Print

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

[Davio]

I was wondering if something like this would be practical:

Any Village-Bishop-Graverobber, $6 card

You just play Village, Bishop the $6 card for 1+3 = 4 VP and play Graverobber to get it back.
With this combo it's possible to score unlimited points at 4 points a pop. In comparison, it takes 4 Monument plays to get 4 VP.

You could of course expand on this with a crazy KC-scheme combo, it might make a nice puzzle, how many points can you gain per turn indefinitely with Bishop-Graverobber?

But the question is: Is this a new golden deck that we might see?

[Grujah]

Hmm.. Make that Village a Border Village, so anytime you gain it, You gain a Bishop or GR.

Than you have your 6 card right there as well.

[Davio]

I am curious about the theoretical upper limit, because you could even include 5 Highways which you play AFTER trashing your Colonies or less Highways for something like Peddler or Province so you can get them back with GR.

[Grujah]

Oh, wait, my idea is kinda stupid, it breaks the Golden Deck. Didn't realize you are speaking of golden.

[Varsinor]

But the question is: Is this a new golden deck that we might see?

Sure, why not?
Although it is weaker than the original golden deck as it only produces 4 VP per turn instead of 5.
So in most cases it may be better to go for Gold+Silver+Silver+Bishop+X instead.
But there are probably cases where the 4-VP-version is quicker to set up and where that is more important than the fifth VP per turn.

[eHalcyon]

KC-KC Graverobber Bishop Bishop

Each turn, GR three BVs and gain three $5 cards. Bishop each BV for 4 and each other for 3, to make 21 VP each turn until you run out of stuff to gain with BV.

You could also do a variation with two GRs instead, brining back 3 actions, expanding them into Provinces or even Plats, then trashing them.

Main issue is that your fodder could be GR'd by opponents.

[Thisisnotasmile]

KC-KC Graverobber Bishop Bishop

Each turn, GR three BVs and gain three $5 cards. Bishop each BV for 4 and each other for 3, to make 21 VP each turn until you run out of stuff to gain with BV.

You could also do a variation with two GRs instead, brining back 3 actions, expanding them into Provinces or even Plats, then trashing them.

Main issue is that your fodder could be GR'd by opponents Graverobber doesn't Graverob-to-hand.

[eHalcyon]

Well that's embarrassing!

Make that second GR a can trip so you can draw your new cards. You can still Bishop three things!

[jomini]

KC-KC Graverobber Bishop Bishop

Each turn, GR three BVs and gain three $5 cards. Bishop each BV for 4 and each other for 3, to make 21 VP each turn until you run out of stuff to gain with BV.

You could also do a variation with two GRs instead, brining back 3 actions, expanding them into Provinces or even Plats, then trashing them.

Main issue is that your fodder could be GR'd by opponents.

A way to make this work would be Kc/Kc/Grvr/Bish/Rats -

Gain 3 rats from trash (2 of which you Grvr'd into Kc's), trash a rat, draw a card, trash a rat, draw a card, trash a rat, draw final rat. Do not play final rat. This gives 12 VP a turn and your opponent most likely won't be trying to steal your fodder.

[Davio]

That's it, I'm making a puzzle.

[jomini]

Well that's embarrassing!

Make that second GR a can trip so you can draw your new cards. You can still Bishop three things!

Actually, you can use any draw you like (excepting jack). Because you have a chained KC, there is no need for +action. Because you only want to draw 3 cards, any + card works (excepting mandatory discards like warehouses and oases).

[jomini]

That's it, I'm making a puzzle.

Be sure to disallow durations, otherwise it will be some vastly insane number thanks to outpost/haven as you can hide a massive deck with Kc/Haven, play it during the normal turn (for insane amounts of VP), and then spend the OP turn hiding it back in the Kc/Haven tree.

[werothegreat]

That's it, I'm making a puzzle.

Be sure to disallow durations, otherwise it will be some vastly insane number thanks to outpost/haven as you can hide a massive deck with Kc/Haven, play it during the normal turn (for insane amounts of VP), and then spend the OP turn hiding it back in the Kc/Haven tree.

