Dominion Strategy Forum

Dominion => Dominion: Nocturne Previews => Dominion: Renaissance Previews => Dominion General Discussion => Empires Previews => Topic started by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 12:04:33 pm

Title: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 12:04:33 pm
You can feel it in the night, like an approaching storm. You hear its distant laughter on the wind; you catch a glimpse of it in the window of a passing train. There's no mistaking it. It's another Dominion expansion. And if you had any doubt remaining, I'm here with some previews for it.

As with last time around, there will be individual previews here each day by different people.

There are too many set themes to have a day with no theme. So the cards the other people preview will include some random stuff, while I will stick with the themes, which I will just get you ready for now: Debt, split piles, VP tokens, Landmarks, Events.

Okay so Debt.

(http://i.imgur.com/jaIG95H.png?w=640&h=326)

That reddish hexagon means you don't pay for City Quarter or Royal Blacksmith up front. Instead you take some tokens that say how much you owe. While you have the tokens, you can't buy cards or Events. Those are the only things you can't do; you can still play cards, including the one that got you into Debt if you draw that one; you can still trash cards and get attacked and win the game and so on. You can pay off Debt tokens in your Buy phase, before and/or after buying cards, at $1 per token. So, you have $4, you buy City Quarter, you get 8 Debt, you pay off 4 of it immediately, you have 4 debt left. In your next Buy phase, if you had $6, you could pay off the rest of your Debt and then have $2 left to spend. Get it? It's pretty simple. The one tricky thing is how these things work when cards compare costs. There it works like Potion: apples and oranges. A reddish hexagon with an 8 isn't more or less than $3. There's a rulebook, okay? It covers all the tricky things. And uh why a hexagon, why that color? The physical tokens are reddish hexagons.

So City Quarter is one of these things, it costs $8 but you don't need any $ up front. You can buy it with $0 and a leftover Buy. But you'll be paying it off before you buy more things and well I went over that already. So uh City Quarter. It looks snazzy. You could draw so many cards. And it's a Village too, which helps you play those cards you had to have to draw those other cards.

Royal Blacksmith also costs 8 Debt and draws a lot of cards. It doesn't let you keep the Coppers and well you may want to do something about that. I like to show off at least a few simple cards, and Royal Blacksmith and City Quarter are both pretty simple, other than wondering about that red hexagon.

Most cards and Events that use Debt use it in a cost. Capital is one that does something different. It's a Treasure that loans you $6. It's a nice hunk of change, but you have to pay it all back. At least there's no interest. And hey maybe you aren't getting another turn anyway.

So there you have it, Debt. And there's another preview today and then I'll have split piles tomorrow.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 09, 2016, 12:09:17 pm
Good morning Donald!
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Davio on May 09, 2016, 12:11:08 pm
Reserved for insightful edit.  ;D

Well this opens a lot of strategic avenues and that's great,  especially if you focus on gaining rather than buying.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 09, 2016, 12:12:21 pm
Can you buy a debt card, pay of the debt, and then buy another debt card?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 09, 2016, 12:14:37 pm
Can you buy a debt card, pay of the debt, and then buy another debt card?

Yes, assuming you have 2 Buys.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: assemble_me on May 09, 2016, 12:15:03 pm
I feel, I'm indebted to Donald for this preview!
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 12:15:27 pm
Good morning Donald!
Irving Berlin - Oh! How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 12:17:09 pm
In the middle of updating the wiki, hang on to your pants, people.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Awaclus on May 09, 2016, 12:17:17 pm
The one tricky thing is how these things work when cards compare costs. There it works like Potion: apples and oranges. A reddish hexagon with an 8 isn't more or less than $3.

Prediction: The red hexagons are gunpowders

Close enough. They even disappear once you've "used" them.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Ankenaut on May 09, 2016, 12:20:09 pm
I love the idea of taking multiple turns to buy a card. I hope there is an event which allows you to turn another pile into a debt pile.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: pst on May 09, 2016, 12:22:00 pm
Oh, Capital + Herbalist!
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crlundy on May 09, 2016, 12:23:31 pm
Interesting as always. So we've already seen a quarter of all the red hexagons, hmm... -VP was the first penalty that came to my mind for guessing how debt would work. Not being able to buy things is certainly a good incentive, though.

And Events are the grand finale, not Landmarks? Must be some pretty cool Events. Exciting!
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Emeric on May 09, 2016, 12:24:20 pm
One question, May I pay my debt when I want (after playing few market for example and just before playing a storryteller) ?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Davio on May 09, 2016, 12:25:12 pm
These would be great Disciple targets.   ;D
Also Jester but not Haggler,  so many interesting interactions.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Davio on May 09, 2016, 12:26:41 pm
Oh, Capital + Herbalist!
You mean Counterfeit.

No discard = free $12.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crlundy on May 09, 2016, 12:27:00 pm
One question, May I pay my debt when I want (after playing few market for example and just before playing a storryteller) ?

You can pay off Debt tokens in your Buy phase, before and/or after buying cards, at $1 per token.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: J Reggie on May 09, 2016, 12:27:52 pm
This is so cool! I'm excited for the community trying to figure out how to best use these. One thing I'm bummed about is that I had a fan card idea pretty similar to Royal Blacksmith. It's different enough, I guess I could still use it. Combo with Counting House!
I really feel like I'm going to waver back and forth on how cautious to be with the debt cards.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Awaclus on May 09, 2016, 12:29:12 pm
Oh, Capital + Herbalist!
You mean Counterfeit.

No discard = free $12.

No, I think he means Herbalist. No discard = free $6 every turn. I'm not sure if that actually works though.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 09, 2016, 12:30:03 pm
Buying debt cards while possessing someoen sounds pretty good.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: drsteelhammer on May 09, 2016, 12:32:01 pm
Buying debt cards while possessing someoen sounds pretty good.

Especially before he gets his own possession.


Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Ankenaut on May 09, 2016, 12:33:26 pm
I always thought there would be a Capitol card - some kind of really powerful village. I guess Capital makes that unlikely.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 09, 2016, 12:33:30 pm
"Warning - while you were reading 5 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post."

Must be a preview thread...

Anyway, so you can trash one of these cards with Apprentice and draw 0 cards.

I'm curious if we'll see any cards that cost both debt and coin. Probably not. But it does seem that you can remodel a City Quarter into a Royal Blacksmith, and vice-versa, because "(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) + 8 debt" is up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more than "(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) + 8 debt." And when you do gain a Royal Blacksmith like this, you wouldn't take any debt tokens. Right?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Elestan on May 09, 2016, 12:35:03 pm
One question, May I pay my debt when I want (after playing few market for example and just before playing a storryteller) ?

You can pay off Debt tokens in your Buy phase, before and/or after buying cards, at $1 per token.

This is why Capital's last clause is needed; it allows paying off Debt during cleanup.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 09, 2016, 12:35:47 pm
All of this debt seems really expensive to me. I wouldn't value being able to pay later and not buying anything till then so highly intuitively.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: J Reggie on May 09, 2016, 12:36:05 pm
Buying debt cards while possessing someoen sounds pretty good.

Also playing a bunch of Royal Blacksmiths and then triggering a shuffle.

Also I love this art!
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 12:36:12 pm
Buying debt cards while possessing someoen sounds pretty good.
Oh right. I forgot to mention it, but Possession is getting errata. No joke, errata. It will now cause the possessing player to also get all tokens the other player would have gotten. This means they will also get VP tokens, which wasn't the point, but was the simplest way to make debt + Possession not suck.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 12:38:46 pm
But it does seem that you can remodel a City Quarter into a Royal Blacksmith, and vice-versa, because "(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) + 8 debt" is up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more than "(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) + 8 debt." And when you do gain a Royal Blacksmith like this, you wouldn't take any debt tokens. Right?
Yes, you can Remodel a City Quarter into a Royal Blacksmith, and you don't get any Debt for doing that.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 09, 2016, 12:39:23 pm
Oh, Capital + Herbalist!
You mean Counterfeit.

No discard = free $12.

No, I think he means Herbalist. No discard = free $6 every turn. I'm not sure if that actually works though.

Seems clear it would work...
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LostPhoenix on May 09, 2016, 12:39:36 pm
What is the expansion symbol supposed to be?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 09, 2016, 12:41:07 pm
Buying debt cards while possessing someoen sounds pretty good.
Oh right. I forgot to mention it, but Possession is getting errata. No joke, errata. It will now cause the possessing player to also get all tokens the other player would have gotten. This means they will also get VP tokens, which wasn't the point, but was the simplest way to make debt + Possession not suck.

Woah. I assume that this is just something that will be mentioned in the Empire rulebook? And maybe future printings of Alchemy rulebooks?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 09, 2016, 12:41:14 pm
What exactly is the new version of Possession?
Do you still need to pay off the debt of the possessed player before buying anything? Does anything about adventures tokens change?

I think it was kinda cool that there where no errata. :(
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 09, 2016, 12:42:03 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 09, 2016, 12:42:23 pm
What is the expansion symbol supposed to be?

A laurel.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: faust on May 09, 2016, 12:44:21 pm
I always thought there would be a Capitol card - some kind of really powerful village. I guess Capital makes that unlikely.

I for one wouldn't mint if there was also a Capitol card.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 09, 2016, 12:44:43 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.

Debt cost VP card would be  broken assuming you don't need to pay  off the debt of the player you possess. You'd just need enough buys and  could buy them all.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 09, 2016, 12:46:10 pm
I just don't understand why there is a bottomless pit in the middle of the city quarter.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LostPhoenix on May 09, 2016, 12:46:50 pm
I just don't understand why there is a bottomless pit in the middle of the city quarter.

I think It's a roof
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 09, 2016, 12:47:45 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.

Debt cost VP card would be  broken assuming you don't need to pay off the debt of the player you possess. You'd just need enough buys and  could buy them all.

"While you have the tokens, you can't buy cards or Events."
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: bedlam on May 09, 2016, 12:47:48 pm
I now want there to be a way to save up unused money from previous turns to pre-pay debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: singletee on May 09, 2016, 12:47:55 pm
One question, May I pay my debt when I want (after playing few market for example and just before playing a storryteller) ?

You can pay off Debt tokens in your Buy phase, before and/or after buying cards, at $1 per token.

This is why Capital's last clause is needed; it allows paying off Debt during cleanup.

Because of that clause, I suspect that there will be some card that cares directly about how much debt you have or whether you have debt. Maybe something that multiplies opponents' debt. Otherwise paying off debt early would be unnecessary, since the next time you could buy a card, you could just pay off the debt then.

(Except Black Market, but that's hardly a reason for that whole line of text.)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 09, 2016, 12:49:14 pm
I found one of the VP symbols: it's in the City Quarter art. 59 to go.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 09, 2016, 12:50:41 pm

Because of that clause, I suspect that there will be some card that cares directly about how much debt you have or whether you have debt. Maybe something that multiplies opponents' debt. Otherwise paying off debt early would be unnecessary, since the next time you could buy a card, you could just pay off the debt then.

Well, if yu don't pay it off right then, the money will be gone.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 12:51:43 pm
Woah. I assume that this is just something that will be mentioned in the Empire rulebook? And maybe future printings of Alchemy rulebooks?
It's in the Empires rulebook, and yes someday I hope to have it on new printings of Possession and in that rulebook.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: A Drowned Kernel on May 09, 2016, 12:52:33 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.

Debt cost VP card would be  broken assuming you don't need to pay off the debt of the player you possess. You'd just need enough buys and  could buy them all.

"While you have the tokens, you can't buy cards or Events."

Right, but when you're possessing someone and buy a debt card, you get the debt. So you could possess someone, get 10 buys, buy 10 Royal Blacksmiths, and build up 80 debt for yourself.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: ben_king on May 09, 2016, 12:52:55 pm
All of this debt seems really expensive to me. I wouldn't value being able to pay later and not buying anything till then so highly intuitively.

I like to think of it this way:  We often say that one good turn is better than two mediocre turns in Dominion.  With a debt-cost card, you can buy a powerful card on two mediocre turns instead of waiting until one good turn to get it.  And if you're playing with Capital, you can use it to spike pretty much whatever you want.  To get a really good card early, I'd gladly take a not-so-good turn next time.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Awaclus on May 09, 2016, 12:54:49 pm
Oh, Capital + Herbalist!
You mean Counterfeit.

No discard = free $12.

No, I think he means Herbalist. No discard = free $6 every turn. I'm not sure if that actually works though.

Seems clear it would work...

Right, I always forget that Herbalist isn't Scheme.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 12:54:56 pm
What exactly is the new version of Possession?
Do you still need to pay off the debt of the possessed player before buying anything? Does anything about adventures tokens change?

I think it was kinda cool that there where no errata. :(
Dude. Possession. It was bound to happen eventually. In some sense a few cards already have errata - Black Market (you can play Treasures), Pirate Ship (it doesn't mean Guilds tokens), Envoy (it's not drawing).

Nothing about the Adventures tokens changes. If I Possess you and have you buy a City Quarter, I get the Debt. If I have you play a Monument, I get the VP.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 09, 2016, 12:55:52 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.

Debt cost VP card would be  broken assuming you don't need to pay  off the debt of the player you possess. You'd just need enough buys and  could buy them all.

I guess you're right. Maybe it's $2 [4] for 3 VP then or something like that. But that's not incredibly unique. I feel like it would have to also do something extra.

I also love that Possession is getting a nerf. It's not the best card in the world to begin with, but now it's even not as good. :)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Voltaire on May 09, 2016, 12:56:33 pm
I think it was kinda cool that there where no errata. :(

Dominion has, for several years, had errata in all but name. This just marks the first time the word has been used (and put in a physical printed product, I assume?).

PPE: "Ninja'd" by Donald during my fourth attempt to post this.  :o
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 12:57:56 pm
Guys: be careful with Royal Blacksmith.  If your deck is mostly Coppers, it can end up decreasing your handsize.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Elestan on May 09, 2016, 12:58:28 pm
All of this debt seems really expensive to me. I wouldn't value being able to pay later and not buying anything till then so highly intuitively.

I was debt-averse when I was first introduced to the mechanic, but it's usually not something you can ignore.  Being able to get a strong card early on can give you a considerable advantage in pacing.  Capital is potent because it effectively lets you use debt to buy cards that weren't priced with debt.  Consider the effect of using Capital to spike a KC, Prince, Platinum...
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crj on May 09, 2016, 12:59:31 pm
I now want there to be a way to save up unused money from previous turns to pre-pay debt.
That's called coin tokens... right?

I assume you can use coin tokens to play off debt. It's a bit like a matter-antimatter annihilation.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Darth Vader on May 09, 2016, 12:59:37 pm
Donald. There is no Emperor card. There is no Darth Vader card. I am most displeased. The Emperor is even more displeased, because he is of course, not as forgiving as I am.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: drsteelhammer on May 09, 2016, 01:00:23 pm
What exactly is the new version of Possession?
Do you still need to pay off the debt of the possessed player before buying anything? Does anything about adventures tokens change?

I think it was kinda cool that there where no errata. :(
Dude. Possession. It was bound to happen eventually. In some sense a few cards already have errata - Black Market (you can play Treasures), Pirate Ship (it doesn't mean Guilds tokens), Envoy (it's not drawing).

Nothing about the Adventures tokens changes. If I Possess you and have you buy a City Quarter, I get the Debt. If I have you play a Monument, I get the VP.

So, I assume Debt, VP and Coin Tokens work this way, then. What about Pirate Ship tokens?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: A Drowned Kernel on May 09, 2016, 01:01:19 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.

Debt cost VP card would be  broken assuming you don't need to pay  off the debt of the player you possess. You'd just need enough buys and  could buy them all.

I guess you're right. Maybe it's $2 [4] for 3 VP then or something like that. But that's not incredibly unique. I feel like it would have to also do something extra.

I also love that Possession is getting a nerf. It's not the best card in the world to begin with, but now it's even not as good. :)

I'd call it a buff. Getting your opponent's VP tokens is pretty big.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 09, 2016, 01:02:20 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.

Debt cost VP card would be  broken assuming you don't need to pay off the debt of the player you possess. You'd just need enough buys and  could buy them all.

"While you have the tokens, you can't buy cards or Events."

Right, but when you're possessing someone and buy a debt card, you get the debt. So you could possess someone, get 10 buys, buy 10 Royal Blacksmiths, and build up 80 debt for yourself.
That's what I meant.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crj on May 09, 2016, 01:03:17 pm
Buying debt cards while possessing someoen sounds pretty good.
Oh right. I forgot to mention it, but Possession is getting errata. No joke, errata. It will now cause the possessing player to also get all tokens the other player would have gotten. This means they will also get VP tokens, which wasn't the point, but was the simplest way to make debt + Possession not suck.
I was going to say that debt+Possession sounded broken unless that was the rule.

Now, it sounds like accumulating some debt is a new way to discourage someone from playing Possession on you. Er... oh... wait - whose debt matters for determing whether or not the Possessed player can buy something, and whose debt does the Possessed player pay off?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Elestan on May 09, 2016, 01:04:09 pm
Donald. There is no Emperor card.

How do you know?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 09, 2016, 01:04:18 pm
I'm just happy we have another beard.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: shark_bait on May 09, 2016, 01:08:49 pm
Buying debt cards while possessing someoen sounds pretty good.
Oh right. I forgot to mention it, but Possession is getting errata. No joke, errata. It will now cause the possessing player to also get all tokens the other player would have gotten. This means they will also get VP tokens, which wasn't the point, but was the simplest way to make debt + Possession not suck.


Possessor getting the VP or Possessee getting the debt????

I'd go for the latter.  At least in that case it encourages both players to build their decks.  And the Possessor would be forced to pay off debt if possessing multiple turns in a row.  VP tokens going to the Possessor takes away from one very appealing counter to Possession.

EDIT:  Dear goodness.... 30 replies while writing this post.  Haven't read them yet, brute forcing myself in.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Awaclus on May 09, 2016, 01:09:01 pm
I also love that Possession is getting a nerf. It's not the best card in the world to begin with, but now it's even not as good. :)

It's getting a buff. Previously, you could counter Possession by going for Goons and Bishop and Monument, but now if you do that, your opponent will get the tokens instead when he possesses you.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: J Reggie on May 09, 2016, 01:10:38 pm
Donald. There is no Emperor card.

How do you know?

I don't know if I've said this before, but having a King/Queen/Emperor card just seems wrong, because the player is supposed to be those things. I think MTG has a thing where you can play cards that are like players, but I don't think Dominion should.

Another thing, I like that you can open with both City Quarter and Royal Blacksmith, but you don't want to.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 01:12:39 pm
Another thing, I like that you can open with both City Quarter and Royal Blacksmith, but you don't want to.

I believe you mean either of them.  If you buy one on your first turn, you'll have too much debt on your second turn to buy anything.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: dane-m on May 09, 2016, 01:15:42 pm
What exactly is the new version of Possession?
Do you still need to pay off the debt of the possessed player before buying anything? Does anything about adventures tokens change?

I think it was kinda cool that there where no errata. :(
Dude. Possession. It was bound to happen eventually. In some sense a few cards already have errata - Black Market (you can play Treasures), Pirate Ship (it doesn't mean Guilds tokens), Envoy (it's not drawing).

Nothing about the Adventures tokens changes.
Alas Possession is one card that the group that I play with has vetoed.  Two of the group had always disliked it, but the final straw was the Borrow event in Adventures: playing with a 4-card hand every time after one was possessed didn't amuse them at all.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 01:15:51 pm
So, I assume Debt, VP and Coin Tokens work this way, then. What about Pirate Ship tokens?
Yes, you also get those tokens.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: J Reggie on May 09, 2016, 01:16:36 pm
Another thing, I like that you can open with both City Quarter and Royal Blacksmith, but you don't want to.

I believe you mean either of them.  If you buy one on your first turn, you'll have too much debt on your second turn to buy anything.

Yes, I meant either. Language is hard when all you can think about is Dominion: Empires.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: drsteelhammer on May 09, 2016, 01:17:16 pm
How can you all already determine whether it is a buff or nerf for Possession? So far, we have three cards that generate VP. Maybe this set has twelve debt cards, then it's clearly a nerf. Probably it doesn't have that much, and it maybe has some other VP generating cards which would buff Possession but it's definitely too early to determine the new strength of possession.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: drsteelhammer on May 09, 2016, 01:18:24 pm
So, I assume Debt, VP and Coin Tokens work this way, then. What about Pirate Ship tokens?
Yes, you also get those tokens.

So I can use their Pirate Ships to thin my deck and mine as payload? Miser is so 2015, guys.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Tables on May 09, 2016, 01:20:41 pm
Nobody is asking the important questions yet.

How are we going to include these in the Qvist community card rankings?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: J Reggie on May 09, 2016, 01:21:31 pm
How can you all already determine whether it is a buff or nerf for Possession? So far, we have three cards that generate VP. Maybe this set has twelve debt cards, then it's clearly a nerf. Probably it doesn't have that much, and it maybe has some other VP generating cards which would buff Possession but it's definitely too early to determine the new strength of possession.

Here's a topic for speculation: how many debt cards do we think Empires has? It has 16 red hexagons, and we've seen 4 already. I'm thinking somewhere around 8 cards/events/maybe landmarks.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: SCSN on May 09, 2016, 01:23:11 pm
EDIT:  Dear goodness.... 30 replies while writing this post.  Haven't read them yet, brute Bruce forcing myself in.

FYP
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 09, 2016, 01:23:52 pm
How can you all already determine whether it is a buff or nerf for Possession? So far, we have three cards that generate VP. Maybe this set has twelve debt cards, then it's clearly a nerf. Probably it doesn't have that much, and it maybe has some other VP generating cards which would buff Possession but it's definitely too early to determine the new strength of possession.

Here's a topic for speculation: how many debt cards do we think Empires has? It has 16 red hexagons, and we've seen 4 already. I'm thinking somewhere around 8 cards/events/maybe landmarks.

I'm assuming you can write your own debt "in credit" (funny enough) for bigger games with more players. I'm going to say that there is probably 7 Debt cards.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 09, 2016, 01:24:14 pm
EDIT:  Dear goodness.... 30 replies while writing this post.  Haven't read them yet, brute Bruce forcing myself in.

FYP FTFY

FTFY
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: A Drowned Kernel on May 09, 2016, 01:27:34 pm
How can you all already determine whether it is a buff or nerf for Possession? So far, we have three cards that generate VP. Maybe this set has twelve debt cards, then it's clearly a nerf. Probably it doesn't have that much, and it maybe has some other VP generating cards which would buff Possession but it's definitely too early to determine the new strength of possession.

Well I have amazing powers of precognition.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Beyond Awesome on May 09, 2016, 01:28:05 pm
Nobody is asking the important questions yet.

How are we going to include these in the Qvist community card rankings?

I guess we rank them as $6+

Hmm...


Anyway, ugh, Possession is already a messed up card. And, now the VP thing. Well, I guess you should never buy Bishop if Possession is on the board. Banning the card might not be such a bad idea.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Beyond Awesome on May 09, 2016, 01:29:25 pm
And, wow, Royal Blacksmith seems strong, especially after you've started trashing down.

I've already seen the other two cards. Capital interests me the most, but if you're deck is not very action-dense, it's not as good as it seems at first glance.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 09, 2016, 01:29:32 pm
Nobody is asking the important questions yet.

