Dominion Strategy Forum

Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: Fragasnap on March 21, 2015, 08:14:40 am

Title: Dominion: Greed (1.0)
Post by: Fragasnap on March 21, 2015, 08:14:40 am
The nights have seemed long recently.  Maybe that's how they should feel: In the dark with no one to distract you from your sins.  Maybe the noise from those torture devices doesn't help.  It was only a little assassination.  And that extra slice of cake, too.  Anyone would have done the same in your position.  You have a family to think about, after all.  Everything will be better tomorrow.  You did fund those missionaries out to whatever those heathen lands to the north were.  Or was it the east?  You'll just have your historians scratch out what you did to the marquis and everyone will remember you as a saint.  Nothing could possibly go wrong.

Dominion: Greed is a fan expansion that has been in the making since the release of Dominion: Guilds in 2013 between myself and Lamestar, a friend of mine. It adds 27 new Kingdom cards to Dominion, including 24 Actions, 2 Treasures, 1 Victory card, and 1 Reaction.  Heavily featured are cards with "In games using this" effects, that introduce blanket changes to core elements of gameplay.  Dominion: Greed is a fan expansion and cannot be played by itself; to play with it, you need the Basic cards and rulebook (Dominion provides both).

Some Kingdom cards have effects that begin "In games using this".  These effects apply to any game where the Kingdom card appears in the Supply, even if no players buy or use the card, and continue to affect the game even if their Supply pile empties.
It is recommended to use reminder tokens: In games using Architect, Countess, Fletcher, or War Flag, the effects of some cards change, which make placing reminder tokens onto relevant supply piles helpful. The reminder tokens are not intended to do anything themselves except help players remember these effects.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (1.0)
Post by: Fragasnap on March 21, 2015, 08:14:50 am
(https://i.imgur.com/LqMcXQS.jpg)
Quote
Alehouse
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may discard 4 cards. If you do, +3 Actions.

(https://i.imgur.com/FyEBPKF.jpg)
Quote
Arcanum
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Reveal your hand. If you revealed any Curses, trash one, gain a Copper, and +1 Card. Otherwise, gain a Curse, and if you do, +4 Cards.
In games using this, when you trash a Curse, return it to the Supply.

(https://i.imgur.com/SLnhJoH.jpg)
Quote
Architect
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Action. Reveal your hand. The player to your left chooses a revealed card that doesn't cost $5. Trash it and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.
In games using this, Copper costs $1 more.

(https://i.imgur.com/mUA2hEv.jpg)
Quote
Brazen Bull
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $5
$2. When you play this, each other player may reveal 3 cards from their hand that are Actions or Curses. If they don't, they gain a Curse.
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP per Treasure costing at least $5 in your deck instead.

(https://i.imgur.com/LVthK3R.jpg)
Quote
Charity School
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards, +1 Action, +1 Buy.
In games using this, at the start of your Clean-Up, gain a Curse for each Buy you didn't use.

(https://i.imgur.com/3Vi2w4K.jpg)
Quote
Commission
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. Discard down to 5 cards in hand. You may play an Action from your hand once per card discarded.

(https://i.imgur.com/nbdwJzq.jpg)
Quote
Countess
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. At the start of Clean-Up, if you did not buy any cards this turn, gain a Duchy.
In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more.

(https://i.imgur.com/Y9t46au.jpg)
Quote
Country Blacksmith
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $3
Reveal any number of Treasures from your hand and discard them. +2 Cards per card discarded.
When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Copper instead, putting it into your hand.

(https://i.imgur.com/raXrwad.jpg)
Quote
Courier
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Buy. Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Trash one costing from $3 to $6 and discard the rest. If you trashed a card, +$4. Otherwise, +$2.
In games using this, when you gain a card, you may spend a Buy. If you do, put the gained card on top of your deck.

(https://i.imgur.com/2GesCeI.jpg)
Quote
Fletcher
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain up to 2 non-Victory cards, each costing up to $3. If you gain 2 cards, gain an Estate, putting it on top of your deck.
In games using this, Attacks cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

(https://i.imgur.com/IZF3QTM.jpg)
Quote
Frontier
Types: Victory
Cost: $5
5VP.
In games using this, at the end of each turn taken by the last player in turn order that is not an extra turn, they put a Frontier from the Supply into the trash.

(https://i.imgur.com/DtKYT0l.jpg)
Quote
Historian
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Draw until you have 6 cards in hand. You may set aside up to 2 cards drawn this way as you draw them. Trash the set aside cards after you finish drawing.

(https://i.imgur.com/JY2vydT.jpg)
Quote
Inquisitor
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
Choose one: Discard a card and each other player gains a Curse; or trash up to 2 cards from your hand.

(https://i.imgur.com/HynJUlG.jpg)
Quote
Kitchen
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards, +1 Action. The next time you play an Action this turn, get +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions.

(https://i.imgur.com/md9IGDp.jpg)
Quote
Leper Village
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1. Each other player with at least 4 cards in hand discards a card.
In games using this, at the end of each of your Clean-Ups after the first, +1 Card.

(https://i.imgur.com/kIxD80c.jpg)
Quote
Marquis
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+2 Cards, +$2. Each other player draws a card. Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, each other player discards a card to a minimum of 3 cards in hand.

(https://i.imgur.com/nW5tzLN.jpg)
Quote
Missionary
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Card. You may trash or discard a non-Victory card from your hand. +Actions equal to its cost in coins.
In games using this, the first time you trash a Silver or Missionary each turn, you may gain an Action costing exactly $5, putting it into your hand.

(https://i.imgur.com/QhUBqOe.jpg)
Quote
Prospector
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. Trash a card from your hand. If you have no Treasures in hand, you may reveal it and gain a Gold.
In games using this, when you gain a Gold, each other player may gain a Prospector, putting it into their hand.

(https://i.imgur.com/JEcviGo.jpg)
Quote
Salon
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +2 Actions. You may trash a card costing $3 or more from your hand, name a card, reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a copy of the named card, put it into your hand, and discard the rest. Otherwise, discard a card.

(https://i.imgur.com/pYfnrkG.jpg)
Quote
Séance
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+$3. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it is not a Victory card, trash it, and gain a differently named card with the same cost. Each other player gains a Curse.
In games using this, when you gain a card costing at most $2, look through your discard pile and you may put a card from it on top of your deck.

(https://i.imgur.com/vmokpIZ.jpg)
Quote
Servants
Types: Action
Cost: $0
+1 Action. Draw until you have 4 cards in hand.
In games using this, durectky after resolving an Action, if you haven't gained a Servants this turn, you may gain a Servants. If you do, play it.

(https://i.imgur.com/RaVCPNT.jpg)
Quote
Slave Trade
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +2 Actions. Gain a Copper, putting it into your hand. Each other player gains a Copper.
In games using this, at the start of your Clean-Up, you may trash a Copper from your hand for every 2 differentl named card you have in play, rounded down.

(https://i.imgur.com/U0lWtp2.jpg)
Quote
Street
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. -1 Buy to a minimum of 0 Buys. Cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0.
In games using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.

(https://i.imgur.com/LVHrgrQ.jpg)
Quote
Tanner
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Put the revealed cards costing $2 or more into your hand and the rest back in any order.
In games using this, once per turn, directly after you shuffle your deck, gain a Copper.

(https://i.imgur.com/uuUMLKl.jpg)
Quote
Usurer
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy. The next three times you play an Action that isn't a Usurer this turn, +$1. Your next buy this turn must be a card costing exactly $3.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZUJFNU8.jpg)
Quote
Visionary
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1. Gain a card costing up to $4, setting it aside. When this leaves play, put the set aside card on top of your deck. Draw 3 cards (instead of 5) during this turn's Clean-Up.

(https://i.imgur.com/vEUxin1.jpg)
Quote
War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $5
$3. When you play this, either trash this or discard a Treasure, then each other player discards a card for each coin in its cost then draw until they have 3 cards in hand.
In games using this, when you buy a card costing $5 or more, trash a card you have in play.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on March 21, 2015, 08:15:18 am
Quote
Street
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. -1 Buy to a minimum of 0 Buys. Cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0.
In game using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
Quote
Fletcher
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain up to 2 cards that aren't Victory cards, each costing up to $3. If you gain 2 cards, gain an Estate.
In game using this, Attacks cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

These first two cards are rather situational.

Street costs you your possibly precious resource of +Buys.  You can use it as the draw of your engine, but you have to have some way to get your Buys back, because it is entirely possible to leave yourself with no buys remaining at the end of your turn.  Maybe you don't need +Buys anyway...  Even if the board has no support for Street though, now you have 2 Buys every turn. Would a 3/2/2 opening be good here? Maybe that engine is looking a little better since you can definitely get that Province with another engine component...

Fletcher is a deceptively powerful Workshop variant.  With a couple of the right cards, you can quickly build up an engine and setup to pile-out the game afterwards.  Even without those, gaining 2 Silvers and an Estate might not always be a bad option. With Fletcher in the Kingdom, you can expect Attacks to come out hard and fast: Any $5 Attack is suddenly within reach of any opening and $4 Attacks can be gained rapidly by Fletcher itself.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LastFootnote on March 24, 2015, 12:33:15 am
Sorry it took a while to respond to this. I've been busy at work (which is where I usually do my card critiques).

I think "in games using this" is a fine avenue to explore. It might be nice if those Kingdom cards had a new type and a bright color, just to remind you that they're always doing something just by being in the Kingdom.

Back in the day, I was thinking of making a set with penalty cards as the main theme; when you buy one of these cards, you gain a bad card, and then most of the cards would care about the bad card. There are a lot of reasons I haven't pursued it, but one is that penalties are generally unpopular. It's fine to have a few cards with penalties, but these days I'm leery of it being a major theme for a set.

When you do make cards with penalties, I think it's important that the card has a big effect so that it still looks worth buying. Street and Fletcher aren't wowing me in that regard. Street reduces costs, but it reduces your buys; the exact opposite effect that you want with a cost reducer. The +2 Cards just isn't making up for that. If the concept of the card is –Buy (and starting your turns with an additional buy), then I think you're better off choosing a bonus that isn't diametrically opposed to the penalty. I like Street's "in games using this" clause. I don't think it needs to be paired with –Buy to make it interesting, but obviously if you want –Buy, that's the rule to pair it with.

I like Fletcher's rule as well, but again the action effect seems lackluster. Yes it's nice with Attack cards that normally cost $4. But even with that, it seems like gaining 2 cards each costing up to $3 is a fine $4 card even without the penalty of gaining an Estate. Maybe I'm underestimating it, but it seems weak. I'd rather see it be more straightforward. Like, "Gain 2 differently named cards each costing up to $4. Gain a Curse."
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LastFootnote on March 24, 2015, 11:12:27 am
Oh, one other thing I meant to say: I'm looking forward to seeing more cards from Dominion: Greed.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: ConMan on March 25, 2015, 01:08:48 am
Sorry it took a while to respond to this. I've been busy at work (which is where I usually do my card critiques).

I think "in games using this" is a fine avenue to explore. It might be nice if those Kingdom cards had a new type and a bright color, just to remind you that they're always doing something just by being in the Kingdom.
I agree in general, although I'd suggest that it can be difficult if you don't have anything to remind you of those effects if the Supply pile is empty. For example:

Baker - gives you the coin token at the start, so you don't have to remember it later
Duchess - if they're not available, you don't have to remember that you can gain one with a Duchy
Embargo - leaves tokens out

Some of the effects here, especially ones where specific types of cards have altered costs, will probably need a token or something to mark them. This is actually one space where it makes a lot more sense to do online, since on Goko the cards with altered cost would have a visual representation (the cost written in red rather than black).
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on March 25, 2015, 10:29:29 am
Young Witch doesn't give any reminder about which card is the Bain.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Jimmmmm on March 25, 2015, 10:48:42 am
Have you considered using a "while this is in play" or "while this is (publicly) visible" clause instead of "while this is in the game"? As well as not possibly making players remember the modifications if the piles run out, it would give more tactical decisions. Another option is to include a card with each pile of relevant kingdom cards that simply states the rule.

I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LastFootnote on March 25, 2015, 12:07:28 pm
Some of the effects here, especially ones where specific types of cards have altered costs, will probably need a token or something to mark them. This is actually one space where it makes a lot more sense to do online, since on Goko the cards with altered cost would have a visual representation (the cost written in red rather than black).

I think the best thing would be to have a reminder card you put sideways under the pile. That reminder card could have the bright colored border and you'd always see it on the sides of the pile. Then it could have just the rule text so that it would be visible if the pile ran out.

Young Witch doesn't give any reminder about which card is the Bain.

Actually, the Cornucopia rules say to use Young Witch's randomizer to mark the Bane pile.

I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.

You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on March 26, 2015, 07:46:42 am
I think "in games using this" is a fine avenue to explore. It might be nice if those Kingdom cards had a new type and a bright color, just to remind you that they're always doing something just by being in the Kingdom.
A type would just be silly, but I did consider giving each "in games using this" effect a chartreuse (http://www.photos-public-domain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/bumpy-chartreuse-plastic-texture.jpg) background as a reminder. I was ultimately leery of doing so for its inconsistency with Duchess.

Quote
Street
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. -1 Buy to a minimum of 0 Buys. Cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0.
In game using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
Street reduces costs, but it reduces your buys; the exact opposite effect that you want with a cost reducer. The +2 Cards just isn't making up for that. If the concept of the card is –Buy (and starting your turns with an additional buy), then I think you're better off choosing a bonus that isn't diametrically opposed to the penalty. I like Street's "in games using this" clause. I don't think it needs to be paired with –Buy to make it interesting, but obviously if you want –Buy, that's the rule to pair it with.
A -Buy is not necessary to make a "2 Buys per turn" card interesting, but it makes the 2 Buys significantly easier to remember. Having a "+Buy in games using this" slapped on to any card that combos with +Buys (or is totally irrelevant) would make the "in games using this" harder to remember since there are already a lot of cards that combo with +Buys (or do not care at all). As you stated though, giving out a -Buy nearly requires +Buy be present as well, and this "in games using this" effect is a good work around.

Under the assumption that a -Buy could be compelling, why give it an opposed benefit? The answer is because -Buy will be one of two things: Either directly opposed to its benefit (since Dominion is all about buying cards) or else a total wash. Putting a -Buy onto an Expand, Chapel, or Workshop would hardly even matter because you would be substituting your Buys for that effect and you do not have to care. The effect simply has to be something opposed to the -Buy for the -Buy to matter.

To that end, Street manages to be a simple cost reducer that functions quite differently than either Bridge or Highway: Bridge needs +Actions and +Cards for a big turn, Highway needs +Buys for a big turn, while Street needs +Actions and +Buys for a big turn. Because of the relative rarity of gratuitous +Buys, Street's better uses are often not seen in mega-turns unlike its peers. In the presence of +Actions and a Workshop-type, Street is surprisingly fast since, unlike Highway, Street increases your hand size as you play, making it less likely to stall out as the deck's size increases (and you're likely gaining some sort of splitter with it to power your draw engine), but when you can get a large number of +Buys, you might be able to get a multi-Province turn with 2-4 Streets played. More interestingly, the first does not necessarily imply the second.

There are certainly a good number of boards in which Street itself is not useful, but that simply allows its "in games using this" effect to take center stage instead. Because of the quite large effect that has on the game, it is fine if Street itself is rather niche.

Quote
Fletcher
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain up to 2 cards that aren't Victory cards, each costing up to $3. If you gain 2 cards, gain an Estate.
In game using this, Attacks cost $1 less, but not less than $0.
Street reduces costs, but it I like Fletcher's rule as well, but again the action effect seems lackluster. Yes it's nice with Attack cards that normally cost $4. But even with that, it seems like gaining 2 cards each costing up to $3 is a fine $4 card even without the penalty of gaining an Estate. Maybe I'm underestimating it, but it seems weak. I'd rather see it be more straightforward. Like, "Gain 2 differently named cards each costing up to $4. Gain a Curse."
I did describe Fletcher as a deceptively powerful Workshop variant. To understand why, look no further than Stonemason. Stonemason is strong in its ability to multiply buying power for Actions, but is especially notable for how rapidly it can pile out a game--even in 2-player. Considering that, Fletcher is quite comparable to Stonemason in its ability to force a 3-pile ending.

In a game with Fletcher and $2 or $3 cards that are desirable in multiples, not only can those cards pile out fast, but the Estate pile can be drained simultaneously. Monitoring the Supply piles is incredibly important in Fletcher games, since a player who is ahead can possibly pick up two or three Fletchers and start emptying $3 piles 3 cards at a time while gaining Estates to try to maintain their lead (which is what makes Estates a more compelling gain than any other junk). Sometimes though, there are no $2 or $3 cards you want in multiples, in which case you would only buy Fletcher as a Workshop- if at all and can use it to pick up an Estate in absence of +Buy by taking Silvers.

Fletcher has been nerfed more than any other card in Greed. In its inception, it could be used to gain copies of itself and had no qualifier put on what types it gained. Piling out on Fletcher\Estate\Anything was so fast that basically nothing else was possible. Because of those games, I am hesitant to change Fletcher to anything that can easily gain copies of itself (even if it is gaining Curses to do so) since the games will be more likely to boil down to incredibly dull Workshop rushes.

Have you considered using a "while this is in play" or "while this is (publicly) visible" clause instead of "while this is in the game"? As well as not possibly making players remember the modifications if the piles run out, it would give more tactical decisions. Another option is to include a card with each pile of relevant kingdom cards that simply states the rule.
I did not consider this limitation because of Young Witch's similarly untraceable effects. I usually have randomizers sitting on the table when I am playing games, and even when they are not, the "in games using this" effects of the majority of cards are such a major strategic consideration to the game state that players very, very rarely forget them.
It would honestly be harder to remember the "in games using this" effects if they changed in the middle of the game.

