Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
34 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Dominion» Forums » Rules

Subject: variation of the ending of the game rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Patrick Wang
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi,

I bought Diminion for my brother last week and was very fond of it the second we opened the box. If I remember correctly, the rules state that the game is finished once the last 6 point card has been bought by a player (or 3 of the 10 action cards are depleted). After playing a few rounds I decided to change this last condition to: once the last 6 point card has been bought, then the current round will be the last round. I think thats quite fair since this ensures that every player has the same amount of turns. I believe it also adds a little more strategy.

For example:

Player 2 knows he has quite a number of 6 point cards and on his turn, has the chance to buy the last 6 point card. He must be sure that he has more points than players 3 and 4 even if they buy 3 point cards on their final turn.

I have the german version of the game, so I'm not sure what the cards' names are in English.

I'm not sure if this topic has been addressed before. If it has then I would appreciate someone giving me a link to the thread.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wolfe
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
Zendo fan, Columbus Blue Jackets fan, Dominion Fan.
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This has been addressed before, but I'm afraid I don't have the thread link at hand.

One correction for you: The alternate to the Province (6 VP card) pile being emptied is any three piles, not just any three Kingdom card piles. The basic treasure, basic victory cards, and curses all count for ending the game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Equal Turns - My Reasons Why This Should Be an Official Variant
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Horse, dead, beating it. Let us know in a couple weeks when you decide the Chapel is a broken card, would you?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually, given that lots of people do seem to play with equal turns, it doesn't seem to me that it's been discussed so much in the forums at all. There's basically nothing since March.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Actually, given that lots of people do seem to play with equal turns, it doesn't seem to me that it's been discussed so much in the forums at all. There's basically nothing since March.


It's not that great an idea, so does it really need much more discussion than took place in March? Or are you being contrary for contrary's sake?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
It's not that great an idea


That's what you're pissed about? That lots of people like something you don't? Good grief.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Bissa
United States
Bowling Green
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Horse, dead, beating it. Let us know in a couple weeks when you decide the Chapel is a broken card, would you?


Geez. I've been gaming for years, but I'm a new Dominion player and relatively new BGG user. Sure, trolling the forums before posting is preferable, but this seems unnecessarily catty toward an admitted noob especially considering the quantity of what's been discussed here. I'm only commenting because I've been coasting the forums for advice on this great game and have begun to find these kinds of exclusionary comments grating.

No intention to offend here on my part. Just an observation. And to all those who have been nothing but helpful and welcoming to new players (and BGG users): Thanks!
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One problem with equal turns is that it removes the tiebreaker. This game has a relatively high potential for generating tie scores, and many people believe that ending a game in a tie is like kissing your sister.

Unequal turns may lead to some "oh damn, I woulda had it" moments, but it means you have to keep an extra-sharp eye on the when the end conditions are coming up and recognize when it's unlikely you will have another turn. (And there's also a fair amount of suspense when several people are in the running, all vying for that last Province. "Do you have it?" "Dang, only seven." "Awesome! I... dagnabbit, I only have six!")

Only peripherally on topic, my favorite end game recently was triggered by Jim's Swindler, who hit one of Dave's two Provinces -- forcing a swap for the last Province, which Jim was prepared to buy that turn, and giving me the game. (Cue "wah wah" trombone, along with many expletives from Jim....)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Myke Madsen
United States
Salt Lake City
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Horse, dead, beating it. Let us know in a couple weeks when you decide the Chapel is a broken card, would you?


I don't see how his post was anything but helpful. In fact he tried to head off the discussion by linking to the previous thread.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ted Vessenes
United States
Somerville
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
My group all implicitly plays with equal turns (but not phantom provinces). We very rarely have ties, as people are pretty good at realizing when they should start buying Estates and Duchies. It doesn't destroy the tie break mechanic at all. Ties are now broken in reverse turn order, as going last is still a disadvantage. (You can be hurt by attack cards sooner and have the last opportunity to buy high demand, low supply cards like Provinces.) Or you can just call it a "tie", which is fine.