How are we going to include these in the Qvist community card rankings?

Easy. Just as there are separate rankings for the Ruins, and there are separate rankings for Potion cards, there will be separate rankings for Debt cards.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crlundy on May 09, 2016, 01:29:49 pm
I'm going to say that there is probably 7 Debt cards.
Not to mention debt Events.

Also, are the debt tokens cardboard chits, or part of the 96 metal tokens?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Awaclus on May 09, 2016, 01:30:03 pm
Anyway, ugh, Possession is already a messed up card. And, now the VP thing. Well, I guess you should never buy Bishop if Possession is on the board. Banning the card might not be such a bad idea.

Buying trash-for-benefit was always a pretty bad idea with Possession.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 09, 2016, 01:32:20 pm
Not to be the one coming with negative comments in such a jolly occasion, but I really wish the artists could find something a bit more original than "Still Life with Coins on Table #6" for Treasure cards.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 09, 2016, 01:34:29 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.

Debt cost VP card would be  broken assuming you don't need to pay  off the debt of the player you possess. You'd just need enough buys and  could buy them all.

I guess you're right. Maybe it's $2 [4] for 3 VP then or something like that. But that's not incredibly unique. I feel like it would have to also do something extra.

I also love that Possession is getting a nerf. It's not the best card in the world to begin with, but now it's even not as good. :)

Um, this is a buff, not a nerf. Previously, Possession couldn't steal a person's VP when Monument, etc was played on the possessed turn. Now it can.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 09, 2016, 01:35:30 pm
Guys: be careful with Royal Blacksmith.  If your deck is mostly Coppers, it can end up decreasing your handsize.

I don't think you need to "be careful" with that... Warehouse and Cellar also decrease your handsize, but that's ok because you replace those discarded Coppers with better cards. Granted, you don't want to open Royal Blacksmith and play it on turn 3....
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 09, 2016, 01:37:13 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.

Debt cost VP card would be  broken assuming you don't need to pay  off the debt of the player you possess. You'd just need enough buys and  could buy them all.

I guess you're right. Maybe it's $2 [4] for 3 VP then or something like that. But that's not incredibly unique. I feel like it would have to also do something extra.

I also love that Possession is getting a nerf. It's not the best card in the world to begin with, but now it's even not as good. :)

Um, this is a buff, not a nerf. Previously, Possession couldn't steal a person's VP when Monument, etc was played on the possessed turn. Now it can.

I read the post wrong. The possessed and the possessor previously were the possessor and the possessed, but now they are the possessed and the possessor. Reading all of that dialogue is complicated.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 09, 2016, 01:40:10 pm
How can you all already determine whether it is a buff or nerf for Possession? So far, we have three cards that generate VP. Maybe this set has twelve debt cards, then it's clearly a nerf. Probably it doesn't have that much, and it maybe has some other VP generating cards which would buff Possession but it's definitely too early to determine the new strength of possession.

I don't think you can call it a nerf when it never existed that you could use Possession + Debt that way (except maybe in early playtesting). It's only a nerf versus a theoretical interaction that doesn't and never has existed. That's like saying that Smithy being +3 cards is a nerf vs if Smithy were +4 cards.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 09, 2016, 01:40:40 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.

Debt cost VP card would be  broken assuming you don't need to pay  off the debt of the player you possess. You'd just need enough buys and  could buy them all.

I guess you're right. Maybe it's $2 [4] for 3 VP then or something like that. But that's not incredibly unique. I feel like it would have to also do something extra.

I also love that Possession is getting a nerf. It's not the best card in the world to begin with, but now it's even not as good. :)

Um, this is a buff, not a nerf. Previously, Possession couldn't steal a person's VP when Monument, etc was played on the possessed turn. Now it can.

I read the post wrong. The possessed and the possessor previously were the possessor and the possessed, but now they are the possessed and the possessor. Reading all of that dialogue is complicated.

Yeah, I also got confused earlier in the thread. Debt cards are clearly too wonky, they mess up Possession.  :P ::)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 09, 2016, 01:43:05 pm
How can you all already determine whether it is a buff or nerf for Possession? So far, we have three cards that generate VP. Maybe this set has twelve debt cards, then it's clearly a nerf. Probably it doesn't have that much, and it maybe has some other VP generating cards which would buff Possession but it's definitely too early to determine the new strength of possession.

I don't think you can call it a nerf when it never existed that you could use Possession + Debt that way (except maybe in early playtesting). It's only a nerf versus a theoretical interaction that doesn't and never has existed. That's like saying that Smithy being +3 cards is a nerf vs if Smithy were +4 cards.

Possession-in-a-vacuum got more powerful, but the card mix may get, relatively speaking, many more hard-ish counters than what it had before. (vp tokens and forced Action players)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: buckyball on May 09, 2016, 01:44:58 pm
So, I assume Debt, VP and Coin Tokens work this way, then. What about Pirate Ship tokens?
Yes, you also get those tokens.

I assume the gained Coin tokens go to the Possessor's pool immediately. This means Possessor can't use Coin tokens from Bakers played that turn; he/she can still use the Coin tokens the Possessed has accumulated up until the previous turn. Is this correct?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: drsteelhammer on May 09, 2016, 01:45:46 pm
How can you all already determine whether it is a buff or nerf for Possession? So far, we have three cards that generate VP. Maybe this set has twelve debt cards, then it's clearly a nerf. Probably it doesn't have that much, and it maybe has some other VP generating cards which would buff Possession but it's definitely too early to determine the new strength of possession.

I don't think you can call it a nerf when it never existed that you could use Possession + Debt that way (except maybe in early playtesting). It's only a nerf versus a theoretical interaction that doesn't and never has existed. That's like saying that Smithy being +3 cards is a nerf vs if Smithy were +4 cards.

No, but the way Debt interacts with Possession is a counter to Possession. Buying a debt card before my opponent possesses me looks pretty strong.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 09, 2016, 01:47:20 pm
Not to be the one coming with negative comments in such a jolly occasion, but I really wish the artists could find something a bit more original than "Still Life with Coins on Table #6" for Treasure cards.

Donald specifically asks for "no people" on notes to artists for Treasure cards. Personally I really like Loan et al., but he prefers just seeing whatever the Treasure object is.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Awaclus on May 09, 2016, 01:47:41 pm
So I can use their Pirate Ships to thin my deck and mine as payload? Miser is so 2015, guys.

I don't think you want to use Mine as a payload very often if you're using their Pirate Ships to thin your deck.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Willvon on May 09, 2016, 01:49:41 pm
Admittedly, there are plenty of ways to get to $14 on a turn, but do you think it could be possible that we will get a new treasure that gives you $6 or 7$ similar to Platinum coming out with Colonies?

Well, I was thinking of the possibility of a new basic treasure card that would give more money than Platinum, but at least I was right about having a treasure that gives you $6. I wouldn't be surprised to see another card that gives $6. After all, this is Empires. We've gone from Properity to Extravagance, and of course, with Extravagance comes Debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 09, 2016, 01:50:23 pm
How can you all already determine whether it is a buff or nerf for Possession? So far, we have three cards that generate VP. Maybe this set has twelve debt cards, then it's clearly a nerf. Probably it doesn't have that much, and it maybe has some other VP generating cards which would buff Possession but it's definitely too early to determine the new strength of possession.

I don't think you can call it a nerf when it never existed that you could use Possession + Debt that way (except maybe in early playtesting). It's only a nerf versus a theoretical interaction that doesn't and never has existed. That's like saying that Smithy being +3 cards is a nerf vs if Smithy were +4 cards.

No, but the way Debt interacts with Possession is a counter to Possession. Buying a debt card before my opponent possesses me looks pretty strong.

But buying Debt cards while you Possess somebody is even stronger. In both cases the possessee is left deep in debt, but in the second case the possessor gained a card.
The net result would be very heavily pro-possession. (it's essentially a coin-production pin)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: ced on May 09, 2016, 01:51:22 pm
Not to be the one coming with negative comments in such a jolly occasion, but I really wish the artists could find something a bit more original than "Still Life with Coins on Table #6" for Treasure cards.

Like this?

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/9/9d/Harem.jpg)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crj on May 09, 2016, 01:53:04 pm
Is it my imagination (I'm no Dominion guru) or might Mandarin+Capital be a candidate for the combo which gives the largest possible advantage to players that get a 5/2 split?

Buy Mandarin, topdeck $5. Buy Capital. Then, when the Capital comes around again, every turn buy Mandarin + as many Capital as you can afford until all the Capital is gone. At that point, buy Mandarins and Duchies to pile out quickly.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 09, 2016, 01:54:00 pm
Not to be the one coming with negative comments in such a jolly occasion, but I really wish the artists could find something a bit more original than "Still Life with Coins on Table #6" for Treasure cards.

Like this?

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/9/9d/Harem.jpg)

I love coins on tables. More please.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: drsteelhammer on May 09, 2016, 01:54:56 pm
How can you all already determine whether it is a buff or nerf for Possession? So far, we have three cards that generate VP. Maybe this set has twelve debt cards, then it's clearly a nerf. Probably it doesn't have that much, and it maybe has some other VP generating cards which would buff Possession but it's definitely too early to determine the new strength of possession.

I don't think you can call it a nerf when it never existed that you could use Possession + Debt that way (except maybe in early playtesting). It's only a nerf versus a theoretical interaction that doesn't and never has existed. That's like saying that Smithy being +3 cards is a nerf vs if Smithy were +4 cards.

No, but the way Debt interacts with Possession is a counter to Possession. Buying a debt card before my opponent possesses me looks pretty strong.

But buying Debt cards while you Possess somebody is even stronger. In both cases the possessee is left deep in debt, but in the second case the possessor gained a card.
The net result would be very heavily pro-possession. (it's essentially a coin-production pin)

I think you missed Donalds post on Page 2. If you buy a card on a Possession turn, you get the debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 09, 2016, 02:00:39 pm
How can you all already determine whether it is a buff or nerf for Possession? So far, we have three cards that generate VP. Maybe this set has twelve debt cards, then it's clearly a nerf. Probably it doesn't have that much, and it maybe has some other VP generating cards which would buff Possession but it's definitely too early to determine the new strength of possession.

I don't think you can call it a nerf when it never existed that you could use Possession + Debt that way (except maybe in early playtesting). It's only a nerf versus a theoretical interaction that doesn't and never has existed. That's like saying that Smithy being +3 cards is a nerf vs if Smithy were +4 cards.

No, but the way Debt interacts with Possession is a counter to Possession. Buying a debt card before my opponent possesses me looks pretty strong.

But buying Debt cards while you Possess somebody is even stronger. In both cases the possessee is left deep in debt, but in the second case the possessor gained a card.
The net result would be very heavily pro-possession. (it's essentially a coin-production pin)

I think you missed Donalds post on Page 2. If you buy a card on a Possession turn, you get the debt.

I thought you were still talking to Possession-as-is rather than Possession-as-it-will-be. They should get different names or something.

Speaking of which, Donald, when will the change take effect? Immediately, as soon as MF implements it (few months), 2017...?

Also, while I'm Possessing, does my opponent use my token like their own in full (under my direction) or do they spend theirs and whatever they gain goes to me?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: drsteelhammer on May 09, 2016, 02:06:37 pm

I thought you were still talking to Possession-as-is rather than Possession-as-it-will-be. They should get different names or something.

Speaking of which, Donald, when will the change take effect? Immediately, as soon as MF implements it (few months), 2017...?

Also, while I'm Possessing, does my opponent use my token like their own in full (under my direction) or do they spend theirs and whatever they gain goes to me?

I'm pretty sure everything stays the same, except that the VP/Coin tokens go to the other play. So you can use their token, but can't generat new ones with Baker for them, as you'll receive them instead.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Davio on May 09, 2016, 02:07:40 pm
I wonder if there will be online only headaches in there to implement just to make it harder for Stef and Philip. >:(
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: faust on May 09, 2016, 02:11:10 pm
Speaking of which, Donald, when will the change take effect? Immediately, as soon as MF implements it (few months), 2017...?

What is the purpose of this question? I mean, if you want to use the new rules for Possession IRL, go ahead and do it. I doubt Donald will come out and say "Don't you dare use the errata IRL before MF implemented them!"

And "as soon as MF implements it" probably equals never.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: faust on May 09, 2016, 02:14:41 pm
City Quarter: When revealing a hand of all Rats isn't so bad.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 09, 2016, 02:14:54 pm
Speaking of which, Donald, when will the change take effect? Immediately, as soon as MF implements it (few months), 2017...?

What is the purpose of this question? I mean, if you want to use the new rules for Possession IRL, go ahead and do it. I doubt Donald will come out and say "Don't you dare use the errata IRL before MF implemented them!"

And "as soon as MF implements it" probably equals never.

I was thinking specifically about online, but I guess 2017 is the only answer that makes sense, you're right.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: trivialknot on May 09, 2016, 02:15:40 pm
Strategy speculation: With debt, high payoff cards become better.  Adventurer, Harvest, Giant, Death Cart, Coppersmith, Counting House are all considered weak, and their most common usage is to spike provinces.  But now you can also use them to pay off debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 09, 2016, 02:17:17 pm
Speaking of which, Donald, when will the change take effect? Immediately, as soon as MF implements it (few months), 2017...?

What is the purpose of this question? I mean, if you want to use the new rules for Possession IRL, go ahead and do it. I doubt Donald will come out and say "Don't you dare use the errata IRL before MF implemented them!"

And "as soon as MF implements it" probably equals never.

I'm in the middle of a game IRL this very moment. My opponent just finished his KC-Possession turn where he couldn't do much with my extra turns because I just had a bunch of Monuments. Now I'm playing my KC-Possession megaturn and am going to play all of HIS monuments and take all the VP tokens for myself, because this rule change took place after his turn but before mine.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: faust on May 09, 2016, 02:19:18 pm
Adventurer, Harvest, Giant, Death Cart, Coppersmith, Counting House are all considered weak, and their most common usage is to spike provinces.

I kind of doubt that any of those cards' most common usage is to spike Provinces. They're mostly eninge payload, except Counting House, and the main usage of that one is to spike Colonies.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: math on May 09, 2016, 02:29:24 pm
First impressions of the cards themselves:

Royal Blacksmith looks like it will be really strong in any deck that has a way to trash Treasures (Mine might actually be worth it here, if there's nothing else).  It is expensive, but the debt makes it a bit easier to buy, and the strength looks better than Hunting Grounds.  Another thing to note is that if you play two, you've already discarded some Coppers, so the downside isn't as bad the second time.

City Quarter looks good, but it will need the right deck.  If you are playing this without at least 2 other action cards in hand, you probably bought it too early.  It works extremely well with start-of-turn draw effects (Wharf, Caravan, Haunted Woods, Prince, Dungeon).  Other non-terminal draw cards can help out as well if your deck is at least 50% actions.  If you can draw enough actions in your starting hand, this card can stack explosively, similar to Madman or Crossroads. 

Capital seems risky.  Here's a thought experiment.  Let's say you buy this over Gold.  (I know I'm comparing it to a $6 card, but Gold is a good comparison point for a lot of $5 cards.)  Compared to Gold, on the turn you play it, this card gives you +$3, +1 Buy now and -$6 next turn.  Is that really worth it?  My guess is that most of the time the answer will be no.
Obviously there are a lot of weak points with my thought experiment.  Capital is better than this scenario if you don't have another source of +Buy, if you only have $5 the turn you buy it, if you play it on your last turn, if you need to spike large amounts of money quickly for King's Court or something similar, or if you have a way to keep it from being discarded (Mandarin, Counterfeit, Herbalist).  Overall, I think it will be a situational card, and I don't see myself buying it very often.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Deadlock39 on May 09, 2016, 02:29:50 pm
So, maybe it's just me, but it seems like the Possession/Debt issue could have also been solved by just sticking the rule into the Debt rules (If you receive Debt while being possessed, the debt is transferred to the possessor.) Maybe that is just somehow not an acceptable way to make the ruling, but if it was done that way, Possession wouldn't need errata, and it wouldn't change how all the other tokens have always worked.

Edit:
Of course Donald could have also chosen to only errata Debt tokens and not all tokens, so maybe he just prefers it this way.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Burning Skull on May 09, 2016, 02:33:08 pm
That's brutal. Not only you can't buy yourself a loan while being in debt, but you can't even hope for alms.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: trivialknot on May 09, 2016, 02:33:33 pm
Adventurer, Harvest, Giant, Death Cart, Coppersmith, Counting House are all considered weak, and their most common usage is to spike provinces.

I kind of doubt that any of those cards' most common usage is to spike Provinces. They're mostly eninge payload, except Counting House, and the main usage of that one is to spike Colonies.
Well maybe it depends on the kind of decks you tend to play.  Around here in meatspace we play more money-ish decks, and it always seems like the f.ds people are focused on the megaturn engines.

The interesting thing about both City Quarter and Royal Blacksmith is that debt seems to anti-synergize with their on-play effects.  They both seem like great engine cards, but the debt mechanic reduces the number of engine components you can pick up.  Also, debt lets you buy them early, but you'd really rather not.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 02:39:13 pm
Time for more Sage jokes!

Sage stops for Capital - someone needs to pay for his research!

Sage skips over City Quarter - he takes the light rail right to his Lab.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: amoffett11 on May 09, 2016, 02:40:58 pm
If you buy a Debt card and you have no treasure in your deck (and no virtual money or gainers or anything) I guess you've just locked yourself out of the game!  You can't even buy a single copper to start pulling yourself out. 

It seems to me that some people are suggesting that with +10 buys, you could buy 10 debt cards in a single turn, and just worry about the massive debt later (or never, if the game has just ended).  My interpretation of the rule, and I could be missing something, is that I can only buy one debt card if I can't pay it off.  Example:  buy City quarter with 4, I now have 4 debt, I try to buy another oh wait I can't buy anything because I have debt now.  Or are others correct, and I can buy 2 City Quarters with my 2 buys and just amass $16 worth of debt all at once? 

Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 09, 2016, 02:43:58 pm
If you buy a Debt card and you have no treasure in your deck (and no virtual money or gainers or anything) I guess you've just locked yourself out of the game!  You can't even buy a single copper to start pulling yourself out.

Fact!

It seems to me that some people are suggesting that with +10 buys, you could buy 10 debt cards in a single turn, and just worry about the massive debt later (or never, if the game has just ended).  My interpretation of the rule, and I could be missing something, is that I can only buy one debt card if I can't pay it off.  Example:  buy City quarter with 4, I now have 4 debt, I try to buy another oh wait I can't buy anything because I have debt now.  Or are others correct, and I can buy 2 City Quarters with my 2 buys and just amass $16 worth of debt all at once?

Your interpretation is correct. The only way you can buy a ton of Debt cards without paying them off in between is if you're possessing someone and you're accumulating the Debt tokens as they buy cards for you.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Kirian on May 09, 2016, 02:47:29 pm
It seems to me that some people are suggesting that with +10 buys, you could buy 10 debt cards in a single turn, and just worry about the massive debt later (or never, if the game has just ended).  My interpretation of the rule, and I could be missing something, is that I can only buy one debt card if I can't pay it off.  Example:  buy City quarter with 4, I now have 4 debt, I try to buy another oh wait I can't buy anything because I have debt now.  Or are others correct, and I can buy 2 City Quarters with my 2 buys and just amass $16 worth of debt all at once?

The people talking about using massive +Buy to gain a ton of Debt cards are mostly talking about Possession turns.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Mic Qsenoch on May 09, 2016, 02:48:04 pm
Capital seems risky.  Here's a thought experiment.  Let's say you buy this over Gold.  (I know I'm comparing it to a $6 card, but Gold is a good comparison point for a lot of $5 cards.)  Compared to Gold, on the turn you play it, this card gives you +$3, +1 Buy now and -$6 next turn.  Is that really worth it?  My guess is that most of the time the answer will be no.
Obviously there are a lot of weak points with my thought experiment.  Capital is better than this scenario if you don't have another source of +Buy, if you only have $5 the turn you buy it, if you play it on your last turn, if you need to spike large amounts of money quickly for King's Court or something similar, or if you have a way to keep it from being discarded (Mandarin, Counterfeit, Herbalist).  Overall, I think it will be a situational card, and I don't see myself buying it very often.

Besides the things you've mentioned, money now is just more valuable than money later. Playing Capital (to buy nice things, or maybe even 2 nice things) or buying a card with Debt will immediately help your deck improve and possibly increase the output of money on the very next turn.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: math on May 09, 2016, 02:52:11 pm
Capital seems risky.  Here's a thought experiment.  Let's say you buy this over Gold.  (I know I'm comparing it to a $6 card, but Gold is a good comparison point for a lot of $5 cards.)  Compared to Gold, on the turn you play it, this card gives you +$3, +1 Buy now and -$6 next turn.  Is that really worth it?  My guess is that most of the time the answer will be no.
Obviously there are a lot of weak points with my thought experiment.  Capital is better than this scenario if you don't have another source of +Buy, if you only have $5 the turn you buy it, if you play it on your last turn, if you need to spike large amounts of money quickly for King's Court or something similar, or if you have a way to keep it from being discarded (Mandarin, Counterfeit, Herbalist).  Overall, I think it will be a situational card, and I don't see myself buying it very often.

Besides the things you've mentioned, money now is just more valuable than money later. Playing Capital (to buy nice things, or maybe even 2 nice things) or buying a card with Debt will immediately help your deck improve and possibly increase the output of money on the very next turn.

I thought about this, and most of the time I just don't think it will be worth it.  How many cards can you buy with an extra $3 that will increase your money by $3 next turn?  That's what it would take for Capital to be worth it.  King's Court seems to qualify, but I can't think of many others.  Obviously that will be board dependent.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 02:55:35 pm
Speaking of which, Donald, when will the change take effect? Immediately, as soon as MF implements it (few months), 2017...?
It went into effect Friday. I hope you've been playing it correctly.

Also, while I'm Possessing, does my opponent use my token like their own in full (under my direction) or do they spend theirs and whatever they gain goes to me?
Always remember that Possession is the other player taking a turn in which you make the decisions and get the cards and now tokens.

I Possess you, you have debt, that prevents you from buying cards. I could have you pay off debt. I can have you convert your coin tokens to $. It's all you doing stuff that I make the decisions for.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 09, 2016, 02:57:00 pm
Guys: be careful with Royal Blacksmith.  If your deck is mostly Coppers, it can end up decreasing your handsize.

I don't think you need to "be careful" with that... Warehouse and Cellar also decrease your handsize, but that's ok because you replace those discarded Coppers with better cards. Granted, you don't want to open Royal Blacksmith and play it on turn 3....

Woah, I didn't even realize until reading another recent post.... this is way worse than I thought. If you open Royal Blacksmith, you instantly lose the game. If you and your opponent both open Royal Blacksmith, you must play on forever until one of you starves to death. Always bring a snack, that's my advice.

*Edit* Never mind, forgot you can pay off $8 with only max $5 in your hand, just takes multiple turns.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: ced on May 09, 2016, 02:58:16 pm
Debt as a mechanic basically allows more flexibility with your buys. You can buy these for 8 straight up, buy them for 6-7 if you're a couple coins short, buy them for 4 now and 4 the next turn. I think the most important part about when you go into debt is that the card you're adding to your deck is immediately good. You can go into debt on your opening buys, but I don't imagine that's going to be useful a lot of the time, certainly not with the two previewed actions. If you can play your big debt card a turn or two down the line, then its ideally going to finish paying for itself and then some.