I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.
You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.
To do otherwise would be ridiculous, especially since, by the strictest rule, the deck for Black Market has one of every Kingdom card that is not already in the Supply, which means every "in games using this" effect would apply in every Kingdom with Black Market in it.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Jimmmmm on March 26, 2015, 08:55:49 am
Have you considered using a "while this is in play" or "while this is (publicly) visible" clause instead of "while this is in the game"? As well as not possibly making players remember the modifications if the piles run out, it would give more tactical decisions. Another option is to include a card with each pile of relevant kingdom cards that simply states the rule.
I did not consider this limitation because of Young Witch's similarly untraceable effects. I usually have randomizers sitting on the table when I am playing games, and even when they are not, the "in games using this" effects of the majority of cards are such a major strategic consideration to the game state that players very, very rarely forget them.

The difference is that the Bane only comes into play when a Young Witch is played, and it has it right there on the card that others can reveal a Bane, all you need to do is remember what the Bane is and even then it's a card that the players chose to add. That's a lot different from remembering that you have an extra Buy every turn etc.

Quote
It would honestly be harder to remember the "in games using this" effects if they changed in the middle of the game.

Maybe, maybe not. It was just a suggestion.

I think at the end of the day, I (and probably others) would be likely to quite often forget that I had an extra buy etc, just like I often forget to buy Peddlers when I can. I guess as the designer you can either be okay with that and put the onus on players to remember, or try to give as much help as is reasonable.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Jimmmmm on March 26, 2015, 08:59:02 am
I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.

You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.

I think that would be really counter-intuitive to be able to 'use' (buy, draw, play etc) a card which has an "In games using this" clause that doesn't trigger.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LastFootnote on March 26, 2015, 09:19:54 am
I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.

You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.

I think that would be really counter-intuitive to be able to 'use' (buy, draw, play etc) a card which has an "In games using this" clause that doesn't trigger.

I disagree!
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Jimmmmm on March 26, 2015, 09:22:37 am
I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.

You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.

I think that would be really counter-intuitive to be able to 'use' (buy, draw, play etc) a card which has an "In games using this" clause that doesn't trigger.

I disagree!

Do we disagree on what the word 'use' means?
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LastFootnote on March 26, 2015, 09:25:01 am
I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.

You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.

I think that would be really counter-intuitive to be able to 'use' (buy, draw, play etc) a card which has an "In games using this" clause that doesn't trigger.

I disagree!

Do we disagree on what the word 'use' means?

OK, perhaps these cards should instead say, "In games using this pile". That way it's different from Duchess AND doesn't have Black Market confusion.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on March 26, 2015, 09:44:52 am
I don't find Street compelling at all, or rather its on-play effects, to be exact. While I think that -1 Buy on-play combined with 2 Buys at the start of each turn is a fine idea, I cannot cotton up to "+2 Cards" as a vanilla bonus. You say it can be the draw part of your engine, but +2 Cards is so weak and -Buys is the exact opposite of what an engine usually wants.

I would much rather see it at $5 with +3 Cards, or at $4 with +$2 on top. The first would would still be a little vexing as your only source of draw in an engine but it would be a nice Big Money card. The latter could be a great payload of your engine, as it would be similar to a Gold with -1 Buy. Actually, playing only one of it would be quite strong. It might justify a cost of $5 as well.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LastFootnote on March 26, 2015, 09:52:15 am
I did describe Fletcher as a deceptively powerful Workshop variant. To understand why, look no further than Stonemason. Stonemason is strong in its ability to multiply buying power for Actions, but is especially notable for how rapidly it can pile out a game--even in 2-player. Considering that, Fletcher is quite comparable to Stonemason in its ability to force a 3-pile ending.

In a game with Fletcher and $2 or $3 cards that are desirable in multiples, not only can those cards pile out fast, but the Estate pile can be drained simultaneously. Monitoring the Supply piles is incredibly important in Fletcher games, since a player who is ahead can possibly pick up two or three Fletchers and start emptying $3 piles 3 cards at a time while gaining Estates to try to maintain their lead (which is what makes Estates a more compelling gain than any other junk). Sometimes though, there are no $2 or $3 cards you want in multiples, in which case you would only buy Fletcher as a Workshop- if at all and can use it to pick up an Estate in absence of +Buy by taking Silvers.

Fletcher has been nerfed more than any other card in Greed. In its inception, it could be used to gain copies of itself and had no qualifier put on what types it gained. Piling out on Fletcher\Estate\Anything was so fast that basically nothing else was possible. Because of those games, I am hesitant to change Fletcher to anything that can easily gain copies of itself (even if it is gaining Curses to do so) since the games will be more likely to boil down to incredibly dull Workshop rushes.

If Fletcher runs out piles too fast, the obvious solution is to not have it gain Estates (or Curses). Just raise its cost and have it gain at most two cards.

What I'm getting from your post is that Fletcher's "deceptive power" comes from the ability to quickly end the game on piles. That's…not fun. Not for most players, anyway. It's fun to be able to build up your deck. When the entire point of a card is to cut the game short, that's no fun. When we were playtesting Adventures, cards were scrapped or changed specifically to avoid running out piles too fast.

I agree with Co0kieL0rd about Street. Personally I would abandon –1 Buy completely, but if you really want to keep it, the bonus needs to be bigger.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on March 29, 2015, 12:19:17 pm
I don't find Street compelling at all, or rather its on-play effects, to be exact. While I think that -1 Buy on-play combined with 2 Buys at the start of each turn is a fine idea, I cannot cotton up to "+2 Cards" as a vanilla bonus. You say it can be the draw part of your engine, but +2 Cards is so weak and -Buys is the exact opposite of what an engine usually wants.

I would much rather see it at $5 with +3 Cards, or at $4 with +$2 on top. The first would would still be a little vexing as your only source of draw in an engine but it would be a nice Big Money card. The latter could be a great payload of your engine, as it would be similar to a Gold with -1 Buy. Actually, playing only one of it would be quite strong. It might justify a cost of $5 as well.
Street's vanilla benefit cannot be considered separate its cost reduction. If you want to try to ignore its cost reduction, at least call Street +2 Cards, +$1 like it actually is when your only Action. As an opener, that effect is quite strong; sometimes better than a Silver (usually at least as good) and always leaves you closer to important early game reshuffles.

If you put Street at +3 Cards, it will be overwhelming as a singular action, likely a must-buy on any board if it cost less than $6 since that effect is nearly as good as Hunting Ground. With +$2 instead, it would only be a worse Bridge. As it is, Street is a niche card that manages to be a unique cost reducer that does not necessarily produce a megaturn when useful.

Starting each turn with 2 Buys is a mildly interesting effect, but having that slapped onto some random card makes its effect harder to remember. The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card. For a card that starts each turn with 2 Buys, there are three options: 1) A card that is cheap and good in multiples, 2) A card that combos with +Buy, or 3) A card that gives -Buys.
In the case of 1, we are making a card that simply encourages a boring 1-card deck construction (which we have in a more interesting way in Fool's Gold already). In the case of 2, most obvious effects have been taken by the likes of Talisman, Haggler, and Hoard, such that the card would likely have to become very semantically complex to function uniquely. I believe that 3 is the most simplistic and interesting of the 3 options, especially since it is the easiest way to make a -Buy card work (I mean, you could have a Workshop card where you swap your Buy for a gain of some sort, but then the -Buy is really just a wash).

A -Buy card in the event that you start each turn with 2 Buys needs to be something you want to play in multiples for the -Buy to really become a problem, and cost-reduction is a great spam-friendly effect. If you can get to your payload card that gives a +Buy, Streets can be played with impunity because you can never have fewer than 0 Buys. After playing 4 Streets (easier to do than 4 Bridges with those +Cards, easier to get than 4 Highways since it costs so much less), one +Buy will leave you with 1 Buy. If you can find a way to get multiple +Buys (Squire maybe?) while playing Street, you can possibly get to those 3 Province turns, but that will require a unique kind of effort.

Yes though, it is only +2 Cards, +$1 on a board with no +Actions (or with +Actions and without +Buys or a Workshop of some sort). Without something that enables it, it is of minimal use, but that support is so much more common than support for Rats. Even when that support is lacking, Street still has an effect on the board because of its "in games using this".

If Fletcher runs out piles too fast, the obvious solution is to not have it gain Estates (or Curses). Just raise its cost and have it gain at most two cards.

What I'm getting from your post is that Fletcher's "deceptive power" comes from the ability to quickly end the game on piles. That's…not fun. Not for most players, anyway. It's fun to be able to build up your deck. When the entire point of a card is to cut the game short, that's no fun. When we were playtesting Adventures, cards were scrapped or changed specifically to avoid running out piles too fast.
Fletcher's point is not to cut games short nor does it--what I said was that Fletcher can cut a game short. Apologies if I gave the sense otherwise.
Of course Fletcher can be used to force some games into premature endings because of other players not monitoring piles very well. I have seen that happen just as well in Kingdoms with Ironworks, where one player gains a lot of Ironworks and then starts blindly draining away other piles. Even in 2-player games with Stonemason 3-piling is something you should always be thinking about. Other players are an important factor to pile management and one that cannot be understated.

But not every board with the current Fletcher on it ends in a 3-pile nor does necessarily every board in which multiple players buy Fletcher end in a 3-pile. Fletcher is strongest when you need to watch piles, but it is not useless otherwise. There are plenty of boards where a Workshop- would be welcomed in absence of +Buys.
Back when Fletcher could gain copies of itself practically every Fletcher game ended rapidly on piles and that was no fun, but ever since Fletcher has been unable to gain more Fletchers that has not been a problem.

The strength of Fletcher is deceptive not only because of its ability to pile out games, but also because there are more Kingdoms where 2 $3-card gains outweigh the cost of an Estate gain than you might think.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on March 29, 2015, 12:19:36 pm
Quote
Arcanum
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Reveal your hand. If you reveal any Curses, trash one, gain a Copper, and +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Curse and +4 Cards.
In games using this, when you trash a Curse, return it to the Supply.
Quote
Idol
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $5
$2. Each other player gains a Curse.
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP for each Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck instead of -1VP.

Arcanum is the self-Curser you were waiting for. It is a Laboratory that turns your Curses into Coppers or gives you Curses to be a triple Laboratory. So how do you deal with those Curses and Coppers? How can you use those big hands when you get them?
To keep Arcanum from being a silly nonterminal +4 Cards, the Curse pile can keep being supplied. With a Curser about, all the players can constantly juggle the Curses between them with good trashing. Sea Hag might not be fast enough to ever empty the Curse pile!

Idol is obviously a strong card seeing as it is a nonterminal (well, a Treasure) Curser, but in games using Idol, your Curses are suddenly totally different. Now, your Curses hurt more the more big Treasures you add to your deck. Buying multiple Idols sounds nice to give out Curses super fast, but are you sure you'll be able to get rid of your Idols since they make your Curses even worse? Will you gain enough momentum from that Gold to make buying it worth the points from those Curses? Maybe you can get rid of all your Curses anyway. Maybe with two other players giving out Curses, you can win with your 0VP Curses...

Edit: Clarity fix for Idol.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on March 29, 2015, 04:04:53 pm
Arcanum: A self-curser that returns curses to the Supply? Sounds familiar. I made a card using similar mechanics but it works totally different. I like that this idea is explored even more here. I can't assess the card balance-wise but I assume it has been tested sufficiently already. Seems fine to me and very interesting.

Idol: Another good idea to make curses more interesting. The obvious synergy here is trash-for-benefit. On a board without trashing, Idol becomes a monster and a must-buy, it probably feels like IGG but obviously plays vastly differently because getting too many Idols might backfire unto you. If you buy two Idols and give your opponent 6 curses while you only get 4 from their one Idol, you end up with -8 VP while they have -6 (not counting Golds which should probably be ignored on Idol-boards without trashers).

I have seen many bad card ideas doin' funny stuff with curses (including my own early ones). These OTOH are actually pretty good IMHO.

About Street, I guess you're right. I'm probably underestimating the card. I was aware of the cost reduction but just thought "you wouldn't want to play many Streets because you lose so many buys" disregarding the fact that buys cannot be below 0 and the buy gets deducted the time you play it, not for each Street in play. It's probably a well thought-through card.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on March 29, 2015, 08:25:07 pm
I don't understand idol. Is the new curse vp meant to replace the normal -1? Or is it an additional -1vp? And it's still extremely strong... As a non terminal curser, you should just be buying them up. So what if having them makes curses worse for you? That only matters if your opponent is also cursing you. Which just means that you have to go for this card every time it's available. Who cares about the vp penalty; curses hurt way more by clogging your deck.

*Edit* I see you mention 0VP curses, so obviously it's not meant as an additional -1VP. I think the wording could be ambiguous though. One one hand "worth X" should simply set the value, like you want. But because it's negative, the minus sign can make it look like it's subtracting from the worth of curses.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: eHalcyon on March 31, 2015, 09:52:10 pm
The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card.

What's the relationship between the passive effect and the on-play effect of Fletcher?  They seem unrelated to me.

Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: AJD on March 31, 2015, 11:21:55 pm
The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card.

What's the relationship between the passive effect and the on-play effect of Fletcher?  They seem unrelated to me.

It encourages gaining Attacks, because you can get $4 Attacks with it but not $4 non-Attacks.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: eHalcyon on March 31, 2015, 11:36:04 pm
The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card.

What's the relationship between the passive effect and the on-play effect of Fletcher?  They seem unrelated to me.

It encourages gaining Attacks, because you can get $4 Attacks with it but not $4 non-Attacks.

That seems like a stretch.  The passive effect alone encourages gaining attacks; the on-play doesn't really factor into it IMO.  I'm probably less inclined to gain attacks with it because most attacks are terminal and Fletcher is terminal, and doing that is just asking for trouble.

Edit:

The $4 attack cards are:

Bureaucrat, Militia, Spy, Thief, Cutpurse, Pirate Ship, Sea Hag, Young Witch, Noble Brigand, Marauder, Sir Martin, Tax Man

Of these, the only one I can see spamming is Spy.  I guess I might also go Fletcher for Bureacrat in a Gardens game.  For the rest, if I want them, I would just buy one or two directly rather than gaining them with Fletcher.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on April 03, 2015, 09:27:16 pm
Arcanum: A self-curser that returns curses to the Supply? Sounds familiar. I made a card using similar mechanics but it works totally different. I like that this idea is explored even more here. I can't assess the card balance-wise but I assume it has been tested sufficiently already. Seems fine to me and very interesting.
Self-cursing is a very difficult thing to balance and Arcanum really is no different. The design trick is in how much or little Curses can hurt a deck in any given game: in some games with strong trashing or precise trashing the Curses don't matter; in others with no trashing Curses are the worst thing ever. To fix that, Arcanum non-optionally trashes Curses that it possibly has given you (since its trashing is clearly the weaker option of the two if you bought it in the first place). There are certainly boards where it does basically nothing (need good payloads or +Buys), but when you need to get some cards to collide, a nonterminal +4 Cards is hard to argue with, even with that penalty.
In games with Cursers, Arcanum can be quite powerful with a bit of luck as a Laboratory that is also giving you more ammunition as you dig for your Curser, but you have to deal with the incoming Coppers and the times you can't afford to gain an additional Curse when it misses.

As a non terminal curser, you should just be buying them up. So what if having them makes curses worse for you? That only matters if your opponent is also cursing you. Which just means that you have to go for this card every time it's available. Who cares about the vp penalty; curses hurt way more by clogging your deck.
To be fair, the majority of the time when one skips a Curser it is only because there is a better Curser available, especially in 2-player.
Winning a 2-player Curse split 3-7 for taking 2 Idols looks pretty nice, but a 4-6 split isn't enough, so filling yourself up with Idols is risky depending on the Kingdom. The question is more whether or not you can get rid of your Idols (or Curses) so that the Curses won't be compounded too much than whether or not Idol should be bought. In multiplayer, the dynamics of Idol are often much akin to three-player Witch\Moat games.

*Edit* I see you mention 0VP curses, so obviously it's not meant as an additional -1VP. I think the wording could be ambiguous though. One one hand "worth X" should simply set the value, like you want. But because it's negative, the minus sign can make it look like it's subtracting from the worth of curses.
I have had enough players initially parse it as -1VP more for each Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck, so I will make it unambiguous. Corrected above.

The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card.
What's the relationship between the passive effect and the on-play effect of Fletcher?  They seem unrelated to me.
The operating word is "try." Fletcher gains cards at a fixed price point and reduces the cost of certain cards which is at least a passive relationship. As you stated, Fletcher\Spy is an especially nice combo since it gives you Estates and a way to deal with them.
Granted, it is not a strong connection: Spy, Marauder, and two other cards from the set are probably the only $4 Attacks one would often gain using Fletcher.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: qazzquimby on April 23, 2015, 06:39:32 pm
You would get more playtesting if you posted all your cards.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on April 25, 2015, 06:18:22 pm
You would get more playtesting if you posted all your cards.
Certainly.  I was waiting until some excitement died down regarding Adventures (especially with the previews).  I also expected Adventures to be released earlier in the month, but what can you do?

I have updated Greed's Tavern card to be named Alehouse because of Adventure's Tavern mat.

Quote
Blacksmith
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $3
Reveal any number of Treasures from your hand and discard them. +2 Cards per card discarded.
When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Copper instead, putting it into your hand.
Quote
Slave Trade
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +2 Actions. Gain a Copper, putting it into your hand. Each other player gains a Copper.
In games using this, at the start of your Clean-Up, you may trash a Copper from your hand for every 2 differently named cards you have in play (rounded down).

Like Storyteller, Blacksmith lets you toss out your Treasures, but for 2 cards apiece instead of the value they produce (It is also terminal, which makes a world of difference).  Discarding 1 or 2 Treasures is pretty weak, but if you can discard 3 or more it starts looking pretty nice... until you remember you just put your entire economy into the discard pile, that is.  Blacksmith is tricky to use since it affords such a powerful draw, but only especially so when you are already increasing your hand size (since that draw gets better the more Treasures you can discard)-- but it cannot be a payload since you have to discard your Treasures to get that draw. Maybe having 2 would be good since that is a big draw, but maybe then you just will be left with nothing to discard.
Its Reaction has obvious synergy with itself and helps in Greed heavy Kingdoms.  For example, in Kingdoms using Slave Trade!