I won't reiterate the arguments for equal turns here; I'll just say that our play group unanimously considers equal turns an obvious improvement on the game that's only become more necessary when the game goes up to 6 players.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Wang
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
thx for the link, as I said I am fairly new to game so many things appeared new to me.

I would also like to know why the chapel is considered a broken card. What does the term broken card even mean?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sipeiw wrote:
I would also like to know why the chapel is considered a broken card. What does the term broken card even mean?


Someone (or several someones) hit upon a fairly powerful strategy for using a Chapel to create a very thin (hence fast) deck which can be used to power through a game buying up a lot of Provinces very quickly. For a time -- especially on BrettSpielWelt, where a lot of people play a lot of Dominion, and where the Chapel originally appeared in the "random" card mix more frequently than it should have -- this seemed like a dominating approach. This in turn led to people claiming that the Chapel card broke the game -- that is, made the game essentially unplayable by requiring everyone to either adopt the Chapel strategy or lose the game.

Pretty soon, it turned out (surprise!) that the Chapel strategy is not unbeatable. Certain combinations of Chapel plus other cards can be very powerful, but there are always 10 kingdom cards available, and there are usually ways to deal with someone playing a Chapel strategy. I think the earlier belief that the card was "broken" has essentially disappeared, at least among people with mroe than a few games under their belts.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Wang
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
great explanation thanks
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sixofrock wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Horse, dead, beating it. Let us know in a couple weeks when you decide the Chapel is a broken card, would you?


Geez. I've been gaming for years, but I'm a new Dominion player and relatively new BGG user. Sure, trolling the forums before posting is preferable, but this seems unnecessarily catty toward an admitted noob especially considering the quantity of what's been discussed here. I'm only commenting because I've been coasting the forums for advice on this great game and have begun to find these kinds of exclusionary comments grating.

No intention to offend here on my part. Just an observation. And to all those who have been nothing but helpful and welcoming to new players (and BGG users): Thanks!


Correct, and apologies for the snark. Bad morning here, and unjustly jumped on the OP. I still think it's a dumb variant, but that's really neither here nor there...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ted Vessenes
United States
Somerville
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Golux13 wrote:
Someone (or several someones) hit upon a fairly powerful strategy for using a Chapel to create a very thin (hence fast) deck which can be used to power through a game buying up a lot of Provinces very quickly. For a time -- especially on BrettSpielWelt, where a lot of people play a lot of Dominion, and where the Chapel originally appeared in the "random" card mix more frequently than it should have -- this seemed like a dominating approach. This in turn led to people claiming that the Chapel card broke the game -- that is, made the game essentially unplayable by requiring everyone to either adopt the Chapel strategy or lose the game.

Pretty soon, it turned out (surprise!) that the Chapel strategy is not unbeatable. Certain combinations of Chapel plus other cards can be very powerful, but there are always 10 kingdom cards available, and there are usually ways to deal with someone playing a Chapel strategy. I think the earlier belief that the card was "broken" has essentially disappeared, at least among people with mroe than a few games under their belts.


This is a rather one-sided story. My group played dozens of games before playing on BSW and recognized Chapel as a severely undercosted card. The issue with BSW making the card appear too frequent is unrelated to the analysis of the card. Furthermore, having played close to 500 games (including several hundred with the chapel), I am still convinced the card is undercosted, as are many other people.

With the exception of Gardens, however (which rewards large decks), there are no strategies that competitively beat the Chapel without playing the Chapel. This is because Chapel works with every deck by removing the cards least useful for that strategy (generally estates, copper, or both), making it more likely to draw the cards the strategy wants. It's a flat out amplifier on your deck quality, and all decks want a higher proportion of quality cards. Gardens decks excepted.

If you really want to prove this, try the following experiment. Pick a random setup of 10 kingdom cards, including the Chapel. Then play a 2 player game. One player is not allowed to purchase the Chapel, but they select two different (non-standard) kingdom cards that the second player cannot buy. For example, they might prevent the Chapel player from buying either Labs or Witches.

