Dominion Strategy Forum

Dominion Previews => Dominion: Nocturne Previews => Dominion: Renaissance Previews => Empires Previews => Topic started by: Mic Qsenoch on June 06, 2016, 06:22:49 pm

Title: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Mic Qsenoch on June 06, 2016, 06:22:49 pm
It's up

http://riograndegames.com/Game/1306-Dominion-Empires
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Beyond Awesome on June 06, 2016, 06:29:21 pm
Hell yeah!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: enfynet on June 06, 2016, 06:30:43 pm
Hooray!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Marcory on June 06, 2016, 06:34:10 pm
Donate. Wow.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: pacovf on June 06, 2016, 06:34:25 pm
Donate. Wow.

Ninja'd by seconds. OMGWTFBBQ
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Cuzz on June 06, 2016, 06:34:51 pm
!!!!!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Jimmmmm on June 06, 2016, 06:35:47 pm
Donate. Wow.

Ninja'd by seconds. OMGWTFBBQ
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: drsteelhammer on June 06, 2016, 06:37:49 pm
So, is anyone up for a first impressions stream? The ones that usually do it are testers who are not allowed to.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Jimmmmm on June 06, 2016, 06:39:04 pm
Tax is cool.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: markusin on June 06, 2016, 06:41:40 pm
So, is anyone up for a first impressions stream? The ones that usually do it are testers who are not allowed to.

That actually sounds like fun. I might be up for it tonight. I'd review them blind.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: jsh357 on June 06, 2016, 06:42:32 pm
So, is anyone up for a first impressions stream? The ones that usually do it are testers who are not allowed to.

That actually sounds like fun. I might be up for it tonight. I'd review them blind.

Please, lots of people do this! I'm a glutton! A glutton for opinions! Help!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Chris is me on June 06, 2016, 06:48:19 pm
I'd be down for helping with a first impressions stream, if anyone cares what I think about anything.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: drsteelhammer on June 06, 2016, 06:50:24 pm
I'd be down for helping with a first impressions stream, if anyone cares what I think about anything.

Wanna do one together? Having a conversation about the cards sounds fun to me.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: pacovf on June 06, 2016, 06:50:33 pm
I don't have specific opinions, but look interesting (aside from previews):

Archive
Charm
Encampment
Overlord
Annex
Delve
D0N4T3!!!!11!!1!!111!11
Salt the Earth
Orchard
Tower
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: enfynet on June 06, 2016, 06:56:29 pm
I have a lot of thoughts, and I'm only halfway through the Kingdom cards. I'm gonna use Overlord on Band of Misfits.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 06, 2016, 06:56:41 pm
I'd be down for helping with a first impressions stream, if anyone cares what I think about anything.

Wanna do one together? Having a conversation about the cards sounds fun to me.

Count me in!  Furiously wiki-ing at the moment.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: wachsmuth on June 06, 2016, 06:57:18 pm
I would also be up for doing a first impressions stream. Someone can PM me now if they wanna do one with 2 commentators :)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: jsh357 on June 06, 2016, 07:00:19 pm
I'd be down for helping with a first impressions stream, if anyone cares what I think about anything.

Wanna do one together? Having a conversation about the cards sounds fun to me.

Count me in!  Furiously wiki-ing at the moment.

While you're at that, can you add the subreddit to the front page of the wiki with the other community links? I tried to do it the other day and couldn't figure out how.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 06, 2016, 07:03:10 pm
I'd be down for helping with a first impressions stream, if anyone cares what I think about anything.

Wanna do one together? Having a conversation about the cards sounds fun to me.

Count me in!  Furiously wiki-ing at the moment.

While you're at that, can you add the subreddit to the front page of the wiki with the other community links? I tried to do it the other day and couldn't figure out how.

Sure thing.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Chris is me on June 06, 2016, 07:19:25 pm
I'd be down for helping with a first impressions stream, if anyone cares what I think about anything.

Wanna do one together? Having a conversation about the cards sounds fun to me.

Count me in!  Furiously wiki-ing at the moment.

I've got a league match at ~9 EDT but otherwise I'm free from 8 PM EDT until whenever. If scheduling doesn't work / you guys wanna do this during my match no big deal; otherwise I'd love to try this.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 06, 2016, 07:25:19 pm
I'd be down for helping with a first impressions stream, if anyone cares what I think about anything.

Wanna do one together? Having a conversation about the cards sounds fun to me.

Count me in!  Furiously wiki-ing at the moment.

I've got a league match at ~9 EDT but otherwise I'm free from 8 PM EDT until whenever. If scheduling doesn't work / you guys wanna do this during my match no big deal; otherwise I'd love to try this.

8 should work.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Jimmmmm on June 06, 2016, 07:40:42 pm
Having Donate and Tomb in the same game would completely mess with the end game.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: markusin on June 06, 2016, 07:52:17 pm
So, is anyone up for a first impressions stream? The ones that usually do it are testers who are not allowed to.

That actually sounds like fun. I might be up for it tonight. I'd review them blind.

Well I've managed to get snippets of all the cards in the rulebook and sorted them in an appropriate order, all without looking at what the cards actually do. I'd like to open up a stream to review them in an hour on my Twitch channel, but I'd be down to instead commentate alongside someone who knows how to sync multiple commentators on a stream. I have no idea how to do that.

My Twitch Channel:
https://www.twitch.tv/markusincos (https://www.twitch.tv/markusincos)

Edit: Going live now.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: dmet on June 06, 2016, 08:06:20 pm
Having Donate and Tomb in the same game would completely mess with the end game.

I know we avoid 3-card combos, but Donate, Tomb and anything that gains a lot of bad cards quickly (Beggar and Treasure Hunter come to mind) could be super cool. Beggar especially would help you pay off the debt on the turn you buy Donate.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Watno on June 06, 2016, 08:31:26 pm
I think SCSN has a new favorite event in Delve.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: RevanFan on June 06, 2016, 08:43:51 pm
I thought of a beautiful thing while reading the rulebook. It'll be difficult to pull off, but it would be great if it works.

First turn, buy Donate. Take the 8 debt, and trash everything except for 5 copper. Pay off the debt, but don't buy any cards when the debt is payed off. It'll take 2 turns to pay off the debt, leaving you with 2 coin left. DON'T SPEND IT. On the third turn after buying Donate, use your 5 copper to buy Windfall. Gain the 3 golds. Turn after that, Donate again to trash the rest of your copper. Pay off the debt that turn as well, if you can. Then feel free to Windfall to your heart's desire, or just buy all the Provinces.

I don't know how I thought of that, but I'm glad I did.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Beyond Awesome on June 06, 2016, 08:50:28 pm
Donate is beyond busted. Probably stronger than Chapel and kills Mountebank and Cultist. Holy amazeballs. So many cards. Hard to process everything at once.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: trivialknot on June 06, 2016, 09:09:20 pm
OMG

Obelisk/Scout is the Scout combo we've all been waiting for!

Tax is the comeuppance that the first player has long been asking for!

Donate is an alternative to conceding!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: ephesos on June 06, 2016, 10:31:48 pm
Don't forget the Band of Misfits reprint that you can open with... maybe now we can finally empty the supply solo on turn 2.

Also, Banquet + IGG just seems terrifying; I guess you can open with another 5 to counter, but if you're second player, you can have 2 curses in your deck before your first shuffle.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: ephesos on June 06, 2016, 10:46:33 pm
I thought of a beautiful thing while reading the rulebook. It'll be difficult to pull off, but it would be great if it works.

First turn, buy Donate. Take the 8 debt, and trash everything except for 5 copper. Pay off the debt, but don't buy any cards when the debt is payed off. It'll take 2 turns to pay off the debt, leaving you with 2 coin left. DON'T SPEND IT. On the third turn after buying Donate, use your 5 copper to buy Windfall. Gain the 3 golds. Turn after that, Donate again to trash the rest of your copper. Pay off the debt that turn as well, if you can. Then feel free to Windfall to your heart's desire, or just buy all the Provinces.

I don't know how I thought of that, but I'm glad I did.

I'm not 100% sure on how Debt works, being that I've never played with it, but don't you have some money after you buy Donate, that you can pay off with?

So after you buy it, you spend whatever money you started with to remove some of the Debt, giving you good odds to pay the rest of it off on turn 2 with your 5 copper and Windfall turn 3.

And on turn 4 you Donate, then Windfall turn 5, and just buy Provinces turns 6-9 with decent likelihood to not draw all 3 Provinces for the last buy.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Kirian on June 06, 2016, 10:55:03 pm
I thought of a beautiful thing while reading the rulebook. It'll be difficult to pull off, but it would be great if it works.

First turn, buy Donate. Take the 8 debt, and trash everything except for 5 copper. Pay off the debt, but don't buy any cards when the debt is payed off. It'll take 2 turns to pay off the debt, leaving you with 2 coin left. DON'T SPEND IT. On the third turn after buying Donate, use your 5 copper to buy Windfall. Gain the 3 golds. Turn after that, Donate again to trash the rest of your copper. Pay off the debt that turn as well, if you can. Then feel free to Windfall to your heart's desire, or just buy all the Provinces.

I don't know how I thought of that, but I'm glad I did.

I'm not 100% sure on how Debt works, being that I've never played with it, but don't you have some money after you buy Donate, that you can pay off with?

So after you buy it, you spend whatever money you started with to remove some of the Debt, giving you good odds to pay the rest of it off on turn 2 with your 5 copper and Windfall turn 3.

And on turn 4 you Donate, then Windfall turn 5, and just buy Provinces turns 6-9 with decent likelihood to not draw all 3 Provinces for the last buy.

Donate happens after your turn ends, at which point you have no money.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Mic Qsenoch on June 06, 2016, 10:58:48 pm
I thought of a beautiful thing while reading the rulebook. It'll be difficult to pull off, but it would be great if it works.

First turn, buy Donate. Take the 8 debt, and trash everything except for 5 copper. Pay off the debt, but don't buy any cards when the debt is payed off. It'll take 2 turns to pay off the debt, leaving you with 2 coin left. DON'T SPEND IT. On the third turn after buying Donate, use your 5 copper to buy Windfall. Gain the 3 golds. Turn after that, Donate again to trash the rest of your copper. Pay off the debt that turn as well, if you can. Then feel free to Windfall to your heart's desire, or just buy all the Provinces.

I don't know how I thought of that, but I'm glad I did.