City Quarter is a Village with a mix of Crossroads/Scrying Pool style unbounded draw. Unlike Scrying Pool, though, City Quarter is not going to be that good at kickstarting your turn unless you have such incredibly high action density that over half your starting hand is actions. It will be best at drawing the rest of your deck once you're halfway through it. Trashing and sifting are a great aid to avoid it choking on stop cards.

Royal Blacksmith, on the other hand, is very good at kickstarting a turn. If you can't trash your starting coppers, I suspect it will play out a lot like Embassy - but Embassy is a pretty good card and you get to not give your opponent a Silver. With all the actions you draw, you should be able to get back to your discarded coppers again. You could also use sifting again - Warehouse away the coppers you're about to discard anyway.

Capital works with debt a little differently. In a sense, it turns every card on the board into a debt card. Buy Province now, pay for it later in the Tournament game, buy KC now so you can start having megaturns and easily pay off the debt. This seems pretty good, actually. The two debt cost cards previewed don't seem that strong for 8 straight up, so that's where the debt comes in as an advantage. If you have cards competitively costed at 5/6/7, then debt is a huge buff. Then this card costs 5, generates net 0 coins until the final turn, when it generates 6. That's ok too - the extra free cash should help end the game. Edit: oh there's also the Herbalist/Mandarin thing that others have mentioned.

This all makes me wish Prince was a debt card. It's often a pain to hit 8 early enough for Prince to matter, so debt would help you buy it as soon as you think you can line it up with the right action.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Cuzz on May 09, 2016, 02:58:47 pm
If you buy a Debt card and you have no treasure in your deck (and no virtual money or gainers or anything) I guess you've just locked yourself out of the game!  You can't even buy a single copper to start pulling yourself out. 

How does this happen? (Not claiming it can't, just curious on the possibilities--maybe Spoils play a role?)

Also, may have been answered before, but paying off debt does NOT use a Buy, correct?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 09, 2016, 02:59:23 pm
Guys: be careful with Royal Blacksmith.  If your deck is mostly Coppers, it can end up decreasing your handsize.

I don't think you need to "be careful" with that... Warehouse and Cellar also decrease your handsize, but that's ok because you replace those discarded Coppers with better cards. Granted, you don't want to open Royal Blacksmith and play it on turn 3....

Woah, I didn't even realize until reading another recent post.... this is way worse than I thought. If you open Royal Blacksmith, you instantly lose the game. If you and your opponent both open Royal Blacksmith, you must play on forever until one of you starves to death. Always bring a snack, that's my advice.

What? It doesn't trash your Coppers, it just discards them.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: michaeljb on May 09, 2016, 02:59:30 pm
Guys: be careful with Royal Blacksmith.  If your deck is mostly Coppers, it can end up decreasing your handsize.

I don't think you need to "be careful" with that... Warehouse and Cellar also decrease your handsize, but that's ok because you replace those discarded Coppers with better cards. Granted, you don't want to open Royal Blacksmith and play it on turn 3....

Woah, I didn't even realize until reading another recent post.... this is way worse than I thought. If you open Royal Blacksmith, you instantly lose the game. If you and your opponent both open Royal Blacksmith, you must play on forever until one of you starves to death. Always bring a snack, that's my advice.

Well you don't have to play Action cards on your turn.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 09, 2016, 02:59:38 pm
Can't you conceivably also make it so that you're in debt the turn your opponent possesses you, so he can't buy anything at all?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: singletee on May 09, 2016, 03:01:28 pm
Guys: be careful with Royal Blacksmith.  If your deck is mostly Coppers, it can end up decreasing your handsize.

I don't think you need to "be careful" with that... Warehouse and Cellar also decrease your handsize, but that's ok because you replace those discarded Coppers with better cards. Granted, you don't want to open Royal Blacksmith and play it on turn 3....

Woah, I didn't even realize until reading another recent post.... this is way worse than I thought. If you open Royal Blacksmith, you instantly lose the game. If you and your opponent both open Royal Blacksmith, you must play on forever until one of you starves to death. Always bring a snack, that's my advice.

You aren't self-pinned. You can gradually pay off the debt with your coppers until you are debt-free.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: michaeljb on May 09, 2016, 03:02:14 pm
Can't you conceivably also make it so that you're in debt the turn your opponent possesses you, so he can't buy anything at all?

Your opponent can choose to make you pay off your debt, then if you made enough money you can buy more cards for him to gain.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 09, 2016, 03:02:45 pm
Guys: be careful with Royal Blacksmith.  If your deck is mostly Coppers, it can end up decreasing your handsize.

I don't think you need to "be careful" with that... Warehouse and Cellar also decrease your handsize, but that's ok because you replace those discarded Coppers with better cards. Granted, you don't want to open Royal Blacksmith and play it on turn 3....

Woah, I didn't even realize until reading another recent post.... this is way worse than I thought. If you open Royal Blacksmith, you instantly lose the game. If you and your opponent both open Royal Blacksmith, you must play on forever until one of you starves to death. Always bring a snack, that's my advice.

What? It doesn't trash your Coppers, it just discards them.

I was thinking that with only $5 in your hand, you wouldn't be able to ever pay off your deck. But I forgot that of course you can just split the payoff over multiple turns.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Polk5440 on May 09, 2016, 03:02:55 pm
I am trying to think of the problem interaction that prevented Debt cost cards from being coin cost cards with the added ability of being able to purchase with Debt, and I am coming up short. Is Swindler that bad? Remodel too good?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: michaeljb on May 09, 2016, 03:04:18 pm
If you buy a Debt card and you have no treasure in your deck (and no virtual money or gainers or anything) I guess you've just locked yourself out of the game!  You can't even buy a single copper to start pulling yourself out. 
How does this happen? (Not claiming it can't, just curious on the possibilities--maybe Spoils play a role?)

Open Chapel, trash all your cards, after Chapel is the only card in your deck, buy a Debt card, now you can't buy anything and have no way of paying off the debt; your only hope is an opponent Masquerading you something that gives you +Coins.

Also, may have been answered before, but paying off debt does NOT use a Buy, correct?

Correct
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: jsh357 on May 09, 2016, 03:06:11 pm
I am trying to think of the problem interaction that prevented Debt cost cards from being coin cost cards with the added ability of being able to purchase with Debt, and I am coming up short. Is Swindler that bad? Remodel too good?

We did try them that way in some fashion. Swindler was, in fact, horrifying.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 09, 2016, 03:09:02 pm
I am trying to think of the problem interaction that prevented Debt cost cards from being coin cost cards with the added ability of being able to purchase with Debt, and I am coming up short. Is Swindler that bad? Remodel too good?

We did try them that way in some fashion. Swindler was, in fact, horrifying.

I think Swindler is probably my least favorite card in the entire game.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 03:10:03 pm
Also, may have been answered before, but paying off debt does NOT use a Buy, correct?
Paying off debt does not use a Buy.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 03:24:10 pm
Also, may have been answered before, but paying off debt does NOT use a Buy, correct?

Correct.  That's how Capital lets you pay off Debt in your Clean-up phase.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 03:26:45 pm
So, I assume Debt, VP and Coin Tokens work this way, then. What about Pirate Ship tokens?
Yes, you also get those tokens.
LF has reminded me that no, you don't get Pirate Ship tokens.

If you got them, they would just be regular coin tokens, not on a mat; remember other information is lost (e.g. their Bureaucrat gives you Silver in your discard pile, not on your deck).

Pirate Ship needs a clearer phrasing to deal with Guilds existing and that phrasing also has to be clearly different from getting tokens the other ways.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on May 09, 2016, 03:30:33 pm
Will your previews be posted at the same time tomorrow?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Cuzz on May 09, 2016, 03:31:42 pm
If you buy a Debt card and you have no treasure in your deck (and no virtual money or gainers or anything) I guess you've just locked yourself out of the game!  You can't even buy a single copper to start pulling yourself out. 
How does this happen? (Not claiming it can't, just curious on the possibilities--maybe Spoils play a role?)

Open Chapel, trash all your cards, after Chapel is the only card in your deck, buy a Debt card, now you can't buy anything and have no way of paying off the debt; your only hope is an opponent Masquerading you something that gives you +Coins.

Oh duh, somehow I keep thinking you would have to have hit $8 to have bought the card even though not having to do so is literally the entire point.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 03:33:28 pm
Will your previews be posted at the same time tomorrow?
Well they won't be earlier. The plan is to have them around the same time but I won't know for sure until it happens.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Marcory on May 09, 2016, 03:34:31 pm
Wow, this Debt sure has a high rate of interest.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 03:37:26 pm
I am trying to think of the problem interaction that prevented Debt cost cards from being coin cost cards with the added ability of being able to purchase with Debt, and I am coming up short. Is Swindler that bad? Remodel too good?
It's not just interactions, where some are nice and some not. It's also, that reddish hexagon with an 8 on it is the entirety of what City Quarter uses to invoke this mechanic. Rather than, you know, a bunch of text.

Originally they had big costs. Then they had like "when you gain this during your turn, take 8 Debt" (these are the ones where Swindler really hurt). The 8 in the corner was the best approach; I could have gone back if it hadn't been better.

Edit: To clarify this for some of you, the reason having Swindler hit "when you gain this during your turn, take 8 Debt" really hurt is because the card itself cost $0; they Swindle it into a Curse and you lose the card you paid $8 for. You never got Debt via having your card Swindled; note the "during your turn."
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: J Reggie on May 09, 2016, 03:54:36 pm
Capital and Wine Merchant seem similar. Also, they have an interesting interaction. I think that when you discard Wine Merchants, you can still use those $2 to pay off debt, because you get to choose the order of things. Is this true, or does Wine Merchant always happen last?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: flaquito on May 09, 2016, 03:56:16 pm
It's not just interactions, where some are nice and some not. It's also, that reddish hexagon with an 8 on it is the entirety of what City Quarter uses to invoke this mechanic. Rather than, you know, a bunch of text.

Originally they had big costs. Then they had like "when you gain this during your turn, take 8 Debt" (these are the ones where Swindler really hurt). The 8 in the corner was the best approach; I could have gone back if it hadn't been better.

So, if a card that "costs X debt" gets hit by Swindler, then it just gets trashed and replaced by a card that costs the same X debt, without the player accruing additional debt tokens?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 09, 2016, 03:57:13 pm
Capital and Wine Merchant seem similar. Also, they have an interesting interaction. I think that when you discard Wine Merchants, you can still use those $2 to pay off debt, because you get to choose the order of things. Is this true, or does Wine Merchant always happen last?

No... You have to pay of debts in your buy phase. Wine Merchant checks if you have $2 at the end of your buy phase. It's not yet the end of your buy phase if you're still doing things in your buy phase like paying off debts.

*Edit* Sorry, that was for the normal case of paying off debts. If you are discarding a Capital from play, then you get an extra chance to pay off debts, in which case yes, you can pay off debts with the $2 you had at the end of your buy phase.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 03:57:32 pm
Capital and Wine Merchant seem similar. Also, they have an interesting interaction. I think that when you discard Wine Merchants, you can still use those $2 to pay off debt, because you get to choose the order of things. Is this true, or does Wine Merchant always happen last?

You would discard Capital after the end of your Buy phase, so you could release your Wine Merchants and still use your excess coin to pay off debt.  That is, specifically Capital's debt.  You would have to pay off other debt accrued that Buy phase first.  Although... do you have to pay off debt?  Could you leave (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) for your Wine Merchants and just keep those 2 extra Debt tokens?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 09, 2016, 04:00:14 pm
Capital and Wine Merchant seem similar. Also, they have an interesting interaction. I think that when you discard Wine Merchants, you can still use those $2 to pay off debt, because you get to choose the order of things. Is this true, or does Wine Merchant always happen last?

You would discard Capital after the end of your Buy phase, so you could release your Wine Merchants and still use your excess coin to pay off debt.  That is, specifically Capital's debt.  You would have to pay off other debt accrued that Buy phase first.  Although... do you have to pay off debt?  Could you leave (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) for your Wine Merchants and just keep those 2 extra Debt tokens?

No rule was mentioned about being forced to pay off debts, so it seems pretty clear to me that you could keep the debt and discard Wine Merchant.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 09, 2016, 04:05:53 pm
Wine Merchant gets bought back at the end of the buy phase. So you can first get your Wine Merchant back, then discard Capital and use the 2$ to pay of debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: markusin on May 09, 2016, 04:08:31 pm
I also love that Possession is getting a nerf. It's not the best card in the world to begin with, but now it's even not as good. :)

It's getting a buff. Previously, you could counter Possession by going for Goons and Bishop and Monument, but now if you do that, your opponent will get the tokens instead when he possesses you.

I haven't skimmed the whole thread yet, but we don't know if there will be more VP generating cards than debt cards. It's too soon to know for sure whether it's a buff or a nerf. It's possibly a nerf against Guilds coin token cards too since they can't be stockpiled for use across multiple possession turns.

Possession is going to be weird with debt because the possessee can be made to buy like 10 debt cards in one turn. Then the Possessor can just focus on playing Possession while preventing the opponent from buying anything and pulling the same trick when they themselves are possessed, because of all the debt. The lesson here is to avoid +buy cards in a Possession game with debt cards.

So like, people have been listing the hundreds of little ways that Mission rocks. I imagine debt cards will be strong for similar reasons given how dramatic their effects are.

I like that the debt cards avoid the King's Court problem where "first one to get it wins". These cards are always accessible so long as you have no debt, similar to Chapel. I imagine these were ideas that were too difficult to price fairly without the introduction of debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 04:10:07 pm
The problem with Mission "synergy" is that you can't buy the Mission in the first place if you're in Debt.  :)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 09, 2016, 04:10:44 pm
The problem with Mission "synergy" is that you can't buy the Mission in the first place if you're in Debt.  :)

But you can buy Mission, then buy a Debt card. Which can be worth it if you're likely to make more than $4 next turn.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 04:11:13 pm
The problem with Mission "synergy" is that you can't buy the Mission in the first place if you're in Debt.  :)

But you can buy Mission, then buy a Debt card.

True.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: drsteelhammer on May 09, 2016, 04:11:43 pm
The problem with Mission "synergy" is that you can't buy the Mission in the first place if you're in Debt.  :)

Why don't you buy mission first?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 04:13:01 pm
So, if a card that "costs X debt" gets hit by Swindler, then it just gets trashed and replaced by a card that costs the same X debt, without the player accruing additional debt tokens?
Buying City Quarter gets you 8 Debt. That's the only way City Quarter gives you Debt; it doesn't give it to you if you gain one via Jester or Swindler or Remodel or what have you.

There were never versions that gave you Debt when gaining these via Jester or Swindler or Remodel or what have you; when they said "when you gain this during your turn, take 8 Debt" they had that "during your turn" to stop e.g. Ambassador from being a big Debt attack.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Awaclus on May 09, 2016, 04:13:41 pm
I haven't skimmed the whole thread yet, but we don't know if there will be more VP generating cards than debt cards. It's too soon to know for sure whether it's a buff or a nerf. It's possibly a nerf against Guilds coin token cards too since they can't be stockpiled for use across multiple possession turns.

Well, I was only considering the existing card interactions. I guess it could be considered a nerf if you take into account the new cards.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Tables on May 09, 2016, 04:18:00 pm
Strategic thought: Buying debt cards right before a reshuffle, if you have a mediocre hand, might be a good play. It lets you squeeze one more good card into your next reshuffle without the debt affecting it. It does of course affect the next shuffle, but hey that shuffle is better now anyway thanks to your debt purchase.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 04:19:56 pm
This was asked over on BGG, but I want to make sure - can you pay off Debt during Black Market's buy?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 04:20:17 pm
This was asked over on BGG, but I want to make sure - can you pay off Debt during Black Market's buy?
You can't.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Ankenaut on May 09, 2016, 04:32:42 pm
Maybe this can't be answered yet, but how many debt tokens come with Empires? Do they come in different denominations like VP tokens do?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 04:35:22 pm
Maybe this can't be answered yet, but how many debt tokens come with Empires? Do they come in different denominations like VP tokens do?
There are 40 and they are all 1's. They are not counter-limited but it's hard to rack up Debt; City Quarter for example never lets you have more than 8 Debt, except with Possession.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: DoomYoshi on May 09, 2016, 04:49:41 pm
After thinking about it, it's pretty clear that overall Possession is getting a buff, just based on the information we already have.

Yes, you can get into debt to shut down a turn of Possession. If that is the only reason you are getting into debt for, you might have some problems with the deck.

Imagine an engine that uses capital to make a bunch of money and then plans to pay it all off on the next turn. It would have to be reliable enough to not be a defense against Possession to be effective as an engine (a crazy sentence, but I think the flow is there).
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Polk5440 on May 09, 2016, 04:55:29 pm
I am trying to think of the problem interaction that prevented Debt cost cards from being coin cost cards with the added ability of being able to purchase with Debt, and I am coming up short. Is Swindler that bad? Remodel too good?
It's not just interactions, where some are nice and some not. It's also, that reddish hexagon with an 8 on it is the entirety of what City Quarter uses to invoke this mechanic. Rather than, you know, a bunch of text.

Originally they had big costs. Then they had like "when you gain this during your turn, take 8 Debt" (these are the ones where Swindler really hurt). The 8 in the corner was the best approach; I could have gone back if it hadn't been better.

Edit: To clarify this for some of you, the reason having Swindler hit "when you gain this during your turn, take 8 Debt" really hurt is because the card itself cost $0; they Swindle it into a Curse and you lose the card you paid $8 for. You never got Debt via having your card Swindled; note the "during your turn."

I was definitely thinking Swindler would turn red hex 8 into Province, not Curse. The way it is, the Debt cost cards have the Potion cost problem with Swindler: when a pile is empty and you hit that Debt cost card, it's likely you get NOTHING, not even a Province.

I was imagining something similar to Peddler: 8* with text allowing you to lower the cost by taking on Debt. Yeah, wall of text is a good reason not to do that. However, it doesn't preclude just defining the red hex 8 to be "regular cost 8, but you may take on debt to finance this card",  just like the starred costs are still in coin.

But perhaps my curiosity about how this developed will be in the eagerly awaited Secret History of Empires.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 09, 2016, 04:57:30 pm
Speaking of which, Donald, when will the change take effect? Immediately, as soon as MF implements it (few months), 2017...?
It went into effect Friday. I hope you've been playing it correctly.

Also, while I'm Possessing, does my opponent use my token like their own in full (under my direction) or do they spend theirs and whatever they gain goes to me?
Always remember that Possession is the other player taking a turn in which you make the decisions and get the cards and now tokens.

I Possess you, you have debt, that prevents you from buying cards. I could have you pay off debt. I can have you convert your coin tokens to $. It's all you doing stuff that I make the decisions for.

Thanks for the clarification.
Out of curiosity, do you plan to change the card text of the online version of Possession and of new printings?



The new Possession has a cool interaction with Coin token cards. If you can reliably play Possession, your payload in coin tokens is essentially guaranteed to be available only to you. Your opponent may or may not choose to play your Bakers, but if they do play them, you'll be the one using those tokens anyway. It's kind of similar to how vp cards are in old-P, only lopsided. Keeping tokens from turn to turn is still a bad idea, and getting Butcher is also still a pretty bad idea.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 04:58:16 pm
This was asked over on BGG, but I want to make sure - can you pay off Debt during Black Market's buy?
You can't.

And you can't buy from the Black Market if you have Debt?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 09, 2016, 04:59:20 pm
This was asked over on BGG, but I want to make sure - can you pay off Debt during Black Market's buy?
You can't.

And you can't buy from the Black Market if you have Debt?

Correct.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: flaquito on May 09, 2016, 05:00:58 pm
It's interesting to me that the two debt-cost cards previewed are both absolutely terrible opening-round buys. City Quarter will at best replace itself if you draw your other action with it (assuming the other opening buy was an action). Royal Blacksmith will at worst discard every treasure you have, and at best leave you with a single silver, if that was your other opening buy. I'll be curious to see if the remainder of the debt-cost cards are just as bad as openers, or if there may be some that make the initial crippling debt worthwhile.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Elestan on May 09, 2016, 05:03:17 pm
Maybe this can't be answered yet, but how many debt tokens come with Empires? Do they come in different denominations like VP tokens do?
There are 40 and they are all 1's. They are not counter-limited but it's hard to rack up Debt; City Quarter for example never lets you have more than 8 Debt, except with Possession.

Capital can accumulate quite a bit though; I believe 18 was my record, in a highly-leveraged Storyteller engine. That game also set my record for most coin in a single turn, with 104.  [Edit:  Which I can now reveal was after using Fortune to double it.]
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 05:05:14 pm
Out of curiosity, do you plan to change the card text of the online version of Possession and of new printings?
Yes, eventually.

The new Possession has a cool interaction with Coin token cards. If you can reliably play Possession, your payload in coin tokens is essentially guaranteed to be available only to you. Your opponent may or may not choose to play your Bakers, but if they do play them, you'll be the one using those tokens anyway. It's kind of similar to how vp cards are in old-P, only lopsided. Keeping tokens from turn to turn is still a bad idea, and getting Butcher is also still a pretty bad idea.
I am not sure I follow you. If I possess you and make you play Baker, I get the coin token.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 09, 2016, 05:12:02 pm
Out of curiosity, do you plan to change the card text of the online version of Possession and of new printings?
Yes, eventually.

The new Possession has a cool interaction with Coin token cards. If you can reliably play Possession, your payload in coin tokens is essentially guaranteed to be available only to you. Your opponent may or may not choose to play your Bakers, but if they do play them, you'll be the one using those tokens anyway. It's kind of similar to how vp cards are in old-P, only lopsided. Keeping tokens from turn to turn is still a bad idea, and getting Butcher is also still a pretty bad idea.
I am not sure I follow you. If I possess you and make you play Baker, I get the coin token.

And if I can reliably play Possession, I'm going to use that coin before you can.
Unless I'm getting this rule change wrong in the third different way since I've heard about it. -.-'
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 09, 2016, 05:20:48 pm
Thoughts before reading 160+ replies in this thread...

Debt is a surprise to me.  Similar ideas have been discussed on fan cards.  I like that it's present on multiple cards as a set mechanic rather than on just one specific card, justifying the extra complexity and components.  But it's also actually very simple.  Instead of having to resolve interest, it's just an easily understood ban on buying anything else.

It'll be interesting to see how Debt-costing cards compare to other cards with non-Debt costs.  Potion is still pretty easy to grok, in that the Potion-cost limits you to gaining only one Potion-cost card per shuffle per Potion you have.  The need to line up Potion with other money means that more expensive Potion cards like Golem and Possession are that much harder to get.

OTOH, Debt-cost cards are easy to get, because you could even get them for free.  But you'll pay for it later, and that can be a real problem if you're not careful.  Neither City Quarter nor Royal Blacksmith seem like they are worth $8 up-front, but splitting the costs into multiple turns makes them more palatable.  In a sense, it's like Tactician where you sacrifice one turn to make another turn way better.  In this case, you get the good turn first (where you buy the powerful card) and then weaken your next turn or two while you pay off the debt.  Capital emphasizes this multi-turn pacing even more by advancing you $6 that will be taken from your next turn(s).

