  Get 2-10$ at random"


Anyways, I always veto Treasure Map.  I'm of the opinion that it's the single card in the game with the most variant payouts.

[jsh357]

Possession is just one of those cards that always seems like it never works for you and always works for your opponent.  Or maybe I'm just horrible with it.  I still don't mind playing with it, though.

[Dubdubdubdub]

I still don't get why people hate possession so much.  Probably psychological, sigh.  "You're using my cards!"

People wouldn't veto functionally 9$ card that said "+1 Buy.  Get 2-10$ at random"


Anyways, I always veto Treasure Map.  I'm of the opinion that it's the single card in the game with the most variant payouts.

I'm guessing you'd veto that $9 card yourself, seeing uou don't like variant payouts..

[popsofctown]

Yes, and that's why I am understanding of some people who think Possession is variant and want it vetoed.  I still think there must be something else going on, though, because Swindler and Tournament are much more variant.

But Treasure map just blows everything else out of the water.  When both players go for the strategy and one of them gets it a reshuffle early when they were both spamming cellars or what have you, it seems really silly.

[HiveMindEmulator]

I still don't get why people hate possession so much.  Probably psychological, sigh.  "You're using my cards!"

People wouldn't veto functionally 9$ card that said "+1 Buy.  Get 2-10$ at random"

I would. After cards that create unique cards (tournament and black market), I tend to just veto anything that has a particularly inconvenient cost ($6 or more, $3+P or more...), because you can get situations where a slight difference in luck turns into a big difference. After that I go for cards with really swingy effects (swindler, treasure map, sab...) and finally just the most powerful card.

[popsofctown]

Yes, but Alchemist and Familiar's impact on early tempo dwarfs Possessions awkward potion cost, so why is Possession the most vetoed card?

[olneyce]

Possession is irritating because it utterly changes the nature of the game.  It becomes a negative to construct a strong deck.  Instead, your best bet is to construct a deck that can't buy anything good, but can play multiple Possessions.

Obviously, most Possession games don't actually go that direction because it's often a trap that takes too long to be worth it.  But the risk is why I don't like it.   It's either going to significantly warp the game, or it's going to have virtually no meaningful effect, with not a whole lot of space in between. 

Possession isn't 'swingy' in the way that Swindler is, sure.  There are good ways to counter it, or magnify its usefulness and it takes skill and good tactical sense to sort that out.  But that doesn't make it less annoying; it's just a slightly different type of annoying.

[petrie911]

Possession rewards you for building a poor deck and punishes you for building a good one.  I would guess that's part of where the hate comes from.

I nearly always veto random or veto dominant cards that I've already played with a lot and feel like doing something else.  CR stats indicate I should veto Ambassador more, as it has my lowest win rate given available.

I'd like to see a vetoes page on CR, though I don't know how much work that would be to make.

[olneyce]

Yes, but Alchemist and Familiar's impact on early tempo dwarfs Possessions awkward potion cost, so why is Possession the most vetoed card?

I always veto Familiar.  It's the only card that I will veto 100% of the time.  Others I'll at least consider if the board is likely to make them play in a more interesting way than normal.  Like, I veto Minion a lot because it will get in the way of a more interesting strategy.  But I don't particularly hate Minion games.

Alchemist isn't really a problem.  It's not nearly as game-breaking as Familiar if one person gets it and the other doesn't. 

[Tahtweasel]

The rare games where Possession actually can be played regularly >1.0 times per turn, all normal game logic goes out the window. You have to get yourself down to 0 treasure, and fast. I've even Chapeled Bazaars in a Possession game.

[popsofctown]

Possession is irritating because it utterly changes the nature of the game.  It becomes a negative to construct a strong deck.  Instead, your best bet is to construct a deck that can't buy anything good, but can play multiple Possessions.

Obviously, most Possession games don't actually go that direction because it's often a trap that takes too long to be worth it.  But the risk is why I don't like it.   It's either going to significantly warp the game, or it's going to have virtually no meaningful effect, with not a whole lot of space in between. 