I'm not 100% sure on how Debt works, being that I've never played with it, but don't you have some money after you buy Donate, that you can pay off with?

So after you buy it, you spend whatever money you started with to remove some of the Debt, giving you good odds to pay the rest of it off on turn 2 with your 5 copper and Windfall turn 3.

And on turn 4 you Donate, then Windfall turn 5, and just buy Provinces turns 6-9 with decent likelihood to not draw all 3 Provinces for the last buy.

Donate happens after your turn ends, at which point you have no money.

That doesn't matter, when you buy Donate and get the debt you certainly may have generated some money and can use it to pay off the debt, ephesos is right.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Elanchana on June 06, 2016, 11:04:39 pm
fhhh.

I think DXV has lost it. I was reading through the card descriptions and I had to stop partway through the Landmarks because my brain couldn't handle everything. Adventures was complicated enough, but this is insanity.

I'll get used to it........ sometime............

Couple of random comments. Archive is awesome - it won me my first Empires playtest game, no joke. I've made good use of Encampment as well. Wild Hunt was the Gathering card I got really petty with. Wondering how something as OP as insta-thin Donate made it into the game. Delve, did you just make the Silver test irrelevant? And finally, twelve points go to... are we gonna call it "buying a Salt the Earth" or just "Salting the Earth"?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: LastFootnote on June 06, 2016, 11:13:49 pm
are we gonna call it "buying a Salt the Earth" or just "Salting the Earth"?

I usually just say, "I'm going to salt the earth."

When Adventures came out, I mentioned that playing Transmogrify made me feel like a mad scientist. Buying Salt the Earth makes me feel like an old-timey villain. "The clock is ticking, nyaah!"
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: chipperMDW on June 06, 2016, 11:19:23 pm
Is it significant that Ritual uses past tense ("+1VP per $1 it cost") compared to, say, Apprentice, which uses present tense ("+1 Card per $ is costs")? I would assume that Ritual is intended to work the same as most other things, which look at the properties of a card after it's trashed. But the use of past tense might suggest it looks at the properties of the card at the time of trashing.

I ask because Donald has said that Treasure Map, which has been the only thing that does look at a card property at the time of trashing, should have used "did" instead of "do" to indicate that fact. So... just checking to see whether that's supposed to matter here.

(Situation where it would make a difference: while Inheriting something, trash one of your Estates while you have Quarry in play. The Estate stops being yours, so it stops being an action, and its cost stops being reduced.)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: RevanFan on June 06, 2016, 11:21:07 pm
I thought of a beautiful thing while reading the rulebook. It'll be difficult to pull off, but it would be great if it works.

First turn, buy Donate. Take the 8 debt, and trash everything except for 5 copper. Pay off the debt, but don't buy any cards when the debt is payed off. It'll take 2 turns to pay off the debt, leaving you with 2 coin left. DON'T SPEND IT. On the third turn after buying Donate, use your 5 copper to buy Windfall. Gain the 3 golds. Turn after that, Donate again to trash the rest of your copper. Pay off the debt that turn as well, if you can. Then feel free to Windfall to your heart's desire, or just buy all the Provinces.

I don't know how I thought of that, but I'm glad I did.

I'm not 100% sure on how Debt works, being that I've never played with it, but don't you have some money after you buy Donate, that you can pay off with?

So after you buy it, you spend whatever money you started with to remove some of the Debt, giving you good odds to pay the rest of it off on turn 2 with your 5 copper and Windfall turn 3.

And on turn 4 you Donate, then Windfall turn 5, and just buy Provinces turns 6-9 with decent likelihood to not draw all 3 Provinces for the last buy.
Yeah, I forgot that bit when I was posting. So, theoretically, you could have nothing but gold in your deck, and enough of it to buy a Province every turn, in four turns.

Turn 1: Buy Donate, take 8 Debt, pay off 2-5 Debt. Trash 2 Copper and 3 Estates/Shelters.
Turn 2: Pay off 2-5 Debt.
Turn 3: Buy Windfall. Gain 3 Gold.
Turn 4: Buy Donate, take 8 Debt, pay off what you can. Trash all remaining starting cards, leaving just 3 Gold in your deck.

Now, Windfall on turn 5 would be great, but it would be essential in a Colony game.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: J Reggie on June 06, 2016, 11:22:54 pm
I think SCSN has a new favorite event in Delve.

Well, I think he'll love Bandit Fort. 

I don't think Donate will be quite as amazing as it looks at first.  Yes, it's crazy, but you'll probably only want to buy it once because of the cost, and it'll be hard knowing when to do that.  I think Chapel is probably still better.  Obviously Donate is great against junkers but so is Chapel and it costs way less.  Just saying it's probably not quite as broken as you'd think.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Donald X. on June 06, 2016, 11:23:43 pm
Is it significant that Ritual uses past tense ("+1VP per $1 it cost") compared to, say, Apprentice, which uses present tense ("+1 Card per $ is costs")? I would assume that Ritual is intended to work the same as most other things, which look at the properties of a card after it's trashed. But the use of past tense might suggest it looks at the properties of the card at the time of trashing.
The cards have to be interpreted according to the wordings they actually have, but it wasn't "supposed to matter," it just happens to say what it does.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: RevanFan on June 06, 2016, 11:24:30 pm
I think SCSN has a new favorite event in Delve.

Well, I think he'll love Bandit Fort. 

I don't think Donate will be quite as amazing as it looks at first.  Yes, it's crazy, but you'll probably only want to buy it once because of the cost, and it'll be hard knowing when to do that.  I think Chapel is probably still better.  Obviously Donate is great against junkers but so is Chapel and it costs way less.  Just saying it's probably not quite as broken as you'd think.
So far, the Donate+Windfall situation I described is the only really 'excellent' way to play Donate I can think of. In any other situation, I'd probably also prefer Chapel.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Limetime on June 06, 2016, 11:29:39 pm
What happens to obelisk when there is no action supply pile?
Does it just fail to choose one or does the game break?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: liopoil on June 06, 2016, 11:29:43 pm
Seems to me that the right use of Donate is to first buy cards which give some economy without any regard for thinning and then buy donate, trash all 10 starting cards, and transition into an engine.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Limetime on June 06, 2016, 11:32:58 pm
Seems to me that the right use of Donate is to first buy cards which give some economy without any regard for thinning and then buy donate, trash all 10 starting cards, and transition into an engine.
Yep sounds right to me
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Donald X. on June 06, 2016, 11:35:01 pm
What happens to obelisk when there is no action supply pile?
Does it just fail to choose one or does the game break?
fail
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Jimmmmm on June 06, 2016, 11:35:54 pm
What happens to obelisk when there is no action supply pile?
Does it just fail to choose one or does the game break?

I think the game tries to divide by zero and just returns an error.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Moneymodel on June 06, 2016, 11:36:33 pm
Hmm. If Advance is on the board, a player who falls behind early in a Cultist-BM mirror has a better chance of catching up. You can exchange a Ruins for a Cultist, and you don't even need any money to do it.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: chipperMDW on June 06, 2016, 11:40:07 pm
Is it significant that Ritual uses past tense ("+1VP per $1 it cost") compared to, say, Apprentice, which uses present tense ("+1 Card per $ is costs")? I would assume that Ritual is intended to work the same as most other things, which look at the properties of a card after it's trashed. But the use of past tense might suggest it looks at the properties of the card at the time of trashing.
The cards have to be interpreted according to the wordings they actually have, but it wasn't "supposed to matter," it just happens to say what it does.
Sorry; I guess I'm being slow, but I can't tell for sure from your response: does that mean Ritual should be interpreted as checking the cost of the card in the past (i.e. at the time of trashing)?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: MattTV on June 06, 2016, 11:59:35 pm
woooh, my mind is nuked. Thanks for another amazing expansion Donald :).
 
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Beyond Awesome on June 07, 2016, 12:12:40 am
Seems to me that the right use of Detonate is to first buy cards which give some economy without any regard for thinning and then buy detonate, trash all 10 starting cards, and transition into an engine.

That's what I'm thinking. Also, this seems better  than Chapel since you can build a little before Detonating your deck. Chapel eats up those early turns and misses shuffles or estates, etc.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Jimmmmm on June 07, 2016, 12:14:12 am
Chapel is clearly one of the worst 2s, since Donate does it better.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: eHalcyon on June 07, 2016, 12:33:18 am
Haven't read any other threads about the new reveals and I'm still compiling one big post of first impressions.  Just wanted to put this out first on its own, since it includes a question.

Aqueduct - The clarification is confusing to me... Doesn't the Treasure part only apply to Silver and Gold?  So buying Humble Castle or Harem should only let you take VP, not move any VP to Aqueduct?  I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles.  Or am I misreading something?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Chris is me on June 07, 2016, 12:41:11 am
Salt the Earth is the best card in Dominion. Theme is absolutely on point, and the number of complete dick moves you can do with this card is absolutely endless. Amazing.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: GendoIkari on June 07, 2016, 12:41:30 am
Haven't read any other threads about the new reveals and I'm still compiling one big post of first impressions.  Just wanted to put this out first on its own, since it includes a question.

Aqueduct - The clarification is confusing to me... Doesn't the Treasure part only apply to Silver and Gold?  So buying Humble Castle or Harem should only let you take VP, not move any VP to Aqueduct?  I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles.  Or am I misreading something?

Hmm.. Well I think the the move a token rule would also apply to any Treasure that gets VP tokens on it, such as gatherers. But I didn't check to see if there are any treasure-gathering.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 07, 2016, 12:42:30 am
Any recommendations on choosing the pile for Obelisk?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: GendoIkari on June 07, 2016, 12:43:27 am
Any recommendations on choosing the pile for Obelisk?

Randomly.  ;D
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: GendoIkari on June 07, 2016, 12:46:14 am
Haven't read any other threads about the new reveals and I'm still compiling one big post of first impressions.  Just wanted to put this out first on its own, since it includes a question.

Aqueduct - The clarification is confusing to me... Doesn't the Treasure part only apply to Silver and Gold?  So buying Humble Castle or Harem should only let you take VP, not move any VP to Aqueduct?  I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles.  Or am I misreading something?

Hmm.. Well I think the the move a token rule would also apply to any Treasure that gets VP tokens on it, such as gatherers. But I didn't check to see if there are any treasure-gathering.