Theme-wise, I really like Royal Blacksmith.  He's a particularly skilled Smithy, but he refuses to work with inferior metals.  Nice.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 09, 2016, 05:24:38 pm
OTOH, Debt-cost cards are easy to get, because you could even get them for free.  But you'll pay for it later, and that can be a real problem if you're not careful.  Neither City Quarter nor Royal Blacksmith seem like they are worth $8 up-front, but splitting the costs into multiple turns makes them more palatable.  In a sense, it's like Tactician where you sacrifice one turn to make another turn way better.  In this case, you get the good turn first (where you buy the powerful card) and then weaken your next turn or two while you pay off the debt.  Capital emphasizes this multi-turn pacing even more by advancing you $6 that will be taken from your next turn(s).

What I like about them, design-wise, is that they are both quite terrible if you get them too early, and this compensates the lack of an entry barrier to get them.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 09, 2016, 05:26:20 pm
I am not sure I follow you. If I possess you and make you play Baker, I get the coin token.

And if I can reliably play Possession, I'm going to use that coin before you can.
Unless I'm getting this rule change wrong in the third different way since I've heard about it. -.-'
Oh I see.

Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: pst on May 09, 2016, 05:41:55 pm
Capital seems to be a good way to get Grand Markets. $6 so you can afford it, and then you can pay it off next turn, without having to bother about the Copper rule.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crlundy on May 09, 2016, 05:50:11 pm
So much of this discussion is about Possession instead of Empires, haha. But I had a few questions:

- I thought I understood the apples-and-oranges-like-Potion thing, but now I'm doubting myself. So with the way Debt ended up, the interaction with Swindler is you can only turn 8-Debt cards into other 8-Debt cards (assuming there are any left)? And you get no cards from Apprentice, and no "benefit" for Forge, etc.?
- When do your coins reset? At the end of your turn? I thought they went away at the end of your Buy phase, but that wouldn't make sense with Capital.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 09, 2016, 05:53:43 pm
- I thought I understood the apples-and-oranges-like-Potion thing, but now I'm doubting myself. So with the way Debt ended up, the interaction with Swindler is you can only turn 8-Debt cards into other 8-Debt cards (assuming there are any left)? And you get no cards from Apprentice, and no "benefit" for Forge, etc.?

Correct.

- When do your coins reset? At the end of your turn? I thought they went away at the end of your Buy phase, but that wouldn't make sense with Capital.

The end of your turn, yes.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on May 09, 2016, 06:02:45 pm
I think capital will end up being a bad card. Above stash/contraband, but still bad.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Elestan on May 09, 2016, 06:09:58 pm
I think capital will end up being a bad card. Above stash/contraband, but still bad.

I would take the other side of that bet.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 06:11:05 pm
I think capital will end up being a bad card. Above stash/contraband, but still bad.

Capital/Herbalist with a Princed Scheme buys a Province every turn.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: math on May 09, 2016, 06:14:39 pm
I think capital will end up being a bad card. Above stash/contraband, but still bad.

My initial guess would be to put it somewhere just below the middle of the list; often skippable, sometimes really good and usually not totally ignorable, similar to Knights.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: singletee on May 09, 2016, 06:15:21 pm
I think capital will end up being a bad card. Above stash/contraband, but still bad.

Capital/Herbalist with a Princed Scheme buys a Province every turn.

Why not just Prince Herbalist? Also my Minion stack laughs at such foolish notions.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on May 09, 2016, 06:15:30 pm
I think capital will end up being a bad card. Above stash/contraband, but still bad.

Capital/Herbalist with a Princed Scheme buys a Province every turn.
How?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 06:20:20 pm
I think capital will end up being a bad card. Above stash/contraband, but still bad.

Capital/Herbalist with a Princed Scheme buys a Province every turn.

Why not just Prince Herbalist? Also my Minion stack laughs at such foolish notions.

The Scheme is for Moat.  ;)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Max on May 09, 2016, 06:26:22 pm
Capital won't be a bad card. It'll be great in colony games, but could also be a useful to make mega turns.

Even with a generic board though, it works out as though you're playing a 0, but it can smooth over any inconsistencies. If you can't trash starting copper then you often find yourself with 2 buys and 7 one turn then 1 buy with 10 the next.
If the above holds, receiving the card instead of a copper: turn one allows you to buy 2 5s, and repay the four loan the next turn, still leaving you with a gold turn two; turn two it could spike double province, double gold, or just be a useful second buy.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: tastor on May 09, 2016, 06:35:21 pm
I think capital will end up being a bad card. Above stash/contraband, but still bad.

Capital/Herbalist with a Princed Scheme buys a Province every turn.
How?

Well more accurately it will get you $7 each turn but it is hard to imagine not being able to get another $1 from the 3 other cards you draw plus the extra one from Prince playing Scheme each turn.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: math on May 09, 2016, 06:35:56 pm
Capital won't be a bad card. It'll be great in colony games, but could also be a useful to make mega turns.

Even with a generic board though, it works out as though you're playing a 0, but it can smooth over any inconsistencies. If you can't trash starting copper then you often find yourself with 2 buys and 7 one turn then 1 buy with 10 the next.
If the above holds, receiving the card instead of a copper: turn one allows you to buy 2 5s, and repay the four loan the next turn, still leaving you with a gold turn two; turn two it could spike double province, double gold, or just be a useful second buy.

Yes, but almost all $5 cards compare favorably to Copper.  They just don't compare favorably to other $5 cards.  If I was offered some free Capital, I would definitely take it, but there's opportunity cost to worry about.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 09, 2016, 06:37:07 pm
New thought for fan cards (and maybe some official cards that are yet to be revealed): a cheap debt card would be a lot like a regular cost card, because you wouldn't often need to put off paying for it.  But it would have an important distinction - you can't gain it with cost-based gainers like Workshop, and you can't reduce its cost (unless there is a new card that does that specifically).  You could also mix regular coin costs and debt costs to make something that essentially reduces in cost to a positive minimum.

Because of that clause, I suspect that there will be some card that cares directly about how much debt you have or whether you have debt. Maybe something that multiplies opponents' debt. Otherwise paying off debt early would be unnecessary, since the next time you could buy a card, you could just pay off the debt then.

(Except Black Market, but that's hardly a reason for that whole line of text.)

I thought that at first, but the clause is also helpful if you don't need the full $6 from Capital.  As a simple case, suppose you only want to buy 2 Curses this turn for some reason.  You play Capital for the +Buy and don't need the $6 at all.  Without that clause, you are $6 in debt next turn.  The clause lets you pay off the debt immediately instead.  (I see Watno said this more succinctly than I did.)

I now want there to be a way to save up unused money from previous turns to pre-pay debt.
That's called coin tokens... right?

I assume you can use coin tokens to play off debt. It's a bit like a matter-antimatter annihilation.

Remember that you spend coin tokens at the start of the Buy phase to generate +$1 each; you can't just spend them any time you want.  So at the start of your buy phase, you spend however many coin tokens you want.  Then you can pay off your debt your accumulated coins, whether you got them from actions, treasures or coin tokens.

Donald. There is no Emperor card.

How do you know?

I don't know if I've said this before, but having a King/Queen/Emperor card just seems wrong, because the player is supposed to be those things. I think MTG has a thing where you can play cards that are like players, but I don't think Dominion should.

Another thing, I like that you can open with both City Quarter and Royal Blacksmith, but you don't want to.

That's why the Emperor card just has reflective foil instead of card art. ;)

How can you all already determine whether it is a buff or nerf for Possession? So far, we have three cards that generate VP. Maybe this set has twelve debt cards, then it's clearly a nerf. Probably it doesn't have that much, and it maybe has some other VP generating cards which would buff Possession but it's definitely too early to determine the new strength of possession.

Still wouldn't be clear.  The Possessor gaining the debt tokens is not necessarily a bad thing, because it means the Possessed player can continue to buy debt-cost cards without paying them off immediately.

Nobody is asking the important questions yet.

How are we going to include these in the Qvist community card rankings?

I'd count an <X> cost card as an $X card.  You don't have to pay the full coin cost up-front, but you have to pay it eventually (unless you carry it to the end of the game).

Also, may have been answered before, but paying off debt does NOT use a Buy, correct?

Correct.  That's how Capital lets you pay off Debt in your Clean-up phase.

No, Capital lets you pay off Debt in Clean-up because it says so.  It would work even if it normally cost a Buy to pay off debt, just like how Cultist lets you play another Cultist for free even though it usually requires an action.

I think capital will end up being a bad card. Above stash/contraband, but still bad.

My initial guess would be to put it somewhere just below the middle of the list; often skippable, sometimes really good and usually not totally ignorable, similar to Knights.

I'll guess that it's above the middle.  More specifically, I expect that it will be very dependent on the rest of the board.  It looks to me like one of the best cards for spiking high costs.  +$6 is better than any other static coin producer, and it doesn't even have a requirement attached to it (like Baron, for example).  You hurt your next turn or two, but that's a small price to pay to grab a quick King's Court or Grand Market, or even to reach Colony in a junky deck that keeps topping out at $5-$6 a turn.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Orange on May 09, 2016, 06:40:58 pm
I think capital will end up being a bad card. Above stash/contraband, but still bad.

Capital/Herbalist with a Princed Scheme buys a Province every turn.

I will try to remember this for the 1 in (math math math) eleventy billion games that includes four specific cards out of the 225 or so.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: singletee on May 09, 2016, 08:51:28 pm
Because of that clause, I suspect that there will be some card that cares directly about how much debt you have or whether you have debt. Maybe something that multiplies opponents' debt. Otherwise paying off debt early would be unnecessary, since the next time you could buy a card, you could just pay off the debt then.

(Except Black Market, but that's hardly a reason for that whole line of text.)

I thought that at first, but the clause is also helpful if you don't need the full $6 from Capital.  As a simple case, suppose you only want to buy 2 Curses this turn for some reason.  You play Capital for the +Buy and don't need the $6 at all.  Without that clause, you are $6 in debt next turn.  The clause lets you pay off the debt immediately instead.  (I see Watno said this more succinctly than I did.)

I got it now! I had figured you could pay off the debt after your buy anyway. But you don't actually have the debt to pay off until you discard Capital, at which point you are done buying.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: singletee on May 09, 2016, 08:55:39 pm
I think capital will end up being a bad card. Above stash/contraband, but still bad.

Capital/Herbalist with a Princed Scheme buys a Province every turn.

I will try to remember this for the 1 in (math math math) eleventy billion games that includes four specific cards out of the 225 or so.

Any deck-drawing engine with Herbalist and Capital can benefit from the interaction. Or just buy a zillion Herbalists a la Herbalist/Philosopher's Stone.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Marcory on May 09, 2016, 08:55:58 pm
Can Band of Misfits be a debt-cost card? Or is Debt a separate currency, like Potions?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 08:58:20 pm
I just realized Bridge Troll could hand out a Debt token instead of using the -(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) token.  But that would be stackable, and therefore much, much worse...
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: michaeljb on May 09, 2016, 08:58:56 pm
Can Band of Misfits be a debt-cost card? Or is Debt a separate currency, like Potions?

The one tricky thing is how these things work when cards compare costs. There it works like Potion: apples and oranges. A reddish hexagon with an 8 isn't more or less than $3.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: iguanaiguana on May 09, 2016, 09:08:52 pm
Another theme of the two most recent expansions is improving Counting House.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 09, 2016, 09:13:41 pm
Another theme of the two most recent expansions is improving Counting House.

Hmm.  Royal Blacksmith kind of is an inverse CH.  Similarly, City Quarter is kind of an inverse Shanty Town.  But which is more useful?  Being able to draw into Actions if you don't have any?  Or being able to draw if you're already filled up on Actions?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on May 09, 2016, 09:21:05 pm
Along the lines of bad openers, there could be a inverse coppersmith:
???????? Costs <8>
+$4. +1 Buy: Take a debt token for each copper in play
While this is in play, copper produces 1 less (Or you cannot play copper this turn)
Seems somewhat balanced.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jack Rudd on May 09, 2016, 09:24:35 pm
(Or you cannot play copper this turn)
Creates rules issues with Venture.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crj on May 09, 2016, 09:27:57 pm
I was definitely thinking Swindler would turn red hex 8 into Province, not Curse. The way it is, the Debt cost cards have the Potion cost problem with Swindler: when a pile is empty and you hit that Debt cost card, it's likely you get NOTHING, not even a Province.

I was imagining something similar to Peddler: 8* with text allowing you to lower the cost by taking on Debt.
That sounds like the mirror image of Guilds overpay cards: "Cost 8-  When you buy this you may underpay for it. If you do, gain 1 debt token per $1 you underpaid."

The actual solution seems fine, though: the independent "currency" of red hexagons in card costs is interesting, and as Donald X has pointed out it cuts down on card verbiage.

The only advantage I can see for the "underpay" alternative is that it would have been possible to have cards where things other than debt happened when you underpaid.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 09, 2016, 09:38:57 pm
Along the lines of bad openers, there could be a inverse coppersmith:
???????? Costs <8>
+$4. +1 Buy: Take a debt token for each copper in play
While this is in play, copper produces 1 less (Or you cannot play copper this turn)
Seems somewhat balanced.

Is that supposed to be a debt token per Copper in play when you buy it?  If so, then it should say, "when you buy this" under a line.  But the while-in-play effect should also be under a line.  Empires may break a lot of our preconceptions for what one can do with a card, but multiple dividing lines??  Never. ;)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: ConMan on May 09, 2016, 09:45:05 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.
There was no mention of Reserve cards, so I doubt it.

Can't you conceivably also make it so that you're in debt the turn your opponent possesses you, so he can't buy anything at all?

Your opponent can choose to make you pay off your debt, then if you made enough money you can buy more cards for him to gain.
So now in Possession games, you'll have both players with rubbish decks and a stack of debt tokens, neither willing to pay off either their own or each others' debt because that just enables their opponent to buy actually good cards on the appropriate turns. I'm hereby requesting the makers of Dominion kingdom selection apps to please include a "don't let Possession and debt be in the same game" option.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 09, 2016, 09:55:38 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.
There was no mention of Reserve cards, so I doubt it.
It took me forever to get what you were saying.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 09, 2016, 09:59:58 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.
There was no mention of Reserve cards, so I doubt it.
It took me forever to get what you were saying.

Nah, I'd guess that it took you 10 minutes and 33 seconds at most.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 09, 2016, 11:25:12 pm
I just realized Bridge Troll could hand out a Debt token instead of using the -(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) token.  But that would be stackable, and therefore much, much worse...

It's technically not the same effect, either. As an example, if you have two Coppers in hand with one Debt token, you could play the Coppers and discard Wine Merchants from your mat. But with your $1 token, you'd only have $1.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: tristan on May 10, 2016, 03:17:33 am
This debt stuff leads to smoothing and is thus similar to coin tokens (only the other way around). I think that the "buy nothing before you paid off your debt" penalty is simpler than the obvious interest penalty. Interest probably wouldn't work that differently. It is probably hard to hit an implicit interest rate which doesn't incentivize you to not always pay back as much as you can as quickly as you can without making the penalty too weak.
After all this is not a Martin Wallace game in which the debt mechanism is central so it would probably have been hard to implement it such that it leads to interesting decisions.

So the "use(most likely around) two turns to buy a debt card" is probably the best use of a "gain now, pay later" mechanism in Dominion.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Davio on May 10, 2016, 03:24:25 am
This has probably been answered, but the thread is so long already.  ::)

The "cost" is like a 3rd resource (other than Coins and Potions) and should be treated as such.
But this still means we can Remodel a City Quarter into Royal Blacksmith, right?

Essentially, you can read them both as costing $0 P0 D8.
Also, a CQ can only be Swindled into a CQ or RB.

I sort of like how they're immune to shenanigans like Quarry/Bridge, etc.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Awaclus on May 10, 2016, 03:33:19 am
The main reason why I think Capital is definitely going to get purchased a lot more often than Contraband or Cache is that it's insane on your last turn. Insane enough that I bet it will get bought the turn before a lot of the time.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: faust on May 10, 2016, 04:47:27 am
The main reason why I think Capital is definitely going to get purchased a lot more often than Contraband or Cache is that it's insane on your last turn. Insane enough that I bet it will get bought the turn before a lot of the time.

Also, the potential synergies are much stronger than anything Contraband/Cache have going for themselves. And it definitely has megaturn potential that is a bit weaker than HoP (because one of them doesn't net you a Province), but still something to look out for.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Davio on May 10, 2016, 06:09:18 am
Just create a Golden Colony deck with:

2 Princed Herbalists + 2 Capitals.

Capital should help to buy those Princes.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on May 10, 2016, 07:48:40 am
(Or you cannot play copper this turn)
Creates rules issues with Venture.
Hence the ( )
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on May 10, 2016, 07:51:53 am
The main reason why I think Capital is definitely going to get purchased a lot more often than Contraband or Cache is that it's insane on your last turn. Insane enough that I bet it will get bought the turn before a lot of the time.
I'm agreeing that it will make it above the other lame $5 treasures. You don't need to prove it's better than Cache, I believe you. But I just don't think it will end up as a power house on most boards, but it will be insane w/ herbalist and counterfeit.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Awaclus on May 10, 2016, 08:10:14 am
The main reason why I think Capital is definitely going to get purchased a lot more often than Contraband or Cache is that it's insane on your last turn. Insane enough that I bet it will get bought the turn before a lot of the time.
I'm agreeing that it will make it above the other lame $5 treasures. You don't need to prove it's better than Cache, I believe you. But I just don't think it will end up as a power house on most boards, but it will be insane w/ herbalist and counterfeit.

I don't think it's that much better with Counterfeit than it is without it. Counterfeit+Capital is decent value in terms of economy in the mid game where you have already trashed your junk Treasures but can't pull off a megaturn yet (they're essentially two $5 Treasures that give you +$4 and +1 buy each, since you get $13 and +3 buys total and you need to spend $5 and 1 buy to buy another Capital to replace the one you just trashed), but that's not amazing, that's just okay. It's better than "just okay" when you already have the Counterfeit (which is pretty often), but it's still not insane. It's insane on your last turn, because then you don't care about replacing the Capitals and so your Counterfeits will pretty much just act as extra Capitals but slightly better. But then you might as well have had more Capitals instead if Counterfeit wasn't present.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 10, 2016, 08:44:41 am
This has probably been answered, but the thread is so long already.  ::)

The "cost" is like a 3rd resource (other than Coins and Potions) and should be treated as such.
But this still means we can Remodel a City Quarter into Royal Blacksmith, right?

Essentially, you can read them both as costing $0 P0 D8.
Also, a CQ can only be Swindled into a CQ or RB.

I sort of like how they're immune to shenanigans like Quarry/Bridge, etc.

Yes, you're right. This was my first thought and question within the first few replies.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 10, 2016, 10:07:51 am
Because of that clause, I suspect that there will be some card that cares directly about how much debt you have or whether you have debt. Maybe something that multiplies opponents' debt. Otherwise paying off debt early would be unnecessary, since the next time you could buy a card, you could just pay off the debt then.

(Except Black Market, but that's hardly a reason for that whole line of text.)

I thought that at first, but the clause is also helpful if you don't need the full $6 from Capital.  As a simple case, suppose you only want to buy 2 Curses this turn for some reason.  You play Capital for the +Buy and don't need the $6 at all.  Without that clause, you are $6 in debt next turn.  The clause lets you pay off the debt immediately instead.  (I see Watno said this more succinctly than I did.)

I got it now! I had figured you could pay off the debt after your buy anyway. But you don't actually have the debt to pay off until you discard Capital, at which point you are done buying.

I still don't get it. Can't you just pay off your deck next turn before buying any cards? You can pay off debt both before and after buying cards, right?

And a question for Donald: Can you pay off debt at any time in-between buying cards in your Buy phase? Can you also pay off debt before/in-between playing Treasures, or just after you're done playing Treasures?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 10, 2016, 10:10:38 am
I still don't get it. Can't you just pay off your deck next turn before buying any cards? You can pay off debt both before and after buying cards, right?

Yes, but it matters for, for instance, Black Market, or any hypothetical card that cares about how much Debt you have.  Also, you might want to use up any extra (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) you have from this turn to start paying off debt now - I mean, what else are you going to do with it?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 10, 2016, 10:22:22 am

I still don't get it. Can't you just pay off your deck next turn before buying any cards? You can pay off debt both before and after buying cards, right?


Next turn you won't have whatever money you have sitting around this turn.... Let's say you have no money at all, and go to your buy phase. You play Capital. Now you have $6. You buy a Smithy. Now you have $2. When you discard Capital from play, you take 6 debt. You immediately pay off 2 of it with your leftover money. Now you have 4 debt.

Without that clause, you would start your next turn with 6 debt instead of 4, and you would have wasted $2 of the $6 that Capital gave you. Basically, the clause allows you to borrow any amount up to $6; without the clause you would have to borrow exactly $6.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: pacovf on May 10, 2016, 10:43:44 am
Well, this is awkward. With the introduction of Debt, we will have to drop the tried-and-true complex number representation of costs and introduce SO(3) instead. I hope you've all been revising your Group Theory notebooks.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 10, 2016, 10:44:32 am
Well, this is awkward. With the introduction of Debt, we will have to drop the tried-and-true complex number representation of costs and introduce SO(3) instead. I hope you've all been revising your Group Theory notebooks.

Can't we just use quaternions?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 10, 2016, 10:52:56 am
I just use [ # ] for debt. I don't think that's too bad, is it?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 10, 2016, 10:55:15 am
I just use [ # ] for debt. I don't think that's too bad, is it?

Poke at GendoIkari enough and he'll update his f.ds extension.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Awaclus on May 10, 2016, 11:01:02 am
I just use [ # ] for debt. I don't think that's too bad, is it?

It's too bad because

Code: [Select]
[b][color=red][ # ][/color][/b]
is a lot of code to type.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 10, 2016, 11:03:51 am
I just use [ # ] for debt. I don't think that's too bad, is it?

Poke at GendoIkari enough and he'll update his f.ds extension.

His f.ds extension does not work for Firefox, and I don't like using Google Chrome anymore because it's so bloated.

I just use [ # ] for debt. I don't think that's too bad, is it?

It's too bad because

Code: [Select]
[b][color=red][ # ][/color][/b]
is a lot of code to type.

#MillennialWoes
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: singletee on May 10, 2016, 11:09:07 am

 ___
/ 8 \
\___/


That's not too much code, right?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Awaclus on May 10, 2016, 11:11:09 am
His f.ds extension does not work for Firefox, and I don't like using Google Chrome anymore because it's so bloated.

Those aren't the only two options, you know. Opera is way better, and Chrome extensions work on it.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: pacovf on May 10, 2016, 11:22:55 am
Well, this is awkward. With the introduction of Debt, we will have to drop the tried-and-true complex number representation of costs and introduce SO(3) instead. I hope you've all been revising your Group Theory notebooks.

Can't we just use quaternions?