Slave Trade approaches Copper junking in a novel way because of Greed's "In games using this effects."  Copper junking is problematic for two primary reasons.  The first reason is because the Copper pile is not bound by the number of players.  In 2-player games it is effectively bottomless, while in 4-player games with desirable Coppers the pile can empty.  The second problem though is because Copper junking makes games a slog in a pretty uninteresting way.  Playing with decks filled with Coppers is not a whole lot of fun.  Slave Trade is designed in an attempt to avoid (or at least mitigate) these two problems.
Slave Trade first gives everyone Coppers including the player of it, which helps it scale (4-player is giving out twice as many Coppers rather than three times). Secondly, its "in games using this" enables all players to remove Coppers from their decks without ever having to buy a trasher.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: qazzquimby on May 06, 2015, 04:41:48 pm
I've been playing with these as they come out, and I really like the "in games using this" effects. Two buys per turn changes the whole game in a really interesting way. Is there some kind of release schedule, so I don't need to keep checking back here?
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 06, 2015, 08:24:47 pm
I've been playing with these as they come out, and I really like the "in games using this" effects. Two buys per turn changes the whole game in a really interesting way.
Care to let me know how any of your games have been going? I am glad to hear someone is enjoying them.

Is there some kind of release schedule, so I don't need to keep checking back here?
Off the forum, I have been moving from one location to another. I am just getting settled, so I can release cards more evenly. I offer my apologies. How about Thursday\Sunday? Sounds fun.

See you tomorrow.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: qazzquimby on May 07, 2015, 03:36:12 am
Street is the only one we've spent much time on, since we have them in rotation with all other cards, and that's how the randomizers were drawn.
Street's constant effect, as I said, is a very interesting addition, and something I like having in rotation. The active effect of +2 cards, cards cost 1 less, was rarely seen as worth it.
That was probably partially because, being given the excitement of two buys every turn, people didn't want to lose that, and partly because -1 cost antisynergizes with fewer buys.
I'm not saying it's underpowered, that's just how it played. Also, given your "in games using this" effect, it still benefits the game even when no one is buying it.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 07, 2015, 07:34:06 am
Quote
Countess
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. At the start of Clean-Up, if you did not buy any cards this turn, gain a Duchy.
In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more.
Quote
Inquisitor
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
Choose one: Discard a card and each other player gains a Curse; or trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
In games using this, when you gain a Victory card costing $6 or more, put it on top of your deck.

Countess will let you weasel your way into Duchies so long as you give up the rest of your turn. Sounds pretty bad initially, but those Victory cards are more expensive now, so maybe it is your best bet to take that $6 Duchy.

Inquisitor is a $3 Curser, but that attack of course comes with a cost. Inquisitor can only give out Curses if you have a card to discard... and that is sort of interesting. See, despite how immediately available Inquisitor is, games with Inquisitor as the only Curser will very rarely end with an emptied Curse pile.
Inquisitor's "in games using this" can be problematic to remember (and has proven the only effect so difficult to remember in Greed), so I recommend placing the Inquisitor randomizer on top of the Province pile to remind players of its effect. The effect is actually quite helpful to the card since players are forced to take the hit for Victory cards immediately rather than later, slowing the game down so that Inquisitor has more time to hand out Curses.

EDIT: Countess changed from "In games using this, Victory cards that don't cost $4 cost $1 more." Inquisitor changed from "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card costing $6 or more, put it on top of your deck."
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LastFootnote on May 07, 2015, 09:56:02 am
If it helps, there is now a pseudo-official ruling on how cost increases and cost reductions interact due to our playtesting of a cost-increasing card in Adventures. First you apply all the cost changes, then you apply limits (e.g. not less than $0).
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LastFootnote on May 07, 2015, 10:00:16 am
I like some of your ideas (Countess's on-play effect is cool), but your implementations are plagued with all these little exceptions. I would strongly prefer Countess's bottom to just read "In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more" and Inquisitor's bottom to read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card, put it on top of your deck". Much simpler to remember.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on May 07, 2015, 10:40:16 am
If it helps, there is now a pseudo-official ruling on how cost increases and cost reductions interact due to our playtesting of a cost-increasing card in Adventures. First you apply all the cost changes, then you apply limits (e.g. not less than $0).

Interesting! While I wouldn't consider it official, it's good to know how Donald would have done it if he'd done it.

Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on May 07, 2015, 10:41:51 am
I like some of your ideas (Countess's on-play effect is cool), but your implementations are plagued with all these little exceptions. I would strongly prefer Countess's bottom to just read "In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more" and Inquisitor's bottom to read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card, put it on top of your deck". Much simpler to remember.

Absolutely. Especially since most boards don't have a $4 victory card, and most boards don't have a $6 or more victory card except Province.

If you don't want it to apply to all victory cards, then just specify Provinces. I wouldn't refer to a set of cards that most often won't be around.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: faust on May 07, 2015, 11:19:09 am
Those cards seem quite interesting. I want to take a look back at Idol:

Quote
Idol
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $5
$2. Each other player gains a Curse.
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP for each Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck instead of -1VP.

As a Treasure that deals out Curses, I think this needs to be compared to IGG. IGG costs the same, has a worse on-play ability, and only deals out a single Curse. Sure, the opponent gains the Curse immediately with IGG, whereas it is delayed with Idol, but I still think Idol is stronger, and IGG is not such a bad card. I would think Idol could get away with just yielding $1.

I'm not sure I like the concept of the card. In games with trashing, you either ignore this (with strong trashing) or get lots of these to win the split (you don't care about the negative points from Curses, since you'll have trashed most of them when the game ends). So here I don't think changing the Curse -VPs has much of an impact.

In games without trashing, this will most likely create a horrible slog. It's a junker, it's a treasure in your deck, so it discourages engines. But it also discourages buying Golds. So you'll play a game where each of you just gets Silvers and some Action cards, hoping to spike $8. That doesn't spell fun to me.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 09, 2015, 03:21:23 pm
Street is the only one we've spent much time on, since we have them in rotation with all other cards, and that's how the randomizers were drawn.
Street's constant effect, as I said, is a very interesting addition, and something I like having in rotation. The active effect of +2 cards, cards cost 1 less, was rarely seen as worth it.
That was probably partially because, being given the excitement of two buys every turn, people didn't want to lose that, and partly because -1 cost antisynergizes with fewer buys.
I'm not saying it's underpowered, that's just how it played. Also, given your "in games using this" effect, it still benefits the game even when no one is buying it.
I am happy for any of Greed to be included among the other cards with which you are playing.
Your report is similar to how I have seen other players use it. Most players seem reluctant to give up their second free buy despite not using it every turn. I am not sure if there is any benefit that could be reasonably afforded to wrest players of this loss aversion.


I like some of your ideas (Countess's on-play effect is cool), but your implementations are plagued with all these little exceptions. I would strongly prefer Countess's bottom to just read "In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more" and Inquisitor's bottom to read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card, put it on top of your deck". Much simpler to remember.
I will cover these two suggestions individually.

Countess has not been tested with a simpler "in games using this." I am remorse to see fun $4 alternate Victory cards become useless on boards with Countess, even if there are a limited number of them. I do not believe that it is hard to remember, but for the simplicity garnered from the rules of the card (namely in the event that a $4 Victory\Attack card is created), it may be worth making Feodum, Gardens, Island, and Silk Road useless in those rare events that they appear with Countess.

Inquisitor on the other hand originally had the suggested simpler "in games using this." The problem was that playing from behind became completely impossible with it, especially because gaining Estates was such a losing proposition. Also, Ambassador games were hell. Seeing as the effect was mostly changed so that it would not top-deck Estates, would it be sufficiently semantically simpler if Inquisitor's effect read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card that is not an Estate, put it on top of your deck"?


As a Treasure that deals out Curses, I think [Idol] needs to be compared to IGG. IGG costs the same, has a worse on-play ability, and only deals out a single Curse. Sure, the opponent gains the Curse immediately with IGG, whereas it is delayed with Idol, but I still think Idol is stronger, and IGG is not such a bad card. I would think Idol could get away with just yielding $1.
I appreciate this analysis and have considered it myself. While Idol certainly has a stronger on-play than Ill-Gotten Gains, you analysis omits what makes Ill-Gotten Gains a top 10 card (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10850.msg365915#msg365915): Ill-Gotten Gains is a rush card. Emptying the Ill-Gotten Gains pile necessarily empties two piles (Trader or Blacksmith aside). While Idol might end up being stronger than Ill-Gotten Gains (seeing as Witch, being an unconditional $5 Curser, is considered stronger), these two Treasures do not compare to one another. Comparisons to Witch and Mountebank are much more apt, but still hard to make because of how Idol makes Curses more painful for the owner of it, which brings up:

I'm not sure I like the concept of the card. In games with trashing, you either ignore this (with strong trashing) or get lots of these to win the split (you don't care about the negative points from Curses, since you'll have trashed most of them when the game ends). So here I don't think changing the Curse -VPs has much of an impact.
Strong trashing does not equate to ignoring a Curser (possibly unless that strong trashing is Hermit). Fast trashing to the point that Curses can be fully removed from players' decks is actually fairly rare. Rat Catcher and Hermit are probably the safest bets to give the precision necessary to trash all Curses. Feel free to grab 4 or 5 Idols and lose more than a Duchy's worth of points from that one lingering Curse though. 2 Idols have proven sufficient in most games to win the Curse split and come out ahead in points, though we have not seen anyone think rushing Idols would be particularly effective in playing with it.

In games without trashing, this will most likely create a horrible slog. It's a junker, it's a treasure in your deck, so it discourages engines. But it also discourages buying Golds. So you'll play a game where each of you just gets Silvers and some Action cards, hoping to spike $8. That doesn't spell fun to me.
I am confused by this argument. Idol is a junker\treasure, so it discourages engines? The way Idol has played, it has been even better in engines because players don't have to have +Actions to play them. If you decide to ignore an engine or whatever combination of Actions are available then you are just buying Silvers and hoping to spike $8, which is why Big Money is so awful in Idol games and you have to play an Action centric deck and (in the case of slow trashing) likely work to toss out Idols and Golds before the game ends.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: dondon151 on May 09, 2015, 05:41:42 pm
Why not just change Countess's text below the line to "in games using this, Victory cards that cost more than this cost $1 more?"
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Flip5ide on May 10, 2015, 12:36:48 am
Idol's under-script is super confusing.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LastFootnote on May 10, 2015, 12:41:43 am
I like some of your ideas (Countess's on-play effect is cool), but your implementations are plagued with all these little exceptions. I would strongly prefer Countess's bottom to just read "In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more" and Inquisitor's bottom to read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card, put it on top of your deck". Much simpler to remember.

Countess has not been tested with a simpler "in games using this." I am remorse to see fun $4 alternate Victory cards become useless on boards with Countess, even if there are a limited number of them. I do not believe that it is hard to remember, but for the simplicity garnered from the rules of the card (namely in the event that a $4 Victory\Attack card is created), it may be worth making Feodum, Gardens, Island, and Silk Road useless in those rare events that they appear with Countess.

I really don't see how the $4 Victory cards specifically are made "useless" by costing $5. Yes it's a big price hike, but Duchies costing $6 and Provinces costing $9 is big, too. Why should the $4 cards get special treatment?

The other problem with singling them out is that it creates rules confusion. Let's say you played Bridge, so Island costs $3. That means it doesn't cost $4, so it costs $1 more. But now it costs $4! Even if you have a clear ruling on this, I don't see the "benefit" of this exception being worth it.

Inquisitor on the other hand originally had the suggested simpler "in games using this." The problem was that playing from behind became completely impossible with it, especially because gaining Estates was such a losing proposition. Also, Ambassador games were hell. Seeing as the effect was mostly changed so that it would not top-deck Estates, would it be sufficiently semantically simpler if Inquisitor's effect read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card that is not an Estate, put it on top of your deck"?

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that playing from behind became impossible. How so?

I do think the Ambassador interaction is worth fixing, along with the similar Messenger interaction. How about, "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card during your turn, put it on top of your deck"?
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on May 10, 2015, 09:06:44 am
But now it costs $4!

Same cost as 3 Provinces.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 10, 2015, 09:18:47 am
Why not just change Countess's text below the line to "in games using this, Victory cards that cost more than this cost $1 more?"
I would argue that takes more processing than its current form, since you have to read it and then ask how much Countess itself costs. It also plays strangely with Ferry. Finally, it loses fun interactions with trash-for-benefits on your starting Estates.

Idol's under-script is super confusing.
How so? It replaces the VP worth of Curse (which is normally -1VP) with something else.

The other problem with singling [$4 Victory cards] out is that it creates rules confusion. Let's say you played Bridge, so Island costs $3. That means it doesn't cost $4, so it costs $1 more. But now it costs $4! Even if you have a clear ruling on this, I don't see the "benefit" of this exception being worth it.
As for the rules confusion, "In Games Using This" effects are state based effects so they always apply before any other effect due to cards being played or being in play-- which is not an exception, only an explicit declaration of timing. The only time this gets confusing is if the order in which the "in games using this" effects apply matters (which is why Countess\Fletcher is problematic for $4 or $5 Victory-Attack cards like Dame Valerie Josephine [ugh, this is what I get for posting tired]). In your example, Countess has already applied (because it always applies before other effects like Bridge or Highway), so Island costs $3.

I really don't see how the $4 Victory cards specifically are made "useless" by costing $5. Yes it's a big price hike, but Duchies costing $6 and Provinces costing $9 is big, too. Why should the $4 cards get special treatment?
The difficulty of getting $6 and $9 are incrementally harder than $5 or $8, but getting to $5 is much more difficult than getting to $4 because of players' hand sizes. I wrote up about a paragraph of text arguing why the exception was necessary on top of the previous sentence, but halfway through agreed with you. The cost of complexity here on Countess is greater than the benefit. Away goes the exception.

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that playing from behind became impossible. How so?
Often a player overcomes a leading player by building a deck to acquire more than 6VP per turn. Even gaining 7VP per turn can be enough to overtake a player. However, if Victory cards go on top of your deck, when you gain multiple Victory cards in a turn then you next turn is likely forfeit, meaning Estates are now totally unviable. Slowing down after a 12VP+ turn is probably not as big a deal. The way Inquisitor is worded now, a Province\Duchy purchase will (usually) only result in 1 Victory card going to the top of your deck.

I do think the Ambassador interaction is worth fixing, along with the similar Messenger interaction.
Nice catch on Messenger, though I am not as bothered by its interaction since every player has to be hit by it.

How about, "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card during your turn, put it on top of your deck"?
Now that you give that lovely suggestion, the answer seems to be staring me straight in the face. How about "In games using this, put the first Victory card you gain during each of your turns on top of your deck"? Solves the problem of gaining multiple Victory cards per turn destroying your next turn, the problems with gaining Victory cards off turn, while maintaining blanket applicability to the effect.


I did a bit more testing with cards that were slated to be released today, but they have reared some problems that I did not anticipate, so I am reordering the release schedule. Inventor and Tanner will come another day.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: dondon151 on May 10, 2015, 06:37:08 pm
I would argue that takes more processing than its current form, since you have to read it and then ask how much Countess itself costs. It also plays strangely with Ferry. Finally, it loses fun interactions with trash-for-benefits on your starting Estates.

But that's not a problem; Border Village and Band of Misfits both use this type of wording.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 10, 2015, 11:58:51 pm
But that's not a problem; Border Village and Band of Misfits both use this type of wording.
Border Village and Band of Misfits are evaluated at distinct times while Countess is always in effect. If Countess alters cards with respect to its own cost and applies those changes before any other changes (by my ruling regarding the timing of "in games using this" effects), then a Ferried $2 Countess will still only alter cards that cost more than $4 (its original cost)... I think.


Sorry for the late post. Family stuff. It is still technically Sunday.

Quote
Architect
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Action. Reveal your hand. The player to your left chooses one revealed card that doesn't cost $5. Trash it and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.
In games using this, Copper costs $1 more.
Quote
Prospector
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. Trash a card from your hand. If you have no Treasures in your hand, you may reveal it and gain a Gold.
In games using this, when you gain a Gold, each other player may gain a Prospector, putting it into his hand.

Architect is the Advisor version of Remodel. Its "in games using this" exists by necessity to diversify the play patterns of this fun card, but rarely will have some funny side effects (especially that +Buys are not sufficient to buy Coppers). In most cases, when you play Architect players toss out your Coppers, letting you step them up into Silvers or, if you would rather upgrade your deck faster, into more Architects where they will eventually cannibalize each other. Since there are not usually good targets into which $5 cards can be remodeled, targeting $5 cards is a trivial choice, thus prohibited for the player to your left.

Prospector is a simple trasher with a thematic twist. Whenever players pick up Golds in any way in games using Prospector, everyone gets the chance to take a Prospector to try to get a bite of that sweet Gold rush. Maybe gaining multiple Golds would be a bad idea because of it.

EDIT: Prospector's Gold gaining ability reworded, but remains the same.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: pacovf on May 11, 2015, 12:39:34 am
Architect: I would make it reveal x cards from your hand (3?) and drop the 5$ condition, which is just super awkward. I would also make coppers cost 1$ more only during your action phase, just in case a player reaches a degenerate gamestate where s/he can't produce coins anymore.

The Prospector "in games using this" effect is just what is this I don't even. Gaining to hand might be too much? Anyway, I would make the revealing compulsory. There really isn't much difference, and it makes the card text shorter, which it needs.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LastFootnote on May 11, 2015, 01:39:33 am
Architect: I would make it reveal x cards from your hand (3?) and drop the 5$ condition, which is just super awkward.