Ah ha... If you have both Crown and Defiled Shrine in the game, then you'll have another treasure pile with vp tokens on it. So Aqueduct should steal tokens from that too I would think.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: MattTV on June 07, 2016, 12:48:46 am
Haven't read any other threads about the new reveals and I'm still compiling one big post of first impressions.  Just wanted to put this out first on its own, since it includes a question.

Aqueduct - The clarification is confusing to me... Doesn't the Treasure part only apply to Silver and Gold?  So buying Humble Castle or Harem should only let you take VP, not move any VP to Aqueduct?  I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles.  Or am I misreading something?
No aquaduct applies to any treasure you gain and it says in the rules that you can do both if you gain something like a harem(treasure/action). so you have two reactions in which you get to choose the order, so you move 1 victory token onto aqueduct and then gain any victory points that are on aqueduct. or you can choose the opposite gain the victory points stored on it and move 1 victory token to aqueduct. 
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: MattTV on June 07, 2016, 12:49:44 am
I mean treasure/victory x)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: LastFootnote on June 07, 2016, 12:51:50 am
I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles.

Bingo.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: GendoIkari on June 07, 2016, 12:54:06 am
Haven't read any other threads about the new reveals and I'm still compiling one big post of first impressions.  Just wanted to put this out first on its own, since it includes a question.

Aqueduct - The clarification is confusing to me... Doesn't the Treasure part only apply to Silver and Gold?  So buying Humble Castle or Harem should only let you take VP, not move any VP to Aqueduct?  I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles.  Or am I misreading something?
No aquaduct applies to any treasure you gain and it says in the rules that you can do both if you gain something like a harem(treasure/action). so you have two reactions in which you get to choose the order, so you move 1 victory token onto aqueduct and then gain any victory points that are on aqueduct. or you can choose the opposite gain the victory points stored on it and move 1 victory token to aqueduct.

The point is that Humble Castle can never have VP tokens on it though.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: chipperMDW on June 07, 2016, 12:55:43 am
Haven't read any other threads about the new reveals and I'm still compiling one big post of first impressions.  Just wanted to put this out first on its own, since it includes a question.

Aqueduct - The clarification is confusing to me... Doesn't the Treasure part only apply to Silver and Gold?  So buying Humble Castle or Harem should only let you take VP, not move any VP to Aqueduct?  I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles.  Or am I misreading something?

Hmm.. Well I think the the move a token rule would also apply to any Treasure that gets VP tokens on it, such as gatherers. But I didn't check to see if there are any treasure-gathering.

Ah ha... If you have both Crown and Defiled Shrine in the game, then you'll have another treasure pile with vp tokens on it. So Aqueduct should steal tokens from that to I would think.
You beat me to it! But you would also have to have Inherited Crown to make it into both a treasure and a victory card before the Aqueduct clarification comes into play.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Beyond Awesome on June 07, 2016, 12:56:17 am
One thing I feel Empires attacks seem on the weak side
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Limetime on June 07, 2016, 12:59:35 am
One thing I feel Empires attacks seem on the weak side
They are strong in an engine weak in bm. That's mostly because you have to work to get their benefit.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: GendoIkari on June 07, 2016, 01:01:57 am
Haven't read any other threads about the new reveals and I'm still compiling one big post of first impressions.  Just wanted to put this out first on its own, since it includes a question.

Aqueduct - The clarification is confusing to me... Doesn't the Treasure part only apply to Silver and Gold?  So buying Humble Castle or Harem should only let you take VP, not move any VP to Aqueduct?  I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles.  Or am I misreading something?

Hmm.. Well I think the the move a token rule would also apply to any Treasure that gets VP tokens on it, such as gatherers. But I didn't check to see if there are any treasure-gathering.

Ah ha... If you have both Crown and Defiled Shrine in the game, then you'll have another treasure pile with vp tokens on it. So Aqueduct should steal tokens from that to I would think.
You beat me to it! But you would also have to have Inherited Crown to make it into both a treasure and a victory card before the Aqueduct clarification comes into play.

That doesn't work does it? The Estates pile can't have VP tokens on it, so the clarification still can't matter.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: bitwise on June 07, 2016, 01:03:17 am
Looking forward to (clearly) the best new strategy, Banquet/Counting House!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: chipperMDW on June 07, 2016, 01:07:12 am
Haven't read any other threads about the new reveals and I'm still compiling one big post of first impressions.  Just wanted to put this out first on its own, since it includes a question.

Aqueduct - The clarification is confusing to me... Doesn't the Treasure part only apply to Silver and Gold?  So buying Humble Castle or Harem should only let you take VP, not move any VP to Aqueduct?  I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles.  Or am I misreading something?

Hmm.. Well I think the the move a token rule would also apply to any Treasure that gets VP tokens on it, such as gatherers. But I didn't check to see if there are any treasure-gathering.

Ah ha... If you have both Crown and Defiled Shrine in the game, then you'll have another treasure pile with vp tokens on it. So Aqueduct should steal tokens from that to I would think.
You beat me to it! But you would also have to have Inherited Crown to make it into both a treasure and a victory card before the Aqueduct clarification comes into play.

That doesn't work does it? The Estates pile can't have VP tokens on it, so the clarification still can't matter.
You're correct. Never mind, then!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: eHalcyon on June 07, 2016, 01:11:56 am
First impressions, without reading anything else in the forums about it all...

Archive - I love it.  It's relatively simple, but creates deep tactical considerations.  I'm shocked that I haven't seen any fan cards that do this.  A fun thing is that the set aside cards can be used to track whether it should stay in play, which would otherwise be a small issue for a multi-turn Duration.  Non-terminal means you can stack these, and they even make it easier to chain multiples on the same turn (or save them for later if you prefer).  Really cool.

Charm - Treasure Woodcutter, or a Duplicate variant.  I can see this as a mega-turn card like HoP, given the right board... specifically, when Prince or Peddler are also in the kingdom, a bunch of Charms could gain all the Provinces.  But it could also be used to empty other piles, of course.  I think this will be a lot more useful than Talisman.  Very neat.

Patrician/Emporium - Patrician is like Vagrant, except it usually draws good cards instead of junk.  The downside is that "good" actually means "expensive".  Even trim decks tend to have a bunch of sub-$5 components, so Patrician is not necessarily reliable.  Even so, I think I'd prefer it over Vagrant most of the time.  And then there's Emporium... Neither card here directly references the other, but they synergize nonetheless.  Patrician makes it more likely that you'll be able to trigger Emporium's on-gain.  Emporium is another potential target for Patrician to draw.  This particular split pile isn't mind-blowing to me, but it's a nice combination.  In this case, I don't think there's a thematic connection between the two cards, but they thematically make sense for what they do.  Patricians are high class, so they bring expensive stuff with them.  Emporiums are places of commerce, so you should open them in places with high traffic and activity.

Encampment/Plunder - Plunder is a simple Silver+, giving 1VP when you play it.  It is essentially Monument as a Treasure.  Being that similar means maybe it wouldn't be that interesting as its own pile, or it might have problems (since it is essentially be non-terminal), but this is mitigated by Encampment.  Not only are there fewer Plunders to go around, but they aren't accessible early in the game, and they're still somewhat tough to pick up because of Encampment being returned to the pile.  Encampment is itself really interesting.  It's a powerful one-shot for $2.  I think I'm going to have a hard time figuring out when that alone is worthwhile, but then there's the possibility of it not being one-shot.  No doubt you will often be faced with the option of playing Encampment without Gold/Plunder in hand.  Is it better not to play it so you can keep it for a safer turn?  Do you play it and hope you draw the needed Treasure?  If that's not a possibility for whatever reason, could it be worth giving up Encampment just for its bonuses?  Or if you do have the treasure in hand, could it be good to forego the reveal and let it return to its pile, blocking Plunder?  So many considerations!  I'm not sure of the thematic narrative.  Buying an Encampment is like setting up an army for your legions?  But your legions will desert you if you don't show them you can pay?

Engineer - Obviously better than Workshop, but it doesn't seem that significant to me.  For a slightly higher cost, you get a nice bonus for when you no longer need it, letting you replace this unwanted card for something more useful.  But until you do that, it's just a Workshop.  I wonder how often it will be a good play to buy it and trash it immediately.  That would be like delaying the $4 you would have gained for a shuffle in order to get a bonus gain... hm.  My first impression is that this is marginal, but it may be a key interaction for winning certain splits.

Forum - One of the more vanilla cards.  a 1-card improvement on Warehouse, letting you sift and cycle without reducing handsize.  The on-buy doesn't seem so significant, but it makes its cost a little lower.

Legionary - A brutal attack, strong enough that it requires a Gold reveal to trigger (thematically fits with the idea of paying your military, as with Encampment?).  Interesting that it produces +$3 itself.  It's worth noting that Legionary doesn't suffer the same drawback as Margrave in multiples, since you can decline to reveal Gold.  Sounds good, though I think Margrave will prove stronger overall thanks to its set of vanilla bonuses.

Overlord - It can copy cards that cost $5, which is significantly better than BoM.  Moreover, the fixed limit means you could potentially copy extra expensive cards like King's Court or Prince if you have some cost reduction.  Fun meta note, Overlord allowed Donald X. to sneak in some rules clarifications for BoM regarding new stuff in Empires like Encampment, Crown and Colonnade.

Sacrifice - Sounds good.  You usually don't want to trash actions, so the bonus for doing that is strong.  The bonus for trashing Treasure is weaker than either Moneylender or Spice Merchant, which makes sense since Sacrifice is a lot more flexible.  Trashing Estates is great, Duchies OK, more expensive VP cards not so much.  But Estates is the big thing.  I think this will be a good counter to Looters.

Wild Hunt - You'll pick the first option most of the time since you don't want to gain a junky Estate, in which case it's basically an expensive Smithy.  But sometimes the gathering VP will be tempting... and when's the right time to pull the trigger on that?  I have no idea.  Man.  Being able to play a bunch of Wild Hunts in one turn will be pretty good, as you'll be able to pick up a bunch of VP all at once.  In that case though, it's still just +1VP per play of Wild Hunt (including the last one, if you count the Estate).  It would be more efficient to let it accumulate even more, but that risks another player scooping the VP out from under you.  Still potentially doable if they can't (or are unlikely to) play a Wild Hunt on their next turn.  I like this a lot.  Gathering cards are so neat.



Advance - Suddenly Ruins are valuable??  This really shakes up the game, potentially making expensive key cards a lot easier to pick up.