That's one dimension too many. Unless you just accidentally revealed that you are privy to inside info on a future expansion...?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 10, 2016, 11:23:43 am
I just use [ # ] for debt. I don't think that's too bad, is it?

Poke at GendoIkari enough and he'll update his f.ds extension.

I was just about to make a post in my extension thread about this; but figured I'd wait until I had more news. Anyway, I see the Wiki already has the images I need for 8-debt cost, thanks! The sad news is that at the moment, my hard-drive is sitting around existing as an image in a friend's data center; waiting until I get it cloned onto my new drive. Hopefully that will be very soon, and I'll be updating the extension as soon as I have those files again.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 10, 2016, 11:24:51 am
I just use [ # ] for debt. I don't think that's too bad, is it?

Poke at GendoIkari enough and he'll update his f.ds extension.

His f.ds extension does not work for Firefox, and I don't like using Google Chrome anymore because it's so bloated.


I really want to get a Firefox version out there; but I haven't been able to find anyone who can help me port it; and my own attempts were not successful. But I'll keep trying (as soon as I get my computer back).
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 10, 2016, 11:28:15 am
And a question for Donald: Can you pay off debt at any time in-between buying cards in your Buy phase?

Yes.

Can you also pay off debt before/in-between playing Treasures, or just after you're done playing Treasures?

No, just after playing Treasures. Once you buy a card, buy an Event, or pay off debt, you cannot play any more Treasures this turn (barring Villa shenanigans).
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 10, 2016, 11:32:17 am
And a question for Donald: Can you pay off debt at any time in-between buying cards in your Buy phase?

Yes.

Can you also pay off debt before/in-between playing Treasures, or just after you're done playing Treasures?

No, just after playing Treasures. Once you buy a card, buy an Event, or pay off debt, you cannot play any more Treasures this turn (barring Villa shenanigans).


Why is this? I was just about to post on the Wiki thread because the Wiki already says this, even though Donald didn't mention it in his OP.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 10, 2016, 11:40:42 am
And a question for Donald: Can you pay off debt at any time in-between buying cards in your Buy phase?

Yes.

Can you also pay off debt before/in-between playing Treasures, or just after you're done playing Treasures?

No, just after playing Treasures. Once you buy a card, buy an Event, or pay off debt, you cannot play any more Treasures this turn (barring Villa shenanigans).
Why is this? I was just about to post on the Wiki thread because the Wiki already says this, even though Donald didn't mention it in his OP.
Your quote is broken.  :)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 10, 2016, 11:42:06 am
And a question for Donald: Can you pay off debt at any time in-between buying cards in your Buy phase?

Yes.

Can you also pay off debt before/in-between playing Treasures, or just after you're done playing Treasures?

No, just after playing Treasures. Once you buy a card, buy an Event, or pay off debt, you cannot play any more Treasures this turn (barring Villa shenanigans).

Why is this? I was just about to post on the Wiki thread because the Wiki already says this, even though Donald didn't mention it in his OP.

Why is it, from a game-design perspective? Not sure off the top of my head, and I'm too hungry to really give it much thought.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 10, 2016, 11:46:44 am
Donald has mentioned it in a few other posts scattered about.  Not the reasoning behind it, just the ruling.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 10, 2016, 12:41:01 pm
Because of that clause, I suspect that there will be some card that cares directly about how much debt you have or whether you have debt. Maybe something that multiplies opponents' debt. Otherwise paying off debt early would be unnecessary, since the next time you could buy a card, you could just pay off the debt then.

(Except Black Market, but that's hardly a reason for that whole line of text.)

I thought that at first, but the clause is also helpful if you don't need the full $6 from Capital.  As a simple case, suppose you only want to buy 2 Curses this turn for some reason.  You play Capital for the +Buy and don't need the $6 at all.  Without that clause, you are $6 in debt next turn.  The clause lets you pay off the debt immediately instead.  (I see Watno said this more succinctly than I did.)

I got it now! I had figured you could pay off the debt after your buy anyway. But you don't actually have the debt to pay off until you discard Capital, at which point you are done buying.

I still don't get it. Can't you just pay off your deck next turn before buying any cards? You can pay off debt both before and after buying cards, right?

And a question for Donald: Can you pay off debt at any time in-between buying cards in your Buy phase? Can you also pay off debt before/in-between playing Treasures, or just after you're done playing Treasures?

I thought my example was clear.  It's why I posted it even though Watno already answered.  I deleted most of my other replies while reading through all the comments if others had already said the same thing, but left that one because the example was new. >_>



Re: how to represent debt, I'd like to suggest using angle brackets.  They approximate a hex shape, with the top and bottom implied.  <8>
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 10, 2016, 12:49:52 pm
I use parentheses to represent debt. (8)

Crap that doesn't work here.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 10, 2016, 12:55:26 pm
And a question for Donald: Can you pay off debt at any time in-between buying cards in your Buy phase?

Yes.

Can you also pay off debt before/in-between playing Treasures, or just after you're done playing Treasures?

No, just after playing Treasures. Once you buy a card, buy an Event, or pay off debt, you cannot play any more Treasures this turn (barring Villa shenanigans).


Why is this? I was just about to post on the Wiki thread because the Wiki already says this, even though Donald didn't mention it in his OP.
There were early cards along the lines of Grand Market and Mint, that made it matter whether or not you could play Treasures after buying cards. I don't really remember the details but as you can see decided that you couldn't.

Then with coin tokens and Debt, I just wanted rules that slotted in easily into the existing framework.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Voltaire on May 10, 2016, 12:56:52 pm
I use parentheses to represent debt. (8)

Crap that doesn't work here.

It can, just disable smilies in your reply (under "Attachments and other options")

(8)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 10, 2016, 01:15:05 pm
I use parentheses to represent debt. (8)

Crap that doesn't work here.

It can, just disable smilies in your reply (under "Attachments and other options")

(8)

Thanks!
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 10, 2016, 01:26:07 pm
I use parentheses to represent debt. (8)

Crap that doesn't work here.

It can, just disable smilies in your reply (under "Attachments and other options")

(8)

(8) 8)

I think I prefer angle brackets though.  I don't want to disable emoticons or input the extra code.  I'll switch if the community decides on parentheses as the standard though.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Beyond Awesome on May 10, 2016, 01:32:57 pm
How about a D

D8
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 10, 2016, 03:56:57 pm
Square brackets are classy.

[8] looks much better than (8) or D8.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 10, 2016, 03:59:07 pm
Or you could just, you know, do

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/19px-Debt8.png)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 10, 2016, 04:00:54 pm
Or you could just, you know, do

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/19px-Debt8.png)

Yes, I could copy the image link, paste it into the forum reply, surround that image link with an img code, surround all of that with sub code, and then submit that cluttered mess when everyone already knows what I mean by using square brackets in the first place.

<8> could also potentially work, but again, I like the square brackets a whole lot more.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 10, 2016, 05:18:04 pm
<8> could also potentially work, but again, I like the square brackets a whole lot more.

I'd rather reserve square brackets for the next expansion, which will feature blue squares.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crj on May 11, 2016, 12:25:38 pm
Can you also pay off debt before/in-between playing Treasures, or just after you're done playing Treasures?

No, just after playing Treasures. Once you buy a card, buy an Event, or pay off debt, you cannot play any more Treasures this turn (barring Villa shenanigans).

Why is this? I was just about to post on the Wiki thread because the Wiki already says this, even though Donald didn't mention it in his OP.

Why is it, from a game-design perspective? Not sure off the top of my head, and I'm too hungry to really give it much thought.
I'm struggling to think of any circumstance in which it would make any difference whether you paid off debt between playing two Treasures, or played all the Treasures you wanted to then paid off the debt.

(You can still gain while in debt, so you don't need to pay it off before playing Horn of Plenty, for example.)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: pacovf on May 11, 2016, 09:36:42 pm
I am thinking that you will often pay more than the printed cost to get one of these. If, for example, you pay 4$ on the turn you get Royal Blacksmith, and then you get 5$ or 6$ on the next turn, then you will only be left with 1$ or 2$ after paying the remaining debt, which you will be unlikely to use to buy anything*. The end result will be that you spent 9$ or 10$ (and, in a sense, two buys) to get that Blacksmith.

Of course, you still have the option to wait until you actually get 8$ in a given turn, but, you know, something to keep in mind.

*Or you could BUY ANOTHER BLACKSMITH OH YEAH FINANCE YOUR DEBT WITH MORE DEBT BABY
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Beyond Awesome on May 11, 2016, 10:25:00 pm
A neat trick is to spend all your money on non-debt cards and then use an extra buy to get a debt card.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: J Reggie on May 12, 2016, 08:23:12 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: liopoil on May 12, 2016, 08:26:18 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?
I would be shocked if the answer is yes. I believe it's "cost in coins".
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: J Reggie on May 12, 2016, 08:27:01 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?
I would be shocked if the answer is yes. I believe it's "cost in coins".

But you can overpay for Stonemason with Potion.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 12, 2016, 08:28:05 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?
I would be shocked if the answer is yes. I believe it's "cost in coins".

But you can overpay for Stonemason with Potion.

But you're not really paying in Debt.  You're taking a card for free, essentially, and taking on Debt.  It may as well have cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) and had "when you buy this, take so much Debt".

Also, if what you're proposing were allowed, it would lead to weird cases where you could overpay in Debt, but not actually get anything.  You could potentially overpay by infinite Debt if you wanted to.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: singletee on May 12, 2016, 08:29:11 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?

The wording seems to indicate that you can:
Quote
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, gain 2 Actions each costing the amount you overpaid.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 12, 2016, 08:29:39 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?

Yes, this is legal.

Haha, turns out I am a total liar. Gotcha!
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: singletee on May 12, 2016, 08:30:12 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?
I would be shocked if the answer is yes. I believe it's "cost in coins".

But you can overpay for Stonemason with Potion.

But you're not really paying in Debt.  You're taking a card for free, essentially, and taking on Debt.  It may as well have cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) and had "when you buy this, take so much Debt".

Also, if what you're proposing were allowed, it would lead to weird cases where you could overpay in Debt, but not actually get anything.  You could potentially overpay by infinite Debt if you wanted to.

So I suppose the question is not really "How does Stonemason work?" but "Can you overpay Debt?"
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: drsteelhammer on May 12, 2016, 08:31:08 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?

Yes, this is legal.

But you don't buy the cards there, why do you have debt?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 12, 2016, 08:31:29 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?

Yes, this is legal.

What, seriously?  Again, based on the wording of Overpay cards, you could overpay by an infinite amount of Debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 12, 2016, 08:31:43 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?

Yes, this is legal.

But you don't buy the cards there, why do you have debt?

I don't understand your question.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 12, 2016, 08:32:44 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?

Yes, this is legal.

What, seriously?  Again, based on the wording of Overpay cards, you could overpay by an infinite amount of Debt.

Correct. In the case you overpay by e.g. 1000 debt, I recommend using grains of rice for substitute debt tokens.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 12, 2016, 08:33:11 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?

Yes, this is legal.

What, seriously?  Again, based on the wording of Overpay cards, you could overpay by an infinite amount of Debt.

Correct. In the case you overpay by e.g. 1000 debt, I recommend using grains of rice for substitute debt tokens.

All of a sudden I'm very glad MF is never implementing Empires.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Beyond Awesome on May 12, 2016, 08:33:24 pm
So are you allowed to overpay just $1 and take on $7 debt??
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Beyond Awesome on May 12, 2016, 08:34:45 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?

Yes, this is legal.

What, seriously?  Again, based on the wording of Overpay cards, you could overpay by an infinite amount of Debt.

Correct. In the case you overpay by e.g. 1000 debt, I recommend using grains of rice for substitute debt tokens.

All of a sudden I'm very glad MF is never implementing Empires.

Even if they tried, it wouldn't be ready by the end of the year.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 12, 2016, 08:35:04 pm
So are you allowed to overpay just $1 and take on $7 debt??

I don't understand this question either. Could you please rephrase it?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: drsteelhammer on May 12, 2016, 08:36:39 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?

Yes, this is legal.

But you don't buy the cards there, why do you have debt?

I don't understand your question.

So far I've learned that you only get debt tokens when buying debt cards. Here you only debt cards. Does it say somewhere in the rulebook that I have to take the tokens when I overpay with them?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 12, 2016, 08:38:57 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?

Yes, this is legal.

But you don't buy the cards there, why do you have debt?

My understanding: you have debt because you overpaid by that amount.  When you use Stonemason's card to gain non-debt cards you aren't buying them then either. 

It seems that Debt is just another currency like Coin and Potion, it's just a little funny in that paying 1 debt means taking a debt token (which you'll pay a coin to return later), whereas paying 1 coin or 1 potion means deducting that amount from your current amount of coins/potions.

When you overpay, you pay some amount in addition to the base cost of the card.  So when you overpay in debt, you take some amount of debt tokens in addition to the base cost of the card.

Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?

Yes, this is legal.

What, seriously?  Again, based on the wording of Overpay cards, you could overpay by an infinite amount of Debt.

Sure you can, but it's not recommended.

Edit: Well, I was basing my understanding on LF's ruling and it looks like that ruling was wrong.  ::)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 12, 2016, 08:44:20 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?

Yes, this is legal.
Incorrect.

You cannot overpay with Debt. You also cannot take Debt tokens for no reason.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 12, 2016, 09:07:52 pm
Maybe someone has already asked this, but can you overpay for Stonemason with Debt? Like I can get a Stonemason, a City Quarter, and a Royal Blacksmith for $2 now and $8 later?

Yes, this is legal.
Incorrect.

You cannot overpay with Debt. You also cannot take Debt tokens for no reason.

Whoops.

EDIT: In my defense, I was going by the version of the rulebook I have access to, which stipulates very clearly that you can overpay with debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crj on May 12, 2016, 10:21:31 pm
In my defense, I was going by the version of the rulebook I have access to, which stipulates very clearly that you can overpay with debt.
That does make sense if debt is "like Potions". I'm surprised it's not the case. Very surprised.

So surprised that I'm wondering if Donald X. inadvertently answered the question "can you run up debt in order to overpay by more money?" rather than "can you run up debt in order to overpay debt?".
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 12, 2016, 10:27:49 pm
In my defense, I was going by the version of the rulebook I have access to, which stipulates very clearly that you can overpay with debt.
That does make sense if debt is "like Potions". I'm surprised it's not the case. Very surprised.

So surprised that I'm wondering if Donald X. inadvertently answered the question "can you run up debt in order to overpay by more money?" rather than "can you run up debt in order to overpay debt?".

When I was trying to make sense of LF's answer, I defined "pay X debt" as "take X debt tokens" so it was all logical.  But if you don't make sure to specify that definition in the rules, I think it's more natural to think that you can't pay debt.  You can pay off debt, or you can take on debt, but you don't just pay debt.  The weird thing for Dominion is that you need a way to compare costs when the cost involves debt, and the ruling is that they work like Potions.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: pacovf on May 12, 2016, 10:39:00 pm
Whoops.

EDIT: In my defense, I was going by the version of the rulebook I have access to, which stipulates very clearly that you can overpay with debt.

Don't. Just... Don't. We... we trusted you, LFN... sniff...
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 12, 2016, 11:03:08 pm
In my defense, I was going by the version of the rulebook I have access to, which stipulates very clearly that you can overpay with debt.
That does make sense if debt is "like Potions". I'm surprised it's not the case. Very surprised.

So surprised that I'm wondering if Donald X. inadvertently answered the question "can you run up debt in order to overpay by more money?" rather than "can you run up debt in order to overpay debt?".
I'm not sure I understand but I probably didn't inadvertently answer the wrong question.

There are more overpay cards than Stonemason. Overpaying by debt either had to be possible with all or none of them. It was weird with the other ones.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: liopoil on May 12, 2016, 11:05:37 pm
Ha, so I was right, mostly for the wrong reasons. Debt isn't really (over)paying, you know?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: AJD on May 12, 2016, 11:06:23 pm
There are more overpay cards than Stonemason. Overpaying by debt either had to be possible with all or none of them. It was weird with the other ones.

Weirder than overpaying by Potion?

...Okay, yeah, I see what you mean, it is.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crj on May 12, 2016, 11:18:42 pm
I'm not sure I understand but I probably didn't inadvertently answer the wrong question.
Scenario A: After playing treasures, Jack has $3 to spend. He then takes two debt tokens and buys a Stonemason, overpaying by $3 to gain a pair of Villages as well.

That's plainly illegal.

Scenario B: After playing treasures, Jill has $3 to spend. She takes eight debt tokens and buys a Stonemason, overpaying by [8] to gain a pair of City Quarters as well. (And then spends her spare $1 wiping out one of the debt tokens.)

That, I really expected to be legal.

Quote
You also cannot take Debt tokens for no reason.
Is there any particular reason to prohibit it? I mean, it looks pretty futile, but we're allowed to play Treasures and even spend coin tokens for no reason.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 12, 2016, 11:25:52 pm
Quote
You also cannot take Debt tokens for no reason.
Is there any particular reason to prohibit it? I mean, it looks pretty futile, but we're allowed to play Treasures and even spend coin tokens for no reason.

You have to be able to spend Coin tokens for no reason.  And by definition, your Buy phase lets you play any or all of your Treasures.

But, you are not allowed to do the following with no reason:
-trash a card
-discard a card outside your Clean-up phase
-look through your discard pile
-take Coin tokens
-take Victory tokens
-gain cards
-reveal cards from your or your opponents' decks or hands or fanny packs

Need I go on?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Marcory on May 12, 2016, 11:52:48 pm
Quote
You also cannot take Debt tokens for no reason.
Is there any particular reason to prohibit it? I mean, it looks pretty futile, but we're allowed to play Treasures and even spend coin tokens for no reason.

You have to be able to spend Coin tokens for no reason.  And by definition, your Buy phase lets you play any or all of your Treasures.

But, you are not allowed to do the following with no reason:
-trash a card
-discard a card outside your Clean-up phase
-look through your discard pile
-take Coin tokens
-take Victory tokens
-gain cards
-reveal cards from your or your opponents' decks or hands or fanny packs

Need I go on?

Another implicit caveat--you can't take Coin, VP, or Adventures tokens unless a Card/Event/Landmark that gives those tokens is in the Supply. If taking Debt for no reason was a thing, then you could take it even in a Base only game--or in an Alchemy-only game, to counter Possession (which is the only reason I can think of to randomly take Debt).
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 13, 2016, 12:12:22 am
Quote
You also cannot take Debt tokens for no reason.
Is there any particular reason to prohibit it? I mean, it looks pretty futile, but we're allowed to play Treasures and even spend coin tokens for no reason.
Just common human decency.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 13, 2016, 01:21:13 am
Whoops.

EDIT: In my defense, I was going by the version of the rulebook I have access to, which stipulates very clearly that you can overpay with debt.

Don't. Just... Don't. We... we trusted you, LFN... sniff...

I think you're joking, but I am feeling pretty bad about it. If I'd had a better memory or had done more thorough checking, I might at least have avoiding giving false information.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crj on May 13, 2016, 09:19:08 am
Actually, having slept on it, I've changed my mind and see why the Stonecutter ruling went the way it did.

While debt is like Potions in terms of the costs of cards, it is not like Potions in terms of the spending power being generated during the "play" part of the Buy phase. Instead, debt is generated during the "spend" part of the Buy phase, strictly on buying a specific card.

Happy now.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Cuzz on May 13, 2016, 09:24:50 am
Actually, having slept on it, I've changed my mind and see why the Stonecutter ruling went the way it did.

I mean...Homer got barbecue sauce all over the Sacred Parchment; they had little choice.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 09:27:00 am
There are more overpay cards than Stonemason. Overpaying by debt either had to be possible with all or none of them. It was weird with the other ones.

Weirder than overpaying by Potion?

...Okay, yeah, I see what you mean, it is.

I don't see it, can someone enlighten me? (I see it would have been a huge problem with the old Possession, but with the errata'd version I see absolutely no issues that don't already exist for overpaying with Potion).
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crj on May 13, 2016, 09:29:15 am
If taking Debt for no reason was a thing, then you could take it even in a Base only game--or in an Alchemy-only game, to counter Possession (which is the only reason I can think of to randomly take Debt).
Being able to take debt voluntarily to counter Possession would be awesome! It would both weaken a controversial and powerful card, and lead to interesting strategic decisions.

By my reckoning, if you quantify the expected benefit to you at this point in the game of taking a turn, and call that b, that means it's worth b to play Possession on you. If you deliberately took a debt of b before your turn then you lose b if you're not Possessed, and your opponent gets no benefit from Possessing you, so they won't.

If you take a debt of b/2, however, your opponent has a choice between Possessing you (benefit of b/2 to you by paying off your debt, residual benefit of b/2 to them) or not. You've turned Possessing you into a break-even decision.

But your opponent might not be in a position to play Possession. Say the probability of it being possible next turn is p, I think you should take a debt of pb/2.

This ignores all sorts of side-issues and complications, but illustrates the kind of consideration that would arise.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Chris is me on May 13, 2016, 09:31:22 am
There are more overpay cards than Stonemason. Overpaying by debt either had to be possible with all or none of them. It was weird with the other ones.

Weirder than overpaying by Potion?

...Okay, yeah, I see what you mean, it is.

I don't see it, can someone enlighten me? (I see it would have been a huge problem with the old Possession, but with the errata'd version I see absolutely no issues that don't already exist for overpaying with Potion).

I think people with less of an understanding of Dominion would think of debt as interchangeable with Money when overpaying. Obviously no one is going to mix up Potions and Coins, but people might treat debt the same way as coins for things like Herald or whatever. You also can't take arbitrary amounts of debt like you can have arbitrary amounts of coins - debt is given to you, Coins are taken from you, etc.

No inside info just my intuition here, could be wrong, etc
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 13, 2016, 09:33:22 am
Whoops.

EDIT: In my defense, I was going by the version of the rulebook I have access to, which stipulates very clearly that you can overpay with debt.

Don't. Just... Don't. We... we trusted you, LFN... sniff...

I think you're joking, but I am feeling pretty bad about it. If I'd had a better memory or had done more thorough checking, I might at least have avoiding giving false information.

There's no recovering.  Might as well just leave the forums now.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: -Stef- on May 13, 2016, 09:40:04 am
There are more overpay cards than Stonemason. Overpaying by debt either had to be possible with all or none of them. It was weird with the other ones.

Weirder than overpaying by Potion?

...Okay, yeah, I see what you mean, it is.

I don't see it, can someone enlighten me? (I see it would have been a huge problem with the old Possession, but with the errata'd version I see absolutely no issues that don't already exist for overpaying with Potion).

With potions, you can only overpay with the Potions you actually have. With debt, you would be overpaying with things you don't have, you just promise to take them. There would be no boundary on the amount of debt you could promise to take.

A reasonably likely problem scenario is if we both have multi-possessions in an engine. In these games you want to use the other players deck to buy victory cards, while your own deck should produce as little coins as possible. How convenient if you can buy a Masterpiece and overpay with 1.000.000.000 debt, completely disabling your own deck for the foreseeable future. Except that your opponent can answer with a similar move...
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: markusin on May 13, 2016, 09:42:36 am
There are more overpay cards than Stonemason. Overpaying by debt either had to be possible with all or none of them. It was weird with the other ones.

Weirder than overpaying by Potion?

