Print

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

[werothegreat]

I'm thinking of making an article on the wiki detailing luck-based cards.  I was first inspired by thinking that Wishing Well and Mystic kind of belong in their own category, but a category of 2 cards isn't really worth a mention, is it?  So then I had the idea to broaden it to all cards that have a certain dependence on luck (that is, more so than most).  I wanted to run this by the forums before I unilaterally made an article - I mainly wanted to get a feel for the nomenclature people use for these cards, so as to use the most used name for the category.

This is what I have so far, as a list:

Guessing/Naming cards:
-Wishing Well
-Mystic
-Doctor
-Journeyman

These all require you to guess or name a card.  While tracking your deck can definitely help your success, it usually comes down to luck whether or not you guess correctly.

Randomness from the deck (need a better name)
-Thief
-Swindler
-Tribute
-Pirate Ship
-Harvest
-Jester
-Noble Brigand
-Vagrant
-Ironmonger
-Knights
-Doctor (overpay)
-Herald

These cards all reveal a card (or cards) from your or your opponent's deck, and the effect the card gives is dependent on which cards exactly are revealed in one way or another.  The revealed cards are typically discarded after this use.

Opponent's Choice
-Masquerade
-Smugglers
-Possession
-Contraband
-Tournament
-Advisor
-Envoy

These all have direct effects for you that depend on a choice made by another player, either before or after you play the card.

Line up the right card (again, need a different name)
-Baron
-Treasure Map
-Explorer
-Tournament
-Fool's Gold
-Urchin
-Death Cart
-Cultist

These are all cards that only have their desired effect when lined up with a specific other card - their luck is dependent on finding this other card, not on what happens when they're actually played.  Knights are sort of the inverse of this - you DON'T want them to line up.

Just plain random
-Black Market

Need I say more?

I didn't include cards like Forager, because though it depends on a communal resource, you know about it beforehand, or like Remodel or Throne Room, because it's not a random effect, and they can be lined up with any number of cards.

Thoughts?

[Awaclus]

Scout and Explorer. You get lucky if you get paired against an opponent who buys either of these.

[dondon151]

Explorer isn't that bad.

[Aidan Millow]

Knights, Lookout, Doctor (for the overpay) and Scout all belong in "Randomness from the deck." Also I'm sceptical of calling most of the "opponents choice" cards luck based and not Chapel and other cards that don't explicitly need to line up with certain cards but are much better if they do.

[werothegreat]

Knights, Lookout, Doctor (for the overpay) and Scout all belong in "Randomness from the deck." Also I'm sceptical of calling most of the "opponents choice" cards luck based and not Chapel and other cards that don't explicitly need to line up with certain cards but are much better if they do.

You know what the outcome of Chapel will be before you play it.  Not so for "opponent's choice" cards.  And Chapel doesn't have to line up with specific cards to have the desired effect - it can still trash things.

I will add Explorer to the "line up" ones, though.

[heron]

I'm confused; why do these properties make a card luck-based?
I mean, sure, these properties add to the variance of the card, but I'd say that platinum is more luck-based than most of these card.

What exactly would this article accomplish?

[Aidan Millow]

Knights, Lookout, Doctor (for the overpay) and Scout all belong in "Randomness from the deck." Also I'm sceptical of calling most of the "opponents choice" cards luck based and not Chapel and other cards that don't explicitly need to line up with certain cards but are much better if they do.

You know what the outcome of Chapel will be before you play it.  Not so for "opponent's choice" cards.  And Chapel doesn't have to line up with specific cards to have the desired effect - it can still trash things.

I will add Explorer to the "line up" ones, though.

Advisor's desired effect is getting two worst cards of the top three of your deck. It shouldn't be considered luck if your opponent makes a play mistake and gives you a better outcome. The same principle applies for Contraband and Envoy (although Contraband involves a reasonable amour of guesswork on your opponent's part). I also don't find the argument of knowing what will happen when you play it compelling; if you open Chapel, X there's a huge difference between drawing (for example) Chapel,X,C,C,C and Chapel,E,E,E,C and you don't know which of these (or, more likely, something in the middle) will happen. The variance in the performance of the Chapel based on the shuffle of the deck is (I'm pretty sure) a good deal greater than Masquerade or the others that I've mentioned and similar to Smugglers. You could also argue that any draw card is luck based because you don't know what will happen when you play them.

Also, Swindler and Jester will do something no matter what card is revealed (with edge cases of course) and should possibly be in a new category along with things that have "reveal until X".

[markusin]

I'd say the naming cards and the line-'em-up cards are the least controversial of the "luck-based" cards, followed by the randomness-of-the deck cards. I'd suggest you start with those 3 categories. Looking at the opponent's choice cards, they all seem very different from each other and the things they share in common might not be worth talking about all that much (though Tournament is also in the line-'em-up category). Those cards all deserve their own analysis, no?