Annex - Seems useful in a slog, when your deck is a mess and you're having trouble ending the game.  Annex is <8> for a Duchy, which might be a good deal if you're having trouble hitting a full $8 or even $5 on a single turn.  The shuffle effect may improve your hands for the next few turns, making it easier to hit $8 later.  Overall, looks niche to me.

Banquet - It basically Cache-ifies other cards, making something cheaper by attaching 2 Copper to it.  Fun use: Banquet for Cache to gain 4 Copper total.  There are probably some edge cases where you'll want to use this to gain a card that costs $3 or less (e.g. Gardens-Beggar).

Conquest - Designed for SCSN, no doubt. ;)  Probably helps Big Money strategies a lot.  The stacking self-synergy is interesting.  If you have $12 and 2 Buys, it's worth as much as Province but comes with 4 Silver instead of a green card.  $18 and 3 Buys, you can get 12VP and 6 Silver, which matches 2 Provinces in VP.  $24 and 4 Buys, it's 20VP and 8 Silver, which is more than 3 Provinces and matches 2 Colonies, a great deal if you want all that Silver.  But do you want all that Silver?  It's an interesting parallel to Triumph.  It has higher (opportunity) cost and only counts Silver, but it also gains two cards each time you buy it so it grows more quickly.  Neat.

Delve - Makes Silver cheaper to buy.  Simple enough.  I don't expect this to make a difference on most boards.  It could make Silver-favouring cards (Feodum and Conquest?) more viable though, and it may give an edge to Big Money strategies where they otherwise wouldn't be competitive.  Hmm.

Donate - Wow, this turns the game on its head.  When Donate appears, you'll pretty much always want to buy it once.  But when?  Early turns spent prepping for the Donate turn will be critical.  It's designed so that you can buy it and get full benefit on any turn, which is nice.  It reminds me of Chapel, and I wonder how the two will compete.  I'm tentatively guessing that Donate will trump Chapel most of the time, but the <8> cost makes it hard to judge.

Ritual - As a VP gainer, it's more powerful than Bishop for trashing cards that cost more than $4 or more, but you have to keep buying it and you accumulate dead cards in your deck that Ritual can't effectively remove.  I really like Bishop, so I think this will be fun too.

Salt the Earth - It's a way to end the game more quickly.  Will probably be used primarily to empty piles quickly.  Players will have to watch each other carefully.  As the current points leader, is it worth the $4 and Buy to trash a Province and take another step closer to the end, or should you continue building your deck lest another player overtake you?  I like it.

Tax - Sounds like a blast.  The setup potentially gives the second player an advantage (they can mirror the first player and avoid the Debt) and the Event as a whole is basically one big catch-up mechanism.  The first to buy each VP card will take at least 1 Debt from it.  If your deck is stronger, you're probably buying more cards and thus more likely to run into placed Debt.  If you're behind, you can buy this to try to stymie the leading player.  Granted, the leader could buy this as well, but it could be self-hindering unless players are pursuing very different strategies.

Wedding - It has a Debt cost, haha.  In games where I want Gold, I think I'd buy it via Wedding most of the time.  The +1VP is nice, and the lower coin cost makes it easier to pick up anyway.  Games with Wedding will likely feature early Gold gains, which could really change the dynamic of the game.  Sounds fun.



Aqueduct - It kind of turns VP cards into Gathering cards?  Tokens accumulate, tempting players to buy Victory cards earlier than usual.  Unless nobody ever gains Silver or Gold. :P

Arena - Encourages opening with two terminals, and overloading on terminals or just actions in general.  Sometimes you might skip playing an action card just to trigger Arena.  I like it.

Bandit Fort - Well, we didn't like Silver or Gold anyway. :P

Basilica - Encourages underspending, and gives you something to do with a plethora of +Buy.  Again, sounds fun.

Baths - I bet some inexperienced groups will just spend the first several turns passing until all the VP is gone and think Baths does nothing but delay the start of the actual game.  I wonder how often it'll actually be the right call to skip a potentially productive turn for Baths VP.  I expect it'll more often end up being a consolation prize for a bad turn.  I see interesting synergy with Mission.  Notably, you could just buy Mission to get 4VP tokens for $4.

Colonnade - Weird!  So it encourages buying multiples of the same card, and the wisdom of that will depend on the cards available.  In general though, it encourages buying more actions, which is nice after all those various cards that boosted Big Money.

Defiled Shrine - I like this more than Aqueduct (not that I dislike Aqueduct).  I expect that the VP growth will be better than Aqueduct on most boards, at least among experienced players.  And unlike Aqueduct, you have to commit more to get VP from Defiled Shrine, as opposed to it being a bonus on something you'd probably buy eventually anyway.  I see that Defiled Shrine can steal VP from Gathering cards.

Labyrinth - Simply encourages +Buy.  Not mind-shattering, but they can't all be so.

Mountain Pass - OK, so this is the card with bidding.  I'm guessing that this encourages buying a Province early, for the advantage of being the last to bid.  8VP is significant, and Debt does make it an easier "buy".  I can't see it ever being a good idea to bid <40> on this in a real game.  The unlikely edge case I can come up with is if Salt the Earth has already drained most of the pile, so securing this Province will get you the win.  Hm, a similar alternative is if this 8VP will guarantee you at least half of the total VP available in the game, which is unlikely since there will usually be 7+ more Provinces to go (and with Empires, probably more ways to get VP tokens).  So what's an actual appropriate bid?  Province is 6VP for $8 and Colony is 10 VP for $11.  The average of those is 8VP for $9.5, but this is in debt and it's VP tokens with no dead card attached... <10> sounds like a great deal, and even up to around <14> is probably still good?  Man, I don't know.  Could also flip this around and wonder what the lowest reasonable bid is... I guess you may not want any debt at all if you have a very precise plan to empty piles for a win, but that's tough to work out from just a starting hand.

Museum - Automatic Fairgrounds, haha.  Fairgrounds is fun, and this guarantees that drive to diversify.  I am a fan.

Obelisk - Bold rulebook move, not specifying a randomization process.  It shows a respect for and trust in the players, which may not always be deserved. ;)  This is a very simple effect that can really skew strategy, pretty much guaranteeing that there will be competition over a given pile.  Even the weakest cards may be attractive if they are the chosen one!

Orchard - Another Fairgrounds-like Landmark, with a touch of Vineyards (especially in the name).  I like it, though I like Museum more.

Palace - Simple enough.  Maybe you'll keep some extra Copper around, depending on how many Gold you expect to gain.  If you have no extras without a set, then Palace is essentially 1VP per basic Treasure.

Tower - Weird card.  It encourages you to try to empty piles where you're winning the split already, but you might also dive in where you're losing if it seems inevitable, just to mitigate the difference.  Creates some very interesting interaction and makes 3-pile endings more likely.  Sounds great.

Triumphal Arch - Interesting.  This encourages going deep on two Action cards.  Incredible if there's a strong 2-card combo available, but still has a heavy pull on the game without.  I really like this too.

Wall - Gotta get that thin deck.  Junkers are more powerful, which is a little scary, but it sounds really fun anyway.



Overall, this looks awesome.  Just wonderful.  Great stuff.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Deadlock39 on June 07, 2016, 01:12:44 am
The even better Donate/Windfall

Turn 1:
Play 5 Copper, Borrow, buy Donate, pay off 6 Debt.
Draw 4 cards.
Put your Deck and discard into your hand, Trash 3 Estate/2 Copper, Discard 5 Copper, Draw 5 Copper.

Turn 2:
Play 5 Copper, Spend Baker Token, Borrow, Pay off 2 Debt, Buy Windfall, Gain 3 Golds.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: rspeer on June 07, 2016, 01:18:12 am
Seems to me that the right use of Detonate is to first buy cards which give some economy without any regard for thinning and then buy detonate, trash all 10 starting cards, and transition into an engine.

That's what I'm thinking. Also, this seems better  than Chapel since you can build a little before Detonating your deck. Chapel eats up those early turns and misses shuffles or estates, etc.

"Detonate" is a much more fun name for the card than "Donate". (This deck will self-destruct in... FIVE... turns.)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: dbclick on June 07, 2016, 01:23:00 am
So much going on in those rules.  It will take a while to process.  ;D

For anyone who has the physical copy of the rulebook - does it have the Empires logo off-center like the PDF does?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Elanchana on June 07, 2016, 01:23:29 am
Seems to me that the right use of Donate is to first buy cards which give some economy without any regard for thinning and then buy donate, trash all 10 starting cards, and transition into an engine.

I feel like its main purpose was to make junking attacks utterly irrelevant, but... that too.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: eHalcyon on June 07, 2016, 01:25:34 am
Seems to me that the right use of Donate is to first buy cards which give some economy without any regard for thinning and then buy donate, trash all 10 starting cards, and transition into an engine.

I feel like its main purpose was to make junking attacks utterly irrelevant, but... that too.

Junking attacks aren't irrelevant though.  If you junk them after they've Donated the first time, you'll slow them down again.  If you do it enough, you may get them to buy Donate again, which isn't trivial.

It does neuter the -VP of Curses though, if they can Donate right before the end of the game.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Elanchana on June 07, 2016, 01:33:53 am
Seems to me that the right use of Donate is to first buy cards which give some economy without any regard for thinning and then buy donate, trash all 10 starting cards, and transition into an engine.

I feel like its main purpose was to make junking attacks utterly irrelevant, but... that too.

Junking attacks aren't irrelevant though.  If you junk them after they've Donated the first time, you'll slow them down again.  If you do it enough, you may get them to buy Donate again, which isn't trivial.

It does neuter the -VP of Curses though, if they can Donate right before the end of the game.

Don't forget that it's essentially free when you buy it, and if they already have enough good cards (that are just getting blocked by the junk) they can pay off the debt really easily in the next turn or two. I was thinking more along the lines of "Donate is on the board, do I really want to get this Mountebank instead of building my engine?"
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: chipperMDW on June 07, 2016, 01:35:18 am
Forum - One of the more vanilla cards.  a 1-card improvement on Warehouse, letting you sift and cycle without reducing handsize.  The on-buy doesn't seem so significant, but it makes its cost a little lower.
I've been thinking of Forum as basically Fugitive's big brother

Advance - Suddenly Ruins are valuable??  This really shakes up the game, potentially making expensive key cards a lot easier to pick up.
It also likes Necropolis. Could we manage a 6/5 opening before? And that's before you even consider stuff like Baker.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: eHalcyon on June 07, 2016, 01:37:35 am
Seems to me that the right use of Donate is to first buy cards which give some economy without any regard for thinning and then buy donate, trash all 10 starting cards, and transition into an engine.