Hmm - this has probably been answered somewhere, but if I KC-KC-Haven-X-X, do I only leave one KC out with Haven, or both?

[eHalcyon]

That's it, I'm making a puzzle.

Be sure to disallow durations, otherwise it will be some vastly insane number thanks to outpost/haven as you can hide a massive deck with Kc/Haven, play it during the normal turn (for insane amounts of VP), and then spend the OP turn hiding it back in the Kc/Haven tree.

Hmm - this has probably been answered somewhere, but if I KC-KC-Haven-X-X, do I only leave one KC out with Haven, or both?

Just one, I believe.  And I believe that's true even if you do something like KC-KC-Duration-Duration-Duration.  The first KC was played on a KC, so it doesn't stay out.

[qmech]

KC-KC-Wharf-X-KC-Wharf-X-X on the other hand pins two KC's to the table.

[pauley_walnuts]

Having this topic brought up, I just realized that with the introduction of Graverobber, there is a potential for games to go on indefinitely (or one person resigns). This Golden Deck trashes and re-gains a $6 on the same turn so there could be no end for the game, especially if it's a mirror match with no cursing attacks and none of the supplies run out. Will it be a stalemate? Is there a way to get out of this stalemate? Whoever gets sick of the game first? Am I totally misinterpreting this?

Obviously if it's faster to run out the Province pile, then this wouldn't even be an issue.

[mnavratil]

Having this topic brought up, I just realized that with the introduction of Graverobber, there is a potential for games to go on indefinitely (or one person resigns). This Golden Deck trashes and re-gains a $6 on the same turn so there could be no end for the game, especially if it's a mirror match with no cursing attacks and none of the supplies run out. Will it be a stalemate? Is there a way to get out of this stalemate? Whoever gets sick of the game first? Am I totally misinterpreting this?

Obviously if it's faster to run out the Province pile, then this wouldn't even be an issue.

Technically such an issue exists now with Monument (KC, KC, Monument, Monument, Monument buy nothing or something like that), but it doesn't really come up in practice. I am hoping this is the same.

[pauley_walnuts]

Having this topic brought up, I just realized that with the introduction of Graverobber, there is a potential for games to go on indefinitely (or one person resigns). This Golden Deck trashes and re-gains a $6 on the same turn so there could be no end for the game, especially if it's a mirror match with no cursing attacks and none of the supplies run out. Will it be a stalemate? Is there a way to get out of this stalemate? Whoever gets sick of the game first? Am I totally misinterpreting this?

Obviously if it's faster to run out the Province pile, then this wouldn't even be an issue.

Technically such an issue exists now with Monument (KC, KC, Monument, Monument, Monument buy nothing or something like that), but it doesn't really come up in practice. I am hoping this is the same.

But I would think Bishop, Graverobber, Village, $6 is significantly easier to set up than KC/KC/Monument(x3). I would hope stalemates wouldn't happen either.

[AdamH]

Having this topic brought up, I just realized that with the introduction of Graverobber, there is a potential for games to go on indefinitely (or one person resigns). This Golden Deck trashes and re-gains a $6 on the same turn so there could be no end for the game, especially if it's a mirror match with no cursing attacks and none of the supplies run out. Will it be a stalemate? Is there a way to get out of this stalemate? Whoever gets sick of the game first? Am I totally misinterpreting this?

It's also possible to buy out the copper and curse piles and have all players chapel away their entire deck so it's impossible to buy anything for the rest of the game. Would this be the only possible condition where all players lose?

[Thisisnotasmile]

I believe the official ruling is that you play on until somebody dies.

Edit: Here you go http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/5148561#5148561

[Donald X.]

I believe the official ruling is that you play on until somebody dies.

Edit: Here you go http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/5148561#5148561

Let the record show that that guy, who appeared to be a new account created to repeat a question that he hadn't gotten a satisfactory answer for the first time, only this time pretending it had actually happened and thus really needed an answer okay please, vanished immediately after that thread.

[pauley_walnuts]

Well there goes my plan of creating a dummy account 

[() | (_) ^/]

I believe the official ruling is that you play on until somebody dies.