Strongly agree.

I would also make coppers cost 1$ more only during your action phase, just in case a player reaches a degenerate gamestate where s/he can't produce coins anymore.

I don't think this is really necessary. If you've reached a degenerate game state where you can't even afford $1 each turn, the game sucks for you anyway.

The Prospector "in games using this" effect is just what is this I don't even. Gaining to hand might be too much? Anyway, I would make the revealing compulsory. There really isn't much difference, and it makes the card text shorter, which it needs.

Strongly agree on both counts.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 11, 2015, 07:29:23 am
Architect: I would make it reveal x cards from your hand (3?) and drop the 5$ condition, which is just super awkward.
Strongly agree.

Are you guys allergic to costs? This check is not complicated, does not create any rules ambiguity, improves the play patterns of the card, and makes play of the card simpler since it reduces decision making for the player of it as the player to his left has to only make one decision instead of X decisions (and is making decisions with full information which makes the choice easier). Allowing the Architect player to reveal X cards from hand makes Architect significantly stronger because with a little bit of hand-size increasing one can basically choose which card he trashes which is not the point of Architect. Architect is played because you want to Remodel something, anything, and it hardly matters what.

The Prospector "in games using this" effect is just what is this I don't even. Gaining to hand might be too much? Anyway, I would make the revealing compulsory. There really isn't much difference, and it makes the card text shorter, which it needs.

Strongly agree on both counts.

Would you please elaborate more? I considered making the reveal compulsory, but it saves all of 5 words (19 characters) and 0 lines of text, so I went with what made the card more fun.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: qazzquimby on May 11, 2015, 07:29:00 pm
While I agreed with most of the comments on previous cards, these don't look problematic to me. Thanks for sharing  :)
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: pacovf on May 11, 2015, 09:33:23 pm
Are you guys allergic to costs? This check is not complicated, does not create any rules ambiguity, improves the play patterns of the card, and makes play of the card simpler since it reduces decision making for the player of it as the player to his left has to only make one decision instead of X decisions (and is making decisions with full information which makes the choice easier). Allowing the Architect player to reveal X cards from hand makes Architect significantly stronger because with a little bit of hand-size increasing one can basically choose which card he trashes which is not the point of Architect. Architect is played because you want to Remodel something, anything, and it hardly matters what.

Well, it's new tech, so we are naturally wary. If it's not strictly necessary to get the card to do what you want, I would do without it. What would you say is the point of preventing 5$ cards from being remodeled?



Quote
Would you please elaborate more? I considered making the reveal compulsory, but it saves all of 5 words (19 characters) and 0 lines of text, so I went with what made the card more fun.

5 words is quite a bit. It removes one "if", which makes the card easier to parse. It's not a huge deal, but it's there.

Gaining a 4$ card to hand is crazy strong. Making all other players gain a 4$ card to hand for free is a crazy strong penalty. Sure, maybe they won't want to, but it's still crazy. The card would have to be playtested a lot to see if it works or not. Maybe people will simply avoid buying Gold or Prospectors in games using the latter, whether that happens to be the right decision or not? It's sort of a game of chicken here. Hard to predict.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: DLloyd09 on May 11, 2015, 10:58:35 pm
I think a lot of these cards are very neat; thanks for sharing them.

I guess my concern with things is more logistical than anything else, and you can probably speak best to this having playtested these cards quite a bit: How do you find it is to manage all of the "In games using this" effects? A couple of people earlier posted suggestions about tokens or a new card color. I suppose that could be helpful but even so, with just nine of the cards you've revealed so far, if I'm playing with all of them in the same Kingdom I have to remember:


I could imagine that playing with all of these at the same time (which I haven't tried, admittedly), it would be really tough to keep all of these new effects in mind. Over time, much like official cards doing weird stuff, some of that probably just becomes ingrained.

I suppose it's just that unlike with "while this is in play" cards, you don't have the text right there in your play area, but rather you have to survey the Kingdom each time you need a reminder.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 12, 2015, 06:38:48 pm
Are you guys allergic to costs? This check is not complicated, does not create any rules ambiguity, improves the play patterns of the card, and makes play of the card simpler since it reduces decision making for the player of it as the player to his left has to only make one decision instead of X decisions (and is making decisions with full information which makes the choice easier). Allowing the Architect player to reveal X cards from hand makes Architect significantly stronger because with a little bit of hand-size increasing one can basically choose which card he trashes which is not the point of Architect. Architect is played because you want to Remodel something, anything, and it hardly matters what.

Well, it's new tech, so we are naturally weary. If it's not strictly necessary to get the card to do what you want, I would do without it. What would you say is the point of preventing 5$ cards from being remodeled?
In an earlier version, Architect was a cantrip with its Advisor\Remodel effect (it also did not have the "in games using this" which was added to make its play patterns more varied). Obviously the card was a bit frustrating when you draw something you don't want to trash, but it was actually fairly strong and very fast, so we removed the +1 Card.
Regardless, the problem came that it was almost always the right move to trash the other player's $5 cards. Those $5 cards do not often have good targets into which they can be remodeled-- while Architects can be speedy, they are not fast enough to get around players buying cards. If their $5 cards can be trashed and have no good targets as is normal, Architects become significantly weaker with each $5 card added to a player's deck. So the card rotted in uselessness.
This prohibition of targeting $5 cards allows the card to function as $5 cards are added to players' decks and maintains the speed in decision making of the card because the player to the left decides what is trashed with full information and the player of it only has to decide what he gains from there. Revealing 3 cards would require that the player of it decide which 3 cards he will reveal, then the left player has to play a dangerous guessing game because of the limited information presented to him, and then the player of it decides which card he gains.

5 words is quite a bit. It removes one "if", which makes the card easier to parse. It's not a huge deal, but it's there.
Technically, it removes a "may," not an "if." That "if" is stuck there. I can shorten it to "If there are no Treasures in your hand, you may reveal it and gain a Gold" which is the same number of words but a few characters shorter. It does have fewer clauses which might make it easier to parse.
Making the reveal mandatory means: the reveal is not an effect you are allowed to forget about (in a Treasure centric Kingdom, you can read Prospector once and then discard the "you may reveal your hand" bit); it makes the card less compatible with Contraband (or any other cards that encourage deck tracking other players); and it might force players to gain Gold when they don't want to (which is not really a problem and I'd tell players to deal with it if it weren't for the previous two points).

Gaining a 4$ card to hand is crazy strong. Making all other players gain a 4$ card to hand for free is a crazy strong penalty. Sure, maybe they won't want to, but it's still crazy. The card would have to be playtested a lot to see if it works or not. Maybe people will simply avoid buying Gold or Prospectors in games using the latter, whether that happens to be the right decision or not? It's sort of a game of chicken here. Hard to predict.
It's really just cute. In many cases you are adding +$1 to another player's turn as well as another terminal Action to their deck. Sometimes it lets players get +$2, but that might just lead them to buy a Gold which will return the favor of gaining a Prospector yourself.
Prospector is a tempo trasher, and players rarely turn down the first one made available to them in this way, but you can only get so far with tempo trashers. Prospector has not proven strong enough to disallow buying Gold. In most cases players are gaining an additional +$1 to their turn by tossing out a Copper. Sometimes players will gain a Prospector because they have nothing left to trash but the other Prospector that is already in their hand.

Prospector is a fairly common opening in my numerous tests of it in spite of players' ability to pick it up later when another player gains a Gold because early trashing is very valuable. If a player decided to skip a needed Prospector on the belief that another player would drop one onto him, it might behoove another player to not buy a Gold as early because of it, but that scenario has never occurred.

I guess my concern with things is more logistical than anything else, and you can probably speak best to this having playtested these cards quite a bit: How do you find it is to manage all of the "In games using this" effects? A couple of people earlier posted suggestions about tokens or a new card color. I suppose that could be helpful but even so, with just nine of the cards you've revealed so far, if I'm playing with all of them in the same Kingdom I have to remember:
Your assumption of the effects becoming second nature is accurate, but more than anything else the effects are easy to remember because of how drastically they change the strategy of the board and are thus so constantly considered. When you start out plotting out how to get to $9 per turn (Countess) or you ask every turn if you want to use your extra Buy (Street) or trash Coppers from your hand (Slave Trade), the effects get engrained quickly. Inquisitor is the trickiest one to remember because its effect only applies once players are gaining Victory cards, and to that end I recommend placing the Inquisitor randomizer onto the Province pile to remind players of its effect.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 14, 2015, 07:37:20 am
Quote
Scholar
Types: Action
Cost: $0
+1 Action. Draw until you have 4 cards in hand.
In games using this, directly after resolving an Action, if you haven't gained a Scholar this turn you may gain a Scholar. If you do, play it.
Quote
Marquis
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+2 Cards, +$2. Each other player draws a card. Discard any number of cards from your hand. For each card discarded, each other player discards a card to a minimum of 3 cards in hand.

Behold: The $0 Kingdom card and my co-creator's favorite Scholar (recently lifting some wording from Coin of the Realm and Royal Carriage).  In a normal hand, it is a Ruined Village.  If you can shrink your hand size, it might be a Laboratory, but let us be honest, that is not the big deal here.  The big deal is that 10 times during the game, once per turn, you may turn one of your Actions nonterminal at the price of adding a pretty bad card to your deck (and possibly draw some cards for it, depending). Scholar is a real game changer.

The most obvious comparison for Marquis is Margrave.  After playing a Margrave, the player will have 7 cards in hand, 2 Buys, and each other player will have the best 3 of 6 cards. To manage a similar Attack with Marquis, the player will remain with 3 Cards in hand and $2 to compensate for the mere 1 Buy he will have. Only looking that far, Marquis sounds pretty terrible.  But that is because you are comparing Marquis to Margrave: What you are paying for with Marquis is flexibility.  Marquis offers the choice of being totally friendly by discarding 0 or 1 cards, or a weak Attack by discarding 2, or the strong Attack when you can afford to discard 3 cards (and any other tricks you might want from discarding cards). Do remember that +2 Cards, +$2 is befittingly a $6 effect and it certainly feels that way.

EDIT: Update to make Ritter's limited discard more explicit. Updated Scholar to fix timing issue.
EDIT: Ritter renamed to Marquis, art updated to match.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LastFootnote on May 14, 2015, 10:56:10 am
Scholar is very cool. One of the only $0 cards that I think makes sense.

Ritter is also cool, albeit political. If everybody except the player to your right already has 3 cards in hand, you get to decide whether it's worth attacking him/her. Donald has rejected this kind of optional discard-based attack for this very reason.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on May 14, 2015, 07:23:38 pm
Ritter leads to an easy pin. Discard 6 cards; each other player discards their whole hand. Or is the "4 or more" evaluated after each discard?
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on May 15, 2015, 03:04:25 am
Ritter leads to an easy pin. Discard 6 cards; each other player discards their whole hand. Or is the "4 or more" evaluated after each discard?

It is. He says so in the end of his last post. Maybe it should be phrased
"Each other player draws a card. Discard any number of cards from your hand. For each card discarded, each other player discards a card, down to a minimum of 3 cards in hand."
It's not consistent with existent phrasings but it should lead to no misunderstandings.

I think Scholar is a very clever idea.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 16, 2015, 09:23:43 am
Scholar is very cool. One of the only $0 cards that I think makes sense.
I think Scholar is a very clever idea.
I feel vindicated.

Ritter is also cool, albeit political. If everybody except the player to your right already has 3 cards in hand, you get to decide whether it's worth attacking him/her. Donald has rejected this kind of optional discard-based attack for this very reason.
Actually, since each other player draws a card first, the only way a player would have 3 cards in hand is if he had fewer than 3 already. True enough that it hits the player to your right harder when multiple cards are discarded, but the discard remains an Attack on all players except in extenuating circumstances.

Maybe [Ritter] should be phrased
"Each other player draws a card. Discard any number of cards from your hand. For each card discarded, each other player discards a card, down to a minimum of 3 cards in hand."
It's not consistent with existent phrasings but it should lead to no misunderstandings.
I think I will use "... For each card discarded, each other player discards a card to a minimum of 3 cards in hand" unless someone has a better one. Thank you.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 17, 2015, 08:14:29 pm
Quote
Patrol
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Actions, +$2. You may trash a card costing $2 or more from your hand. If you do, name a card. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a copy of the named card. Put it into your hand and discard the rest.
Quote
Historian
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Draw until you have 6 cards in hand. You may set aside up to 2 cards drawn this way as you draw them. Trash the set aside cards after you finish drawing.

We are taking a break from "in games using this effects" today. Do not fear, there are more coming.

Patrol is a Festival that comes with an expensive tutor effect instead of a +Buy. At the start of the game you have those lovely Estates in your deck to toss out for whatever you most need, but after that it is only a worse Festival unless you can throw out a valuable card for it.

Historian on the other hand as a "draw until you have X cards in hand" card references Library. Also like Library which helps players get around otherwise useless cards, Historian helps players get around those cards a little more permanently. Make no mistake, Historian is a super fast trasher that feels terrible to use as you set those otherwise extremely useful Coppers aside for trashing and draw those currently useless Actions.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Flip5ide on May 20, 2015, 10:16:56 pm
Idol's under-script is super confusing.
How so? It replaces the VP worth of Curse (which is normally -1VP) with something else.


Here's how I would write it.

Original:
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP for each Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck instead of -1VP.

New:
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP for every Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: DLloyd09 on May 20, 2015, 11:19:39 pm
Yet again, I'm very intrigued by the cards that are in this set.

I almost wonder though, if Patrol shouldn't possibly cost $6 (at least). It seems OP at $5 to me when comparing that trash-for-digging ability to the +1 Buy of Festival.

Most of the time, you probably have something you can trash with it at all phases of the game to activate its digging power. Early on, it's Estates, sure. In the midgame you can probably chuck a Silver or a now-less-useful $2 or $3, and near the end you can trash excess $4s and $5s or even Duchies, to get whatever it is you need to get you to $8 (or even $11). You can either dig for a Gold or Platinum, that second Treasure Map, another Fool's Gold, that crucial discard attack, or exactly the action you need to accelerate your engine, and with +2 Actions it could really be a powerhouse. As far as I know, it's the only card that let's you dig for exactly the card you want, right?

Anyway, I could be full of it, but I'm definitely feeling like that's really strong. Have you experimented with it at other price points?
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on May 21, 2015, 12:11:56 am
My +1 means that I agree with DLloyd. Although, if you make Patrol say "You may trash a card costing $3 or more" instead of $2 or more, that would probably be enough to make it fine at $5 cost.

I like Historian. It seems like a good idea, and probably stronger than it looks especially when there are junkers in the kingdom.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 21, 2015, 07:09:18 am
New:
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP for every Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck.
This was Idol's original wording, but more than one player has believed that the effect was adding to the value of Curses instead of replacing it. It seemed to me to be totally clear, but evidently it wasn't, so we are using the explicit version.

Anyway, I could be full of it, but I'm definitely feeling like that's really strong. Have you experimented with it at other price points?
While there is a lot that might be worth chucking to dig for a Gold or exactly what you need, but whatever you trash likely had a value of at least +$2, so your macro gain is much more limited than it sounds. Usually you would dig because it is something that will produce at least +$4 of value. If Patrol proves too strong the best nerf would be to increase that cost requirement for triggering the dig to be trashing cards costing $3 or more as LibraryAdventurer suggests, but it has not proven to be problematic in current testing. I will keep an eye on this.

Quote
Frontier
Types: Victory
Cost: $5
Worth 5VP.
In games using this, at the end of each turn taken by the last player in turn order that is not an extra turn, trash a Frontier from the Supply.
Quote
War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $7
$3. When you play this, you may discard a Treasure. If you do, each other player discards down to 2 cards in hand and then draws a card.
In games using this, when you buy a card costing $5 or more, trash a card you have in play.

Frontier is somewhat comparable to Distant Lands in that it is a valuable Victory card at $5 that must be bought before the game ends. Unlike Distant Lands though, Frontier must be bought at the very start of the game because it will be gone by turn 8 (in 2-player, 12 in multiplayer) and does not remove itself from your deck. It is worth a lot of Victory points, but is it worth the opportunity cost? If so, how many can you buy? Also remember that every Frontier that is purchased is one fewer turns they will be available.
Note that one Frontier is trashed from the Supply every full round of turns.

War Flag follows the common design of $7 cards by being a super huge version of an existing card. This time, it is Militia. To really understand War Flag, one must consider its "in games using this." The effect gives players a surprisingly unstable deck construction: as cards are added to the deck, old cards are constantly removed, affording a unique evaluation to cards with reduced effectiveness as the game drags on as well as any fast trashing that is available because often players begin by throwing out their Coppers.
This fact is important because War Flag has a brutal Attack attached to it. Oftentimes though the Attack will not come out because the Copper is sufficient to reach a key price point, or in extreme cases, the Copper is necessary because the player needs something to trash when he buys a $5+ card this turn. Further, even when hit by the Attack, players usually have higher overall value to the cards in their deck (games with Cursers notwithstanding), meaning they are more likely to draw decent cards.

EDIT: War Flag's "in games using this" text updated to "When you buy a card..." from "When you gain a card..." in congruence with the written version.
EDIT: Winery renamed to Frontier
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on May 21, 2015, 08:21:39 am
The concept of Winery is genius! What a cool idea! No, really, I like it a lot. It's simple but game changing and very intriguing. It might have balancing issues, though, since how many Wineries one player can get, if they gain as many as possible, will be very dependent on shuffle luck. That's a little problematic, I'd say. Have you considered making the trashing of Wineries from the Supply conditional on something that players can influence (e. g. it only happens after each turn by the last player if no Victory cards have been bought during the last round)? I bet there will be people saying how confusing the "in games using this" part is but if one just thinks for a moment there should be no misunderstanding, even with Outpost and Mission. Although... how exactly does this interact with Possession? :P

War Flag is brutal but cool. It's more expensive than Gold but will only net you $3 if you forfeit the attack. But you won't do that because it's so brutal so it seems balanced. I can easily see players being frustrated by it, though. What were your experiences? The game changing mechanic is interesting and offers a lot of possibilities but also raises opportunity cost which seems like a fine balance.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Archetype on May 21, 2015, 07:29:41 pm
Winery is so, so cool.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on May 24, 2015, 01:49:55 am
I plan to print a few of these out to play with them also. My favorites (just from looking at them) are Scholar, Historian, Blacksmith, and Winery.