Possession isn't 'swingy' in the way that Swindler is, sure.  There are good ways to counter it, or magnify its usefulness and it takes skill and good tactical sense to sort that out.  But that doesn't make it less annoying; it's just a slightly different type of annoying.

Most boards have a card that can improve your deck without improving the ghosted deck.  Explorer, IGG, any attack, VP chip family, Trading Post, Mine, Watchtower, Royal Seal ish.    I understand some hate when Possession forces both players to buy Duchies, but I don't quite get why the card is vetoed right on sight.  When something on the board just makes you buy extra responses, that doesn't seem any more game warping than Young Witch to me.  Yet Possession is always vetoed no matter what, and is on its own responsible for at least 10% of people who set automatch to veto mode.  (lies, damn lies and statistics)

[Tahtweasel]

I'm surprised this hasn't been discussed here, but my first target for veto is actually Secret Chamber if there are attacks on the board.

[jsh357]

I'm surprised this hasn't been discussed here, but my first target for veto is actually Secret Chamber if there are attacks on the board.

In group games, yeah, it's definitely one I'd consider.  Even worse with, say, Torturer which its all the opponents in a specific order.

[RisingJaguar]

When I'm playing to win, I'll take a minute to devise... Plan A, Plan B, Plan A/B variants.  Lets say I'm more confident in Plan A, I will veto the card that helps Plan B much more than Plan A.  That way it forces my opponent to play a mirror match with me in something I'm confident, or have the opponent face me using (what I think to be) an inferior plan. 

When I'm playing to learn, I leave all the strongest, highest variable, most used cards in there.  You can probably better learn how cards interact by leaving all these strong cards together and watching how it all unfolds first hand.  I find it much more interesting, even if its the most lopsided loss ever. 

[chwhite]

Ill-Gotten Gains is pretty much the only automatic veto for me these days, since it so often forces what I consider to be an uninteresting and unenjoyable game. 

JoaT, Envoy, Fool's Gold and Duke are my runners-up, and after that would be the super-swingy attacks Swindler and Familiar; though sometimes I'll let them through.  After IGG, it really depends on what else is out there.

There's way less luck to Tournament games than most people realize; I never veto it.  Possession is another frequent target I prefer to let through most of the time, since usually it's just a trap card.

[tlloyd]

I don't like Possession for the same reason I don't like Smugglers. But hands down my most-likely veto is Young Witch. In my experience it invariably hits every time for one player and almost never for the other (usually me).

[PerdHapley]

My personal top 5 veto list goes Ambassador, Minion, Tournament, Alchemist and Chapel, in that order. These are the cards I'll veto out of pure dislike whether I'm first player or not, and no matter what the rest of the board is. Basically, the cards that not only create a pretty boring, usually unavoidable strategy but depend heavily on shuffle luck or, in Minion's case, a race to rush a single pile. It is not as if these cards don't require skill to use (Ambassador and Tournament, certainly, aren't just "shut off your brain and go through the motions" cards in the same way the other three are), but they both can be an absolute slog to play. Ambassador is hands down my number one, mostly due to a string of games in which I opened double Amb and drew the dreaded Amb/Amb/C/C/C hand on turn 5.

Barring that, it's pretty mood dependent for me. Sometimes I'll shut out obvious combos or power cards if I don't feel up for that particular kind of game (stuff like Grand Market, Ghost Ship, Duke, Market/Highway, Ironworks/Gardens, University/Watchtower, Governor/Goons, Nomad Camp/Fool's Gold, Hamlet/Peddler), or, when I'm second player, cards that heavily favor first player advantage (Militia, Cutpurse, Goons, Village/Torturer engines, IGG).

..And sometimes I just say whatever and hit random. Ironically, two of the cards I see vetoed most often are cards I almost never do: Possession and Tunnel. The latter really bums me out sometimes.

[ratxt1]

Ambassador and Tournament, certainly, aren't just "shut off your brain and go through the motions" cards in the same way the other three are

I don't see how chapel and alchemist are shut your brain and go through the motions type cards. Chapel yes is pretty straight forward in how you buy and play it, but most of the time it greatly increases the strategy space because of the amount of decks that now become viable.