Edit: Here you go http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/5148561#5148561

Let the record show that that guy, who appeared to be a new account created to repeat a question that he hadn't gotten a satisfactory answer for the first time, only this time pretending it had actually happened and thus really needed an answer okay please, vanished immediately after that thread.

DXV ...

Many people have gushed over your game(s?) and I'm sure have been appreciative of the hard work that you have accomplished (and continue to accomplish?) by creating them.

But I must note that I really, really enjoy your personal (non-professional) contributions to humanity as well.  For example, EVERY TIME that that whole saga is brought up, you chime in with your disclaimer about the fishiness of that situation.  It really, really puts a smile on my face.  Thus effectively increasing the amount of smiles that have been smiled by the human race ever.  Grats, man -- you rock.

/gush

[NoMoreFun]

Having this topic brought up, I just realized that with the introduction of Graverobber, there is a potential for games to go on indefinitely (or one person resigns). This Golden Deck trashes and re-gains a $6 on the same turn so there could be no end for the game, especially if it's a mirror match with no cursing attacks and none of the supplies run out. Will it be a stalemate? Is there a way to get out of this stalemate? Whoever gets sick of the game first? Am I totally misinterpreting this?

It's also possible to buy out the copper and curse piles and have all players chapel away their entire deck so it's impossible to buy anything for the rest of the game. Would this be the only possible condition where all players lose?

This is an argument for including the ruins pile in every game.

[shMerker]

I believe the official ruling is that you play on until somebody dies.

Edit: Here you go http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/5148561#5148561

It's a much less grim scenario than you're imagining. Everyone just gets up from the table and whenever they happen to see each other someone says "pass" to signify that they've taken their turn. It becomes a really funny inside joke that stays with you for decades. When one of you finally dies you go to the will reading and when the lawyer reads the words "I concede the game of Dominion" you start laughing your ass off even though you want to cry and everyone there wonders what's wrong with you. Then you go home and find the dominion game, still in progress after all these years, and pack up all the cards. Now you start crying. But then one of your grandkids finds you and asks you what you're doing and you realize no one has even played card games since paper rationing began in 2037. So you say to your grandkid "This is your college fund. You can sell it for a king's ransom. But first, let me show you the game I used to play with my friends."

[WheresMyElephant]

But the question is: Is this a new golden deck that we might see?

Sure, why not?
Although it is weaker than the original golden deck as it only produces 4 VP per turn instead of 5.
So in most cases it may be better to go for Gold+Silver+Silver+Bishop+X instead.
But there are probably cases where the 4-VP-version is quicker to set up and where that is more important than the fifth VP per turn.

Well, I don't know much about the Golden Deck but isn't this very different because it doesn't run out the Provinces? The Golden Deck can have problems against a player who's primarily relying on Province points because that player just gets his share of Provinces too quickly and the pile runs out while the Golden Deck opponent is still catching up. This deck by contrast holds steady while more conventional decks try to choke down all eight Provinces.

At a minimum, it seems like this threat absolutely forces your opponent to go for Bishop or some other greening-resistant strategy.

[mnavratil]

Well, there are 2 reasons the golden deck uses provinces: 1 they are the most points to bishop, 2 they deny the other player provinces. There is nothing stopping you from playing the golden deck but instead buying a gold/trashing a gold each turn, but this play would inevitably lose to someone who also built a golden deck based on province trashing.

That being said, I can't imagine a scenario where the grave-robbing is superior to the province deck. But yes, I suppose if both players set that up it could lead to a stalemate.

[Grujah]

Third is you are left with a Province in your last hand which boosts your score additionally.

[SirPeebles]

Three fortresses and four bishops.  Twelve points each turn.

[eHalcyon]

Three fortresses and four bishops.  Twelve points each turn.

That won't give you enough actions to play all 4 Bishops on a Fortress.

KC-KC-Bishop-Bishop-Fortress to Bishop the Fortress 6 times for 18 points.

[SirPeebles]

Oh right, I forgot to take into account that the fortresses themselves take actions to play.  Make that four bishops and four fortresses to get 12 per turn.

[ftl]

Or Throne Room/Throne Room/Bishop/Bishop/Fortress. Then it's a 5-card hand for the 12 points.

