Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: Nik on March 07, 2014, 07:22:18 am
-
...I'll think of a better name for it eventually.
So my idea is Non-Actions--Actions that aren't Actions. In another words, if you draw a Non-Action with, say, Council Room, you can play it. And if you draw it in your hand, it's basically a free +1 action. As an example:
Lumberjack $4
----------------
+2
+1 buy
This does not take up an Action.
-
You can have that effect with Reactions. "During your action phase, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, play it." You may add a keyword for that if you are planning on including into several cards (however, the fact that "Each other player gains a Curse." has no keyword seems to point in the opposite direction), but I see no reason why would you need another type. The text is not so long.
-
The name I think you're looking for for this type of card is "treasure"...
Seriously though, most of the things you could do with these cards can as well be done with treasure cards. Lumberjack, which you proposed, works fine as a treasure card. The only things that doesn't work that way are cards that "reactivate" your action phase, i.e. give at least +1 action. But that's a rather narrow design space to explore, and I think soulnet's solutions works fine for this kind of cards.
-
Even in the "Village that doesn't cost an action" design space, that could be a treasure, with a "Return to your Action phase" wording? I can imagine the reaction you "play" during your action phase being more confusing.
-
I don't think you need Reaction, a new type, or an awkward "return to your Action phase" Treasure for this. Just have an Action with the under-line text that says, "It does not cost an Action to play this." Whether that's a space worth exploring is another matter. I think almost all cards using this mechanic would be better off either just having +1 Action or being Treasures.
Lumberjack $4
----------------
+2
+1 buy
This does not take up an Action.
In general, Silver-with-a-bonus has to cost $5 or more. Buying Silver with $4 is already common, so players just blindly buy it when they want Silver and have $4 in hand and the stack just runs out without players even thinking of the strategy behind it. It doesn't add much to the game, is I guess the problem.
I think this card…
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5
Worth $2. +1 Buy.
…would probably get bought when players need +1 Buy (which is often), but isn't a terribly interesting card. Festival is more interesting, and it's a vanilla card.
-
The "card that bails you out if you draw it dead" idea is definitely worthwhile though. Perhaps a competition could be run as to the best form it should take. My favourite would be a Copper that restarts the action phase, just for the fun combos with draw to X cards, but I'd imagine most people would prefer the "Hidden Village" type.
-
The "card that bails you out if you draw it dead" idea is definitely worthwhile though.
I'm not claiming that it's definitely not worthwhile, but I'm not as convinced that it's a compelling concept.
-
The "card that bails you out if you draw it dead" idea is definitely worthwhile though.
I'm not claiming that it's definitely not worthwhile, but I'm not as convinced that it's a compelling concept.
It will be interesting in Kingdoms with terminal drawers and other action cards (especially terminals) worth playing. If you have a Smithy and a Mountebank in hand, do you risk playing the Smithy in case you might draw a "Hidden Village"?
-
I'm pretty convinced it's a dead end. Yes, there is some space in between treasure cards and non-terminal actions, but it's very narrow. And I don't think it would create interesting strategies, in fact, I think it would simplify the game. The point of action cards is that, if you're not playing an engine, but you use a drawer, you don't want too many of them. A BM + Council Room strategy f.e. doesn't like to have markets in it, since they won't be worth anything when drawn by CR. Now, if you use non-action cards, that prospect is nullified. A non-action "+2 card" vanilla card is way easier to figure out than a lab, because you can just equalize its worth with twice the average value of any card from your deck. And if your non-action doesn't draw, odds are it would prefer just being a treasure.
-
At least I think a "Treasure Village" (as NoMoreFun suggested) should be worth it because it is nothing else than a very unique Village variant, which is what we need if we make more cards without dumping the Village quote.
Falcon (Treasure) $3
Worth $1
+1 Action
When you play this, return to your Action phase.
It is true that it simplifies the game, especially with terminal draw, but you still need this in your hand to prevent a collision. Also, the +$1 is a bit worse than +1 Card on regular Village because both want to collide with terminals.
-
I think Falcon could cost $4. Not necessarily OP at $3 either, just more interesting at $4 I think.
-
You can have that effect with Reactions. "During your action phase, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, play it." You may add a keyword for that if you are planning on including into several cards (however, the fact that "Each other player gains a Curse." has no keyword seems to point in the opposite direction), but I see no reason why would you need another type. The text is not so long.
I think those cards would be way more interesting if you could only reveal them if you have at least X actions in play or some other random requirement is fulfilled. Like:
Strictly worse than Bazaar without the attack but somehow too similar so it shouldn't cost 4$
5$ Action - Attack - Reaction
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1$
-----
During your action phase, if you have at least 3 actions in play, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, play it. If you have at least 1 attack card in play, each other player discards down to 3 cards.