I have a couple suggestions:
Quote
Countess
Cost $4  Action
+2 Cards. At the start of Clean-Up, if you did not buy any cards this turn, gain a Victory card costing up to $6.
-
In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more.
Now it doesn't hurt $4 cost alt-VP cards as much. Also, the bottom half has a neat side effect that hasn't been mentioned: it makes trash for benefit on estates better. Remodeling estates into $5 cards will be really nice.

My other suggestion:
Quote
Street
Cost: $3  Action
+2 Cards. Discard a card. Cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0. If this is not the first time you played a street this turn, -1 Buy (to a minimum of 0).
-
In game using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
This should make it not turn people off so much. If they hate to lose their second buy, they can be careful not to play more than one street in a turn (or buy only one). Added discard a card in the suggestion, because otherwise playing just one in a turn would be too strong for a $3 cost.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 24, 2015, 08:58:47 am
The concept of Winery is genius! What a cool idea! No, really, I like it a lot. It's simple but game changing and very intriguing. It might have balancing issues, though, since how many Wineries one player can get, if they gain as many as possible, will be very dependent on shuffle luck. That's a little problematic, I'd say. Have you considered making the trashing of Wineries from the Supply conditional on something that players can influence (e. g. it only happens after each turn by the last player if no Victory cards have been bought during the last round)?
I do not like the amount of complexity added to tracking the effect when making it conditional. In 2 and 3 player, players realistically expect to split the Wineries into 3 for each player. If Wineries can be easily worked around, players tend to try to maximize their early economy so they can get 3 Wineries. In many cases one player ends up with one extra Winery in comparison to other players.

The way it seems, 6VP is too much of a no-brainer: You would probably always buy 1 or 2 extra Provinces for $5 early on in the game; but 4VP is not enough to make Winery a viable purchase except in ideal scenarios. 5VP is quite a bit, but not insurmountable. Though it is possible I am underestimating the not-immediately-obvious side-effect of Winery's "in games using this" of making the game easier to end on piles. I will leave it at 5VP, but continue to evaluate its effectiveness at both 5VP and 4VP in the post-game.

I bet there will be people saying how confusing the "in games using this" part is but if one just thinks for a moment there should be no misunderstanding, even with Outpost and Mission. Although... how exactly does this interact with Possession? :P
A Possession turn is still called an extra turn. "The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one..."

War Flag is brutal but cool. It's more expensive than Gold but will only net you $3 if you forfeit the attack. But you won't do that because it's so brutal so it seems balanced. I can easily see players being frustrated by it, though. What were your experiences? The game changing mechanic is interesting and offers a lot of possibilities but also raises opportunity cost which seems like a fine balance.
In my experience, the Attack is quite expensive to use. Players will usually only use the Attack when it will not stop them from buying what they want (whether or not that is proper play). The "in games using this" further incentivizes not using the Attack since players will be running low on Coppers and will often have to play the only Copper from their hand in order to trash it when they buy a $5+ card. By the end of the game, players are usually trashing Silvers and other $3 cards because they have run out of playable junk to trash.

I am watching for War Flag to appear in some games with Marauder or Cultist where its Attack will likely be easier to use and hurt more with the Ruins floating around in players' decks.

I have a couple suggestions:
Quote
Countess
Cost $4  Action
+2 Cards. At the start of Clean-Up, if you did not buy any cards this turn, gain a Victory card costing up to $6.
-
In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more.
Now it doesn't hurt $4 cost alt-VP cards as much. Also, the bottom half has a neat side effect that hasn't been mentioned: it makes trash for benefit on estates better. Remodeling estates into $5 cards will be really nice.
I really like this idea in theory, but I think that in practice this will make Countess too much of a rush card. I had one of my testers pose, "Why shouldn't I just gain Duchies every time I play Countess?" and the reason is because Countess cannot end the game that way. It will empty the Duchy pile which is good, but then what? You flounder until other players pass you by building up an economy to buy $9 Provinces. If Countess could gain other Victory cards, I think draining multiple Victory card piles into your deck would be far too effective.

My other suggestion:
Quote
Street
Cost: $3  Action
+2 Cards. Discard a card. Cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0. If this is not the first time you played a street this turn, -1 Buy (to a minimum of 0).
-
In game using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
This should make it not turn people off so much. If they hate to lose their second buy, they can be careful not to play more than one street in a turn (or buy only one). Added discard a card in the suggestion, because otherwise playing just one in a turn would be too strong for a $3 cost.
Street already has a bunch of little parts to it (draw, buy loss, cost reduction, and "in games using this"), and adding another will make the card visually and (more importantly) mentally crowded. Making Street discard a card also means that Street would only maintain hand size when played, which would reduce the effectiveness of its combo with Workshop types.
Street already has less of a penalty when one buys only one of them. This modification only makes playing multiple Streets look even worse by comparison. Street is a high skill cap card because of how carefully that penalty needs to be evaluated and worked around, and to anyone not prepared to make that valuation, it gives an extra Buy every turn, so it not being bought is really not a problem.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 24, 2015, 10:42:44 pm
Quote
Tanner
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Put the cards costing $2 or more into your hand and the rest on top of your deck in any order.
In games using this, after shuffling your deck, gain a Copper.
Quote
Inventor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1. Gain a card costing up to $4, setting it aside. When this leaves play, put the set aside card on top of your deck. Draw 3 cards (instead of 5) during this turn's Clean Up.

Tanner is a super powerful draw that cannot draw your $0 and $1 cards. It might be broken for $4, except that every time you shuffle you get a new $0 Copper for it to not be able to draw. There is little more frustrating than Processing a Tanner to look at 3 Coppers on top of your deck. Better come up with some way to deal that drag of an economy.

Inventor is a Peddler, an Armory, and the worst part of Outpost all rolled into one. This card now calls comparisons to Artificer, but of course Artificer's Armory-alike is expensive and optional. When you have an Inventor, he just has to invent! Maybe that 3 card hand won't be so bad, after all, you know what one of those cards is going to be. Or maybe you can get a couple Inventors working together to get more done...
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GeeJo on May 26, 2015, 07:13:46 pm
There's a rather alarming interaction between Scholar and Trader. Since Trader replaces and nullifies any card gain for a gain of Silver instead, I believe that the following is possible:



You don't have an "Immediately" or "Directly" before the "after resolving an action". There's a reason that Coin of the Realm and Royal Carriage include that word. As currently written, you can gain and play a Scholar at any point until the end of the turn, regardless of the phase, provided that you resolved an action earlier. So during the buy phase, you can play out your treasures, gain a Scholar, then play out some more treasures that you just drew off of it. Things are even weirder if you gain and play it during the Clean-up phase after cards have been discarded from play. Or maybe not - there really isn't anything in the rules covering cases like that.

Even fixing the "Directly after" thing, you can still gain and play a Scholar off-turn by reacting with a Caravan Guard, but that doesn't really do much outside of the corner case of someone playing a second attack after a discard attack.



Some thoughts on Winery:


Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on May 26, 2015, 08:46:27 pm

There's a rather alarming interaction between Scholar and Trader. Since Trader replaces and nullifies any card gain for a gain of Silver instead, I believe that the following is possible:

  • Play an action
  • Try to gain a Scholar
  • Reveal a Trader from your hand
  • Gain a Silver instead
  • Try to gain a Scholar (check: have you gained a Scholar so far this turn? No.)
  • Reveal a Trader
  • Continue gaining Silvers until the entire pile is depleted




This doesn't seem right to me. There's only 1 "gain a Scholar" instruction. You can only follow that instruction once. It's no different than Workshop's "gain a card costing up to $4" instruction. You don't get to keep trying to do it just because you didn't yet gain a Scholar.

Trader DOES interact with Scholar in that it allows you to gain you multiple cards per turn, but only with multiple actions. You could gain a Silver instead for the first couple actions you play, then gain a Scholar for the last one.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GeeJo on May 26, 2015, 08:54:25 pm
Workshop/Ironworks/etc are different in that they only does their thing once. You can't replay them later in the turn. Scholar's effect isn't from playing it - it's just a rule that can be invoked as many times as needed, provided its conditions are met.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on May 26, 2015, 08:57:33 pm
Workshop/Ironworks/etc are different in that it only does its thing once. You can't replay them later in the turn if they didn't work right. Scholar, as worded, you can.

Scholar does it thing at a specific time, after resolving an action. Each time you resolve an action, it does its thing once. What do you mean by "you can" [replay Scholar later in the turn]. If you want to "reply Scholar" (use Scholar's ability again), you need to play an action again.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GeeJo on May 26, 2015, 09:01:48 pm
No, playing an action sets up the condition "has resolved an action". Scholar as written can then be invoked at any point after that for the rest of the turn, provided another Scholar hasn't been gained. Which it hasn't, because Trader gains a Silver instead.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on May 26, 2015, 09:04:45 pm
No, playing an action sets up the condition "has resolved an action". Scholar as written can then be invoked at any point after that for the rest of the turn, provided another Scholar hasn't been gained. Which it hasn't, because Trader gains a Silver instead.

To be more clear, it should say "directly after resolving an action" like Royal Carriage and Coin of the Realm do. But I'm almost positive that that's the intent of the card. "After" means "right after". Otherwise, if it were like you say, ending your turn would mean nothing, you resolve an action on turn 4... At the start of turn 5, it is still "After you have resolved an action." In fact you could only play 1 action near the start of the game, and then gain a Scholar every turn for the rest of the game, because it's after you've played an action.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GeeJo on May 26, 2015, 09:08:48 pm
Hmm, but adding "Directly" doesn't fix the problem. You can call in multiple Coins of the Realm off of one action as far as I'm aware (if I'm wrong on that, then fair enough), so there's no reason you couldn't keep calling in Scholar until you actually gain one.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on May 26, 2015, 09:12:23 pm
Hmm, but adding "Directly" doesn't fix the problem. You can call in multiple Coins of the Realm off of one action as far as I'm aware, so there's no reason you couldn't keep calling in Scholar until you actually gain one.

But you can't call the same Coin of the Realm more than once. You can only use each instance of "you may call this..." one time. In the same way you should only be able to use each instance of "gain a Scholar" once. And there's only 1 instance of "gain a Scholar" total (because that's how "in games using this" effects work.)

Coin and Carriage might not be the best example because even if that weren't true, you can't call the same card twice in a row. But just look at Duchess. It has pretty much identical wording. When something happens, you may gain a Duchess. But you may only gain 1.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GeeJo on May 26, 2015, 09:24:03 pm
I think my confusion here is that I'm too used to thinking in Magic the Gathering terminology. As currently worded, Scholar's second ability would be an "activated ability" with a condition, while it's intended to be a "triggered ability", which in that game typically would use the phrasing "when x, y" or "whenever x, y".

Still, "Gain a silver every time you play an action" is a pretty strong interaction with Trader.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on May 26, 2015, 09:43:26 pm
With an activation cost of {0}?  Yeah, pretty sure triggered ability is more accurate. Up til Adventures, triggered abilities in dominion always used "when" like MTG does, but now there's a new type that uses "directly after". Which I guess is comparable to MTG using  "at the beginning..." instead of "when" sometimes.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 27, 2015, 06:16:40 pm
While it's not strictly necessary for just this card, if you're planning on having similar triggers on several cards, it might be worth defining the rule term "round" in an imaginary rulebook and using that for shorthand.
It would be worthwhile if there was more than one card that needed the wording, but Winery is the only card that can use it.

There's a potential definition issue in that the wording doesn't clarify whether the trashing is actually an action performed by the player in last turn order (potentially triggering their Market Squares). "Move a Winery from the Supply to the Trash" would sidestep the issue at the expense of wordiness. I'm not sure it's necessary to change it, but I thought it worth mentioning in case you ever want to knock up Rulebook-style descriptions of how these cards work.
Market Square is triggered when "When one of your cards is trashed," meaning trashing a card from the Supply would not trigger it, making the player performing the trashing irrelevant.

Quote
"Frontier" might be a more fitting name for the card given its effects, but I suppose it's out of flavour with the Tanners and Blacksmiths of the set.
We might consider renaming it, but a Frontier is much harder to depict than a Winery (and the art I have for Winery is so pretty). Winery's primary thematic connections right now are Vineyard and Cellar.

You don't have an "Immediately" or "Directly" before the "after resolving an action". There's a reason that Coin of the Realm and Royal Carriage include that word.
Granted and corrected.

Still, "Gain a silver every time you play an action" is a pretty strong interaction with Trader.
This interaction is a feature (note also that Blacksmith has a similar interaction), and is why Scholar checks for itself being successfully gained before playing itself.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 28, 2015, 07:41:19 am
Quote
Missionary
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card. Trash a card from your hand. +Actions equal to its cost in coins.
In games using this, the first 2 times you trash a Silver each turn, you may gain an Action costing exactly $5, putting it into your hand.
Quote
Informant
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. Each other player reveals his hand. Choose one: Play and then trash a Silver from your hand, and if you do each other player discards a card tied for or with the highest cost in coins he revealed and draws a card; or gain a Silver
In games using this, each player gains a Silver at the start of his first turn.

Let's change Silvers today.

Missionary is a Salvager for Actions, but that would probably be pretty useless for the most part, so let's use an "in games using this" effect to make it exciting. Now, Silvers can be trashed to acquire any Action that costs $5. It sounds ludicrous, but if it does not make some fairly strange plays possible, I do not know what does.

Informant is a unique hand Attack, fueled by Silvers. You can use it as a cantrip Silver gainer that makes everyone else reveal their hands (which is pretty alright), or you can give up the permanence of one of your Silvers (you do still get the +$2 since you play it) to knock the highest cost card out of each player's hand (but note that it does not reduce their hand size since they also draw a card). To help it along, players get to start with a Silver in their discard piles.
The Attack can be political. Assuming a player has a Silver in his hand, it is his choice whether he trashes it to trigger the Attack, but the uniqueness of this Attack is likely worth it. The careful balance of this Attack in Kingdoms with key Action cards is very interesting.

EDIT: Fixed issue with piling Silvers using Trader\Watchtower in Missionary games by limiting "in games using this" gain to twice per turn. Informant's wording altered for specificity.
EDIT: Missionary's "In games using this" updated to be optional.
EDIT: Informant is almost certainly to be removed from Greed.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on May 28, 2015, 01:35:00 pm
Let's say I have a bunch of spare actions, which I easily could with Missionary. Or maybe I have my +1 action token on Mint.  I play Mint, trashing Silver. Gain a Silver and Mint in hand. I play Mint, trashing Silver, gain a Silver and Mint in hand. I play Mint, trashing...

Gain all Mints and a bunch of the Silvers. Could also work with Explorer and Watchtower, or Trading Post. Can't think of any non-terminal cards that Gain Silver to hand, so it's possible that it's not a big issue, but it might be something you need to avoid.


The Silver gaining on Informant isn't completely clear... I would assume that "at the start of the game" is before players shuffle their initial deck, meaning that they are simply shuffling an 11 card deck. But one might also think that they gain a Silver to the discard pile after they've done their initial shuffle. If you mean the former, then to avoid confusion I would use Baker's wording: "Setup: Players start with an extra Silver in their deck."

The attack is also ambiguous. If there's multiple cards tied for the highest cost, what gets discarded? Instead of "the card", it should say "a card", and then probably specify who is choosing.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 30, 2015, 03:23:33 pm
Let's say I have a bunch of spare actions, which I easily could with Missionary. Or maybe I have my +1 action token on Mint.  I play Mint, trashing Silver. Gain a Silver and Mint in hand. I play Mint, trashing Silver, gain a Silver and Mint in hand. I play Mint, trashing...

Gain all Mints and a bunch of the Silvers.
You trashed all of those Silvers gaining the Mines. You end this chain with a Gold (much like if you played only one Mine) and a bunch of Mines in your deck. Even with Missionary, getting all the +actions necessary to play all those Mines would be an ask, otherwise you are looking at a 3 card combo. Even then, you are merely filling your deck up with Mines: A deck full of Mines is hardly a winning deck all on its own.

Quote
Could also work with Explorer and Watchtower, or Trading Post.
Explorer doesn't trash anything. You could play Missionary trashing a Silver to gain an Explorer to hand to gain a Silver to hand, but that won't then help you trash that Silver.
Trading Post reduces hand size without Pathfinding or Teacher and has the same challenge as Mine of procuring enough actions to play them.
Watchtower is the only problematic one since players can turn any Silver gain or $3 Buy into any Action costing up to $5, but to do so reliably one would need to collect a number of Watchtowers.

Quote
The Silver gaining on Informant isn't completely clear... I would assume that "at the start of the game" is before players shuffle their initial deck, meaning that they are simply shuffling an 11 card deck. But one might also think that they gain a Silver to the discard pile after they've done their initial shuffle. If you mean the former, then to avoid confusion I would use Baker's wording: "Setup: Players start with an extra Silver in their deck."
In games with Informant--after taking their starting decks, shuffling them, and drawing their starting hand of 5 cards (as this is part of the setup of the game as defined on pages 4 and 5 of the Dominion rulebook)--players gain a Silver to their discard piles. If the Silver was shuffled into players' initial decks it would be a Setup instruction.

Quote
The attack is also ambiguous. If there's multiple cards tied for the highest cost, what gets discarded? Instead of "the card", it should say "a card", and then probably specify who is choosing.
Knights do not specify who chooses in the event that multiple cards apply because the owner of the card always chooses unless the effect states otherwise (which is why Spy, Swindler, and Pillage specify). Informant should read "a card" rather than "the card." Silly me.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on May 30, 2015, 05:33:06 pm
Wow I can't believe I did the Mine/Mint thing. I even was thinking about it while typing it, trying to make sure I typed the right one. It wasn't a typo, just me forgetting which card was which.