Alchemist on the other hand is a a completly absurd veto for the reasons you are giving to veto it. First it is rarely dominant and most of the time a major trap card. Two the only time you want to go for alchemist is with some decent support. And three with that support avalible alchemist games are almost never just "go through the motions" games.

The "shut your brain off and go through the motions" cards are stuff like IGG and JoaT

[popsofctown]

I veto alchemist because it's a trap card.

That I usually fall into

[Anon79]

In the past month or so, the one time I recall seeing Chapel survive my opponent's veto is when he left it as a trap (Thief) which I duly fell into.

If there's only one Village on the board, I like to veto it. King's Court, Laboratory & Wharf are also high on my veto list, as I know I usually play sub-optimally when these are on the board. And in the meta-environment, most of my opponents are vetoing the swingy stuff anyway, so I don't need to.

[Wingnut]

Veto wise I start with Scrying Pool. Just too long of a game for not a lot of turns most times.

After that it's Pirate Ship. Only because my first game with Pirate Ship was an IRL 4-player game and I was the 4th player. Everybody else opened Pirate Ship and played it first turn after the reshuffle. Everyone hit one of my coins including a my Silver I had opened with. I refuse to play with the card if possible since then.

From there, I think strategically. If in 2nd position, Tournament is near automatic veto. Other than that, I like to try and set traps (such as vetoing the only +buy when Highway is in play with no other enabler).

That said, I always leave cursers unless there are more than two of them. I like curse games and it annoys me when people just auto-veto them.

[ehunt]

I veto hamlet and mining village a lot because those cards are too strong not to buy but I hate all the clicking.
Also, second player must veto grand market and wharf.

[Ozle]

I veto Black Market, tis a silly card

[rls22]

Well, it depends on my position.  If I'm Player 2, and there's an attack with Player 1 advantage (Sea Hag, Militia, Cutpurse, etc.) I'll veto that.  If I'm Player 1, I try to pick what my strategy will be, and then veto the thing that will get in the way of my strategy.  Barring that, I'll usually veto the typical high variance cards (Familiar, Treasure Map) or sometimes alternative Victory card strategies - e.g., Duke which I'm not 100% confident with as a strategy.

I'll let "trap" cards stand if there's a good out for me (Pirate Ship if there are +$ actions on the board, Alchemist if there's no +buy and it's a Province game, Possession if there are good attacks), in the hopes that my opponent will go for the trap.

I know some are opposed to the veto mode, but I don't mind it.. it's like a game within a game...  I don't care enough to click "require" on the Automatch, but I do think it's sort of fun.

[yuma]

I've seen a large rise in varient victory point cards as of late, especially Silk Road, Tunnel and Duke. I wonder if WanderingWinder's excellent articles on them have anything to do with this... I personally am now much less likely to veto them, but the opposite seems to be true the last little while.

I veto Ghost Ship, Potion cards when there is only one around and oddly enough and occasionally Tactician--even though it is one of my favorite cards to play.  Fool's Gold, Jack and Ill-Gotten Gains also get vetoed here and there by me although I have begun to enjoy playing with all three more and more.

[Piemaster]

I don't play veto games if I can help it.  If I accidently find myself in one, the cards that tend to get vetoed most often seem to be cursing attacks.  Usually I just veto that card which I have the lowest relative confidence in.

[Asklepios]

I'm another of those people that always vetoes Chapel.

A few reasons for this:

Firstly, I try to get rid of the most obvious strategies. If a board is too obvious, there's less room for skill to show.

Secondly, I don't like waiting too long between turns. Thus I'll often get rid of cards that allow for long chaining engines.

Thirdly, I like attacks, and Chapel often disrupts attacks. For the same reasons, my number one veto is Lighthouse. I'll almost never veto an attack, because more than 50% of the time I know my opponent is playing veto mode to exclude attacks they don't like, and they don't like them because they're not good at working with them in play.