I feel like its main purpose was to make junking attacks utterly irrelevant, but... that too.

Junking attacks aren't irrelevant though.  If you junk them after they've Donated the first time, you'll slow them down again.  If you do it enough, you may get them to buy Donate again, which isn't trivial.

It does neuter the -VP of Curses though, if they can Donate right before the end of the game.

Don't forget that it's essentially free when you buy it, and if they already have enough good cards (that are just getting blocked by the junk) they can pay off the debt really easily in the next turn or two. I was thinking more along the lines of "Donate is on the board, do I really want to get this Mountebank instead of building my engine?"

Yeah, but that's still $8 you would have to pay for Donate instead of other things, and it's a junk card in your deck until your next Donat[ion].  If I give you one Curse, are you going to pay $8 just to get rid of it?  Probably not, so you'll have to live with that Curse for a while.  If I give you a second Curse, what then?  And how much are you willing to put up with until you Donate?  If you didn't wait until the Curses were gone, will you Donate a third time to get rid of any that come after?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: LastFootnote on June 07, 2016, 01:43:51 am
Labyrinth - Simply encourages +Buy.  Not mind-shattering, but they can't all be so.

Actually it encourages extra gains. :)) It's a small distinction, but it means there are a lot more ways to get Labyrinth VP.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Donald X. on June 07, 2016, 02:12:21 am
Sorry; I guess I'm being slow, but I can't tell for sure from your response: does that mean Ritual should be interpreted as checking the cost of the card in the past (i.e. at the time of trashing)?
Since it says "cost" instead of "costs," it goes by what the card cost then, not what it costs now. If this causes a problem I will switch it but having not given it any thought yet, that's how it works.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Donald X. on June 07, 2016, 02:13:43 am
I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles.

Bingo.
Also this wording is simpler.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Donald X. on June 07, 2016, 02:28:42 am
For anyone who has the physical copy of the rulebook - does it have the Empires logo off-center like the PDF does?
Yes. Thanks; reported.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Donald X. on June 07, 2016, 02:31:19 am
I'm not sure of the thematic narrative.  Buying an Encampment is like setting up an army for your legions?  But your legions will desert you if you don't show them you can pay?
Encampments move around. And yes your army seriously cares about pay.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: trivialknot on June 07, 2016, 02:41:04 am
Oh!  Archive lets you choose the order that you draw the cards.  So you can leave the bad cards out of your deck for longer, and draw the best of three immediately.  Probably not as bad in a draw your deck engine as people are saying.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 07, 2016, 02:59:45 am
Charm looks pretty awesome. The fact that it activates on every buy while also potentially providing Buys makes it a mini-Haggler that is weaker when greening but has the same crazy 3-pile potential, but is easier to fit into a deck.

Overall, it seems to me that Empires' mix of cards is shifting even more towards having fewer terminals and more good alt-treasure payload. What is left as terminal is mostly attacks and terminal draw.

I haven't run any maths, though. It's just a feeling.

Also, nobody has mentioned it yet, so I'll point out the obvious: Forum+cost reduction is the insta-pile card that we've all been waiting for.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Donald X. on June 07, 2016, 03:04:04 am
Charm looks pretty awesome. The fact that it activates on every buy while also potentially providing Buys makes it a mini-Haggler that is weaker when greening but has the same crazy 3-pile potential, but is easier to fit into a deck.
It doesn't. It's "the next time you buy a card this turn..."
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Burning Skull on June 07, 2016, 03:07:54 am
Bandit Fort or how to play Dominion: highly professional tip for mediocre Dominion players in only one sentence!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 07, 2016, 03:13:12 am
Also, no junking Attack other than Catapult, and no trashing attack other than Enchantress.
Interesting.

I believe all other sets had a straight-up "Every other player gains a bad thing or two" and most large sets have trashing attacks too (Intrigue, Dark ages, and Adventures have two; Base, Seaside, and Hinterlands one; Prosperity none).

Charm looks pretty awesome. The fact that it activates on every buy while also potentially providing Buys makes it a mini-Haggler that is weaker when greening but has the same crazy 3-pile potential, but is easier to fit into a deck.
It doesn't. It's "the next time you buy a card this turn..."


Oh noes. You break my heart.  :'( :)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: AJD on June 07, 2016, 03:29:41 am
Also, no junking Attack other than Catapult, and no trashing attack other than Enchantress.
Interesting.

Indeed, no trashing attack including Enchantress.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 07, 2016, 03:34:44 am
Also, no junking Attack other than Catapult, and no trashing attack other than Enchantress.
Interesting.

Indeed, no trashing attack including Enchantress.

Enchantress can be grossly approximated to being kind of close-ish to a sort of trashing attack.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: drsteelhammer on June 07, 2016, 05:50:28 am

Mountain Pass - OK, so this is the card with bidding.  I'm guessing that this encourages buying a Province early, for the advantage of being the last to bid.  8VP is significant, and Debt does make it an easier "buy".  I can't see it ever being a good idea to bid <40> on this in a real game.  The unlikely edge case I can come up with is if Salt the Earth has already drained most of the pile, so securing this Province will get you the win.  Hm, a similar alternative is if this 8VP will guarantee you at least half of the total VP available in the game, which is unlikely since there will usually be 7+ more Provinces to go (and with Empires, probably more ways to get VP tokens).  So what's an actual appropriate bid?  Province is 6VP for $8 and Colony is 10 VP for $11.  The average of those is 8VP for $9.5, but this is in debt and it's VP tokens with no dead card attached... <10> sounds like a great deal, and even up to around <14> is probably still good?  Man, I don't know.  Could also flip this around and wonder what the lowest reasonable bid is... I guess you may not want any debt at all if you have a very precise plan to empty piles for a win, but that's tough to work out from just a starting hand.


Maybe the colonies are already empty and the opponent bought province afterwards  :P

Similarly, if your opponents piles out and needs to get a province to win, this will stop him aswell.

Slightly related pro move: With tower on the board, you can pile out on a points lead and lose. (Wolf den and Wall aswell, but these are easier to see on the point counter)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: junkers on June 07, 2016, 05:56:00 am
I'm having a hard time taking all this in, so I think I'll treat it like the previews and just analyze a couple a day until I get my hands on a copy.

Genuinely laughed out loud when I read Salt the Earth, though. My playgroup loves dick moves more than anything, and I can see this becoming a mainstay.

Why do I have the feeling that most of this post is going to wind up in the "out of context thread"?

Bandit Fort or how to play Dominion: highly professional tip for mediocre Dominion players in only one sentence!
Between Bandit Fort and Donate, I think that's this expansion's theme: git gud.

EDIT:
Also, wero (and anyone else assisting at the time): you're a goddamn champ and made my lunch hour more than bearable.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Watno on June 07, 2016, 05:56:40 am

Mountain Pass - OK, so this is the card with bidding.  I'm guessing that this encourages buying a Province early, for the advantage of being the last to bid.  8VP is significant, and Debt does make it an easier "buy".  I can't see it ever being a good idea to bid <40> on this in a real game.  The unlikely edge case I can come up with is if Salt the Earth has already drained most of the pile, so securing this Province will get you the win.  Hm, a similar alternative is if this 8VP will guarantee you at least half of the total VP available in the game, which is unlikely since there will usually be 7+ more Provinces to go (and with Empires, probably more ways to get VP tokens).  So what's an actual appropriate bid?  Province is 6VP for $8 and Colony is 10 VP for $11.  The average of those is 8VP for $9.5, but this is in debt and it's VP tokens with no dead card attached... <10> sounds like a great deal, and even up to around <14> is probably still good?  Man, I don't know.  Could also flip this around and wonder what the lowest reasonable bid is... I guess you may not want any debt at all if you have a very precise plan to empty piles for a win, but that's tough to work out from just a starting hand.

I think bidding first is better if both players are perfect. The only advantage of going last is that you have to think less about what you bid. If both players know what the 8VP are "worth" in the situation, the first player to bid just bids that exact amount. the second player can't do that.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Watno on June 07, 2016, 06:22:24 am
Salting a Feodum sounds awesome.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: faust on June 07, 2016, 06:56:20 am
I want to play Obelisk-Rats.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: tailred on June 07, 2016, 07:22:17 am
Delve - Makes Silver cheaper to buy.  Simple enough.  I don't expect this to make a difference on most boards.  It could make Silver-favouring cards (Feodum and Conquest?) more viable though, and it may give an edge to Big Money strategies where they otherwise wouldn't be competitive.  Hmm.
Don't forget the +buy - it's not just cheaper, it's more easily multi-buyable, meaning $4's a ton better if you want silvers.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on June 07, 2016, 07:41:25 am
Palace and Museum need their effects switched. This is what, the second time somebody's called a card by suggesting it for the mini-set design contest?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on June 07, 2016, 07:42:46 am
I want to play Obelisk-Rats.
With the perfect setup this could be a thing, training on rats and use dominate/salt the earth for VP.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: LastFootnote on June 07, 2016, 07:49:10 am
I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles.

Bingo.
Also this wording is simpler.

eHalcyon is talking about the FAQ, not the wording on the card.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: MattTV on June 07, 2016, 08:41:41 am
One thing I'm confused about though is with capital can you pay off the debt on your clean-up phase then or do you still have to wait next turn to pay it off? I would guess that you would have to pay it off next turn, but the rules say that you have a extra chance then to pay your debt on your clean up phase if I'm reading it right, but that's when you've already discarded all your actions and treasures.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Limetime on June 07, 2016, 08:47:40 am
One thing I'm confused about though is with capital can you pay off the debt on your clean-up phase then or do you still have to wait next turn to pay it off? I would guess that you would have to pay it off next turn, but the rules say that you have a extra chance then to pay your debt on your clean up phase if I'm reading it right, but that's when you've already discarded all your actions and treasures.
It says you can pay it off at the end of your turn on the card.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Roadrunner7671 on June 07, 2016, 08:47:47 am
So sexy.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: MattTV on June 07, 2016, 09:00:57 am
One thing I'm confused about though is with capital can you pay off the debt on your clean-up phase then or do you still have to wait next turn to pay it off? I would guess that you would have to pay it off next turn, but the rules say that you have a extra chance then to pay your debt on your clean up phase if I'm reading it right, but that's when you've already discarded all your actions and treasures.
It says you can pay it off at the end of your turn on the card.
The problem is you don't get the debt until you discard it from play and the only way to really discard it from play is go directly to your clean-up phase at which point your already going to be discarding all your actions and treasures that gave you the money in the first place unless somehow that money is still retained on your clean-up phase so I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Sidsel on June 07, 2016, 09:06:16 am
I'm not sure I get how D(et)onate works. "After your turn", that means after discarding everything from play, right? But is it before or after drawing 5 cards? And how do you "shuffle your hand into your deck", when everything is already in your hand?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: faust on June 07, 2016, 09:16:21 am
Obscure rules questions time!