This means one player has access to 8 cards including chapel and the other player has access to 9 cards (but no chapel). Play a set of 5+ games and I guarantee the Chapel player will win at least 3, and usually 5 of these. Try this with any setup and any restricted cards, and Chapel will win the vast majority of them, despite having the setup "stacked against them" by having fewer possible cards they can buy.

I understand your claim that Chapel is balanced, but I dispute it. I would like to see a number of sets where the Chapel strategy is inferior to the alternatives. Can you even come up with ONE such set using base set cards that doesn't include Gardens? And even when Gardens are available, Chapel decks can be quite competitive.

At any rate, rather than just saying "we think it's okay", lets see some real data backing up these claims. Because my BSW games say that Chapel decks win over 75% of the setups where Chapel is available and not all players play Chapel decks.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tedv wrote:
Golux13 wrote:
Someone (or several someones) hit upon a fairly powerful strategy for using a Chapel to create a very thin (hence fast) deck which can be used to power through a game buying up a lot of Provinces very quickly. For a time -- especially on BrettSpielWelt, where a lot of people play a lot of Dominion, and where the Chapel originally appeared in the "random" card mix more frequently than it should have -- this seemed like a dominating approach. This in turn led to people claiming that the Chapel card broke the game -- that is, made the game essentially unplayable by requiring everyone to either adopt the Chapel strategy or lose the game.

Pretty soon, it turned out (surprise!) that the Chapel strategy is not unbeatable. Certain combinations of Chapel plus other cards can be very powerful, but there are always 10 kingdom cards available, and there are usually ways to deal with someone playing a Chapel strategy. I think the earlier belief that the card was "broken" has essentially disappeared, at least among people with mroe than a few games under their belts.


This is a rather one-sided story. My group played dozens of games before playing on BSW and recognized Chapel as a severely undercosted card. The issue with BSW making the card appear too frequent is unrelated to the analysis of the card. Furthermore, having played close to 500 games (including several hundred with the chapel), I am still convinced the card is undercosted, as are many other people.

With the exception of Gardens, however (which rewards large decks), there are no strategies that competitively beat the Chapel without playing the Chapel. This is because Chapel works with every deck by removing the cards least useful for that strategy (generally estates, copper, or both), making it more likely to draw the cards the strategy wants. It's a flat out amplifier on your deck quality, and all decks want a higher proportion of quality cards. Gardens decks excepted.

If you really want to prove this, try the following experiment. Pick a random setup of 10 kingdom cards, including the Chapel. Then play a 2 player game. One player is not allowed to purchase the Chapel, but they select two different (non-standard) kingdom cards that the second player cannot buy. For example, they might prevent the Chapel player from buying either Labs or Witches.

This means one player has access to 8 cards including chapel and the other player has access to 9 cards (but no chapel). Play a set of 5+ games and I guarantee the Chapel player will win at least 3, and usually 5 of these. Try this with any setup and any restricted cards, and Chapel will win the vast majority of them, despite having the setup "stacked against them" by having fewer possible cards they can buy.

I understand your claim that Chapel is balanced, but I dispute it. I would like to see a number of sets where the Chapel strategy is inferior to the alternatives. Can you even come up with ONE such set using base set cards that doesn't include Gardens? And even when Gardens are available, Chapel decks can be quite competitive.

At any rate, rather than just saying "we think it's okay", lets see some real data backing up these claims. Because my BSW games say that Chapel decks win over 75% of the setups where Chapel is available and not all players play Chapel decks.


Chancellor/Silver is pretty powerful. Any attack card can slow the chapel deck down enough to win, especially if festival or village is in the set. I've got 500 plays under my belt as well, and my usual thought when someone buys a chapel with their first buy is that they're pretty inexperienced and going to be an easy win. That's not to say I don't use one from time to time, but mostly I go other directions because buying one is just asking to have curses, militias, or beaureaucrats come raining down on your head. Plus, chapel brings the value of a thief/spy combo up to near game-breaking. Let's hook up for some four player games on BSW sometime and see who's right.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tedv wrote:
With the exception of Gardens, however (which rewards large decks), there are no strategies that competitively beat the Chapel without playing the Chapel. This is because Chapel works with every deck by removing the cards least useful for that strategy (generally estates, copper, or both), making it more likely to draw the cards the strategy wants. It's a flat out amplifier on your deck quality, and all decks want a higher proportion of quality cards. Gardens decks excepted.