...Okay, yeah, I see what you mean, it is.

I don't see it, can someone enlighten me? (I see it would have been a huge problem with the old Possession, but with the errata'd version I see absolutely no issues that don't already exist for overpaying with Potion).

I think people with less of an understanding of Dominion would think of debt as interchangeable with Money when overpaying. Obviously no one is going to mix up Potions and Coins, but people might treat debt the same way as coins for things like Herald or whatever. You also can't take arbitrary amounts of debt like you can have arbitrary amounts of coins - debt is given to you, Coins are taken from you, etc.

No inside info just my intuition here, could be wrong, etc

If you could overpay by debt, then what would happen if I overpay by $1 and 7 debt with Stonemason? Can I still get two Royal Blacksmiths that way? If so, that suggests than debt is maybe a mixed  currency, or that taking debt is like playing a coin token. I don't think either of those interpretations are intended. The debt cost seems tied to an on-buy action of taking some number of debt tokens.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 13, 2016, 09:48:18 am
If taking Debt for no reason was a thing, then you could take it even in a Base only game--or in an Alchemy-only game, to counter Possession (which is the only reason I can think of to randomly take Debt).
Being able to take debt voluntarily to counter Possession would be awesome! It would both weaken a controversial and powerful card, and lead to interesting strategic decisions.

By my reckoning, if you quantify the expected benefit to you at this point in the game of taking a turn, and call that b, that means it's worth b to play Possession on you. If you deliberately took a debt of b before your turn then you lose b if you're not Possessed, and your opponent gets no benefit from Possessing you, so they won't.

If you take a debt of b/2, however, your opponent has a choice between Possessing you (benefit of b/2 to you by paying off your debt, residual benefit of b/2 to them) or not. You've turned Possessing you into a break-even decision.

But your opponent might not be in a position to play Possession. Say the probability of it being possible next turn is p, I think you should take a debt of pb/2.

This ignores all sorts of side-issues and complications, but illustrates the kind of consideration that would arise.

I'm not sold. Your opponent will Possess you anyway, and if their (your) turn is good enough, they'll pay the debt and reap the benefits, otherwise, you'll be left with a losing hand next turn. The risk is all on you, to put it that way.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 09:56:28 am
If you could overpay by debt, then what would happen if I overpay by $1 and 7 debt with Stonemason? Can I still get two Royal Blacksmiths that way?
Obviously that wouldn't be possible. To get a card, you need to overpay by it's cost, which is 8 debt in this case.
Stef's reason makes sense though.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 13, 2016, 10:35:55 am
Quote
You also cannot take Debt tokens for no reason.
Is there any particular reason to prohibit it? I mean, it looks pretty futile, but we're allowed to play Treasures and even spend coin tokens for no reason.

You have to be able to spend Coin tokens for no reason.  And by definition, your Buy phase lets you play any or all of your Treasures.

More relevant to taking Debt tokens is the fact that you can't pay for no reason. If you have $6 in your pool, you can't just choose to pay $2 for no reason, so that you're left with $4. You have to either buy something, or an effect has to let you pay. (This is relevant for Storyteller.)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 13, 2016, 10:41:25 am
Quote
You also cannot take Debt tokens for no reason.
Is there any particular reason to prohibit it? I mean, it looks pretty futile, but we're allowed to play Treasures and even spend coin tokens for no reason.

You have to be able to spend Coin tokens for no reason.  And by definition, your Buy phase lets you play any or all of your Treasures.

More relevant to taking Debt tokens is the fact that you can't pay for no reason. If you have $6 in your pool, you can't just choose to pay $2 for no reason, so that you're left with $4. You have to either buy something, or an effect has to let you pay. (This is relevant for Storyteller.)

Fun fact; Storyteller is suddenly no longer an automatic cantrip!
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Chris is me on May 13, 2016, 10:44:05 am
Quote
You also cannot take Debt tokens for no reason.
Is there any particular reason to prohibit it? I mean, it looks pretty futile, but we're allowed to play Treasures and even spend coin tokens for no reason.

You have to be able to spend Coin tokens for no reason.  And by definition, your Buy phase lets you play any or all of your Treasures.

More relevant to taking Debt tokens is the fact that you can't pay for no reason. If you have $6 in your pool, you can't just choose to pay $2 for no reason, so that you're left with $4. You have to either buy something, or an effect has to let you pay. (This is relevant for Storyteller.)

Fun fact; Storyteller is suddenly no longer an automatic cantrip!

It already wasn't, with the -$1 token. #edgecases4lyfe
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: J Reggie on May 13, 2016, 10:45:55 am
Quote
You also cannot take Debt tokens for no reason.
Is there any particular reason to prohibit it? I mean, it looks pretty futile, but we're allowed to play Treasures and even spend coin tokens for no reason.

You have to be able to spend Coin tokens for no reason.  And by definition, your Buy phase lets you play any or all of your Treasures.

More relevant to taking Debt tokens is the fact that you can't pay for no reason. If you have $6 in your pool, you can't just choose to pay $2 for no reason, so that you're left with $4. You have to either buy something, or an effect has to let you pay. (This is relevant for Storyteller.)

Fun fact; Storyteller is suddenly no longer an automatic cantrip!

It never was; there was the -$1 token. Also, since you can't pay off debt in your action phase, it has no effect on Storyteller.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: GendoIkari on May 13, 2016, 10:47:12 am
Quote
You also cannot take Debt tokens for no reason.
Is there any particular reason to prohibit it? I mean, it looks pretty futile, but we're allowed to play Treasures and even spend coin tokens for no reason.

You have to be able to spend Coin tokens for no reason.  And by definition, your Buy phase lets you play any or all of your Treasures.

More relevant to taking Debt tokens is the fact that you can't pay for no reason. If you have $6 in your pool, you can't just choose to pay $2 for no reason, so that you're left with $4. You have to either buy something, or an effect has to let you pay. (This is relevant for Storyteller.)

Fun fact; Storyteller is suddenly no longer an automatic cantrip!

It never was; there was the -$1 token. Also, since you can't pay off debt in your action phase, it has no effect on Storyteller.

It's not because of Debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 13, 2016, 10:47:51 am
With potions, you can only overpay with the Potions you actually have. With debt, you would be overpaying with things you don't have, you just promise to take them. There would be no boundary on the amount of debt you could promise to take.

A reasonably likely problem scenario is if we both have multi-possessions in an engine. In these games you want to use the other players deck to buy victory cards, while your own deck should produce as little coins as possible. How convenient if you can buy a Masterpiece and overpay with 1.000.000.000 debt, completely disabling your own deck for the foreseeable future. Except that your opponent can answer with a similar move...

This is a potential problem that might arise if you could overpay with debt. It's only a problem in Kingdoms with Possession and an overpay card. But the result of the "problem" is not very different from players trashing their decks after they have a Possession so that it can't be used by the other player. That is to say, it's a problem with Possession, not with debt overpay (to paraphrase Donald in another context). The trashing only happens in some Possession games, but when it does, the game is ruined. It might be the same with debt overpay/Possession.

But: It still doesn't mean that debt overpay is not the logical extension of the rules we have with overpay and Potions. I'm convinced that it is. So this is as special-case ruling.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on May 13, 2016, 10:59:04 am
Whoops.

EDIT: In my defense, I was going by the version of the rulebook I have access to, which stipulates very clearly that you can overpay with debt.

Don't. Just... Don't. We... we trusted you, LFN... sniff...

I think you're joking, but I am feeling pretty bad about it. If I'd had a better memory or had done more thorough checking, I might at least have avoiding giving false information.

There's no recovering.  Might as well just leave the forums now.

I guess I could. Seems like the fashionable thing to do nowadays.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: golden_cow2 on May 13, 2016, 11:23:45 am
Even if overpaying with debt is strange, it's stranger still that debt acts like an alternate cost similar to potion in all ways except for overpay cards -- where you can overpay with potions but not debt. Yes, you can justify it by making some sort of distinction (ie, potions are something you have but debt is something you gain), but it would be far easier to remember a consistent rule. Either you can overpay with any "currency" or you can only overpay with currency that the card originally cost. For example, for Stonemason you should be allowed to overpay with both debt and potions or with neither.

That, and consistency is important if we ever have more overpay cards or alternate currencies in the future.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 13, 2016, 11:30:58 am
Even if overpaying with debt is strange, it's stranger still that debt acts like an alternate cost similar to potion in all ways except for overpay cards -- where you can overpay with potions but not debt. Yes, you can justify it by making some sort of distinction (ie, potions are something you have but debt is something you gain), but it would be far easier to remember a consistent rule. Either you can overpay with any "currency" or you can only overpay with currency that the card originally cost. For example, for Stonemason you should be allowed to overpay with both debt and potions or with neither.

That, and consistency is important if we ever have more overpay cards or alternate currencies in the future.

Seems like the correct thing to do is simply not consider Debt to be 'currency' like Coins and Potions are.  And they are different.  Debt it something that affects your play in a specific way: you cannot buy cards when you have nonzero amounts, and you may spend Coin to reduce Debt.  You don't really 'spend' Debt like you do Coin and Potion.

Edit: Like, you can't 'Overpay' with Debt because you don't 'pay' with Debt.  Debt is just something that you gain when you buy certain cards:

Quote
That reddish hexagon means you don't pay for City Quarter or Royal Blacksmith up front. Instead you take some tokens that say how much you owe.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 11:33:48 am
Seems like the correct thing to do is simply not consider Debt to be 'currency' like Coins and Potions are.  And they are different.  Debt it something that affects your play in a specific way: you cannot buy cards when you have nonzero amounts, and you may spend Coin to reduce Debt.  You don't really 'spend' Debt like you do Coin and Potion.

That's debt tokens you're talking about, not paying debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 13, 2016, 11:35:22 am
Seems like the correct thing to do is simply not consider Debt to be 'currency' like Coins and Potions are.  And they are different.  Debt it something that affects your play in a specific way: you cannot buy cards when you have nonzero amounts, and you may spend Coin to reduce Debt.  You don't really 'spend' Debt like you do Coin and Potion.

That's debt tokens you're talking about, not paying debt.

I'm saying you don't really 'pay debt'.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: markusin on May 13, 2016, 11:35:46 am
Even if overpaying with debt is strange, it's stranger still that debt acts like an alternate cost similar to potion in all ways except for overpay cards -- where you can overpay with potions but not debt. Yes, you can justify it by making some sort of distinction (ie, potions are something you have but debt is something you gain), but it would be far easier to remember a consistent rule. Either you can overpay with any "currency" or you can only overpay with currency that the card originally cost. For example, for Stonemason you should be allowed to overpay with both debt and potions or with neither.

That, and consistency is important if we ever have more overpay cards or alternate currencies in the future.

Seems like the correct thing to do is simply not consider Debt to be 'currency' like Coins and Potions are.  And they are different.  Debt it something that affects your play in a specific way: you cannot buy cards when you have nonzero amounts, and you may spend Coin to reduce Debt.  You don't really 'spend' Debt like you do Coin and Potion.

This is how I see it. Debt isn't like Potion in every way except overpay because I can choose to ignore Debt and buy City Quarter for $8. Debt cost cards allow the difference to be made up for by accruing debt. It makes more sense for me to say debt is dissimilar to Potion except when it comes to cards that care about cost. And they're only similar in that regard because neither can be directly compared to coin cost.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Deadlock39 on May 13, 2016, 11:36:30 am
I don't think that "paying" debt makes any sense at all, and I don't think that it is inconsistent with considering debt as part of the cost of a card.  Debt is a contract to pay some amount of coins in the future. Accepting that contract is part of the "cost" of obtaining Fortune, just like the 8 coins also are, but you do not "pay" for the card with that contract. It is a required condition of receiving it.

(I know I won't convince anyone who thinks differently here, but I agree with the ruling as is.)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 11:36:52 am
Seems like the correct thing to do is simply not consider Debt to be 'currency' like Coins and Potions are.  And they are different.  Debt it something that affects your play in a specific way: you cannot buy cards when you have nonzero amounts, and you may spend Coin to reduce Debt.  You don't really 'spend' Debt like you do Coin and Potion.

That's debt tokens you're talking about, not paying debt.

I'm saying you don't really 'pay debt'.

I'm saying you do.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 13, 2016, 11:37:34 am
Seems like the correct thing to do is simply not consider Debt to be 'currency' like Coins and Potions are.  And they are different.  Debt it something that affects your play in a specific way: you cannot buy cards when you have nonzero amounts, and you may spend Coin to reduce Debt.  You don't really 'spend' Debt like you do Coin and Potion.

That's debt tokens you're talking about, not paying debt.

I'm saying you don't really 'pay debt'.

I'm saying you do.

Well we got ourselves an old-fashioned standoff.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Deadlock39 on May 13, 2016, 11:37:43 am
I can choose to ignore Debt and buy City Quarter for $8.

Except you can't do this.  You have to buy City Quarter, receive 8 Debt tokens, and then pay them off.  Just because you wouldn't actually do it this way in a RL game doesn't mean that isn't how the game mechanics work.


(I suppose I can't be 100% confident the rules to be worded this way... but I expect them to be.)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: golden_cow2 on May 13, 2016, 11:40:48 am
Even if overpaying with debt is strange, it's stranger still that debt acts like an alternate cost similar to potion in all ways except for overpay cards -- where you can overpay with potions but not debt. Yes, you can justify it by making some sort of distinction (ie, potions are something you have but debt is something you gain), but it would be far easier to remember a consistent rule. Either you can overpay with any "currency" or you can only overpay with currency that the card originally cost. For example, for Stonemason you should be allowed to overpay with both debt and potions or with neither.

That, and consistency is important if we ever have more overpay cards or alternate currencies in the future.

Seems like the correct thing to do is simply not consider Debt to be 'currency' like Coins and Potions are.  And they are different.  Debt it something that affects your play in a specific way: you cannot buy cards when you have nonzero amounts, and you may spend Coin to reduce Debt.  You don't really 'spend' Debt like you do Coin and Potion.

Edit: Like, you can't 'Overpay' with Debt because you don't 'pay' with Debt.  Debt is just something that you gain when you buy certain cards:

Quote
That reddish hexagon means you don't pay for City Quarter or Royal Blacksmith up front. Instead you take some tokens that say how much you owe.

And I could just as easily say that you "pay" a debt cost by taking debt tokens just as you pay a potion cost or a coin cost by removing that many potions/coins from your pool. I already mentioned that you could make any distinction you want between potion costs and debt costs and it would be valid -- but it would be inconsistent. I was already surprised to find out that you could overpay with potions, now I must remember that you cannot overpay with debt when in all other cases potions and debt work the same way. It might not be difficult to remember (it probably will be for some people), but the point here is future-proofing. I don't want to have to remember 100 different edge cases and exceptions when we get to the 30th Dominion expansion.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 11:42:12 am
At least that's how Donald described the process.
So, you have $4, you buy City Quarter, you get 8 Debt, you pay off 4 of it immediately, you have 4 debt left.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 13, 2016, 11:49:45 am
At least that's how Donald described the process.
So, you have $4, you buy City Quarter, you get 8 Debt, you pay off 4 of it immediately, you have 4 debt left.

I'm not sure what you mean there; I don't see why that's paying Debt, if that's what you're saying.  You buy City Quarter by spending a Buy; you get 8 Debt tokens (or 8 'Debt', counted by those tokens).  You are allowed to spend Coin to reduce that. 

Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 11:52:38 am
I was refering to this, I missed the post in between.

I can choose to ignore Debt and buy City Quarter for $8.

Except you can't do this.  You have to buy City Quarter, receive 8 Debt tokens, and then pay them off.  Just because you wouldn't actually do it this way in a RL game doesn't mean that isn't how the game mechanics work.


(I suppose I can't be 100% confident the rules to be worded this way... but I expect them to be.)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 13, 2016, 11:55:00 am
Even if overpaying with debt is strange, it's stranger still that debt acts like an alternate cost similar to potion in all ways except for overpay cards -- where you can overpay with potions but not debt. Yes, you can justify it by making some sort of distinction (ie, potions are something you have but debt is something you gain), but it would be far easier to remember a consistent rule. Either you can overpay with any "currency" or you can only overpay with currency that the card originally cost. For example, for Stonemason you should be allowed to overpay with both debt and potions or with neither.

That, and consistency is important if we ever have more overpay cards or alternate currencies in the future.

Seems like the correct thing to do is simply not consider Debt to be 'currency' like Coins and Potions are.  And they are different.  Debt it something that affects your play in a specific way: you cannot buy cards when you have nonzero amounts, and you may spend Coin to reduce Debt.  You don't really 'spend' Debt like you do Coin and Potion.

Edit: Like, you can't 'Overpay' with Debt because you don't 'pay' with Debt.  Debt is just something that you gain when you buy certain cards:

Quote
That reddish hexagon means you don't pay for City Quarter or Royal Blacksmith up front. Instead you take some tokens that say how much you owe.

And I could just as easily say that you "pay" a debt cost by taking debt tokens just as you pay a potion cost or a coin cost by removing that many potions/coins from your pool. I already mentioned that you could make any distinction you want between potion costs and debt costs and it would be valid -- but it would be inconsistent. I was already surprised to find out that you could overpay with potions, now I must remember that you cannot overpay with debt when in all other cases potions and debt work the same way. It might not be difficult to remember (it probably will be for some people), but the point here is future-proofing. I don't want to have to remember 100 different edge cases and exceptions when we get to the 30th Dominion expansion.

But I'd argue that doesn't make sense.  You have Stonemason on board.  You decide to 'Overpay' with 5 Debt.  You gain 5 Debt tokens, and, uh.. fail to gain anything, because nothing costs 5 Debt.  (I should mention there are no 'Debt cost' cards on the board.) But now you have 5 Debt, which I guess you can go ahead and spend 5 Coin to pay off, if you had it.  Or keep it around to prevent yourself from buying something.

This kind of weirdness doesn't exist with Potion.  You add Potion to your currency by playing a certain card (namely, Potion).  You spend those Potions as you do Coins.  If you can't generate Potion, then you can't spend it. 
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 13, 2016, 11:55:26 am
I was refering to this, I missed the post in between.

I can choose to ignore Debt and buy City Quarter for $8.

Except you can't do this.  You have to buy City Quarter, receive 8 Debt tokens, and then pay them off.  Just because you wouldn't actually do it this way in a RL game doesn't mean that isn't how the game mechanics work.


(I suppose I can't be 100% confident the rules to be worded this way... but I expect them to be.)

Ah okay.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Deadlock39 on May 13, 2016, 11:55:44 am
It just isn't an edge case.  It is not like Potions.  When I play a Potion card, I generate one element of Potion currency.  I then pay that currency to buy cards that cost Potion.

If Debt worked like this, it would be the same:
"I take a number of red hexagons, and for each one I take, I get one element of "Debt" currency for each one. Then I pay that currency to buy cards that cost Debt."

But that isn't how it works.
you buy City Quarter, you get 8 Debt

You pay nothing for City Quarter, and then the act of buying it causes you to receive 8 Debt.

Saying "I am going to buy Stonemason, and overpay by the amount of <receiving 8 Debt>" doesn't sound like a thing you should be able to do to me.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on May 13, 2016, 11:56:58 am
Debt is a cost, like (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) and (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png), but it is not a resource, unlike (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) and (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png).  It's more like Coin tokens in many ways - can you Overpay by taking Coin tokens?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 11:58:51 am
When you buy a card, you pay it's cost. To me, paying a debt means taking a debt token.
You don't pay by taking coin tokens, I don't see how it is similar.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: singletee on May 13, 2016, 11:59:08 am
I don't see why taking Debt tokens shouldn't be considered a payment. In Magic, you can pay a cost by doing pretty much anything - spend mana, spend life, sacrifice stuff, discard cards, draw cards, create tokens, gain life, do the hokey pokey, etc. So why couldn't we have a cost like "get 8 debt" or even "discard 3 cards"?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Deadlock39 on May 13, 2016, 12:07:34 pm
So why couldn't we have a cost like "get 8 debt"

We could, but it would create bizarre situations like being able to overpay by "get X debt", or being able to just take debt without being instructed to or gaining any debt cards, so it works differently instead.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 12:10:57 pm
That is in no way weirder than overpaying with $1 without gaining any $-cost card.
It works differently not because it would be weird, but because it would lead to broken games with Possession.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: golden_cow2 on May 13, 2016, 12:11:43 pm
But I'd argue that doesn't make sense.  You have Stonemason on board.  You decide to 'Overpay' with 5 Debt.  You gain 5 Debt tokens, and, uh.. fail to gain anything, because nothing costs 5 Debt.  (I should mention there are no 'Debt cost' cards on the board.) But now you have 5 Debt, which I guess you can go ahead and spend 5 Coin to pay off, if you had it.  Or keep it around to prevent yourself from buying something.

Similarly if you have a potion, you can overpay with it even if it wouldn't get you anything. Hell, there are some cases where you can overpay with coins and not get anything. So far, this isn't weird.

This kind of weirdness doesn't exist with Potion.  You add Potion to your currency by playing a certain card (namely, Potion).  You spend those Potions as you do Coins.  If you can't generate Potion, then you can't spend it.

And you add "debt currency" to your pool by taking debt tokens under certain circumstances.

But I shouldn't be responding to this. I have already admitted that the ruling makes sense, what I am objecting to is that no matter how you justify the ruling it is still different from what you'd expect given how debt costs are presented on cards (identical to potions) and how debt costs behave with cost comparisons (identical to potions). It is better in the long run if we can point to an alternate cost/currency and say "it works like this" without making an exception for any given cost and the only way to do that is to say "you can overpay with anything" or "you can only overpay in a currency the card originally cost".


If Debt worked like this, it would be the same:
"I take a number of red hexagons, and for each one I take, I get one element of "Debt" currency for each one. Then I pay that currency to buy cards that cost Debt."

But that isn't how it works.

The problem is that in practice that's exactly how it works outside of one specific type of card (overpay cards).
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Aleimon Thimble on May 13, 2016, 12:12:10 pm
I don't see why taking Debt tokens shouldn't be considered a payment. In Magic, you can pay a cost by doing pretty much anything - spend mana, spend life, sacrifice stuff, discard cards, draw cards, create tokens, gain life, do the hokey pokey, etc. So why couldn't we have a cost like "get 8 debt" or even "discard 3 cards"?

Congratulations. Not only did you make me laugh, but as someone who has never played Magic in his life, you officially got me wondering whether a cost like this actually exists.  :P (Probably not but you never know!)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Awaclus on May 13, 2016, 12:17:05 pm
Congratulations. Not only did you make me laugh, but as someone who has never played Magic in his life, you officially got me wondering whether a cost like this actually exists.  :P (Probably not but you never know!)

http://magiccards.info/ug/en/6.html

Not in a tournament playable set, but yes.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 13, 2016, 12:18:48 pm
When you buy a card, you pay it's cost. To me, paying a debt means taking a debt token.
You don't pay by taking coin tokens, I don't see how it is similar.

See, that's not defined that way in English and Donald has said it's not defined that way in the rules either.  If someone says "I'm paying a debt", the natural interpretation is that you are paying off a debt, not that you are taking more on.  I totally understand where you're coming from and was prepared to accept the weird definition in the context of Dominion, but I think the real official ruling does make more sense.