If it gets Militia'd, then you are left with Throne Room/Bishop/Fortress, for 6 points.

[blueblimp]

Oh right, I forgot to take into account that the fortresses themselves take actions to play.  Make that four bishops and four fortresses to get 12 per turn.

This is a worrying 2-card combo. It doesn't push the game towards an end, and (a pretty easy to set up!) 12-vp-per-turn is hard to beat.

[ftl]

Well, at the very least, you can always buy more Fortresses if you're ahead to try to pile them out. You do end that turn having $4 to spend. So if theres two other cantrips costing $4 or less, then that'll do. And of course if you AND your opponent go for this, that's like... 8 bishops used up already between the two of you, maybe there'll be two more bishops which got bought earlier and got Bishopped or something. Or you can always buy and destroy them later, at the cost of a few VP.

I suspect that the situation came up rarely enough in playtesting (never?) that it turned out not to be a problem.

[blueblimp]

Well, at the very least, you can always buy more Fortresses if you're ahead to try to pile them out. You do end that turn having $4 to spend. So if theres two other cantrips costing $4 or less, then that'll do. And of course if you AND your opponent go for this, that's like... 8 bishops used up already between the two of you, maybe there'll be two more bishops which got bought earlier and got Bishopped or something. Or you can always buy and destroy them later, at the cost of a few VP.

I suspect that the situation came up rarely enough in playtesting (never?) that it turned out not to be a problem.

Yeah, I'm sure it was play-tested (since probably Fortress got play-tested with every notable TfB card). It still seems pretty awkward to 3-pile if ahead, because if you deviate at the cost of points, you are risking a loss if your opponent doesn't deviate.

[() | (_) ^/]

Well, at the very least, you can always buy more Fortresses if you're ahead to try to pile them out. You do end that turn having $4 to spend. So if theres two other cantrips costing $4 or less, then that'll do. And of course if you AND your opponent go for this, that's like... 8 bishops used up already between the two of you, maybe there'll be two more bishops which got bought earlier and got Bishopped or something. Or you can always buy and destroy them later, at the cost of a few VP.

I suspect that the situation came up rarely enough in playtesting (never?) that it turned out not to be a problem.

Yeah, I'm sure it was play-tested (since probably Fortress got play-tested with every notable TfB card). It still seems pretty awkward to 3-pile if ahead, because if you deviate at the cost of points, you are risking a loss if your opponent doesn't deviate.

I'm pretty sure as far as game theory is concerned, if you're ahead, you don't deviate, accept to match a potential increase (i.e. more than you) of per-turn-VP-chips of the losing player.  The onus is on the losing player to find something to overcome you.  If that's not possible given the cards available and the per-turn point potential of the other player, then you have a de facto victory that might nevertheless result in a "never ending" game.

I, of course, recognize the ultimate game ender: death of one of the players.

[blueblimp]

Well, at the very least, you can always buy more Fortresses if you're ahead to try to pile them out. You do end that turn having $4 to spend. So if theres two other cantrips costing $4 or less, then that'll do. And of course if you AND your opponent go for this, that's like... 8 bishops used up already between the two of you, maybe there'll be two more bishops which got bought earlier and got Bishopped or something. Or you can always buy and destroy them later, at the cost of a few VP.

I suspect that the situation came up rarely enough in playtesting (never?) that it turned out not to be a problem.

Yeah, I'm sure it was play-tested (since probably Fortress got play-tested with every notable TfB card). It still seems pretty awkward to 3-pile if ahead, because if you deviate at the cost of points, you are risking a loss if your opponent doesn't deviate.

I'm pretty sure as far as game theory is concerned, if you're ahead, you don't deviate, accept to match a potential increase (i.e. more than you) of per-turn-VP-chips of the losing player.  The onus is on the losing player to find something to overcome you.  If that's not possible given the cards available and the per-turn point potential of the other player, then you have a de facto victory that might nevertheless result in a "never ending" game.

I, of course, recognize the ultimate game ender: death of one of the players.

If the game is failing to end, then the only reasonable outcome is to agree to re-game or agree to draw (or wait until someone dies). So, if you're ahead by a large enough margin that you can end the game with a victory, it's to your advantage to do so, because winning is better than drawing. If you can't end the game with a victory, then in no sense have you won the game--it's a draw.