[werothegreat]

I'd say the naming cards and the line-'em-up cards are the least controversial of the "luck-based" cards, followed by the randomness-of-the deck cards. I'd suggest you start with those 3 categories. Looking at the opponent's choice cards, they all seem very different from each other and the things they share in common might not be worth talking about all that much (though Tournament is also in the line-'em-up category). Those cards all deserve their own analysis, no?

I may do just that, though I would argue the opponent's choice cards do share some things in common - that is, those that are more likely to negatively effect the player should be played before other cards, while those that are more likely to negatively effect the opponent should be played after the other cards.  Contraband before Gold, Masquerade after Goons, etc.

[markusin]

I'd say the naming cards and the line-'em-up cards are the least controversial of the "luck-based" cards, followed by the randomness-of-the deck cards. I'd suggest you start with those 3 categories. Looking at the opponent's choice cards, they all seem very different from each other and the things they share in common might not be worth talking about all that much (though Tournament is also in the line-'em-up category). Those cards all deserve their own analysis, no?

I may do just that, though I would argue the opponent's choice cards do share some things in common - that is, those that are more likely to negatively effect the player should be played before other cards, while those that are more likely to negatively effect the opponent should be played after the other cards.  Contraband before Gold, Masquerade after Goons, etc.

Good point, but from the opponent's perspective, what influences their choice varies a lot from card to card.

[blueblimp]

Remake, Island, and Salvager are arguably some others for line-em-up. Opening any of these and drawing it sans Estate is quite annoying. Although then even Village kinda counts (because you want to line it up with a terminal).

[Warfreak2]

Advisor can have luck - do you reject copper or estate when i might have baron in hand? When your opponent must make a decision based on incomplete information he has to play the odds.

[Grujah]

Knights, Lookout, Doctor (for the overpay) and Scout all belong in "Randomness from the deck." Also I'm sceptical of calling most of the "opponents choice" cards luck based and not Chapel and other cards that don't explicitly need to line up with certain cards but are much better if they do.

Lookout's "randomness from the deck" is equal to Smithy's, IMHO.

[flies]

Knights, Lookout, Doctor (for the overpay) and Scout all belong in "Randomness from the deck." Also I'm sceptical of calling most of the "opponents choice" cards luck based and not Chapel and other cards that don't explicitly need to line up with certain cards but are much better if they do.

Lookout's "randomness from the deck" is equal to Smithy's, IMHO.

The consequences of a bad lookout are much greater than a mere dead draw.

[Watno]

Pretty much every card is luck-based. Terminal draw relies on drawing it along with Villages, for example.

That said, you're list is missing the most frustratingly random card in the game: Minion.

[Grujah]

Pretty much every card is luck-based. Terminal draw relies on drawing it along with Villages, for example.

That said, you're list is missing the most frustratingly random card in the game: Minion.

Minion is not random at all. It follows a strict set of rules:

1. If you play them, and do not choose discard/draw, opponent had an awesome hand.
2. If you play them, and choose discard/draw, your opponent discards his crappy EEECC hand for a much better one.
3. If you have a crappy hand, and opponents plays Minions, he'll never choose discard/draw.
4. If you have a god hand, and opponents plays Minions, he will certanly choose discard/draw.

That is all.

[2.71828.....]

Pretty much every card is luck-based. Terminal draw relies on drawing it along with Villages, for example.

That said, you're list is missing the most frustratingly random card in the game: Minion.

Minion is not random at all. It follows a strict set of rules:

1. If you play them, and do not choose discard/draw, opponent had an awesome hand.
2. If you play them, and choose discard/draw, your opponent discards his crappy EEECC hand for a much better one.
3. If you have a crappy hand, and opponents plays Minions, he'll never choose discard/draw.
4. If you have a god hand, and opponents plays Minions, he will certanly choose discard/draw.

That is all.

5. You play it, not only does your opponent draw a great hand, but you draw CEEE.

[mail-mi]

Pretty much every card is luck-based. Terminal draw relies on drawing it along with Villages, for example.

That said, you're list is missing the most frustratingly random card in the game: Minion.

Minion is not random at all. It follows a strict set of rules:

1. If you play them, and do not choose discard/draw, opponent had an awesome hand.
2. If you play them, and choose discard/draw, your opponent discards his crappy EEECC hand for a much better one.
3. If you have a crappy hand, and opponents plays Minions, he'll never choose discard/draw.
4. If you have a god hand, and opponents plays Minions, he will certanly choose discard/draw.

That is all.

5. You play it, not only does your opponent draw a great hand, but you draw CEEE.

Your respect matches your number of posts.

[achmed_sender]

Pretty much every card is luck-based. Terminal draw relies on drawing it along with Villages, for example.

That said, you're list is missing the most frustratingly random card in the game: Minion.

Minion is not random at all. It follows a strict set of rules:

1. If you play them, and do not choose discard/draw, opponent had an awesome hand.
2. If you play them, and choose discard/draw, your opponent discards his crappy EEECC hand for a much better one.
3. If you have a crappy hand, and opponents plays Minions, he'll never choose discard/draw.
4. If you have a god hand, and opponents plays Minions, he will certanly choose discard/draw.