If I play BoM-as-Encampment, and don't reveal anything, what happens? The way I see it, I would set it aside (thereby BoM stops being an Encampment), and at the start of cleanup, there's a blue dog situation because it is unclear what "return it to the supply" means now. So does BoM just remain set aside for the rest of the game, or does it go back to the BoM pile? I assume it doesn't go to the Encampment pile, because that would be crazy.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Chris is me on June 07, 2016, 09:18:29 am
I think it's pretty clear you return BoM to the supply, because the effect is set up as you set the card aside and not later. You return the card to its normal pile.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 07, 2016, 09:19:12 am
I think it's pretty clear you return BoM to the supply, because the effect is set up as you set the card aside and not later. You return the card to its normal pile.

This is covered in the Overlord FAQ.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: flaquito on June 07, 2016, 09:19:48 am
I'm not sure I get how D(et)onate works. "After your turn", that means after discarding everything from play, right? But is it before or after drawing 5 cards?

It's after you draw your 5 (or 3 for outpost) cards. Your entire deck will end up in your hand.

And how do you "shuffle your hand into your deck", when everything is already in your hand?

Place all cards from hand in draw pile. Shuffle draw pile. Draw 5 cards.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Mic Qsenoch on June 07, 2016, 09:20:40 am
One thing I'm confused about though is with capital can you pay off the debt on your clean-up phase then or do you still have to wait next turn to pay it off? I would guess that you would have to pay it off next turn, but the rules say that you have a extra chance then to pay your debt on your clean up phase if I'm reading it right, but that's when you've already discarded all your actions and treasures.
It says you can pay it off at the end of your turn on the card.
The problem is you don't get the debt until you discard it from play and the only way to really discard it from play is go directly to your clean-up phase at which point your already going to be discarding all your actions and treasures that gave you the money in the first place unless somehow that money is still retained on your clean-up phase so I'm not sure.

You still have any leftover money during your clean-up phase. Money isn't tied to having Treasures or whatever in play, it's just tied to having played them sometime earlier during your turn.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Elestan on June 07, 2016, 09:28:20 am
Also, nobody has mentioned it yet, so I'll point out the obvious: Forum+cost reduction is the insta-pile card that we've all been waiting for.

Villa works as well.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: MattTV on June 07, 2016, 09:36:54 am
One thing I'm confused about though is with capital can you pay off the debt on your clean-up phase then or do you still have to wait next turn to pay it off? I would guess that you would have to pay it off next turn, but the rules say that you have a extra chance then to pay your debt on your clean up phase if I'm reading it right, but that's when you've already discarded all your actions and treasures.
It says you can pay it off at the end of your turn on the card.
The problem is you don't get the debt until you discard it from play and the only way to really discard it from play is go directly to your clean-up phase at which point your already going to be discarding all your actions and treasures that gave you the money in the first place unless somehow that money is still retained on your clean-up phase so I'm not sure.

You still have any leftover money during your clean-up phase. Money isn't tied to having Treasures or whatever in play, it's just tied to having played them sometime earlier during your turn.
Ahh I see, I didn't know that but that makes sense. thanks Mic Qsenoch
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Asper on June 07, 2016, 09:40:23 am
So, without knowing whether there are going to be further clarifications in Guilds/Alchemy reprints: Is it true that i can now both spend my opponent's coin tokens AND use his Baker to get coin tokens when i possess him?

Edit: Apparently there's a discussion about the Possession errata already. I'll ask there.

Edit Edit: Apparently that thread has been closed, so nevermind.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Deadlock39 on June 07, 2016, 09:55:21 am
If you have Charm in a Kingdom with two of the 8 Debt cost cards, you can get a 2 for 1 deal, and you don't even have to have any money to start with.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Elestan on June 07, 2016, 10:02:36 am
Donate - Wow, this turns the game on its head.

Indeed.  Villa was the card that most twisted my head in knots trying to think through the game mechanics implications, but Donate was my biggest OMG moment.  I'm particularly interested in seeing how the strategies for best using it evolve.

Quote
Mountain Pass - OK, so this is the card with bidding[...]

...and hopefully people now understand why the fears about a bidding mechanic were perhaps somewhat overblown.  :-)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: ephesos on June 07, 2016, 10:03:37 am
So if I play Overlord as BoM as Conspirator, do I get the +1 Card, +1 Action when I play Conspirator for playing 3 actions?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Davio on June 07, 2016, 10:05:14 am
I would think so.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 07, 2016, 10:06:34 am
Also, nobody has mentioned it yet, so I'll point out the obvious: Forum+cost reduction is the insta-pile card that we've all been waiting for.

Villa works as well.

Yes, but a load of Fora don't hurt your deck, while too many Villae probably do. :)

Looking forward to all the fun plurals, btw.

(stretching it as far as decently possible, you also have Gladiatores, Basilicae, Emporia, Arenae, and Musea)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: GendoIkari on June 07, 2016, 10:17:29 am

Also, nobody has mentioned it yet, so I'll point out the obvious: Forum+cost reduction is the insta-pile card that we've all been waiting for.

Didn't Rats already do that?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Chris is me on June 07, 2016, 10:17:55 am
So if I play Overlord as BoM as Conspirator, do I get the +1 Card, +1 Action when I play Conspirator for playing 3 actions?

Plus all tokens from all 3 piles!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: J Reggie on June 07, 2016, 10:35:11 am
So many new cards; I'll post my first impressions of my favorites.

Forum: I've been hoping for a card line this for a while. We really have needed more sifters that preserve your handsize. I really like the cost, how yes it costs $5 but not a buy. I foresee jokes about the name.

Engineer: I like how the debt cost helps balance this card, not because you would normally pay less for it up front, but because you can't do crazy things with trashing Engineers to gain Engineers and then play them to gain more cards.

Delve: I want to add "like Silver" to the end of the rulebook entry.  :D

Sacrifice: I guess the flavor fits in with Tribute rather than Iron. I do like how it does slightly different things than similar cards. And it provides a reason why you might actually want to trash Estate-Crowns if that worked, so that question didn't go to waste. It's cool to finally have a trashing village.

Ritual: I love Bishop, so I think I'll like this. It's great if you have a way to get rid of those curses. I can see it being really good with Provinces and Colonies.

Defiled Shrine: I just love the interaction with Curses here. Curse is such a good card!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Sidsel on June 07, 2016, 11:20:37 am
Messenger or Ambassador on a split pile - how does that work? Do you stop when you run out of the similarly named card, or continue digging down the pile?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Mic Qsenoch on June 07, 2016, 11:23:17 am
Messenger or Ambassador on a split pile - how does that work? Do you stop when you run out of the similarly named card, or continue digging down the pile?

It's not any different from Ruins or Knights, you stop when the card name doesn't match.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: SCSN on June 07, 2016, 11:50:14 am
I think SCSN has a new favorite event in Delve.

(http://s32.postimg.org/x89lcdek5/bribe.jpg)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: SuperHans on June 07, 2016, 11:52:55 am
Obelisk + Port looks entertaining. Who is the village idiot now?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 07, 2016, 11:55:19 am
So if I play Overlord as BoM as Conspirator, do I get the +1 Card, +1 Action when I play Conspirator for playing 3 actions?

Sadly not. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11518.msg402429#msg402429)

But you presumably do get the benefit of any of your tokens on Overlord, on BoM and on what you play BoM as. That alone could be an epic hack to get around Teacher's restriction.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: singletee on June 07, 2016, 11:57:35 am
So if I play Overlord as BoM as Conspirator, do I get the +1 Card, +1 Action when I play Conspirator for playing 3 actions?

Sadly not. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11518.msg402429#msg402429)

But you presumably do get the benefit of any of your tokens on Overlord, on BoM and on what you play BoM as. That alone could be an epic hack to get around Teacher's restriction.

Happily so. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Band_of_Misfits#Other_Rules_clarifications) (Donald reversed the ruling to which you linked.)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 07, 2016, 12:00:35 pm
I don't think Donate will be quite as amazing as it looks at first.  Yes, it's crazy, but you'll probably only want to buy it once because of the cost, and it'll be hard knowing when to do that.
One use case I can think of: when you have a 4/3 or 3/4 split and there's a $5 card you really must have ASAP.

Buy Donate on your first turn, eliminating your Estates and two Coppers. Pay off the remaining debt on turn two. Turn three, you're certain to have a $5 hand. Turn four, you're 83% likely to draw your shiny $5 card, and if you don't you have $5 to buy a second.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: eHalcyon on June 07, 2016, 12:04:52 pm
Delve - Makes Silver cheaper to buy.  Simple enough.  I don't expect this to make a difference on most boards.  It could make Silver-favouring cards (Feodum and Conquest?) more viable though, and it may give an edge to Big Money strategies where they otherwise wouldn't be competitive.  Hmm.
Don't forget the +buy - it's not just cheaper, it's more easily multi-buyable, meaning $4's a ton better if you want silvers.

Not forgotten; refunding the Buy is another way it is cheaper!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 07, 2016, 12:06:06 pm
Sadly not. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11518.msg402429#msg402429)
Happily so. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Band_of_Misfits#Other_Rules_clarifications) (Donald reversed the ruling to which you linked.)
OK. I grant that you sound like you know what you're talking about, but is there any evidence the ruling in the Wiki is more recent than the ruling in that thread?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: LastFootnote on June 07, 2016, 12:06:30 pm
Sadly not. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11518.msg402429#msg402429)
Happily so. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Band_of_Misfits#Other_Rules_clarifications) (Donald reversed the ruling to which you linked.)
OK. I grant that you sound like you know what you're talking about, but is there any evidence the ruling in the Wiki is more recent than the ruling in that thread?