[SirPeebles]

I feel like Bishop/Fortress may actually be relatively dominant, particularly since it provides so much of its own trashing and never needs to go above $4 a turn.  It can even function as a weaker golden deck with fewer components.  If both players go for it, you could just smack your own fortresses on your turn while trashing junk on your opponent's turn.  Someone will have to figure out the proper balance in a Bishop/Fortress mirror match to strike a balance on reaching the 12 VP/turn quickly [bishoping your own junk] while gathering as much VP as possible on your way to that deck [bishoping your fortress and relying on your opponents bishops for thinning].

[Beyond Awesome]

Okay, let me say this right now, THIS IS THE WORST COMBO EVER.

It is very, very problematic. I played this on the Beta, against a bot. But, if both players go for this, pretty much, the game will never go anywhere until one player decides to resign. This is the first time that such a combo exists. Someone mentioned earlier about a board that should be banned with Scavenger/Stash, well, let me tell you, this is worse. If both players go this route, especially in a tournament, well, things will go nowhere, let's just say that.

I will go so far to say that this is worse than the KC/Masq pin because there is an actual way to win going down that path.

[Davio]

It would be especially annoying if the tournament tiebreaks on VPs. 

[gamesou]

Okay, let me say this right now, THIS IS THE WORST COMBO EVER.

It is very, very problematic.

I don't think it's THAT problematic (disclaimer: I never played the combo).

I think genuinely infinite games will be rare. There are many boards where there is an alternative path to the infinite mirror game

1) there is something faster
2) there is a counter (e.g. discard attacks, Saboteur/Knights, possibly Masquerade) 
3) there is a way to improve the deck once it's running, and play an even better golden deck which will lead to gold or province consumption (e.g. Alchemist)
4) there is a cheap cantrip so that the leading player can end the game on 3 piles (there is a little risk of collision after buying the 9th Bishop, but that's not a big deal). Granted, there may not be a leading player.

At worst, one may add an "offer draw" option. But I find this new direction more exciting than problematic

[axlemn]

Modified Golden deck: 4 Bishops, 4 Fortresses. 

[Davio]

Modified Golden deck: 4 Bishops, 4 Fortresses.

But you need to play the Fortresses to get the actions?

[dondon151]

But you need to play the Fortresses to get the actions?

Play Fortress. (2 Actions)
Play Bishop, trashing Fortress (returns to hand). (1 Action)
Play Fortress. (2 Actions)
Play Bishop, trashing Fortress (returns to hand). (1 Action)
Play Fortress. (2 Actions)
Play Bishop, trashing Fortress (returns to hand). (1 Action)
Play Bishop, trashing Fortress (returns to hand). (0 Actions)

You only need 4 Fortresses.

I don't think that this is really a problem. The player that is ahead can buy out all of the Fortresses, emptying a pile. Then he can just start buying any 2 other cards one at a time and empty out those piles; granted there is a very small probability that he'll draw 4x Bishop plus dead card, unless the dead card is a cantrip, in which case, no problem - he can end the game by doing that easily.

[axlemn]

Not a game-breaker by any means.  But definitely a nice curiosity that could be useful even in competitive games. 

[eHalcyon]

Or play three fortresses, trash the fourth one four times.

[BubbleBoy]

The thing that's great about the Golden Deck is that it only requires one kingdom card to be pulled off. The more cards you require for a combo, the exponentially more unlikely it is for that combo to even be possible in a game. That being said, I really like the Bishop/Fortress idea.

[eHalcyon]

The thing that's great about the Golden Deck is that it only requires one kingdom card to be pulled off. The more cards you require for a combo, the exponentially more unlikely it is for that combo to even be possible in a game. That being said, I really like the Bishop/Fortress idea.

Trying it with only Bishop is usually a bad idea though. :-P

[Grujah]

Okay, let me say this right now, THIS IS THE WORST COMBO EVER.