That is all.

5. You play it, not only does your opponent draw a great hand, but you draw CEEE.

Your respect matches your number of posts.

Not anymore
(e, post something silly and it matchs again )

[blueblimp]

Pretty much every card is luck-based. Terminal draw relies on drawing it along with Villages, for example.

This is an interesting point and got me thinking about why some kinds of luck are annoying and others don't bother me at all.

Bad: Luck where one outcome is (nearly) strictly better than another: I think it's obvious why this is annoying. Think of the sinking feeling when Swindler hits an Estate. Examples: Swindler, Harvest.

Good: Luck that self-compensates: This means that if you get a good outcome now, it encourages bad outcomes in the future, and vice versa. The primary example is drawing, where provided cards don't miss the shuffle, you'll see your good cards eventually. (Note: Dominion is particularly good at this because you draw through your deck several times during the game. A game like Hearthstone, where you typically don't draw your whole deck, does not have the self-compensating property to the same degree.) Cards that break this property of drawing, like Minion, can be frustrating. Examples: drawing, Mystic.

Good: Luck you can influence: The luck needed to match Village and Smithy together is greatly influenced by how you build your deck. Examples: engines, defense against trashing attacks.

Good: Luck that is less relevant in high-level play: For example, unassisted Treasure Map has some chance to do very well. But since the probability is unfavourable, in high-level play, players won't try that strategy, making it irrelevant. A nice effect of this type of luck is that it increases the game's luck in casual play, where you want more luck than in competitive play anyway. Examples: Treasure Map, Black Market, Possession.

Good: Luck you need skill to put to your advantage: Consider a favourable opening split. This only helps you if you know what opening makes this split favourable to you. This factor can vary among skill levels: a low-level player might not know that using your 5/2 opening to get a City is a bad idea, but high-level players will. Examples: opening split, order of Ruins and Knights piles.

[DG]

I think it might be worth looking back at some of Donald X's card commentaries. I think he decided that some lucky cards were ok because they they were high skill and high luck. I'd put cards like tournament and possession into that category since more skilful players will get much more out of them but a lucky draw with those cards can still win or lose a game. Wishing well is a patently a lucky card but again an expert player will be able to manage the card for better results.

Unpredictable cards seemingly have a luck element. This might include tribute, ironmonger, herald, golem, venture, adventurer, and so on. These can again be managed with skilful play and deck management and generally you make your own luck.

Chancellor and Scavenger can be luck based as their impact changes the further you get through your draw deck. Many other cards such as cartographer can also get less effective the further you get through a deck since you have to draw through all the cards that you'd hoped your cartographers would have discarded.

There are also some kingdom cards that can win/lose you the game on a 5/2 draw. Trading post is a good example and it continues to require a bit of luck to have 2 candidate cards for trashing in hand.

[brokoli]

Scout and Explorer. You get lucky if you get paired against an opponent who buys either of these.

You would have got waay more respect if you only mentionned Scout. Scout jokes need to be simple, direct and concise. Adding explorer just kill the joke. Sorry, you won't get my +1 

[EvanC]

Seems to me like what you're describing might be better called "top deck composition" cards, which come in two flavors - "player" deck and "opponent" deck. Since you can manipulate the top cards of your deck with filtering and know things about them by tracking your deck composition/draw (or looking at them via wishing well, scout, etc) "luck" doesn't really cover it - sometimes you can exert a lot of control (or guess with 100% accuracy).

Obviously Dominion is a heavily (shuffle) luck dependent game and and I think when you get down to it talking about the "luck" of what the next two cards in your deck are isn't really different than the "luck" of what's in your hand - you were going to draw those two cards next, just like you drew the five cards you're holding.

There is another class of "true" random/luck based cards with a non-deck shuffle randomness component - knights and black market.

[Davio]

Villages are luck-based too, or terminal drawers.
They need to be lined up together as well, as mentioned before.

I guess I'm pointing out what EvanC said: There is lots of luck in lots of different places and cards.

There is not really a point in writing an article about "luck", but it might be useful to write an article about mitigating the luck aspect of some cards.

Mention Warehouse when you're mentioning Treasure Map, if you have 10 Wishing Wells, you should name Wishing Well, etc... Two Mystics in hand always get you at least 1 card from the deck (unless you have no short term memory).


The thing is, you have to play for luck. If you're going to get unlucky, it's going to be pretty hard to win anyway. So you have to assume average or better than average luck and play accordingly.

[dominion123]

Thing is, the law of averages makes the overall outcome of most chance-based cards pretty definite in the long run. In fact, every card that's a card-drawer is chance based, you almost never know what you're gonna get. None of those cards really have much more to do with luck than many other cards. Take the wishing well for example. Massing them up makes for a decent card-drawer. You can have a reasonable measure of its efficiency despite of the randomness involved. It's not really luck.