Any cards that can slow down a Chapel thin deck can beat it. They might not, but they can. Intrigue adds many cards that are quite handy against a Chapel deck.

Quote:
If you really want to prove this, try the following experiment. Pick a random setup of 10 kingdom cards, including the Chapel. Then play a 2 player game. One player is not allowed to purchase the Chapel, but they select two different (non-standard) kingdom cards that the second player cannot buy. For example, they might prevent the Chapel player from buying either Labs or Witches.

This means one player has access to 8 cards including chapel and the other player has access to 9 cards (but no chapel). Play a set of 5+ games and I guarantee the Chapel player will win at least 3, and usually 5 of these. Try this with any setup and any restricted cards, and Chapel will win the vast majority of them, despite having the setup "stacked against them" by having fewer possible cards they can buy.


I'm not going to run your experiment, but when you do, please let us know the results.

Quote:
I understand your claim that Chapel is balanced, but I dispute it. I would like to see a number of sets where the Chapel strategy is inferior to the alternatives. Can you even come up with ONE such set using base set cards that doesn't include Gardens? And even when Gardens are available, Chapel decks can be quite competitive.


Off the top of my head, here are some cards that can be very useful against a Chapel. I'm sure there are others. Thief, Bureaucrat, Militia, Witch, Swindler, Saboteur, Torturer.

Quote:
At any rate, rather than just saying "we think it's okay", lets see some real data backing up these claims. Because my BSW games say that Chapel decks win over 75% of the setups where Chapel is available and not all players play Chapel decks.


Despite your insertion of a number into that statement, I'm pretty sure it's just anecdotal evidence, unless you have tracked deck breakdowns and Chapel deck plays/non-plays over your 500 games. BSW doesn't track those things. Your anecdotal evidence is no more or less dispositive than mine, which suggests that in most situations, a Chapel deck can be difficult to implement properly and can be defended against.

Yes, it's a powerful strategy. No, it's not overwhelmingly so. (It is possible that it's more powerful in a 2P game than in the 3P and 4P games that I am more used to playing. My anecdotal evidence does not include a statistically significant memory of 2P games.) In any event, as I noted in reply to the original questioner, it's not a "broken" card. It's simply a card that forces you to think about how to beat it -- just like every other card.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tedv wrote:
This is a rather one-sided story. My group played dozens of games before playing on BSW and recognized Chapel as a severely undercosted card.


You only think it's "undercosted" because you think that $3 cards are supposed to be "better" than $2 cards. The way that card costs are determined in the game isn't that simple.

Quote:
If you really want to prove this, try the following experiment. Pick a random setup of 10 kingdom cards, including the Chapel. Then play a 2 player game.


By limiting the experiment to 2-player games, you've already introduced quite a bias, because the Chapel is generally better in 2-player games.

Quote:
I understand your claim that Chapel is balanced, but I dispute it.


I think many people, including the designer, disagree with you on what it means for a card to be "balanced". That's the real issue.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ted Vessenes
United States
Somerville
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
At this point, I think everyone (myself included) is spouting a lot of theoretical and hypothetical claims. What we really need to answer the question is hard data from the most fair test we can design. And by hard data I mean a statistically significant number of games. (This would be anywhere between a few dozen and a hundred, depending on what the win spread would be.) It sounds like an interesting experiment and writeup, so I'll try to schedule something with Dave and report back.

Another benefit is that if we play a large set of games, we'll also have data on potential start player advantage between real players rather than just simulations that all execute the same strategy.

Is there any other data worth collecting?

DaviddesJ wrote:
By limiting the experiment to 2-player games, you've already introduced quite a bias, because the Chapel is generally better in 2-player games.