It is very, very problematic. I played this on the Beta, against a bot. But, if both players go for this, pretty much, the game will never go anywhere until one player decides to resign. This is the first time that such a combo exists. Someone mentioned earlier about a board that should be banned with Scavenger/Stash, well, let me tell you, this is worse. If both players go this route, especially in a tournament, well, things will go nowhere, let's just say that.

I will go so far to say that this is worse than the KC/Masq pin because there is an actual way to win going down that path.

Possesion had the habbit of getting both players to crap their deck so much and refuse to improve, leading to a stalemate.

[Beyond Awesome]

I think this should be called the Golden Fortress Deck. 

[def]

I think this should be called the Golden Fortress Deck. 

Or Fort Knox?

[SirPeebles]

Finally played a game with bishop and fortress.  Even with curses and ruins being sent my way, it was easy to set up.  Worst of all, the constant use of bishop incessantly pesters the opponent, and if their attention wanes they'll find themselves inadvertently trashing their cards.  This strategy is just dreadful.  Plus my opponent responded with a mini Fort Knox in response.  Clearly gaining fewer points per turn, yet not resigning either.

[blueblimp]

The player that is ahead can buy out all of the Fortresses, emptying a pile. Then he can just start buying any 2 other cards one at a time and empty out those piles; granted there is a very small probability that he'll draw 4x Bishop plus dead card, unless the dead card is a cantrip, in which case, no problem - he can end the game by doing that easily.

The real risk is: what if Bishop and Fortress are the only $4's? Unless something strange happened, the leader is unlikely to have a 10 point lead. If you're buying dead cards at $3 or less and trashing them with Bishop, you lose a point each time you do it. That means if the leader does empty the pile without help, then he'll have lost his VP lead by the time the game ends.

(Your strategy seems sound for when there are either cheap cantrips or another $4 stack. Although when needing to empty 12 dead cards, there's about a 9% chance of getting the dreaded 5-dead draw before the game ends, and at that point you fall back by a whopping 9 VP. Still, a 91% chance to win is pretty good.)

[Venescas]

While Bishop + Fortress is most assuredly stronger than Bishop+Chapel, it will also guarantee a no-win situation for both players in a mirror match. With an 8 card deck of 4 Bishops and 4 Fortresses, a player can churn 12Vp per turn without draining piles. In one turn, the deck can be modified to 3 Bishops and 4 Fortresses to start draining $3-$2 piles for 8Vp per turn. Problem is of course that if both players go for Bishop + Fortress, no one is going to back down from the 12Vp variation.

The only situation where I believe this deck could be beat (besides any other cards that can stuff the golden deck) is in a 4 player game where the other three start racing for the provinces quickly. That's 4 Provinces per player rather than 8 for the second player in a two player match. Even still, the amount of Vp amassed by the Bishop + Fortress player before that happens would probably be too much to overcome.

I suppose conceivably if two players in a three-four player match went for the same combo, the third (and fourth) player could empty the Bishops and Fortresses...but then what third pile could he/they empty while gaining sufficient points to overcome the former's setup period?

Simply put, Bishop + Fortress is quintessentially the best and worst non-attack combo in the game right now. I believe it's a strategy that cannot be turned down barring interference from certain attackers, but it's also one that no one can win with.   

[SirPeebles]

not many attacks can take it out either.  Possession only helps your opponent.  It can recover from curses and ruins fairly easily and is unphased by discarding to three.  I suppose a minion could leave it with four bishops if it got REALLY lucky.  Pillage could discard the only fortress.  But both of those only delay a turn.  Saboteur and swindler can trash bishops, as can a lucky knight who hits two bishops.  Masquerade also takes it apart.

[blueblimp]

(Your strategy seems sound for when there are either cheap cantrips or another $4 stack. Although when needing to empty 12 dead cards, there's about a 9% chance of getting the dreaded 5-dead draw before the game ends, and at that point you fall back by a whopping 9 VP. Still, a 91% chance to win is pretty good.)

I miscalculated this, in some sense. I calculated the chance of drawing the 5 dead cards right away, but of course it's still bad if you play between 0 and 3 Fortresses and end up with a hand of 5 non-Fortresses. So, I'm not convinced this is at all likely to work out. (Although that said, even if you do fall behind in points, that might be okay since your opponent might not have good options for ending the game either!)