I wasn't concerned about it being too powerful to be able to have a deck full of Mines, I was concerned about the ability to instantly drain an entire pile, while also draining 10 Silvers out of the Silver pile.

Quote
Explorer doesn't trash anything. You could play Missionary trashing a Silver to gain an Explorer to hand to gain a Silver to hand, but that won't then help you trash that Silver

I meant having Watchtower in hand when you play Explorer, to trash the incoming Silver. And now that I think about it, it doesn't need to be a card that gains Silver to hand, just any card that gains Silver (while you have Watchtower in hand). But if that card costs $5, then you can drain that entire pile at once (along with 10 Silvers).

Quote
In games with Informant--after taking their starting decks, shuffling them, and drawing their starting hand of 5 cards (as this is part of the setup of the game as defined on pages 4 and 5 of the Dominion rulebook)--players gain a Silver to their discard piles. If the Silver was shuffled into players' initial decks it would be a Setup instruction.

Makes sense, but I don't think the wording on the card is clear about that. Why should "start of the game" be after the initial draw? What about "In games using this, at the start of each player's first turn, he gains a Silver." Or "In games using this, each player gains a Silver at the start of his first turn."

You're right about not needing to specify who gets to choose I guess. But I'm not sure that just changing "the" to "a" will solve the problem. "A card with the highest cost in coins"... there is no card with the highest cost in coins. Just a bunch that are tied for highest. None of them is "the highest cost".
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on May 30, 2015, 05:50:04 pm
Just thought of one other potentially breaking combo with Missionary.. Trader/Watchtower. Trader a high-cost card like Peddler or Province. Trash all 8 incoming Silvers... gain an entire pile of any $5 you want (City, Duchy, Duke). And again it's not as much an issue of being able to have a whole pile of cards, but to be able to drain an entire pile. Could be very easy to 3-pile if you want to.

And just for the fun of it, the turn after you do that your opponent plays Treasure Hunter... gaining another 8 Silvers and trashing them with Watchtower to empty out another pile.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Asper on May 31, 2015, 06:41:19 am
Just thought of one other potentially breaking combo with Missionary.. Trader/Watchtower. Trader a high-cost card like Peddler or Province. Trash all 8 incoming Silvers... gain an entire pile of any $5 you want (City, Duchy, Duke). And again it's not as much an issue of being able to have a whole pile of cards, but to be able to drain an entire pile. Could be very easy to 3-pile if you want to.

With Trader/Watchtower, you can actually empty the Silver pile with a single buy/gain. Just alternate revealing Trader to gain a Silver instead of what you'd get and Watchtower to trash the Silver you just got. I think that's much worse.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on May 31, 2015, 08:46:46 am
Just thought of one other potentially breaking combo with Missionary.. Trader/Watchtower. Trader a high-cost card like Peddler or Province. Trash all 8 incoming Silvers... gain an entire pile of any $5 you want (City, Duchy, Duke). And again it's not as much an issue of being able to have a whole pile of cards, but to be able to drain an entire pile. Could be very easy to 3-pile if you want to.

With Trader/Watchtower, you can actually empty the Silver pile with a single buy/gain. Just alternate revealing Trader to gain a Silver instead of what you'd get and Watchtower to trash the Silver you just got. I think that's much worse.

Good call.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 31, 2015, 09:07:18 am
Makes sense, but I don't think the wording on [Informant] is clear about that. Why should "start of the game" be after the initial draw? What about "In games using this, at the start of each player's first turn, he gains a Silver." Or "In games using this, each player gains a Silver at the start of his first turn."
The start of the game is after the initial draw because the game's instructions put the start of the game there. The set up instructions on pages 4 and 5 of the Dominion rulebook describe shuffling players' decks of 3 Estates and 7 Coppers and drawing their 5-card hands as part of setting up the game before it begins. The rules on page 6 start with determining the start player and then defines the structure of a turn but never outline deck composition nor the shuffling of that deck and drawing of the starting hand. The more explicit wording fits so I will use it, but the old wording was serviceable.

Quote
"A card with the highest cost in coins"... there is no card with the highest cost in coins. Just a bunch that are tied for highest. None of them is "the highest cost".
Fair enough. "...discards a card tied for or with the highest cost in coins he revealed..."

With Trader/Watchtower, you can actually empty the Silver pile with a single buy/gain. Just alternate revealing Trader to gain a Silver instead of what you'd get and Watchtower to trash the Silver you just got. I think that's much worse.
That is a problem. This will fix it: "In games using this, the first 2 times you trash a Silver each turn, gain an Action costing exactly $5, putting it into your hand."
I do not want to disable players doing silly things by trashing multiple Silvers in a turn, but this will prevent particularly abusive cases.

Trash all 8 incoming Silvers... gain an entire pile of any $5 you want (City, Duchy, Duke).
Missionary's "In games using this" can only gain Actions. Your comment does draw my attention to Distant Lands which might be worth stopping regardless of the number of times it could be done in a turn. I could limit the card to gaining non-Victory Actions that cost exactly $5. Does that take too much parsing? I think the case of gaining any $5 Treasure is too abusive in the case of terminally trashing Silvers. Is stopping Distant Lands even worth this complication?
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on May 31, 2015, 10:03:49 pm
Quote
Leper Village
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1. Each other player with at least 4 cards in hand discards a card.
In games using this, at the end of each of your turns except for the first, +1 Card.
Quote
Hideout
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. Discard down to 4 cards in hand. For each card discarded, choose one: +1 Action; or +1 Buy; or +$1 (the choices may be the same).
When you discard this except during Clean-Up, you may set it aside. If you do, at the start of your next turn +1 Card and then put this anywhere in your deck.

Leper Village makes 6-card hands the norm. After your opening two hands, you will have 6 cards in hand for each turn. This makes cards like Library and Watchtower weaker while Militia and Minion get quite a bit stronger. Leper Village itself doesn't draw a card like our old faithful vanilla Village, but since you have an additional card each turn it is much easier to line Leper Village up with your terminal cards. Maybe you can take a riskier strategy with that bigger hand?

While Hideout initially looks intimidating, it becomes pretty simple after a couple of plays much like Pawn. Cards like Vault and Cellar let players choose how many cards they discard to get a benefit. Hideout lets you choose the benefits you get from a forced discard. From a standard 5-card hand, you get 2 choices (you often need the +actions). You can take the same choice multiple times since you run over the "choose one" event once for each card discarded-- that parenthetical sentence is just a reminder since it is unusual. Hideout's Reaction continues its flexibility (and you never want to play Hideout from a small hand, so you usually discard Hideouts early when prompted, regardless of its ability). If you can stack a couple of them, you can start staying in your Hideouts.
Because of its Reaction and flexibility, Hideout is one of the only cards in Greed that is safe to continually buy. It also plays quite well as the X in X/Big Money, also unusual for Greed cards.

EDIT: Hideout had ability to trash removed.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on June 01, 2015, 12:14:48 am
Leper Village looks very strong. It's possible that +2 Actions +1 Buy +$1 would alone be an ok $3 card. Probably weaker than normal Village most of the time, but not all of the time. It would be a really good $2 anyway. Here you have that plus a discard attack. While it's only discarding 1 card, you should be expecting to play 3 of these every turn before too long, assuming some sort of draw engine is available. And at that point it's stronger than Militia's discard, because it discards 3 cards instead of 2. I'd think it would at least need to be $4. With the built-in buy you don't want it to be that easy to buy up a bunch of these.

I think Hideout's "put this anywhere in your deck" isn't great. You're allowed to count your deck, but not allowed to look through your deck. So I guess you can spend time counting and putting it exactly 6 cards from the top; or 2 cards from the top, etc, but that seems like some unnecessary analysis paralysis. I think it would be better if it just automatically went on top of your deck or something. And I wouldn't think it's a card you can just buy as many as you want of, because  immediately after playing it you can't have more than a 4 card hand, which makes it bad for some things.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on June 01, 2015, 12:24:11 am
I like these two, but I agree that Leper Village seems too strong for $3. 
Seems to me the main problem with Hideout is how wordy & complex it is (then again, my fan cards are often guilty of the same thing). Also, I think its reaction should be "When you discard this when it isn't your turn", otherwise, you can easily set yourself up for a big hand next turn and the card looks strong enough without that ability.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Asper on June 01, 2015, 06:08:27 am
For most of these effects, i feel there should be a special card type. Like Events, just for effect affecting the entire game, without the need to put some card effect on them.

I think many of the cards are extemely complex, and some make it far too obvious that the "in games using this" effect is mostly for the card itself (and possibly a few other cards). Actually, i feel a lot of them are mostly meant to interact with specific cards existing, and while i tried to make that kind of cards myself in the past (with the main idea being to push or harm existing cards) it's not a very good design guideline.

Either way, i like the 6 card hand idea, for example. I just think such grave effects should rather be on their own cards, well visible and besides the supply, so you're less likely to miss out on them. This would also make a good test for whether the effect is too specific: If i wouldn't want it to be a, let's say, "Circumstance" card, because there are too few cards to interact with it, maybe it's not worth being printed the way you do it, either. Because, hey, you could just as well hardcode the interaction in the play effect directly.

Another idea that you might like more: How about having the "game-altering" effect on a single cards and mention using that card in the kingdom card's setup? This way it's easier to see and memorize the effect, the kingdom card becomes more simple, and you could even use the same "circumstance" on more than one kingdom card. It takes up a single slot, and admittedly, you'd have to design something for this new kind of card, but as your effects are far more complex than Duchess' simple gaining question, i think they should get their own spot in the kingdom. I think it's natural to go the same way events went for on-buy.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Haddock on June 03, 2015, 07:03:00 am
I've just read through all of these now (sure I'm slow to the party, but whatever).  I don't think anyone has mentioned (perhaps because it's so obvious!) the interaction between Arcanum and Watchtower.  That's crazy deck-drawing power right there.  Of course you ideally need to start with Watchtower in hand - but even if not, once you've drawn it it will start undoing the junking you've done so far that turn.  Besides which - Arcanum-Watchtower-Scheme ensures Watchtower topdeck every turn.  I realise the likelihood of that combo is small, but MAN would that be fun to play.

EDIT: Meant to include a line saying - love the cards so far.  Exciting stuff. :)
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Lamestar on June 03, 2015, 11:16:35 am
Also, I think its reaction should be "When you discard this when it isn't your turn", otherwise, you can easily set yourself up for a big hand next turn and the card looks strong enough without that ability.

Really the card isn't all that strong. It's just a safe card (unlike a lot of other Greed cards) that gives you options. It would be pretty weak if you could not trigger the reaction yourself during your turn. There wouldn't even be a reason to buy more than one.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Trustworthy on June 14, 2015, 04:24:01 pm
Having tried out quite a few of these, most are pretty fun and change the game in interesting ways - especially Countess and Tanner. Historian is a great Library variant.

The only issue my group has run into is with War Flag. Specifically, the rare interaction between itself and Swindler (or Saboteur) when there are also duration cards around. Turning someone's Laboratory into a Duchy is already pretty nice; being able to trash a Hireling or Wharf on top of that when they gain the replacement card turns already player-annoying cards into table-flippers.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GeeJo on June 14, 2015, 06:21:16 pm
Having tried out quite a few of these, most are pretty fun and change the game in interesting ways - especially Countess and Tanner. Historian is a great Library variant.

The only issue my group has run into is with War Flag. Specifically, the rare interaction between itself and Swindler (or Saboteur) when there are also duration cards around. Turning someone's Laboratory into a Duchy is already pretty nice; being able to trash a Hireling or Wharf on top of that when they gain the replacement card turns already player-annoying cards into table-flippers.

This is an incredibly niche interaction to worry about, and none of the solutions are neat. Either "gain" is changed to "buy" and you open up a bunch of loopholes to the rule-change, or you add "during your own turn" to an already wordy card. In all honesty, it's just one of those things that players will have to bear in mind. The same way that Peddlers heavily affect the usefulness of a Swindler, duration cards become a slight liability with War Flag on the board - just buy fewer duration cards if you think that it's going to be a problem. Saboteur is even less of an issue, as the gain is voluntary.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on June 15, 2015, 09:30:16 pm
Sorry I have been out. My stomach decided it did not like its contents for a while there.
I will get back on schedule this Thursday.

Leper Village looks very strong. It's possible that +2 Actions +1 Buy +$1 would alone be an ok $3 card. Probably weaker than normal Village most of the time, but not all of the time. It would be a really good $2 anyway. Here you have that plus a discard attack. While it's only discarding 1 card, you should be expecting to play 3 of these every turn before too long, assuming some sort of draw engine is available.
I think you drastically overestimate its strength.
Remember that +buys more than any other vanilla benefit have diminishing returns, so the first Leper Village that you play is a very weak Attack with a pretty good on-play, but the second and third Leper Villages are better Attacks with weaker on-play effects, and the fourth and on are unlikely to have an Attack attached to them at all and those +Buys are likely to be worthless sans cost reduction.

And at that point it's stronger than Militia's discard, because it discards 3 cards instead of 2. I'd think it would at least need to be $4. With the built-in buy you don't want it to be that easy to buy up a bunch of these.
This is patently untrue. Leper Village hits thrice, but you have not taken into account that players have larger hands. Even if you play a full suite of 3 Leper Villages, you have rendered other players to the best 3 of 6 cards which is quite a bit better than the best 3 of 5. Don't forget that Militia would have knocked players down to the best 3 of 6 cards immediately rather than costing 3 slots in your hand.
The more Leper Villages you have in your deck, the higher variance your turns are going to be as is the case with all splitters that do not draw cards. You end some turns playing 2 or 3 Leper Villages with no terminal Actions to play, at which point, you likely have no use for the +buys and you by definition had no use for the additional +actions, meaning you basically had a bunch of crappy vanishing Coppers that at least reduced the hand size of other players (assuming that really mattered).

Seems to me the main problem with Hideout is how wordy & complex it is (then again, my fan cards are often guilty of the same thing).
It reads as complex, but boils down quickly because it is semantically simple. "Take your choice of benefits from a fixed discard, which are trashing and the vanilla benefits other than +card. Discard this to draw a card and ready your Hideout in your deck." It is not insignificant, but in the hands of experienced players (i.e. players who can process Dominion: Adventures) it has not proven to be much of a problem.

I think Hideout's "put this anywhere in your deck" isn't great. You're allowed to count your deck, but not allowed to look through your deck. So I guess you can spend time counting and putting it exactly 6 cards from the top; or 2 cards from the top, etc, but that seems like some unnecessary analysis paralysis. I think it would be better if it just automatically went on top of your deck or something.
Usually players do put Hideout on top of their deck. The exception is when a player has terminal draw in their hand and don't want to draw the Hideout with it, which is trivial to avoid and makes discarding Hideout feel less bad. You are discarding a $5 buy after all.

And I wouldn't think it's a card you can just buy as many as you want of, because  immediately after playing it you can't have more than a 4 card hand, which makes it bad for some things.
You would not think, but my recent testing has put Hideout/Big Money in reasonable contention with Wharf/Big Money.

Quote
Also, I think its reaction should be "When you discard this when it isn't your turn", otherwise, you can easily set yourself up for a big hand next turn and the card looks strong enough without that ability.
The above would make Hideout significantly weaker and might be worth doing, though I worry that would increase its not insignificant processing since you have to remember its Reaction only triggers on other players' turns. I only recently have been testing Hideout in Big Money and its effectiveness is undeniable seeing as it is basically better than Vault until it starts choking on Victory cards, but can get +Buys when it needs to pick up Estates.
It might just need to lose the Reaction and get card drawing on the list of options.

For most of these effects, i feel there should be a special card type. Like Events, just for effect affecting the entire game, without the need to put some card effect on them.

I think many of the cards are extemely complex, and some make it far too obvious that the "in games using this" effect is mostly for the card itself (and possibly a few other cards). Actually, i feel a lot of them are mostly meant to interact with specific cards existing, and while i tried to make that kind of cards myself in the past (with the main idea being to push or harm existing cards) it's not a very good design guideline.

Either way, i like the 6 card hand idea, for example. I just think such grave effects should rather be on their own cards, well visible and besides the supply, so you're less likely to miss out on them. This would also make a good test for whether the effect is too specific: If i wouldn't want it to be a, let's say, "Circumstance" card, because there are too few cards to interact with it, maybe it's not worth being printed the way you do it, either. Because, hey, you could just as well hardcode the interaction in the play effect directly.
The only cards that could have their "in games using this" effects hard coded onto them are:
Arcanum, but that would make the card significantly stronger in the presence of actual trashers since it could run out of Curses to put into players' decks and then it just becomes a stupidly powerful Laboratory, so the card's power is much more even by using an "In games using this;"
Architect, but that would require an additional exception clause for its interaction with Coppers, so an "In games using this" is ultimately a simpler way to make it function;
or Missionary. Hey, I could see the argument for Missionary's "In games using this" being placed explicitly on the card, but that reduces other fun interactions that occur in games that can gain and trash Silvers (Informant, Patrol, and War Flag all make Missionary's "In games using this" a particularly wild consideration to your strategy in Dominion: Greed alone).

These more situational "in games using this" effects are sure to have a card that interacts with them by placing them on a card that cares about its effect, and the less situational ones still have a card that functions more interestingly for its presence. +1 Card each turn is a mildly interesting effect, but it really only changes valuation when you have cards that explicitly care about hand sizes and Leper Village is just that. +1 Buy each turn is a mildly interesting effect and Street is a card that can really only survive because of it.
There are advantages to not tying the effect to a particular Kingdom card, but I do not think they outweigh the benefits to necessarily having cards that make those effects matter.