I can confirm that it is.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: GendoIkari on June 07, 2016, 12:20:09 pm
Sadly not. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11518.msg402429#msg402429)
Happily so. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Band_of_Misfits#Other_Rules_clarifications) (Donald reversed the ruling to which you linked.)
OK. I grant that you sound like you know what you're talking about, but is there any evidence the ruling in the Wiki is more recent than the ruling in that thread?

Here's the official reversal, from April 2015: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13115.msg487471#msg487471
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 07, 2016, 12:38:11 pm
Guys, I just realized: no Reaction in empires!
We hadn't had a Reaction-less big set since Seaside.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on June 07, 2016, 12:44:54 pm
Okay! Time for a lengthy post on my thoughts:
Engineer: The on play effect seems fine, I'll probably trash it after a few plays. The 4 debt cost is what intrigues me. It's so small it seems like it is essentially a 4 costing card. My guess is the debt cost is so it can't gain itself. Don't know why that would be too good though. I do appreciate having a wider variety of debt costs. The art seems decent, especially for a first time artist. Interesting that it features a woman, don't know what to think about that. There do need to be more cards with women but I would have put a dude on engineer.

Overlord: BoM 2.0? Never saw that coming. I don't like how it's such a good opener, I do like the interaction with highway and such. I'm glad this skips the clunky wording of BoM. Man, I still don't get BoM's wording. More great art from a new artist! The pics a little low quality but I like the look on his face.

Encampment/Plunder: Encampment seems great. Reminds me of Co0kiel0rd's Building Cranes and Asper's Alley. I.e, a one-shot that returns itself to the supply. I wonder why it sets itself aside instead of going straight to the supply. I appreciate it mentions plunder, that's what I want in split pile, more on that in Patrician and friend. Plunder seems great. My gut tells me it's way better than Harem (And with better art to boot!). I don't like the art on plunder. Encampment is good enough art put plunder has the same problem of fortune, it just doesn't say "Plunder". It needs to focus more on the treasure, not just some gold crap against a dark background.

Patrician/Emporium: I like the simplicity. Even with all the newfangled debt and landmarks and complicated rules you have easy things like forum and emporium. Patrician seems weak, I'd buy vagrant over it. Thanks for having the right wording on this *cough* Envoy *cough*. Emporium seems nice, but I wonder if it's ever worth buying one of these without the VP bonus. This seems like a nice low-key pile. Not an insta-buy (Page, Ambassador), not a niche card (Adventurer, Counting House). Now what I hate: The cards don't have enough synergy. Sure patrician guarantees there will be 5 cards for emporium, and emporium is 5 for patrician, but these would have worked on plies by themselves IMO.


Sacrifice: Great card, not much to say. I like the essential bishoping of estates, and the interaction with ruins. Here's my biggest complaint: What the heck is up with the formatting? There is like a mile of spaces in between the "Action Card" and "+2 Cards, +2 Actions". Why? Doesn't seem consistent with ironworks.

Archive: Great card, I hope we get more 3 turn durations in future expansions. Not much to say, other than it's not Archivist, there's already a fan card named that and it's a pain to rename them.

Charm: Awesome card! I like it better than HoP by far. I thought the +Buy wasn't supposed to be bold though. Wonder which effect would be used more. I'm leaning twords the second but I think the first will be better many times. COMBO: Charm/Tournament/Prince: Solve that age-old problem by letting you get the prince AND the province at the same time! (Yes I know it's not that good) The art/name seems a little confusing. No doubt it will be clearer on the physical card. Charm is a stretch, but hey, we're running out of names.

Forum: Yeah, simplicity. Nothing to say about this, it's pretty boring. The whole "Holy Crap, Insta-pie w/highway" thing was shown with Villa, so nothing to say there. More art by Ryan Laukat!

Legionary: Killer attack! This seems like a phenomenal card, a terminal gold is great for $5. Tenatively, this seems better than Maragrave. I'm a huge fan of the art.

Wild Hunt: Ghost card, Yes! I love the name. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! It doesn't put cards on top of your deck! The theme is ruined! WHY??????
It seems a bit weak, but smithys are good. The artist really nailed this one.

I'll cover the events and whatnot later.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: drsteelhammer on June 07, 2016, 12:49:08 pm
Okay! Time for a lengthy post on my thoughts:
Engineer: The on play effect seems fine, I'll probably trash it after a few plays. The 4 debt cost is what intrigues me. It's so small it seems like it is essentially a 4 costing card. My guess is the debt cost is so it can't gain itself. Don't know why that would be too good though. I do appreciate having a wider variety of debt costs. The art seems decent, especially for a first time artist. Interesting that it features a woman, don't know what to think about that. There do need to be more cards with women but I would have put a dude on engineer.

That is the reason why there is a woman on it!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: eHalcyon on June 07, 2016, 01:01:13 pm
Maybe somebody (wero, obviously) could add citations for rulings to the wiki?

Official Adventures art is missing too... 
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 07, 2016, 01:11:22 pm
Guys, I just realized: no Reaction in empires!
We hadn't had a Reaction-less big set since Seaside.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised that all the Landmarks are green-border. Arguably, ten of the twenty-one should have been blue as they react to things which you do in game rather than affecting final scoring.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: AJD on June 07, 2016, 01:26:40 pm
Encampment/Plunder: Encampment seems great. Reminds me of Co0kiel0rd's Building Cranes and Asper's Alley. I.e, a one-shot that returns itself to the supply. I wonder why it sets itself aside instead of going straight to the supply.

I assume the reason is something like, so you can't just gain it back right away. (This has the interesting side effect that if you get Encampment from the Black Market, it just ends up set aside permanently.)

By the way, here's a lose-track issue that I was surprised not to see mentioned in the Encampment FAQ: Crown Encampment, +2 cards, don't have a Gold or Plunder, +2 more cards, oh goody I drew a Gold, now I want to reveal it. In this case the Encampment still returns to the supply, though, right? If you play an Encampment multiple times, you have to reveal Gold or Plunder each time in order to save it.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: MattTV on June 07, 2016, 01:31:19 pm
My favorite cards so far would have to be:

Action: Archives-This is probably my new favorite duration card and duration cards happen to be my favorite so maybe I'm biased but this card is amazing. I love the idea of setting aside a mini hand for yourself that you can pull out to use each turn. If you have enough of them you can essentially access your entire deck for 3 turns!! A much more convenient version of haven/native village. This will certainly help the legionary challenge.

Treasure: Capital-this was hard cause I really like charm and obviously fortune, but capital just seems to have that tactician-feel where your like "heck yeah I'm going for it" you can get a mega money turn now and maybe forgo your next turn depending on how you use it, so it's probably my third favorite next to counterfeit and coin of the realm.

Event: Donate- well donate is self-explanatory in the sense that you can build up your deck and then customize it to your liking; throwing out all the baggage.

Landmark: Triumphal Arch-It would have been mountain pass if it activated more than once but the bid only starts with the first province bought. Although I think Triumphal Arch is really cool and feels different in the sense that your not just thinking about how am I going to get x amount cards or silvers etc for gardens or feodum to be of value, your more thinking alright what actions should I get the most of and which other action is going to be the easiest to buy out for some real points. So i like the deeper level of thinking.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 07, 2016, 01:39:29 pm
By the way, here's a lose-track issue that I was surprised not to see mentioned in the Encampment FAQ: Crown Encampment, +2 cards, don't have a Gold or Plunder, +2 more cards, oh goody I drew a Gold, now I want to reveal it. In this case the Encampment still returns to the supply, though, right? If you play an Encampment multiple times, you have to reveal Gold or Plunder each time in order to save it.
That doesn't feel precisely like a lose-track issue.

When you play Encampment the first time, you fail to reveal a Gold or Plunder, you set it aside. Second time you play it, either you reveal a Gold or Plunder in which case nothing happens (it stays set aside, destined to return to its pile), or you don't, in which case presumably the second play does lose track because it's already been set aside, but that has no consequence?

Relatedly, I'm assuming a Procession of Encampments gets set aside if you fail to reveal Gold or Plunder on either or both playings, with the trashing losing track. But if you do reveal Gold or Plunder, it doesn't get set aside, so it does get trashed.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on June 07, 2016, 01:45:36 pm
Okay! Time for a lengthy post on my thoughts:
Engineer: The on play effect seems fine, I'll probably trash it after a few plays. The 4 debt cost is what intrigues me. It's so small it seems like it is essentially a 4 costing card. My guess is the debt cost is so it can't gain itself. Don't know why that would be too good though. I do appreciate having a wider variety of debt costs. The art seems decent, especially for a first time artist. Interesting that it features a woman, don't know what to think about that. There do need to be more cards with women but I would have put a dude on engineer.

That is the reason why there is a woman on it!
There weren't very many female engineers/inventors in the Roman times. A male would have been more historically accurate, but compared to steward it's not that bad.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: eHalcyon on June 07, 2016, 01:49:53 pm
Okay! Time for a lengthy post on my thoughts:
Engineer: The on play effect seems fine, I'll probably trash it after a few plays. The 4 debt cost is what intrigues me. It's so small it seems like it is essentially a 4 costing card. My guess is the debt cost is so it can't gain itself. Don't know why that would be too good though. I do appreciate having a wider variety of debt costs. The art seems decent, especially for a first time artist. Interesting that it features a woman, don't know what to think about that. There do need to be more cards with women but I would have put a dude on engineer.

That is the reason why there is a woman on it!
There weren't very many female engineers/inventors in the Roman times. A male would have been more historically accurate, but compared to steward it's not that bad.

Not very many means there were some, so it's still accurate?? And the lack thereof might be exaggerated because history books tend to focus on the men and ignore the women.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: LastFootnote on June 07, 2016, 02:02:09 pm
Engineer: The art seems decent, especially for a first time artist.

Overlord: More great art from a new artist!

Legionary: I'm a huge fan of the art.

I would be happy if Elisa Cella did all the Dominion art, forever. I'm disappointed there isn't more art from her in Empires!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: SuperHans on June 07, 2016, 02:08:17 pm
Okay! Time for a lengthy post on my thoughts:
Engineer: The on play effect seems fine, I'll probably trash it after a few plays. The 4 debt cost is what intrigues me. It's so small it seems like it is essentially a 4 costing card. My guess is the debt cost is so it can't gain itself. Don't know why that would be too good though. I do appreciate having a wider variety of debt costs. The art seems decent, especially for a first time artist. Interesting that it features a woman, don't know what to think about that. There do need to be more cards with women but I would have put a dude on engineer.