Note that this ruling is actually consistent for the concept of "paying": to [over]pay, you spend/deduct resources from the pool of resources you've produced that turn.  Debt is not a resource that you produce and spend, so you cannot pay it.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: golden_cow2 on May 13, 2016, 12:23:43 pm
Note that this ruling is actually consistent for the concept of "paying": to [over]pay, you spend/deduct resources from the pool of resources you've produced that turn.  Debt is not a resource that you produce and spend, so you cannot pay it.

Debt as a concept didn't exist in the Guilds rulebook, so quotes from it aren't particularly convincing. It seems like common sense to me that you "pay" a debt cost by taking on debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 12:30:25 pm
When you buy a card, you pay it's cost. To me, paying a debt means taking a debt token.
You don't pay by taking coin tokens, I don't see how it is similar.

See, that's not defined that way in English and Donald has said it's not defined that way in the rules either.  If someone says "I'm paying a debt", the natural interpretation is that you are paying off a debt, not that you are taking more on.  I totally understand where you're coming from and was prepared to accept the weird definition in the context of Dominion, but I think the real official ruling does make more sense.

Note that this ruling is actually consistent for the concept of "paying": to [over]pay, you spend/deduct resources from the pool of resources you've produced that turn.  Debt is not a resource that you produce and spend, so you cannot pay it.

I'm pretty sure the rulebook says to buy a card, you need to pay it's cost.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 13, 2016, 12:30:51 pm

If Debt worked like this, it would be the same:
"I take a number of red hexagons, and for each one I take, I get one element of "Debt" currency for each one. Then I pay that currency to buy cards that cost Debt."

But that isn't how it works.

The problem is that in practice that's exactly how it works outside of one specific type of card (overpay cards).

No it's not.  The order of operations isn't:

1. Take debt tokens to gain debt currency
2. Spend debt currency to buy debt-cost card

It is:

1. Buy debt-cost card
2. Take the number of debt tokens specified in the cost

It is different because the first version would allow you to gain extra debt or not spend all of it.  The only time you take debt tokens is when instructed (i.e. when buying a debt-cost card).

Note that this ruling is actually consistent for the concept of "paying": to [over]pay, you spend/deduct resources from the pool of resources you've produced that turn.  Debt is not a resource that you produce and spend, so you cannot pay it.

Debt as a concept didn't exist in the Guilds rulebook, so quotes from it aren't particularly convincing. It seems like common sense to me that you "pay" a debt cost by taking on debt.

It's not a quote from a rulebook, it's an understanding of what it means to pay something as per the English definition of the word.  I say again, think about what it means to "pay a debt".  The common sense interpretation is that you are paying off debt and improving your financial standing, not taking more debt on.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 13, 2016, 12:38:17 pm
When you buy a card, you pay it's cost. To me, paying a debt means taking a debt token.
You don't pay by taking coin tokens, I don't see how it is similar.

See, that's not defined that way in English and Donald has said it's not defined that way in the rules either.  If someone says "I'm paying a debt", the natural interpretation is that you are paying off a debt, not that you are taking more on.  I totally understand where you're coming from and was prepared to accept the weird definition in the context of Dominion, but I think the real official ruling does make more sense.

Note that this ruling is actually consistent for the concept of "paying": to [over]pay, you spend/deduct resources from the pool of resources you've produced that turn.  Debt is not a resource that you produce and spend, so you cannot pay it.

I'm pretty sure the rulebook says to buy a card, you need to pay it's cost.

Sure, but the rulebook doesn't say that "paying a debt means taking a debt token".  That concept would have to be defined in the Empires rulebook.  From the official ruling, it seems that it isn't; instead, the natural English interpretation is used.  Debt is something you just pay, but rather something you take and later pay off

If the rulebook previously said explicitly that "to buy a card, you need to pay its cost", well, that's before the concept of debt was introduced.  Now it'll say, "to buy a card, you need to pay coins/potions equal to its coin/potion cost and take debt tokens equal to its debt cost".
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 12:38:27 pm
It is:

1. Buy debt-cost card
2. Take the number of debt tokens specified in the cost

No it's not. It is:
1. Buy a debt-cost-card, paying its cost which means taking debt tokens.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 12:40:22 pm
When you buy a card, you pay it's cost. To me, paying a debt means taking a debt token.
You don't pay by taking coin tokens, I don't see how it is similar.

See, that's not defined that way in English and Donald has said it's not defined that way in the rules either.  If someone says "I'm paying a debt", the natural interpretation is that you are paying off a debt, not that you are taking more on.  I totally understand where you're coming from and was prepared to accept the weird definition in the context of Dominion, but I think the real official ruling does make more sense.

Note that this ruling is actually consistent for the concept of "paying": to [over]pay, you spend/deduct resources from the pool of resources you've produced that turn.  Debt is not a resource that you produce and spend, so you cannot pay it.

I'm pretty sure the rulebook says to buy a card, you need to pay it's cost.

Sure, but the rulebook doesn't say that "paying a debt means taking a debt token".  That concept would have to be defined in the Empires rulebook.  From the official ruling, it seems that it isn't; instead, the natural English interpretation is used.  Debt is something you just pay, but rather something you take and later pay off

If the rulebook previously said explicitly that "to buy a card, you need to pay its cost", well, that's before the concept of debt was introduced.  Now it'll say, "to buy a card, you need to pay coins/potions equal to its coin/potion cost and take debt tokens equal to its debt cost".

I'm not a native speaker, but I think the natural English interpretation of "buying something" involves paying it's cost.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Deadlock39 on May 13, 2016, 12:43:27 pm
When you buy a card, you pay it's cost. To me, paying a debt means taking a debt token.
You don't pay by taking coin tokens, I don't see how it is similar.

See, that's not defined that way in English and Donald has said it's not defined that way in the rules either.  If someone says "I'm paying a debt", the natural interpretation is that you are paying off a debt, not that you are taking more on.  I totally understand where you're coming from and was prepared to accept the weird definition in the context of Dominion, but I think the real official ruling does make more sense.

Note that this ruling is actually consistent for the concept of "paying": to [over]pay, you spend/deduct resources from the pool of resources you've produced that turn.  Debt is not a resource that you produce and spend, so you cannot pay it.

I'm pretty sure the rulebook says to buy a card, you need to pay it's cost.

Sure, but the rulebook doesn't say that "paying a debt means taking a debt token".  That concept would have to be defined in the Empires rulebook.  From the official ruling, it seems that it isn't; instead, the natural English interpretation is used.  Debt is something you just pay, but rather something you take and later pay off

If the rulebook previously said explicitly that "to buy a card, you need to pay its cost", well, that's before the concept of debt was introduced.  Now it'll say, "to buy a card, you need to pay coins/potions equal to its coin/potion cost and take debt tokens equal to its debt cost".

I'm not a native speaker, but I think the natural English interpretation of "buying something" involves paying it's cost.

When I "bought" my house, I did not pay its cost.  You could argue that I did not buy it, but that is how people use the language.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 13, 2016, 12:49:48 pm
So why couldn't we have a cost like "get 8 debt"

We could, but it would create bizarre situations like being able to overpay by "get X debt", or being able to just take debt without being instructed to or gaining any debt cards, so it works differently instead.
No, you still wouldn't be able to take debt without being instructed too, just as you can't pay without being instructed to.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: markusin on May 13, 2016, 12:55:09 pm
I can choose to ignore Debt and buy City Quarter for $8.

Except you can't do this.  You have to buy City Quarter, receive 8 Debt tokens, and then pay them off.  Just because you wouldn't actually do it this way in a RL game doesn't mean that isn't how the game mechanics work.


(I suppose I can't be 100% confident the rules to be worded this way... but I expect them to be.)

Oh, right.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 13, 2016, 12:56:37 pm
No it's not.  The order of operations isn't:

1. Take debt tokens to gain debt currency
2. Spend debt currency to buy debt-cost card

It is:

1. Buy debt-cost card
2. Take the number of debt tokens specified in the cost

It is different because the first version would allow you to gain extra debt or not spend all of it.  The only time you take debt tokens is when instructed (i.e. when buying a debt-cost card).

Not if the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you buy a card that costs that much debt (which it is).
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 13, 2016, 12:57:03 pm
When you buy a card, you pay it's cost. To me, paying a debt means taking a debt token.
You don't pay by taking coin tokens, I don't see how it is similar.

See, that's not defined that way in English and Donald has said it's not defined that way in the rules either.  If someone says "I'm paying a debt", the natural interpretation is that you are paying off a debt, not that you are taking more on.  I totally understand where you're coming from and was prepared to accept the weird definition in the context of Dominion, but I think the real official ruling does make more sense.

Note that this ruling is actually consistent for the concept of "paying": to [over]pay, you spend/deduct resources from the pool of resources you've produced that turn.  Debt is not a resource that you produce and spend, so you cannot pay it.

The problem is that this isn't consistent with how Dominion works. "Debt" (or however you call the number in the hexagon) is clearly defined as the cost of the card. You can buy cards like that. When you buy a card, you pay its cost.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Minotaur on May 13, 2016, 12:58:17 pm
http://mtaur.deviantart.com/art/DimOnion-Modern-Times-Print-page-1-Debt-463772167

The token idea is great.  It just happens that I had a derpy fan set largely based on an Action-Curse variant by the same name...

http://mtaur.blogspot.com/2014/06/dimonion-modern-times-calling-all.html

(I haven't updated online to reflect playtesting changes since then, oh well.)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 13, 2016, 01:04:58 pm
I can choose to ignore Debt and buy City Quarter for $8.

Except you can't do this.  You have to buy City Quarter, receive 8 Debt tokens, and then pay them off.  Just because you wouldn't actually do it this way in a RL game doesn't mean that isn't how the game mechanics work.


(I suppose I can't be 100% confident the rules to be worded this way... but I expect them to be.)
Correct. You can't ignore Debt on City Quarter. If you have $8, you still get 8 Debt, and then it's a good move to pay off that Debt, though you don't have to.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 13, 2016, 01:06:21 pm
That is in no way weirder than overpaying with $1 without gaining any $-cost card.
It works differently not because it would be weird, but because it would lead to broken games with Possession.
It works differently because overpaying debt for Doctor etc. would be weird. I was there!
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 01:08:50 pm
That is in no way weirder than overpaying with $1 without gaining any $-cost card.
It works differently not because it would be weird, but because it would lead to broken games with Possession.
It works differently because overpaying debt for Doctor etc. would be weird. I was there!

I don't see how it would be weirder than overpaying a potion for Doctor.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 01:10:20 pm
When I "bought" my house, I did not pay its cost.  You could argue that I did not buy it, but that is how people use the language.

I don't have experience with this, but isn't the process usually that the bank gives you money and you then give it to the seller?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 13, 2016, 01:10:33 pm
It is:

1. Buy debt-cost card
2. Take the number of debt tokens specified in the cost

No it's not. It is:
1. Buy a debt-cost-card, paying its cost which means taking debt tokens.

Remains to be seen when the Empires rule book comes out.  Donald's ruling suggests that it's not what you say.

So why couldn't we have a cost like "get 8 debt"

We could, but it would create bizarre situations like being able to overpay by "get X debt", or being able to just take debt without being instructed to or gaining any debt cards, so it works differently instead.
No, you still wouldn't be able to take debt without being instructed too, just as you can't pay without being instructed to.

Overpay doesn't instruct you to take debt tokens.  Easy.

No it's not.  The order of operations isn't:

1. Take debt tokens to gain debt currency
2. Spend debt currency to buy debt-cost card

It is:

1. Buy debt-cost card
2. Take the number of debt tokens specified in the cost

It is different because the first version would allow you to gain extra debt or not spend all of it.  The only time you take debt tokens is when instructed (i.e. when buying a debt-cost card).

Not if the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you buy a card that costs that much debt (which it is).

That's still fine for preventing you from overpaying in debt.  When you buy an overpay card, does it cost any debt?  No, so you don't get any debt.

When you buy a card, you pay it's cost. To me, paying a debt means taking a debt token.
You don't pay by taking coin tokens, I don't see how it is similar.

See, that's not defined that way in English and Donald has said it's not defined that way in the rules either.  If someone says "I'm paying a debt", the natural interpretation is that you are paying off a debt, not that you are taking more on.  I totally understand where you're coming from and was prepared to accept the weird definition in the context of Dominion, but I think the real official ruling does make more sense.

Note that this ruling is actually consistent for the concept of "paying": to [over]pay, you spend/deduct resources from the pool of resources you've produced that turn.  Debt is not a resource that you produce and spend, so you cannot pay it.

The problem is that this isn't consistent with how Dominion works. "Debt" (or however you call the number in the hexagon) is clearly defined as the cost of the card. You can buy cards like that. When you buy a card, you pay its cost.

Dominion had no concept of Debt before empires, so no ruling about Debt is inconsistent.  Or, you can say that it's going to be inconsistent no matter what the ruling is, so we just have to learn to live with the new status quo.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: bedlam on May 13, 2016, 01:11:58 pm

That reddish hexagon means you don't pay for City Quarter or Royal Blacksmith up front. Instead you take some tokens that say how much you owe.


So this changes the way we deal with a cards cost. You don't 'pay' with debt. You take debt which shows how much you owe.

EDIT: the definition of 'cost' hasn't changed
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: bedlam on May 13, 2016, 01:13:11 pm
When I "bought" my house, I did not pay its cost.  You could argue that I did not buy it, but that is how people use the language.

I don't have experience with this, but isn't the process usually that the bank gives you money and you then give it to the seller?

No, the bank buys the house from and pays the seller, and when we pay the bank what the house cost then we get the house.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 13, 2016, 01:13:32 pm
That is in no way weirder than overpaying with $1 without gaining any $-cost card.
It works differently not because it would be weird, but because it would lead to broken games with Possession.
It works differently because overpaying debt for Doctor etc. would be weird. I was there!

I don't see how it would be weirder than overpaying a potion for Doctor.
I think I'm going to have to live with that.

This is in fact in the Empires rulebook, in the section explaining debt; you can't overpay with debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 13, 2016, 01:13:49 pm
No it's not.  The order of operations isn't:

1. Take debt tokens to gain debt currency
2. Spend debt currency to buy debt-cost card

It is:

1. Buy debt-cost card
2. Take the number of debt tokens specified in the cost

It is different because the first version would allow you to gain extra debt or not spend all of it.  The only time you take debt tokens is when instructed (i.e. when buying a debt-cost card).

Not if the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you buy a card that costs that much debt (which it is).

Even with that rule, you wouldn't be able to Overpay 'debt' or 'debt tokens' with Stonemason, because you're not buying a card when you Overpay.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 13, 2016, 01:16:26 pm
That is in no way weirder than overpaying with $1 without gaining any $-cost card.
It works differently not because it would be weird, but because it would lead to broken games with Possession.
It works differently because overpaying debt for Doctor etc. would be weird. I was there!

I don't see how it would be weirder than overpaying a potion for Doctor.
I think I'm going to have to live with that.
I think I'm going to have to live with that.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Deadlock39 on May 13, 2016, 01:19:14 pm
When I "bought" my house, I did not pay its cost.  You could argue that I did not buy it, but that is how people use the language.

I don't have experience with this, but isn't the process usually that the bank gives you money and you then give it to the seller?

I can't claim to actually know the minutiae of what happened, but there was definitely not a point where I actually had all that money in an account. If it works the way it appears to work, I agreed to pay the bank for my house, and they paid the seller.  You'd have to ask a banker to know how it really works.  I did not take out a loan from the bank and then use that money to pay the seller directly.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 13, 2016, 01:19:51 pm
Even with that rule, you wouldn't be able to Overpay 'debt' or 'debt tokens' with Stonemason, because you're not buying a card when you Overpay.

That's not correct. When you overpay with Stonemason, you pay the cost of the card, and then gain it. "X Debt" is clearly the cost of the card. The only question is if buying still involves paying the cost of a card. If it instead now is defined as per eHalcyon's explanation, then overpay debt is implicitly impossible because "debt" is not a cost that can be paid.

EDIT: I think this is very clear now. Either paying buying is redefined - and then overpaying debt can't work - or it isn't - and then overpaying debt should work according to existing rules but Donald has made a special rule about it.

EDIT again: Gah, I meant that "buying" is redefined, not "paying".
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 13, 2016, 01:23:56 pm
Even with that rule, you wouldn't be able to Overpay 'debt' or 'debt tokens' with Stonemason, because you're not buying a card when you Overpay.

That's not correct. When you overpay with Stonemason, you pay the cost of the card, and then gain it. "X Debt" is clearly the cost of the card. The only question is if buying still involves paying the cost of a card. If it instead now is defined as per eHalcyon's explanation, then overpay debt is implicitly impossible.

This does not seem to be how Stonemason works.

"When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, gain 2 Actions each costing the amount you overpaid."

You overpay independent of possible gaining targets. 

Edit: from the Overpay wiki:

"A player may pay any additional amount for such a card, and then gets an effect based on how much extra was paid. Potions (from Dominion: Alchemy) may be used in overpaid amounts if desired, although this is not always meaningful."

So, pay first, then do stuff. 

Edit2: The 'cost of the card' when you overpay with Stonemason is the cost of Stonemason, not the cards you are Gaining as Stonemason's Overpay effect. 
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Elestan on May 13, 2016, 01:28:25 pm
I did not take out a loan from the bank and then use that money to pay the seller directly.

From a legal point of view, that's what happens.  The lender and seller just shortcut the transfer so that the money doesn't stop in your bank account on the way.

Anything further on this topic should probably go to General Discussions.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 13, 2016, 01:32:00 pm
"When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, gain 2 Actions each costing the amount you overpaid."

You overpay independent of possible gaining targets. 

I don't see your point. Maybe I expressed myself a little sloppily, but it doesn't change anything. You overpay with the cost of whichever card or cards you wish to gain. Of course you can also overpay with a cost that doesn't correspond to any card costs. The point was simply that "debt" is a cost, and if buying a "debt" cost card involved paying for the cost, then that means you can also overpay "debt" (if not for the rule that specifically says you can't).
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 13, 2016, 01:44:23 pm
"When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, gain 2 Actions each costing the amount you overpaid."

You overpay independent of possible gaining targets. 

I don't see your point. Maybe I expressed myself a little sloppily, but it doesn't change anything. You overpay with the cost of whichever card or cards you wish to gain. Of course you can also overpay with a cost that doesn't correspond to any card costs. The point was simply that "debt" is a cost, and if buying a "debt" cost card involved paying for the cost, then that means you can also overpay "debt" (if not for the rule that specifically says you can't).

Well you don't overpay with the cost of whichever card or cards you wish to gain, you overpay by some amount.  Then you do stuff if you overpayed based on that amount.  Regardless, I responded originally to this:

Quote
Not if the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you buy a card that costs that much debt (which it is).

When you buy Stonemason, you're not buying a card that costs some (nonzero) amount of debt, so you can't gain debt tokens (i.e., 'pay debt').
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 13, 2016, 01:45:48 pm
"When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, gain 2 Actions each costing the amount you overpaid."

You overpay independent of possible gaining targets. 

I don't see your point. Maybe I expressed myself a little sloppily, but it doesn't change anything. You overpay with the cost of whichever card or cards you wish to gain. Of course you can also overpay with a cost that doesn't correspond to any card costs. The point was simply that "debt" is a cost, and if buying a "debt" cost card involved paying for the cost, then that means you can also overpay "debt" (if not for the rule that specifically says you can't).

Official rules (taken from wiki):

Quote
A player may pay any additional amount for such a card, and then gets an effect based on how much extra was paid. Potion (from Dominion: Alchemy) may be used in overpaid amounts if desired, although this is not always meaningful.

It says nothing about card costs.  Overpay works independently of how much cards cost, instead focusing on amounts that you pay.  Debt may be a cost, but that doesn't make it an amount that you can can be paid.  It could have been defined that way, but it isn't.

I feel like "it's inconsistent whatever the ruling" is the better direction, so consider this.  The original base game rules say this (taken from the actual rulebook):

Quote
The player can gain one card from the Supply by buying it -paying the cost shown on the card. The player pays in coins from Treasure cards (the number on the coin) and from previously paid Action cards.

Potions are already inconsistent with that.  Expansions expand the rules.

With the addition of debt, you have to be inconsistent one way or the other.  Either you expand the definition of "cost" to include stuff that isn't paid (i.e. debt) or you expand the definition of "pay" to include taking stuff instead of just spending amounts accrued via played Treasure and Action cards (and coin tokens, and events).

Expanding the definition of "cost" is more in keeping with natural language.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: singletee on May 13, 2016, 02:08:06 pm
With the addition of debt, you have to be inconsistent one way or the other.  Either you expand the definition of "cost" to include stuff that isn't paid (i.e. debt) or you expand the definition of "pay" to include taking stuff instead of just spending amounts accrued via played Treasure and Action cards (and coin tokens, and events).

Expanding the definition of "cost" is more in keeping with natural language.

For me, those expanded definitions are a pretty small jump. I am already used to them. The problem for me is with overpay. When you buy a card that lets you overpay, you pay the cost of the card, and then once more you can pay. Pay? Pay what? It's not specified since there isn't a thing you are paying for. So we have to restrict it to stuff that is sane (for some particular definition of sane) like coins and potions.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 13, 2016, 02:10:02 pm
Well you don't overpay with the cost of whichever card or cards you wish to gain, you overpay by some amount.  Then you do stuff if you overpayed based on that amount.
???
I already responded to that. It was a shorthand way of saying that you can pay whatever cost you want -- mainly in order to gain cards with that cost, but as I said, yes: any cost. So if debt is a cost, and it can be paid, it's allowed to overpay debt. I'm perplexed as to why you're disputing that.

Regardless, I responded originally to this:
Quote
Not if the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you buy a card that costs that much debt (which it is).
When you buy Stonemason, you're not buying a card that costs some (nonzero) amount of debt, so you can't gain debt tokens (i.e., 'pay debt').
Uhm. If debt is a cost, and it can be paid, it's allowed to overpay debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 13, 2016, 02:32:15 pm
It says nothing about card costs.  Overpay works independently of how much cards cost, instead focusing on amounts that you pay.  Debt may be a cost, but that doesn't make it an amount that you can can be paid.  It could have been defined that way, but it isn't.
We don't know that, Donald hasn't chimed in on it.

With the addition of debt, you have to be inconsistent one way or the other.  Either you expand the definition of "cost" to include stuff that isn't paid (i.e. debt) or you expand the definition of "pay" to include taking stuff instead of just spending amounts accrued via played Treasure and Action cards (and coin tokens, and events).

Expanding the definition of "cost" is more in keeping with natural language.

"Buying" needs to be redefined, because up until now it means to pay. If you redefine it exactly as you wrote (quoted below), I'm not sure if you need to redefine "cost".
EDIT: I don't think you need to redefine "cost". For abilities that refer to costs, it already works. For buying, well, if it's redefined as mentioned, it refers to coin/potion costs and debt costs differently. No problem. What needs to be redefined is buying, and only buying.