Another idea that you might like more: How about having the "game-altering" effect on a single cards and mention using that card in the kingdom card's setup? This way it's easier to see and memorize the effect, the kingdom card becomes more simple, and you could even use the same "circumstance" on more than one kingdom card. It takes up a single slot, and admittedly, you'd have to design something for this new kind of card, but as your effects are far more complex than Duchess' simple gaining question, i think they should get their own spot in the kingdom. I think it's natural to go the same way events went for on-buy.
The card does not actually become more simple, it just means you have to look somewhere else to see its full effect. This idea I think is slightly better than the Circumstance cards, but it is very different than what Dominion: Greed is currently doing. Leper Village and Street are likely the only "in games using this" effects that would be reasonable to see on multiple cards.
If you are so worried about forgetting the "in games using this" effect, set the randomizers for the offending Kingdom card out in an "in games using this" row. Same effect, fewer components.

Having tried out quite a few of these, most are pretty fun and change the game in interesting ways - especially Countess and Tanner. Historian is a great Library variant.
Glad you are enjoying them.

The only issue my group has run into is with War Flag. Specifically, the rare interaction between itself and Swindler (or Saboteur) when there are also duration cards around. Turning someone's Laboratory into a Duchy is already pretty nice; being able to trash a Hireling or Wharf on top of that when they gain the replacement card turns already player-annoying cards into table-flippers.
Firstly, Duration cards remain in play in order to remind players of their effects: The presence of the Duration has no baring on whether or not the effect occurs. You could choose to trash your own Wharf from play the turn you played it and will still get the +2 Cards, +1 Buy your next turn.
Secondly, this issue is a discrepancy with the wording of the card. It is supposed to trigger "on buy" not "on gain" (and is written as such below the image).
It had "on gain" on it for a very short while, but it was turns to "on buy" due to any tricks or cards allowing players to gain $5 cards in the middle of their turn being unnecessarily neutered (Count, Altar, and University, come immediately to mind). I must have put "on gain" into the editor on autopilot. Thank you and this will be corrected shortly.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Asper on June 25, 2015, 07:40:36 am
Co0kieL0rd and i played a game some time ago where we used Scholar. It was a lot of fun and very interesting, even though Scholar's ability to make any terminal nonterminal warps the game. As Scholars are usually useless, this comes at a price, so we didn't feel it broke something. It was really fun. It works especially nice with trashers, since those are usually terminal, reduce your handsize and can get rid of Scholars you don't want.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 25, 2015, 09:29:49 am
Co0kieL0rd and i played a game some time ago where we used Scholar. It was a lot of fun and very interesting, even though Scholar's ability to make any terminal nonterminal warps the game. As Scholars are usually useless, this comes at a price, so we didn't feel it broke something. It was really fun. It works especially nice with trashers, since those are usually terminal, reduce your handsize and can get rid of Scholars you don't want.

I was in the same game, what a coincidence! And I also enjoyed Scholar very much. Interesting how such a simple card can change the game and how you think about terminal space. It's probably my favourite card in your set.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on June 25, 2015, 11:52:32 pm
Co0kieL0rd and i played a game some time ago where we used Scholar. It was a lot of fun and very interesting, even though Scholar's ability to make any terminal nonterminal warps the game. As Scholars are usually useless, this comes at a price, so we didn't feel it broke something. It was really fun. It works especially nice with trashers, since those are usually terminal, reduce your handsize and can get rid of Scholars you don't want.

I was in the same game, what a coincidence! And I also enjoyed Scholar very much. Interesting how such a simple card can change the game and how you think about terminal space. It's probably my favourite card in your set.
It is such a game-warping card, I am glad people here on the forum have taken to it so well.

Quote
Usurer
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+3 Buys, +$4. Return this to the Supply. You must buy a Usurer this turn, if able.
You can't buy this unless you have at least $6
Quote
Sculptor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Gain a Gold for every $10 in the total cost of cards you have in play rounded up.
In games using this, the first Gold you play each turn produces $1 less.

Surprisingly similar to Wine Merchant, Usurer is a super Woodcutter with a "higher" cost. Unlike Wine Merchant, though, you must re-buy it now which drastically reduces its flexibility. Obviously though, a totally benefit of +2 Buys, +$2 is not necessarily so great, so the real trick to playing Usurer effectively is playing and buying multiple in a single turn since no matter how many you play you are only ever required to re-buy one.

In games with Sculptor, Gold sucks: You have to reach a critical mass of Gold before it gets consistently better than Silver. If you can get a bunch of expensive cards in play, Sculptor can get you those Golds very fast. Even if the board is wanting for expensive cantrips, trash-for-benefits look a whole lot better when you are trading +$2 from a $6 card rather than +$3.

EDIT: Usurer reworded to "When you would buy your first card this turn, if you can buy a Usurer, you must" from "You must buy a Usurer this turn"
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 26, 2015, 05:10:33 am
Usurer's wording seems problematic. When you have Usurers in play you could just buy cards until you have no money left and then say, I'm not able to buy a Usurer. It could say instead, "The first card you buy this turn must be an Usurer", to prevent any loopholes.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Haddock on June 26, 2015, 05:38:29 am
Usurer's wording seems problematic. When you have Usurers in play you could just buy cards until you have no money left and then say, I'm not able to buy a Usurer. It could say instead, "The first card you buy this turn must be an Usurer", to prevent any loopholes.
  "...must be an Usurer if possible."  I think that addition is necessary; I don't think the intended behaviour is to stop you buying 5s if you have exactly 5.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 26, 2015, 05:46:51 am
Usurer's wording seems problematic. When you have Usurers in play you could just buy cards until you have no money left and then say, I'm not able to buy a Usurer. It could say instead, "The first card you buy this turn must be an Usurer", to prevent any loopholes.
  "...must be an Usurer if possible."  I think that addition is necessary; I don't think the intended behaviour is to stop you buying 5s if you have exactly 5.
See, I do think that is the intended behaviour. Our differing opinions point up the need to clarify Usurer's wording.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: ChocophileBenj on June 26, 2015, 05:59:57 am
What if next cards are released with "You must buy a X if possible" ? What if it conflicts ?

(assume there's another card X that costs $2 and grants you $3 and forces you to buy ; you play a village -> Usurer ($4) -> StoryTeller ($0) -> X ($3) : you'd have to buy an Usurer and a X for $3)

EDIT :
I suggest that :
"At the start of your buy phase, gain an Usurer" or "before you buy anything, spend 1 buy and $2. If you do, gain an Usurer", but it's pretty tough wording in fact...

By the way I don't see the difference between this and Woodcutter except that you've 1 more buy and it's complicated while Woodcutter is terrible, but simple ! (at least you can buy it for only $2 if you have $6 and several buys)
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Mr Anderson on June 26, 2015, 06:10:39 am
A reasonable solution would be that you choose the order of cards you have to buy until you bought every card you have to buy or you can't buy such a card due to the lack of money or buys first, after that you can buy cards as usual.
So in your example you could either decide to buy Usurer first and would fail to buy the other card for 3$, or you decide the other card first and you would fail to buy Usurer.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Haddock on June 26, 2015, 06:29:36 am
What if next cards are released with "You must buy a X if possible" ? What if it conflicts ?

(assume there's another card X that costs $2 and grants you $3 and forces you to buy ; you play a village -> Usurer ($4) -> StoryTeller ($0) -> X ($3) : you'd have to buy an Usurer and a X for $3)

EDIT :
I suggest that :
"At the start of your buy phase, gain an Usurer" or "before you buy anything, spend 1 buy and $2. If you do, gain an Usurer", but it's pretty tough wording in fact...

By the way I don't see the difference between this and Woodcutter except that you've 1 more buy and it's complicated while Woodcutter is terrible, but simple ! (at least you can buy it for only $2 if you have $6 and several buys)
The wording is very tough, especially when, as Co0kieL0rd notes, we're not 100% on the intended behaviour.  I'm not convinced by any wording so far, particularly in the possible case of conflict, as you point out.  How about this:

"At the end of your buy phase this turn, if you did not buy an Usurer, return all bought cards to the supply."
That's with Co0kieL0rd's interpretation of not allowing 5s if you collect exactly 5.

With my interpretation:
"If you have $6 at any point during your buy phase this turn, then at the end of your buy phase, if you did not buy an Usurer this turn, return all bought cards to the supply."

It's messy, but the only way I can think of to resolve both the conflict issue and the "Oh but I've spent all of my money, totally can't buy an Usurer" issue.

In the case of conflict, if you can't afford to buy both then you're screwed.  But as far as I can see that's your own bloody fault.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Haddock on June 26, 2015, 06:32:35 am
A reasonable solution would be that you choose the order of cards you have to buy until you bought every card you have to buy or you can't buy such a card due to the lack of money or buys first, after that you can buy cards as usual.
So in your example you could either decide to buy Usurer first and would fail to buy the other card for 3$, or you decide the other card first and you would fail to buy Usurer.
I agree that this is the best thing, but I don't see a way of getting it on the card.  If we had a separate rulebook to resolve the issue it would be great, but ideally we want everything on the card.
Sadly putting "The first card you buy this turn must be X" on any card is really in conflict with the ideal philosophy, which is, as you say, "just buy all the cards that you're forced to buy before you buy anything else."
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: ChocophileBenj on June 26, 2015, 07:46:21 am
It's funny about Leper village because I thought to a similar card costing $4 : +2 actions, +$1, same attack. (the +buy is missing and it costs $1 more, no "in games using this" effect) ; but it may end up boring with taking slots.
At least it's an inedit concept yet : an attack village.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 26, 2015, 07:58:52 am
"At the end of your buy phase this turn, if you did not buy an Usurer, return all bought cards to the supply."
That's with Co0kieL0rd's interpretation of not allowing 5s if you collect exactly 5.

With my interpretation:
"If you have $6 at any point during your buy phase this turn, then at the end of your buy phase, if you did not buy an Usurer this turn, return all bought cards to the supply."

These wordings cause problems with cards that put bought or gained cards somewhere else than the discard pile: Nomad Camp, Watchtower, Royal Seal and, most of all, Inn. Even if it wasn't for these cards, the phrases you suggested are awkward as hell. To be fair, Usurer is awkward per se.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Haddock on June 26, 2015, 09:14:24 am
"At the end of your buy phase this turn, if you did not buy an Usurer, return all bought cards to the supply."
That's with Co0kieL0rd's interpretation of not allowing 5s if you collect exactly 5.

With my interpretation:
"If you have $6 at any point during your buy phase this turn, then at the end of your buy phase, if you did not buy an Usurer this turn, return all bought cards to the supply."

These wordings cause problems with cards that put bought or gained cards somewhere else than the discard pile: Nomad Camp, Watchtower, Royal Seal and, most of all, Inn. Even if it wasn't for these cards, the phrases you suggested are awkward as hell. To be fair, Usurer is awkward per se.

Inn is particularly terrible, I didn't think of it.  I think the rest could be managed, but I agree those are nasty interactions.

How about:
"Immediately after you have finished playing Treasures in this turn's buy phase, you must buy a Usurer if possible."

Then any conflict is resolved automatically by the standard rule, "whenever two things happen to you at once, you decide the order".  With this wording you have trouble if you've played two of them in one turn - you shouldn't have to buy 2 Usurers if you've played 2.  So maybe add a "once per turn".
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Asper on June 26, 2015, 09:53:10 am
Fragasnap, could you help us understand what Usurer is about? Right now all i can make out is that the card creates a lot of complicated rules.

To make clear what i'm asking of you, when i looked at Caravan Guard's Reaction, for example, i first didn't get it. But when Donald explained the concept, it all became clear: It's a cheap Peddler that produces coins only in your next turn - unless you get attacked, where it becomes a normal Peddler.

I'm sadly failing to get a similar "point" in Usurer. Obviously it has a new mechanic ("a card that forces you to buy it"), but that on its own isn't really exciting to me.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on June 26, 2015, 09:36:49 pm
Fragasnap, could you help us understand what Usurer is about? Right now all i can make out is that the card creates a lot of complicated rules.

To make clear what i'm asking of you, when i looked at Caravan Guard's Reaction, for example, i first didn't get it. But when Donald explained the concept, it all became clear: It's a cheap Peddler that produces coins only in your next turn - unless you get attacked, where it becomes a normal Peddler.

I'm sadly failing to get a similar "point" in Usurer. Obviously it has a new mechanic ("a card that forces you to buy it"), but that on its own isn't really exciting to me.
Mechanically: After playing a Usurer and going into your Buy phase, you must buy a Usurer if you produce $6 or more and the can spend the rest of your coins and buys however you please. If you fail to produce $6 (by holding back Treasures or if you spent most or all of your coins with a Storyteller or Black Market), you can buy whatever you want. If you lost all your buys by playing Streets, you can't buy anything, so you obviously cannot re-buy Usurer.
Is "When you would buy your first card this turn, if you can buy a Usurer, you must" clearer? This wording creates problems if there is ever another card that forces a buy, but there aren't any other cards that do that, so I don't have to worry about that right now. With this wording, if you play Usurer then Black Market you can buy a card from the Black Market to avoid having to re-buy your Usurer since the Black Market-buy would be the first card you bought that turn and you can't buy a Usurer from the Supply while playing Black Market, but I can live with that change.

Functionally: Usurer is a strange alternative to Gold that does not cost all your coins (useful in the event that you have multiple buys) and is super powerful in multiples. One Usurer on its own is effectively +2 Buys, +$2 (unless you have no money otherwise) which is not very strong, but in multiples each after the first is a one-shot +3 Buys, +$4 that only cost you $2 to buy. You'll have to re-buy it later, but that will be easy to do so long as you have some source of +Buys--which you likely will because you are forced to re-buy one Usurer immediately. It is also a strong source of +Buys, making it a combo with Greed's Street, and since it is cheap it combos with Greed's Fletcher.
Without any other support, Usurer is ultimately a source of +Buy that requires roundabout method of acquisition (either gratuitous coin or some other method of gaining).
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: pacovf on June 26, 2015, 09:58:59 pm
Usurer in the Black Market seems pretty swingy.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on June 26, 2015, 10:17:31 pm
Usurer in the Black Market seems pretty swingy.

This is something that should be carefully considered. Other cards that are swingy in the Black Market (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Black_Market) (Tournament (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Tournament), Goons (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Goons)) are so because they are simply strong cards in general, and it's just part of the swinginess of Black Market itself. But here, you have a card that actually functions differently if it came from the Black Market; and it's much stronger than normal, due to both the one-shot nature of it (which is no longer one-shot when bought from Black Market), and due to the fact that you aren't forced to buy more of them.

Other cards that don't work the same when they come from the Black Market are weaker, not stronger (Fool's Gold (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Fool's_Gold), Treasure Map (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Treasure_Map), Page (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Page). Perhaps the exception being Knights, but then it's still only slightly stronger.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Awaclus on June 26, 2015, 10:24:24 pm
Perhaps the exception being Knights, but then it's still only slightly stronger.

Another exception is Rats, which is very much stronger.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: GendoIkari on June 27, 2015, 10:11:40 am
Perhaps the exception being Knights, but then it's still only slightly stronger.

Another exception is Rats, which is very much stronger.

Good point, though it goes from being a usually very weak card to an ok card. I mean, it's just a Junk Dealer without the money. Good, but strictly worse than Junk Dealer. Userer in the Black Market is pretty crazy, almost always better than Gold.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 27, 2015, 12:33:07 pm
Actually, I wanted to wait until all your cards are posted but I feel like reviewing your cards now:

Arcanum
It's either a super-super Lab that curses you, or a Lab that turns a Curse into a Copper. Also, you don't always get to choose which one it is. It seems reasonable(?) but it's pretty hard to say for sure without having played with it, as is the case with most of your cards because they are so game-warping.

Architect
A non-terminal Remodel for $2! That seems almost brazen! An unskilled player will mostly get $3-costs out of it. But combined with strong or Copper trashing, Architect becomes really good. The "in-games-using-this" (IGUT) part makes a lot of sense here.

Blacksmith
I like this card, especially the reaction which is both a defense and a self-enhancer.

Countess
Will often be just a Moat so you actually don't want it often or early. The question is, when do you get it, if you get it all. It's probably best in slogs, although even there its vanilla bonus and Duchy-gaining seem to contradict each other.

Fletcher
Why attack cards? Why an Estate? It all seems weirdly welded together. Fletcher seems weak, it probably isn't though, but it's confusing and I don't know when I would ever want it. With good $4-attacks and a village in the kingdom?

Hideout
It just looks awful with so much text and I know the top part isn't that complicated if you think about it. It still seems more flexible than necessary. The part about trashing seems out of place and I dont like that you can put it anywhere in your deck when the top would be just fine. Otherwise it might take too long to resolve.

Historian
I made a similar card, Sentinel. Historian accomplishes almost the same thing but does so in a more elegant way. I particularly like Historian because it doesn’t have an IGUT effect that makes my brain cringe tacked on.

Idol
In games where this is the only curser it can be an interesting and difficult decision how many of those you get. If there are other cursers, and there’s no trashing, you probably don’t want Idol and you want as few Golds in your deck as possible. Interesting…

Informant
Seems fine and reasonably strong. I just dislike the fact that you play the Silver prior to trashing it. A lot of the time, people will forget they played an additional Silver. It would be simpler if it said “Trash a Silver from your hand. If you do, +$2 and each other player etc.”
Inquisitor
The top part seems boring. The fact that its it provides strong trashing makes me wonder why I would ever choose the cursing option. The bottom part has nothing to do with it and just makes games slower and annoying. What’s the deal?

Inventor
Inventor looks cool and strong in right kingdom, the kind where you would also buy an Outpost. It compares decently to Artificer which has worse gaining but no next-turn penalty.

Leper Village
This card is grotesque – its name, its artwork, and all it does. It seems so strong to me, the bottom part even more so than the top part. But I cannot accurately judge it because I don’t like looking at or thinking about it. It might just be the picture, sorry.