I'm a bit baffled by this claim. The only cards that have different effects are those that affect other players-- generally attack cards. Are you suggesting that Chapel decks are more susceptible to attacks and thus worse in a 4 player game, because there are 3 players who could attack you before your next turn? My experience has been that Chapel decks are more resilient to attacks because of their naturally higher card quality.

At any rate, it's worth discussing this because it affects what is considered a "fair" experiment. I don't see how restricting to 2 players would invalidate the results for 3 or 4 players. They seem like reasonably similar play scenarios to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tedv wrote:
What we really need to answer the question is hard data from the most fair test we can design. And by hard data I mean a statistically significant number of games.


How would data answer the question? We disagree on what "balanced" means. We disagree on what is good game design. You'll look at the data and say it proves the game is broken. I'll look at the same data and say the game is excellent. That's why not everyone gives every game the same rating (not even close).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tedv wrote:


I'm a bit baffled by this claim. The only cards that have different effects are those that affect other players-- generally attack cards. Are you suggesting that Chapel decks are more susceptible to attacks and thus worse in a 4 player game, because there are 3 players who could attack you before your next turn? My experience has been that Chapel decks are more resilient to attacks because of their naturally higher card quality.

At any rate, it's worth discussing this because it affects what is considered a "fair" experiment. I don't see how restricting to 2 players would invalidate the results for 3 or 4 players. They seem like reasonably similar play scenarios to me.


I'm surprised you don't see his point here. The game is very different with 2 players, and chapel especially--having to worry about three players potentially thieving your good cards, bureaucratting (I made up a word! ) your estates away before you can chapel them, and spying past your chapel makes for a much different game. No one in my group tries to buy a chapel to run a chapel deck when we have four players. It's just too vulnerable. Also, three or four players makes a duchy or garden rush more viable, because more people means the kingdom cards go faster, making it much easier to run out three piles before the chapel deck really gets going. The game changes strategically in multiple ways when you go down to two players--I'm actually not a big fan of 2p Dominion, I try to avoid it when possible.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ted Vessenes
United States
Somerville
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
tedv wrote:
What we really need to answer the question is hard data from the most fair test we can design. And by hard data I mean a statistically significant number of games.


How would data answer the question? We disagree on what "balanced" means. We disagree on what is good game design. You'll look at the data and say it proves the game is broken. I'll look at the same data and say the game is excellent. That's why not everyone gives every game the same rating (not even close).


Well this is a good discussion then. How do you defined "balanced" and how does that relate to good game design?

For the record though, I think it's possible for multiple people to objectively look at data and come to the same conclusions. For example, if the Red Sox won 70% of their games in a baseball season and the next highest team won only 55%, everyone would conclude that the Red Sox had the best team that year. Obviously not everyone will agree on what made that team the best team, but that's just arguing semantics.

Don't automatically assume people can't come to agreement on some things just because they disagree on the details. For the record though, I'm not even convinced we disagree on the details of what "balanced" means because you haven't expressed it. Perhaps we just disagree on conclusions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tedv wrote:
For the record though, I'm not even convinced we disagree on the details of what "balanced" means because you haven't expressed it. Perhaps we just disagree on conclusions.


You said that the Chapel is unbalanced because having access to that card is more important than having access to some other random card.

I think that has nothing to do with balance. A card can be balanced even if it's an automatic buy every time it's available.

So it's clear that we disagree.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ted Vessenes
United States
Somerville
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
tedv wrote:
For the record though, I'm not even convinced we disagree on the details of what "balanced" means because you haven't expressed it. Perhaps we just disagree on conclusions.


You said that the Chapel is unbalanced because having access to that card is more important than having access to some other random card.

I think that has nothing to do with balance. A card can be balanced even if it's an automatic buy every time it's available.

So it's clear that we disagree.


That's a reasonable but not perfect description of what I consider balance. But that's not what I was asking. I was asking what you consider balance. All you did was describe something that you do not consider related to balance. So let me ask this again:

How do you define balance?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.