I also wrote a post in response to your original post about this (which I'm the only one to have thumbed!):
If the rulebook previously said explicitly that "to buy a card, you need to pay its cost", well, that's before the concept of debt was introduced.  Now it'll say, "to buy a card, you need to pay coins/potions equal to its coin/potion cost and take debt tokens equal to its debt cost".
but that reply was lost somehow. Anyway, that's the essence, and if that is the new definition of buying, then that means overpaying debt is implicitly impossible.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: bedlam on May 13, 2016, 02:39:49 pm
This is in fact in the Empires rulebook, in the section explaining debt; you can't overpay with debt.

We all may have to put this argument and discussion on hold until we see what is in the rulebook regarding debt. It could very well be all explained and defined in there.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 13, 2016, 03:23:28 pm
Well you don't overpay with the cost of whichever card or cards you wish to gain, you overpay by some amount.  Then you do stuff if you overpayed based on that amount.
???
I already responded to that. It was a shorthand way of saying that you can pay whatever cost you want -- mainly in order to gain cards with that cost, but as I said, yes: any cost. So if debt is a cost, and it can be paid, it's allowed to overpay debt. I'm perplexed as to why you're disputing that.

Regardless, I responded originally to this:
Quote
Not if the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you buy a card that costs that much debt (which it is).
When you buy Stonemason, you're not buying a card that costs some (nonzero) amount of debt, so you can't gain debt tokens (i.e., 'pay debt').
Uhm. If debt is a cost, and it can be paid, it's allowed to overpay debt.

Stonemason doesn't cost 2+<what you decide to overpay>.  It costs $2.  Stonemason for $2 with a 5 overpay doesn't let you gain something costing $6 with Haggler in play.

Even with this definition (in my quote), when you buy Stonemason, you did not buy a card that costs debt.  Therefore the condition "you can only take debt tokens when you buy a card that costs that much debt' is not met.  Therefore you can't take debt tokens.

I don't understand what's in contention here.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 13, 2016, 03:57:14 pm
It says nothing about card costs.  Overpay works independently of how much cards cost, instead focusing on amounts that you pay.  Debt may be a cost, but that doesn't make it an amount that you can can be paid.  It could have been defined that way, but it isn't.
We don't know that, Donald hasn't chimed in on it.

With the addition of debt, you have to be inconsistent one way or the other.  Either you expand the definition of "cost" to include stuff that isn't paid (i.e. debt) or you expand the definition of "pay" to include taking stuff instead of just spending amounts accrued via played Treasure and Action cards (and coin tokens, and events).

Expanding the definition of "cost" is more in keeping with natural language.

"Buying" needs to be redefined, because up until now it means to pay. If you redefine it exactly as you wrote (quoted below), I'm not sure if you need to redefine "cost".
EDIT: I don't think you need to redefine "cost". For abilities that refer to costs, it already works. For buying, well, if it's redefined as mentioned, it refers to coin/potion costs and debt costs differently. No problem. What needs to be redefined is buying, and only buying.

I also wrote a post in response to your original post about this (which I'm the only one to have thumbed!):
If the rulebook previously said explicitly that "to buy a card, you need to pay its cost", well, that's before the concept of debt was introduced.  Now it'll say, "to buy a card, you need to pay coins/potions equal to its coin/potion cost and take debt tokens equal to its debt cost".
but that reply was lost somehow. Anyway, that's the essence, and if that is the new definition of buying, then that means overpaying debt is implicitly impossible.

Sure.  My point was that Debt is something new and the old definitions don't address or account for it.  Something is going to be inconsistent, it's just a matter of what.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: jonts26 on May 13, 2016, 04:21:49 pm
This is in fact in the Empires rulebook, in the section explaining debt; you can't overpay with debt.

We all may have to put this argument and discussion on hold until we see what is in the rulebook regarding debt. It could very well be all explained and defined in there.

You think that'll stop people? You must be new here.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Beyond Awesome on May 13, 2016, 05:00:54 pm
Loan feels very misnamed all of a sudden.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 13, 2016, 05:07:08 pm
Loan feels very misnamed all of a sudden.

Moneylender too.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: flaquito on May 13, 2016, 05:41:36 pm
Loan feels very misnamed all of a sudden.

Moneylender too.

You're sending out your own moneylender. He provides a 1-copper payday loan to some desperate and gullible schmuck in your kingdom, and gives you back a 4-fold return.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 13, 2016, 06:52:59 pm
Even with this definition (in my quote), when you buy Stonemason, you did not buy a card that costs debt.  Therefore the condition "you can only take debt tokens when you buy a card that costs that much debt' is not met.  Therefore you can't take debt tokens.

Ah, I finally understand what you're saying.
Ok, so I should have written this instead: "Not if the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you pay for a card that costs that much debt." (I mean, since we're talking about how it would be if nothing (like "buying") is redefined and how that would mean that you could overpay debt.)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 13, 2016, 06:56:47 pm
Even with this definition (in my quote), when you buy Stonemason, you did not buy a card that costs debt.  Therefore the condition "you can only take debt tokens when you buy a card that costs that much debt' is not met.  Therefore you can't take debt tokens.

Ah, I finally understand what you're saying.
Ok, so I should have written this instead: "Not if the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you pay for a card that costs that much debt." (I mean, since we're talking about how it would be if nothing (like "buying") is redefined and how that would mean that you could overpay debt.)

Still doesn't work.  When you overpay, you're not "paying for a card".  You're not paying for anything in particular.  But after you've paid, then it has an effect dependent on what you paid.  So for Stonemason, you overpay and then it lets you gain cards.  You don't choose what to gain and then pay its cost.  It's an important semantic difference.

Edit: errant apostrophe
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on May 13, 2016, 07:01:36 pm
Even with this definition (in my quote), when you buy Stonemason, you did not buy a card that costs debt.  Therefore the condition "you can only take debt tokens when you buy a card that costs that much debt' is not met.  Therefore you can't take debt tokens.

Ah, I finally understand what you're saying.
Ok, so I should have written this instead: "Not if the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you pay for a card that costs that much debt." (I mean, since we're talking about how it would be if nothing (like "buying") is redefined and how that would mean that you could overpay debt.)

Still doesn't work.  When you overpay, you're not "paying for a card".  You're not paying for anything in particular.  But after you've paid, then it has an effect dependent on what you paid.  So for Stonemason, you overpay and then it let's you gain cards.  You don't choose what to gain and then pay its cost.  It's an important semantic difference.

Yes, this is what I am saying.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 13, 2016, 07:37:25 pm
Still doesn't work.  When you overpay, you're not "paying for a card".  You're not paying for anything in particular.  But after you've paid, then it has an effect dependent on what you paid.  So for Stonemason, you overpay and then it let's you gain cards.  You don't choose what to gain and then pay its cost.  It's an important semantic difference.

But that's what I've replied to several times already: If debt is a cost, and it can be paid, it's allowed to overpay debt. I don't know how to say that clearer. It means that you can "pay" however much "debt" you want when you overpay.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 13, 2016, 07:53:03 pm
If debt is a cost, and it can be paid, it's allowed to overpay debt. I don't know how to say that clearer. It means that you can "pay" however much "debt" you want when you overpay.

This statement is not equivalent to this one:

"Not if the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you pay for a card that costs that much debt."

If the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you pay for a card that costs that much debt, then you can't do it with Stonemason or any other overpay cards because "overpay" isn't "paying for a card".
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 13, 2016, 08:44:11 pm
If debt is a cost, and it can be paid, it's allowed to overpay debt. I don't know how to say that clearer. It means that you can "pay" however much "debt" you want when you overpay.

This statement is not equivalent to this one:

"Not if the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you pay for a card that costs that much debt."

If the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you pay for a card that costs that much debt, then you can't do it with Stonemason or any other overpay cards because "overpay" isn't "paying for a card".

Ok, so it was still not entirely accurate. The point I was trying to make is that it can work exactly like coins in your pool. You may only pay it when you buy, or when an ability specifically tells you that you can pay. You can't just choose to pay whenever. So if debt is a cost that can be paid, it doesn't automatically mean that you can pay however much you want whenever, like Witherweaver claimed. It just means it would work exactly like coins. Do we agree now?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 13, 2016, 08:55:39 pm
If debt is a cost, and it can be paid, it's allowed to overpay debt. I don't know how to say that clearer. It means that you can "pay" however much "debt" you want when you overpay.

This statement is not equivalent to this one:

"Not if the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you pay for a card that costs that much debt."

If the rule is that you can only take debt tokens when you pay for a card that costs that much debt, then you can't do it with Stonemason or any other overpay cards because "overpay" isn't "paying for a card".

Ok, so it was still not entirely accurate. The point I was trying to make is that it can work exactly like coins in your pool. You may only pay it when you buy, or when an ability specifically tells you that you can pay. You can't just choose to pay whenever. So if debt is a cost that can be paid, it doesn't automatically mean that you can pay however much you want whenever, like Witherweaver claimed. It just means it would work exactly like coins. Do we agree now?

The order of operations still doesn't allow it to work, because nothing ever tells you to pay any amount of debt except when you buy a card.

I mean, by your definition, are you allowed to overpay Debt for Doctor?  If yes, what is the limit?  If no, how is Stonemason any different?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 13, 2016, 11:54:06 pm
The order of operations still doesn't allow it to work, because nothing ever tells you to pay any amount of debt except when you buy a card.
Not true, overpay abilities tell you to pay any amount.

I mean, by your definition, are you allowed to overpay Debt for Doctor?  If yes, what is the limit?
Yes. There is no limit. This has already been covered regarding overpay and Possession, which is the only time you would ever overpay more debt than needed for Stonemason.

(Just to restate, I'm of course not saying this is the rule. Donald has made clear that you can't overpay debt.)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on May 14, 2016, 12:36:09 am
The order of operations still doesn't allow it to work, because nothing ever tells you to pay any amount of debt except when you buy a card.
Not true, overpay abilities tell you to pay any amount.

I mean, by your definition, are you allowed to overpay Debt for Doctor?  If yes, what is the limit?
Yes. There is no limit. This has already been covered regarding overpay and Possession, which is the only time you would ever overpay more debt than needed for Stonemason.

(Just to restate, I'm of course not saying this is the rule. Donald has made clear that you can't overpay debt.)

OK, I guess something got turned around there.  I thought you were arguing that (by your earlier definition) you were somehow restricted in the amount of debt that could be overpaid.

Anyway, this is getting silly even by my standards, since we're going on about the application of an incorrect definition, making all this discussion totally meaningless. :P
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Jeebus on May 14, 2016, 09:57:26 am
Ok, just to sum up then. It all started with this post:

The order of operations isn't:

1. Take debt tokens to gain debt currency
2. Spend debt currency to buy debt-cost card

It is:

1. Buy debt-cost card
2. Take the number of debt tokens specified in the cost

It is different because the first version would allow you to gain extra debt or not spend all of it.  The only time you take debt tokens is when instructed (i.e. when buying a debt-cost card).

I've been trying to say that it could still be the first one, provided you would only be allowed to take debt tokens (step 1) when you're allowed to spend/pay that much debt currency (step 2) -- which is when you buy a debt cost card or when otherwise instructed (for instance overpay). In this way it would work exactly like paying coins from your pool. But it would have the side-effect of allowing unlimited debt when you overpay.

We don't know if it's the first or the second. The reason you can't overpay with debt is either: There's just a special rule saying you can't (which means it's the first). Or: "buying" doesn't mean to pay the cost when it comes to debt, it just means to take debt tokens equal to the cost (which means it's the second).

At this point I would hope Donald would enlighten us, but I think he might have given up on this discussion.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Triumph44 on May 14, 2016, 01:12:36 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.

Debt cost VP card would be  broken assuming you don't need to pay  off the debt of the player you possess. You'd just need enough buys and  could buy them all.

I guess you're right. Maybe it's $2 [4] for 3 VP then or something like that. But that's not incredibly unique. I feel like it would have to also do something extra.

I also love that Possession is getting a nerf. It's not the best card in the world to begin with, but now it's even not as good. :)

Is that really a nerf?  Goons/Monument/Bishop-heavy strategies used to make it difficult to use Possession and now they don't.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 16, 2016, 12:31:40 pm
It just occured to me that you can pay off debt on a Mission, but you need to buy the Mission before you get the debt.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on May 16, 2016, 12:32:47 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.

Debt cost VP card would be  broken assuming you don't need to pay  off the debt of the player you possess. You'd just need enough buys and  could buy them all.

I guess you're right. Maybe it's $2 [4] for 3 VP then or something like that. But that's not incredibly unique. I feel like it would have to also do something extra.

I also love that Possession is getting a nerf. It's not the best card in the world to begin with, but now it's even not as good. :)

Is that really a nerf?  Goons/Monument/Bishop-heavy strategies used to make it difficult to use Possession and now they don't.

People keep quoting this, like man, everyone already yelled at me, now I have everyone and someone else too. :(
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Watno on May 16, 2016, 12:37:47 pm
Calling a Debt cost VP card.

Debt cost VP card would be  broken assuming you don't need to pay  off the debt of the player you possess. You'd just need enough buys and  could buy them all.

I guess you're right. Maybe it's $2 [4] for 3 VP then or something like that. But that's not incredibly unique. I feel like it would have to also do something extra.

I also love that Possession is getting a nerf. It's not the best card in the world to begin with, but now it's even not as good. :)
There you go.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: enfynet on May 16, 2016, 11:00:46 pm
Maybe I missed part of the discussion.

The way I read that Debt "cost" in the corner is as an on-buy effect. "When you buy this, take X red hexagons."
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Accatitippi on May 22, 2016, 02:52:24 am
Forgive me if it's asked before, but how does Debt interact with Black Market? Does the "can't buy stuff" effect only affect the buy phase or is Black Market overridden?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: dane-m on May 22, 2016, 09:56:13 am
Forgive me if it's asked before, but how does Debt interact with Black Market? Does the "can't buy stuff" effect only affect the buy phase or is Black Market overridden?
I think the question was asked before.  I'm pretty sure Black Market is not an exception to the inability to buy, i.e. having debt means one can't buy at all as opposed to can't buy in the buy phase.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on May 22, 2016, 02:50:44 pm
Forgive me if it's asked before, but how does Debt interact with Black Market? Does the "can't buy stuff" effect only affect the buy phase or is Black Market overridden?
You can't buy and also don't get a chance to pay off debt then.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: MattTV on May 28, 2016, 01:01:56 pm
The debt cards like City Quarters and Royal Blacksmith seem a bit under-powered unless you have good trashing cards, but I guess they're pretty decent noting that you can buy them anytime with zero money down. Although I do like capital. It's kind of like a tactician-treasure but reverse in the sense that you can have a mega money turn now and most likely forfeit your next turn to pay it off 
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Sidsel on June 02, 2016, 01:20:00 pm
Shanty Town is called "Poor Quarter" in the Norwegian set. Nice fit thematically with City Quarter; both draw cards depending on what is in your hand.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: eHalcyon on June 02, 2016, 05:03:42 pm
Shanty Town is called "Poor Quarter" in the Norwegian set. Nice fit thematically with City Quarter; both draw cards depending on what is in your hand.

Now watch "City Quarter" be translated as something entirely different. ;)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Witherweaver on June 02, 2016, 05:34:05 pm
Shanty Town is called "Poor Quarter" in the Norwegian set. Nice fit thematically with City Quarter; both draw cards depending on what is in your hand.

Now watch "City Quarter" be translated as something entirely different. ;)

'City 20-Cent and 5-Cent Piece' in continental Europe. 
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Seprix on June 02, 2016, 06:06:02 pm
City No-Quarter
Action -$5

+1 Card
+2 Actions

When this pile is empty, City does not get any empty pile bonuses.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: MattTV on June 04, 2016, 10:36:56 am
Oh and one question I had was if you crown a capital do you still accumulate just 6 debt? The card says that you accumulate the debt when you discard it from play not necessarily when you play it, so if even I play capital twice I'm still only discarding capital once from play. and thanks in advance for whoever answers.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Mic Qsenoch on June 04, 2016, 11:01:48 am
Oh and one question I had was if you crown a capital do you still accumulate just 6 debt? The card says that you accumulate the debt when you discard it from play not necessarily when you play it, so if even I play capital twice I'm still only discarding capital once from play. and thanks in advance for whoever answers.

You are right, only get 6 debt once. Note that Counterfeit/Mint/Mandarin may allow you to dodge the debt entirely.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Davio on June 04, 2016, 11:16:01 am
Herbalist too.   :D
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: MattTV on June 04, 2016, 11:41:42 am
Oh and one question I had was if you crown a capital do you still accumulate just 6 debt? The card says that you accumulate the debt when you discard it from play not necessarily when you play it, so if even I play capital twice I'm still only discarding capital once from play. and thanks in advance for whoever answers.

You are right, only get 6 debt once. Note that Counterfeit/Mint/Mandarin may allow you to dodge the debt entirely.
Herbalist too.   :D
Sweeet!! dude I can't wait to try a capital+crown+fortune game. just those alone would give you 24 dollars. an instant three provinces and I only gotta pay 6 back :D
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: J Reggie on June 04, 2016, 11:56:02 am
Oh and one question I had was if you crown a capital do you still accumulate just 6 debt? The card says that you accumulate the debt when you discard it from play not necessarily when you play it, so if even I play capital twice I'm still only discarding capital once from play. and thanks in advance for whoever answers.

You are right, only get 6 debt once. Note that Counterfeit/Mint/Mandarin may allow you to dodge the debt entirely.
Herbalist too.   :D
Sweeet!! dude I can't wait to try a capital+crown+fortune game. just those alone would give you 24 dollars. an instant three provinces and I only gotta pay 6 back :D

Add Mandarin and two Quarries and that's two Colonies every turn! Can't wait to see that in a random game  ;)
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crj on June 04, 2016, 06:14:57 pm
And Bonfire.

And, as Donald X. himself pointed out: the end of the game. (-8
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: blaisepascal on June 20, 2016, 11:07:41 am
So when laying out kingdom cards, it's somewhat common to sort them by price, then alphabetically, with potions sorting lexicographically (e.g., Cellar(2), Haven(2), Scrying Pool(2P), Enchantress(3), in that order).

Where would you put the debt cards?

Would you do (Inheritance(7), Overlord<8>, Prince(8)), or (Inheritance(7), Prince(8), Overlord<8>), or even (Overlord<8>, Poor House(1))? Would you put Engineer next to Bishop, or next to Peddler? Fortunately, the only coin+debt "card" is Wedding,  an event, so it doesn't normally get sorted into the kingdom cards.

The Wiki lists them before the other cards, and I've sorted them after. What do you do?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on June 20, 2016, 11:21:28 am
So when laying out kingdom cards, it's somewhat common to sort them by price, then alphabetically, with potions sorting lexicographically (e.g., Cellar(2), Haven(2), Scrying Pool(2P), Enchantress(3), in that order).

Where would you put the debt cards?

Would you do (Inheritance(7), Overlord<8>, Prince(8)), or (Inheritance(7), Prince(8), Overlord<8>), or even (Overlord<8>, Poor House(1))? Would you put Engineer next to Bishop, or next to Peddler? Fortunately, the only coin+debt "card" is Wedding,  an event, so it doesn't normally get sorted into the kingdom cards.

The Wiki lists them before the other cards, and I've sorted them after. What do you do?

I strongly recommend putting them at the bottom (or wherever their $ cost would put them). So, Engineer<4>, Overlord<8>, Encampment(2), Prince(8), Fortune(8)<8>. Maybe your group is different, but lots of casual players tend to look at cards only up to what they can afford, so they will not look beyond the $4 cards if they only have $4. Putting pure Debt cards at the bottom reminds them that they can buy those cards even with $0.

When I asked Donald about this, his position was: he doesn't sort piles in real-life games, but if he did, he would put Debt cards at the bottom. It's possible he would have a different opinion today, but I believe those were his thoughts a few months ago.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Deadlock39 on June 20, 2016, 11:25:54 am
Where would you put the debt cards?

I prefer to put these after their coin equivalents

(3) Workshop, (4) Bishop, <4> Engineer, (4p) Golem, (7) King's Court, (8) Prince, <8> Overlord

I don't sort events in with the cards, they go below the Kingdom on their own.



I had not considered issues with new players, so I guess I will reconsider in such situations.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Donald X. on June 20, 2016, 11:50:12 am
When I asked Donald about this, his position was: he doesn't sort piles in real-life games, but if he did, he would put Debt cards at the bottom. It's possible he would have a different opinion today, but I believe those were his thoughts a few months ago.
That still sounds good.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: crj on June 20, 2016, 01:16:55 pm
So when laying out kingdom cards, it's somewhat common to sort them by price, then alphabetically, with potions sorting lexicographically (e.g., Cellar(2), Haven(2), Scrying Pool(2P), Enchantress(3), in that order).

Where would you put the debt cards?
I'd say to look at what you do with potion-cost cards and do the same for debt-cost cards.

Unfortunately, my group plays with Alchemy so infrequently that I can't remember what we do, there.

Relatedly, where should split piles go? We've always stuck Knights in with the $5s and just noticed when Sir Martin happens to be on top, but things are a little trickier now. I'm almost tempted to suggest moving the pile around the table according to the cost of what's on top though that could get old quite quickly in the case of Castles...
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on June 20, 2016, 02:25:44 pm
Relatedly, where should split piles go? We've always stuck Knights in with the $5s and just noticed when Sir Martin happens to be on top, but things are a little trickier now. I'm almost tempted to suggest moving the pile around the table according to the cost of what's on top though that could get old quite quickly in the case of Castles...

Or Encampment!

I just leave the piles where they started, except when I'm playing with a friend of mine who's legally blind. He prefers to have a separate row for each different cost, and so we move the piles to the correct row as needed.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: werothegreat on June 20, 2016, 02:57:49 pm
The bottom? I always put cheaper cards on the top row...
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: LastFootnote on June 20, 2016, 02:59:59 pm
The bottom? I always put cheaper cards on the top row...

Oh, me too. I just mean, the bottom of the cost ranking.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: mail-mi on June 20, 2016, 05:39:38 pm
The bottom? I always put cheaper cards on the top row...

Odd. My set up is: basic victory on Top, with estates on the left, basic treasures on the right with copper on the bottom, and kingdom cards on the bottom left, with lowest cost on the bottom.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Awaclus on June 20, 2016, 05:42:17 pm
The bottom? I always put cheaper cards on the top row...

Odd. Mine is basic victory

No, it's a kingdom Action card. Maybe that's why it's odd.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: mail-mi on June 20, 2016, 05:51:56 pm
The bottom? I always put cheaper cards on the top row...

Odd. My set up is: basic victory

No, it's a kingdom Action card. Maybe that's why it's odd.

Huh?
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on June 20, 2016, 05:52:52 pm
The bottom? I always put cheaper cards on the top row...

Odd. My set up is: basic victory

No, it's a kingdom Action card. Maybe that's why it's odd.

Huh?
He changed your quote!
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: Kergord on June 20, 2016, 07:15:23 pm
I need some clarification on "Capital".

The text below the line that refers to paying off the 6 debt, is it saying you start paying off the debt with unspent coin?

I've been confused by the comments.
Title: Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt
Post by: drsteelhammer on June 20, 2016, 07:18:12 pm
I need some clarification on "Capital".

The text below the line that refers to paying off the 6 debt, is it saying you start paying off the debt with unspent coin?

I've been confused by the comments.

Yes, that is correct. (It says so in the rulebook aswell)