Missionary
Wouldn’t Missionary be just fine without the bottom part? At least make the gaining optional when you trash a Silver so you don’t have to keep this clause in mind. Why can’t the whole bottom part take place when you play Missionary? That would be even better. This way, it’s just more to memorise, and a very unorthodox thing on top of that.

Patrol
I like the concept but I cannot judge its power without having played with it.

Prospector
I kinda like it. In this case, the IGUT mechanic is so minor it’s okay and you don’t have to memorise it.

Ritter
This reminds of my Juggler which also gives +2 Cards, +$2 and attacks other players while you get an according penalty. I like the idea. Why did you use the German word for knight as the card’s name? Doesn’t this appear weird to non-Germans?

Scholar
I already talked about it. My favourite Greed card.

Slave Trade
Another card that would be fine without the IGUT part, although I can see the point of it being there. Otherwise, Slave Trade would be such a pain in the butt in games without trashers. The condition for Copper trashing seems a little arbitrary but I guess it proved balanced this way.

Street
I can easily see this being ignored in a Kingdom while players happily enjoy their extra buy. The cost reduction obviously becomes a deal with (non-terminal) +buy in the Kingdom but I doubt there will be any worthwhile combos with Street as it is such a weak card.

Tanner
I like the action. The IGUT mechanic is uncalled-for, a nuisance. Again, why?

War Flag
A brutal attack but it costs $7 so that may just be reasonable. It’s the kind of attack Margrave wants to be but can’t due to its cost. I don’t mind the IGUT mechanic here that much but it might as well not be there.

Winery
Very cool idea. If you want it, you have to build your strategy around it early-on and then live with your decision for the rest of the game. Interesting interaction with Grave Robber and Rogue!
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Lamestar on June 27, 2015, 07:23:59 pm

Countess
Will often be just a Moat so you actually don't want it often or early. The question is, when do you get it, if you get it all. It's probably best in slogs, although even there its vanilla bonus and Duchy-gaining seem to contradict each other.

Inquisitor
The top part seems boring. The fact that its it provides strong trashing makes me wonder why I would ever choose the cursing option. The bottom part has nothing to do with it and just makes games slower and annoying. What’s the deal?

Missionary
Wouldn’t Missionary be just fine without the bottom part? At least make the gaining optional when you trash a Silver so you don’t have to keep this clause in mind. Why can’t the whole bottom part take place when you play Missionary? That would be even better. This way, it’s just more to memorise, and a very unorthodox thing on top of that.

Slave Trade
Another card that would be fine without the IGUT part, although I can see the point of it being there. Otherwise, Slave Trade would be such a pain in the butt in games without trashers. The condition for Copper trashing seems a little arbitrary but I guess it proved balanced this way.

Street
I can easily see this being ignored in a Kingdom while players happily enjoy their extra buy. The cost reduction obviously becomes a deal with (non-terminal) +buy in the Kingdom but I doubt there will be any worthwhile combos with Street as it is such a weak card.


Countess: you usually want to get it at some point since Victory cards are so expensive. The +2 cards just seemed to be the vanilla effect that made the most sense to use as giving coins or actions could easily lead to having better options than gaining a Duchy.

Inquisitor: You can get it early to trash and use it later to discard Provinces/Duchies to hand out curses. The bottom effect gives you something to discard with your Inquisitors, but it is pretty much just tacked on.

Missionary: It definitely needs the bonus for trashing Silver. Trashing for actions is usually weak without a bonus. The effect could be just attached to the card instead of being a game effect but then it would't really fit into the rest of the set! Sure it's harder to remember to do, but that argument could be on a significant number of the cards in the set.

Slave Trade: A village that junks you when you play it is pretty bad even if it junks everyone else too. We tried attaching the copper trashing to the card without the game effect, but then everyone HAS to get Slave Trade.

Street: I agree it's weak and is pretty much there just for the plus buy.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on June 28, 2015, 10:31:44 am
Usurer in the Black Market seems pretty swingy.

This is something that should be carefully considered. Other cards that are swingy in the Black Market (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Black_Market) (Tournament (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Tournament), Goons (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Goons)) are so because they are simply strong cards in general, and it's just part of the swinginess of Black Market itself. But here, you have a card that actually functions differently if it came from the Black Market; and it's much stronger than normal, due to both the one-shot nature of it (which is no longer one-shot when bought from Black Market), and due to the fact that you aren't forced to buy more of them.

Other cards that don't work the same when they come from the Black Market are weaker, not stronger (Fool's Gold (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Fool's_Gold), Treasure Map (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Treasure_Map), Page (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Page). Perhaps the exception being Knights, but then it's still only slightly stronger.
I can make a rewording of it to trash it and then return it to the Supply (and hey, it doesn't even add a line of text!), but is it worth that complexity to fix its interaction with what is likely the most luck-based card in Dominion anyway?

Notably, Tanner (and to a lesser extent, Idol) is also stronger out of the Black Market, assuming the ruling that an "in games using this" in the Black Market does not affect the Kingdom holds true (which it does for now).

Countess: you usually want to get it at some point since Victory cards are so expensive. The +2 cards just seemed to be the vanilla effect that made the most sense to use as giving coins or actions could easily lead to having better options than gaining a Duchy.
Keeping in theme with Count, Countess gives you options: Keep going with your turn or discard your hand for a Duchy. The +2 Cards vanilla benefit also makes it easier to stack Countesses than any other benefit would. You can definitely gain more than one Duchy at once by playing multiple Countesses.

Fletcher
Why attack cards? Why an Estate? It all seems weirdly welded together. Fletcher seems weak, it probably isn't though, but it's confusing and I don't know when I would ever want it. With good $4-attacks and a village in the kingdom?
Attack cards were the most fun thing to reduce in cost since Actions make the game too engine friendly, Treasures make the game too Big Money centric, and Victory cards make the game end too quickly. By reducing the cost of Attack cards, the first card I thought would go from being pretty bad to actually pretty decent was Spy, so gaining Estates combos with that. Fletcher is otherwise pretty good in sloggy games and basically any alternative Victory strategy since it can gain Silvers so fast. It is also quite good in any instance when having an Estate in your deck is not the worst thing in the world (likely because of cards like Crossroads or Baron).

Hideout
It just looks awful with so much text and I know the top part isn't that complicated if you think about it. It still seems more flexible than necessary. The part about trashing seems out of place and I dont like that you can put it anywhere in your deck when the top would be just fine. Otherwise it might take too long to resolve.
The Reaction does not take long to resolve since the only consideration of where it goes in your deck is whether or not you will draw it this turn (and whether or not you want to). Now that you point it out though, the trashing can probably be removed. I put trashing onto it in fear of the rest being too weak, but the trashing has proven so weak (since it has to be from a hand of 4) as to practically be a non-option. I will remove that. It should clean up the text quite nicely.

Informant
Seems fine and reasonably strong. I just dislike the fact that you play the Silver prior to trashing it. A lot of the time, people will forget they played an additional Silver. It would be simpler if it said “Trash a Silver from your hand. If you do, +$2 and each other player etc.”
It had this wording for a while, but the coin symbol made the already crowded text look even worse even though it had the exact same effect. I will probably only reinstate the coin symbol if the amount becomes different than $2.

Inquisitor: You can get it early to trash and use it later to discard Provinces/Duchies to hand out curses. The bottom effect gives you something to discard with your Inquisitors, but it is pretty much just tacked on.
The bottom is tacked on primarily to give Inquisitor ammunition to fire out Curses earlier. It slows down the game a hair and makes the timing of Inquisitor trickier.

Missionary: It definitely needs the bonus for trashing Silver. Trashing for actions is usually weak without a bonus. The effect could be just attached to the card instead of being a game effect but then it wouldn't really fit into the rest of the set! Sure it's harder to remember to do, but that argument could be on a significant number of the cards in the set.
We played around with a number of "trash for +Actions" effects, but without some incentive to trash a card with value, you pretty much never use it, so it definitely has to have some sort of benefit for trashing Silvers. Making the Silver trashing effect an "in games using this" both makes it fit better into Greed and also gives it fun considerations with Informant, War Flag, as well as other trash-for-benefits (as Silver is ordinarily a low priority target for trash-for-benefit). I will agree with co0kiel0rd that the "in games using this" can very easily be made optional, so it may as well be.

Ritter
...Why did you use the German word for knight as the card’s name? Doesn’t this appear weird to non-Germans?
I am on the lookout for better names. It needs to bring to mind the military purpose of a Margrave while still not being too legislative in nature. How does "Marquis" sound?

Street: I agree it's weak and is pretty much there just for the plus buy.
I probably buy Street in about a third of games using it, but even when Street doesn't get its time to shine, it still changes the landscape of the game, so I do not believe there is much to complain about with it.

Tanner
I like the action. The IGUT mechanic is uncalled-for, a nuisance. Again, why?
Tanner's Action effect is stupidly powerful without something putting cards it cannot draw into your deck. Of two options (either an "in games using this" that puts junk into your deck or making its draw more finicky), I liked this one better.

War Flag
A brutal attack but it costs $7 so that may just be reasonable. It’s the kind of attack Margrave wants to be but can’t due to its cost. I don’t mind the IGUT mechanic here that much but it might as well not be there.
Donald X has talked about the Attack that is on War Flag and how incredibly powerful and unfun it is. The reason it is so miserable is partially because on a card costing $5 or less it is easy to play, but also because of the high variance of players' decks. Having the best 2 of 5 and 1 average is probably going to suck. War Flag costs $7 and requires the player of it to discard a Treasure, making the Attack harder to reach, but War Flag's "in games using this" is what subtly makes the card. The "In games using this" reduces decks' variance in the middle of the game since players are trashing their junk, so a random draw is probably not going to be nearly so bad as in a normal game, though certainly still bad. However, since players are trashing most of their Coppers to it, players will have a harder time using War Flag's powerful Attack since they might need that Copper to trash when they buy a $5+ card.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 29, 2015, 08:44:32 am
I am happy with basically all of your replies, both when you came around to some suggestions and when you explained why things are how they are. I feel willing to play with more Greed cards now ;)

Quote
I am on the lookout for better names. It needs to bring to mind the military purpose of a Margrave while still not being too legislative in nature. How does "Marquis" sound?
French? I mean, it sounds as weird as Ritter but at least Marquis is found in the English disctionary^^
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: qazzquimby on August 26, 2015, 12:26:26 pm
I came back months later and thought I saw a bunch of unfamiliar and exciting cards (names anyway), but upon searching through, I already have them all.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on September 06, 2015, 11:13:19 am
Apologies: I didn't want to bump for an update so small.

Updates:

Cards have seen more testing:

I guess I may as well post the last two stable cards:
Quote
Friar
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Trash a card from your hand. If it costs $4 or more, gain a Duchy and an Estate. Otherwise, gain 2 Estates.
In games using this, Victory cards are worth 1VP more.
Quote
Alehouse
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may discard 4 cards. If you do, +3 Actions.

The Estate split matters now: Friar makes a deck full of Victory cards more valuable than a deck with few quality Victory cards and affords a way to get more Estates. When do you even buy this in the game? I always buy it too early and choke on Estates or too late and have nothing to gain. I love it.

Alehouse is a nice and simple Smithy with a Village option by discarding a ton of stuff. You only get the +actions if you're dedicated since your hand goes -2 Cards. The "discard for +actions" has been proposed quite often, but the card has always felt boring since it gives only as many +actions as you need. Alehouse gets a stronger draw with a weaker discard in order to give that ability real bite in the construction of your deck.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: AdrianHealey on February 04, 2016, 07:58:13 pm
Q about Frontier, if you are still active?
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on February 05, 2016, 12:25:41 am
Q about Frontier, if you are still active?
Absolutely.

I'll post some updates since you've revived the topic:
Find updates in the main posts. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12756.msg473254#msg473254)
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: AdrianHealey on February 05, 2016, 09:08:36 am
So we played a 4 player game, so we had 12 Frontiers in supply. However: it felt like the first player has an advantage over the latter player, especially in the later rounds. I was third in line and was ultimately the only one buying frontiers (I had a card that has a similar mechanism like crossroads, so having green was incentivized). But we speculated that if others went that strategy, those higher up in the turn order were advantaged relative to those later in the turn order.

We felt that the card needed a big of a modifier, i.e. 'when no cards is bought this turn, trash one' clause. So when someone buys a card, the stack is not itself decreased that turn any further. However, I'd even argue that you maybe need 8*2 (or 12*3/4) times the amount on the stack and that you trash one *every* playerturn (if none were bought). So everyone has the same chance of buying the same amount.

What is your experience?

Additionally: we also speculated that a clause being 'this doesn't count as an empty supply pile' might also be useful. Because this really decreased game length to an unsatisfactory short amount of time. Admittedly, you know this in advance, but it did slightly take the fun out of it, in our experience.

What say you?

(I mean, I know we can play the card however we like, but I was still wondering what your impressions are.)
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on February 05, 2016, 06:03:53 pm
So we played a 4 player game, so we had 12 Frontiers in supply. However: it felt like the first player has an advantage over the latter player, especially in the later rounds. I was third in line and was ultimately the only one buying frontiers (I had a card that has a similar mechanism like crossroads, so having green was incentivized). But we speculated that if others went that strategy, those higher up in the turn order were advantaged relative to those later in the turn order.
Your assumptions are correct that the card favors players earlier in turn order in the instances where rushing the card is worthwhile, but my play experience has not shown this to be a significant problem to the card since it is so rare that players can afford to pick up more than 2 without crippling their decks. The possibility for wanting Frontiers becoming a problem will certainly be exacerbated in 4-player games. I might have to suggest that 4 be placed in the Supply per player.

How many games have you played in 4-player with Frontier? What was the split of Frontiers in those games? How many of those games did a player who purchased more Frontiers than at least one other player win the game?

Additionally: we also speculated that a clause being 'this doesn't count as an empty supply pile' might also be useful. Because this really decreased game length to an unsatisfactory short amount of time. Admittedly, you know this in advance, but it did slightly take the fun out of it, in our experience.
I find "unsatisfactorily short" to be an apt descriptor to 4-player games of Dominion in general. I would recommend variants to fix the problems of the basic rules of 4-player Dominion first, to make it more similar to 3-player games.

Thank you for your input!
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: AdrianHealey on February 06, 2016, 08:50:07 am
The issue with the 4 per player is that you now turned a card that lasts for 8 turns in one game and 16 in another. And this doesn't seriously solve the 'latter person' problem. The issue is in turn 8, the first player has a huge advantage, because he can or can not buy the last frontier. But buying one turn 8: probably better than at turn 7. (Delaying it as much as possible.)

I'd say: make it standard 16 frontiers and number them. Add a clause that Only the frontier with the turn number needs to be trashed so that if we buy two in turn 12 (for example), there is no frontier trashed in turn 12 and 13, because frontier 14 will be on top.

This way, you move the first player advantage to turn 16, at which point regular greening could have started by then.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: Fragasnap on February 06, 2016, 09:58:44 am
This way, you move the first player advantage to turn 16, at which point regular greening could have started by then.
Which defeats literally the entire purpose of the card. The bite of Frontier is that you have to buy it before you want it. It's a lot of points, but can your deck stomach buying a Frontier instead of any other better $5 card while they're still around? Players will go about winning without buying any Frontiers because it costs too much momentum to the players that did.
Making Frontiers stick around until players will very likely be greening actually makes the first-player advantage even worse because that player gets first chance to buy them in terms of greening momentum and we no longer have that awful opportunity cost that made them such a hard sell in the first place.

Have you experienced Frontier being the primary decider of games? Have you experienced that multiple times? If it is commonly the deciding factor in 4-player games, I will have to do something about it, but if this is a reaction to a single game, I am unconvinced. Bureaucrat is sometimes a game-ending Attack when you're fourth player in a 4-player game, but the turn order advantage doesn't keep Bureaucrat from being the best card in the game (or at least a passable card that is reasonably interesting, anyway).
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
Post by: 461.weavile on February 16, 2016, 06:29:24 pm
I haven't gotten a chance to test it yet, but what about making the Frontier pile remove itself from the game after 8 rounds? It makes the availability the same for any number of players, removes the interaction with Graverobber and Rogue, and marginally decreases the first-player advantage by not having an odd number of the card half the time. Maybe even more importantly, it removes the "one pile down" condition by no longer being a supply pile - I just hope you didn't plan to use an Ambassador on it. Obviously I can see an issue with keeping track of how many rounds have gone on, but it preliminarily feels less swingy, if such a card could feel less swingy.

On the other hand, perhaps the first player having more Victory cards so early will benefit the second player in the long run.

I also toyed with the idea of removing one on every shuffle instead of every round. This way, you still keep them for about the same number of rounds, it scales with 3 players the same as 2, and there is an odd number of them less often. It might have some strange interactions with deck-cycling at that point, so that would need some thorough testing.

BTW, I'm varvarop2 on TTS, since my name can't start with a 4 on an IRC. I plan on commenting on the cards after testing them, but this one was curious enough to comment on first [and on things not yet mentioned.]
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (0.90a)
Post by: Fragasnap on September 16, 2016, 08:06:27 am
Since ThetaSigma12 showed vague interest (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16227.msg636280#msg636280) by suggesting the set be mocked up again to match the new format of Dominion cards, I figured I'd post information about Greed as of late.
For simplicity, all images in the middle of this thread have been removed and text in the middle of the thread will no longer be updated. Find updated images on page 1 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12756.msg473254#msg473254). The cards on the first page are available for Tabletop Simulator using the following image:
Code: [Select]
http://i.imgur.com/MBVhcXF.jpgI recommend using the following as the card back:
Code: [Select]
http://i.imgur.com/yzZJDcw.jpg
Thank you for your time.
Title: Re: Dominion: Greed (0.90a)
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 16, 2016, 08:29:30 am
Thanks! All of those changes seem great!

EDIT: Looks like you fixed 90% of the stuff I wanted to change, so I probably won't do it at all. Great work!