That is the reason why there is a woman on it!
There weren't very many female engineers/inventors in the Roman times. A male would have been more historically accurate, but compared to steward it's not that bad.

Not very many means there were some, so it's still accurate?? And the lack thereof might be exaggerated because history books tend to focus on the men and ignore the women.
If we ever get a kingdom card named King, I hope it depicts a woman.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Chris is me on June 07, 2016, 02:10:09 pm
Okay! Time for a lengthy post on my thoughts:
Engineer: The on play effect seems fine, I'll probably trash it after a few plays. The 4 debt cost is what intrigues me. It's so small it seems like it is essentially a 4 costing card. My guess is the debt cost is so it can't gain itself. Don't know why that would be too good though. I do appreciate having a wider variety of debt costs. The art seems decent, especially for a first time artist. Interesting that it features a woman, don't know what to think about that. There do need to be more cards with women but I would have put a dude on engineer.

That is the reason why there is a woman on it!
There weren't very many female engineers/inventors in the Roman times. A male would have been more historically accurate, but compared to steward it's not that bad.

Dominion isn't history though. There certainly weren't any Enchantresses or Ghost Ships or Scrying Pools or real Alchemists in historical times; so why not make the world a little better and more equal rather than constraining ourselves to the sexism of the past?

That people see the word "Engineer" and think "male" is more than enough reason to not do that, really. That gender conception exists TODAY.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crlundy on June 07, 2016, 02:36:32 pm
Wow, this is the first set with no blank cards, right? Making use of every last card.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: pacovf on June 07, 2016, 02:52:48 pm
Okay! Time for a lengthy post on my thoughts:
Engineer: The on play effect seems fine, I'll probably trash it after a few plays. The 4 debt cost is what intrigues me. It's so small it seems like it is essentially a 4 costing card. My guess is the debt cost is so it can't gain itself. Don't know why that would be too good though. I do appreciate having a wider variety of debt costs. The art seems decent, especially for a first time artist. Interesting that it features a woman, don't know what to think about that. There do need to be more cards with women but I would have put a dude on engineer.

That is the reason why there is a woman on it!
There weren't very many female engineers/inventors in the Roman times. A male would have been more historically accurate, but compared to steward it's not that bad.

Dominion isn't history though. There certainly weren't any Enchantresses or Ghost Ships or Scrying Pools or real Alchemists in historical times; so why not make the world a little better and more equal rather than constraining ourselves to the sexism of the past?

That people see the word "Engineer" and Dthink "male" is more than enough reason to not do that, really. That gender conception exists TODAY.

We've had this discussion before! Many times! It always ends about the way you expect these discussions to end! Bring it to RSP if you want to keep discussing it! Please!

Was that enough exclamation marks!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Beyond Awesome on June 07, 2016, 03:11:38 pm
One thing I've noticed is that it feels like the Villages are harder to pull off vs. DA and Adventures.

Encampment returns to the pile a lot of times, Bustling Village is the bottom card of a split pile, Villa does not draw a card, and Crown is a TR variant which tend to take more work to get going if it is the only village on the board, oh, and City Quarter cost 8 debt which is pricey. I guess we also have Sacrifice, but man, if that were the only source of Village on the board, that would probably be a hard engine to pull off.

The trashing in this expansion seems pretty strong though.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: DLloyd09 on June 07, 2016, 03:32:25 pm
Wow, this is the first set with no blank cards, right? Making use of every last card.

Alchemy, Cornucopia, and Dark Ages also had no blanks.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: dbclick on June 07, 2016, 04:29:56 pm
Attempted a proxy game with Mountain Pass and Tax and this question came up (as it could have changed the outcome):

If the first Province gained is is on the same turn that triggers the end condition (e.g. 3 pile), does the Mountain Pass bidding still happen or not? (the base rules say to end the game, but the Mountain Pass says to do the bidding after that turn - which rule overrules?)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crlundy on June 07, 2016, 04:34:45 pm
Wow, this is the first set with no blank cards, right? Making use of every last card.

Alchemy, Cornucopia, and Dark Ages also had no blanks.
Well, it's not the first falsehood I've ever posted here. All sweet sets.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Deadlock39 on June 07, 2016, 04:38:22 pm
Attempted a proxy game with Mountain Pass and Tax and this question came up (as it could have changed the outcome):

If the first Province gained is is on the same turn that triggers the end condition (e.g. 3 pile), does the Mountain Pass bidding still happen or not? (the base rules say to end the game, but the Mountain Pass says to do the bidding after that turn - which rule overrules?)

Someone asked if Donate would still happen if you bought it when piling out the game, and Donald said no. Also, if you pile out the game in the process of trashing cards to Donate (e.g. Hunting Grounds or Catacombs), the end condition is not checked until the end of the next turn, so the game continues until at least then.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Donald X. on June 07, 2016, 04:48:24 pm
I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles.

Bingo.
Also this wording is simpler.

eHalcyon is talking about the FAQ, not the wording on the card.
I see. The FAQ answers a real question that wouldn't matter with existing cards (and I wouldn't expect more VP tokens any time soon); I try to prune those these days but it's technically correct, Futurama quote.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Donald X. on June 07, 2016, 04:50:34 pm
I'm not sure I get how D(et)onate works. "After your turn", that means after discarding everything from play, right? But is it before or after drawing 5 cards? And how do you "shuffle your hand into your deck", when everything is already in your hand?
It happens after clean-up; you already have a hand of 5 cards for next turn (that you won't keep because you Donated). "Shuffle your hand into your deck," with no deck, means your shuffled hand becomes your deck.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: dbclick on June 07, 2016, 04:58:28 pm
Attempted a proxy game with Mountain Pass and Tax and this question came up (as it could have changed the outcome):

If the first Province gained is is on the same turn that triggers the end condition (e.g. 3 pile), does the Mountain Pass bidding still happen or not? (the base rules say to end the game, but the Mountain Pass says to do the bidding after that turn - which rule overrules?)

Someone asked if Donate would still happen if you bought it when piling out the game, and Donald said no. Also, if you pile out the game in the process of trashing cards to Donate (e.g. Hunting Grounds or Catacombs), the end condition is not checked until the end of the next turn, so the game continues until at least then.

Makes sense. Posted it on the wiki.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 07, 2016, 05:24:52 pm
I guess we also have Sacrifice, but man, if that were the only source of Village on the board, that would probably be a hard engine to pull off.
On the plus side, the combination of Sacrifice and Fortress would be pretty nifty!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 07, 2016, 05:29:34 pm
If the first Province gained is is on the same turn that triggers the end condition (e.g. 3 pile), does the Mountain Pass bidding still happen or not? (the base rules say to end the game, but the Mountain Pass says to do the bidding after that turn - which rule overrules?)
Look at the rules carefully. The original Dominion rulebook says "The game ends at the end of any player's turn when...".

And "Mountain Pass" happens "after that turn".

After that turn is later than at the end of it. The game ends before Mountain Pass has time to trigger.

(And, when you think about it, this is likely why Mountain Pass was worded in such a way. Otherwise, the person to the left of the current player just bids <40> and gets 8VP for free.)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: dbclick on June 07, 2016, 05:37:39 pm
(And, when you think about it, this is likely why Mountain Pass was worded in such a way. Otherwise, the person to the left of the current player just bids <40> and gets 8VP for free.)

That's precisely why we had the question when playing the game.

Also, I believe it's worded to trigger between turns so that each player is free to make their own choice during the bidding. Otherwise, when possessing you I just have you pass on your bid and I take the +8VP for 1 Debt in a 2 player game.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: DLloyd09 on June 07, 2016, 06:13:57 pm
Did anyone else notice that on the second page of the rulebook it says (emphasis mine):

Dominion: Empires is an expansion, and cannot be played by itself; to play with it, you need Dominion or the first edition of Intrigue, as both provide the Basic cards as well as the full rules for setup and game play.

Seems to suggest that when the next printing of Intrigue occurs it may just be a regular expansion and not a standalone set.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Erick648 on June 07, 2016, 07:02:39 pm
If the first Province gained is is on the same turn that triggers the end condition (e.g. 3 pile), does the Mountain Pass bidding still happen or not? (the base rules say to end the game, but the Mountain Pass says to do the bidding after that turn - which rule overrules?)
Look at the rules carefully. The original Dominion rulebook says "The game ends at the end of any player's turn when...".

And "Mountain Pass" happens "after that turn".

After that turn is later than at the end of it. The game ends before Mountain Pass has time to trigger.

(And, when you think about it, this is likely why Mountain Pass was worded in such a way. Otherwise, the person to the left of the current player just bids <40> and gets 8VP for free.)
By analogy, Caravan says to draw a card at the start of your next turn, but if the game ends before your next turn, you don't get to draw a card.  Likewise, if you buy Mission and the last Province, you don't get a Mission turn.  Or if your opponent plays an attack and you set aside Horse Traders, but your opponent then buys the last Province, you don't get to return Horse Traders to your hand or draw a card from it.

In short, it's entirely possible to trigger an effect, but then end the game before that effect can be carried out.  Mountain Pass is no exception.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: J Reggie on June 07, 2016, 07:13:54 pm
Did anyone else notice that on the second page of the rulebook it says (emphasis mine):

Dominion: Empires is an expansion, and cannot be played by itself; to play with it, you need Dominion or the first edition of Intrigue, as both provide the Basic cards as well as the full rules for setup and game play.

Seems to suggest that when the next printing of Intrigue occurs it may just be a regular expansion and not a standalone set.

Good find! For me Intrigue is already just an expansion; I took the base cards out and put them in Hinterlands.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 07, 2016, 07:15:28 pm
Seems to suggest that when the next printing of Intrigue occurs it may just be a regular expansion and not a standalone set.
...and therefore also not a way to be able to play with 5-6 players?

I can't pretend I've done that often, but when you need to, you need to. And you can have two games of Dominion going on at once, of course.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Deadlock39 on June 07, 2016, 08:01:02 pm
Seems to suggest that when the next printing of Intrigue occurs it may just be a regular expansion and not a standalone set.
...and therefore also not a way to be able to play with 5-6 players?

I can't pretend I've done that often, but when you need to, you need to. And you can have two games of Dominion going on at once, of course.

http://riograndegames.com/Game/419-Dominion-Base-cards
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 07, 2016, 08:31:34 pm
Well, yes. But you'd want all the basic Treasures and Victories to match... surely?

Then again, maybe the main game is going to get the refreshed base cards artwork sometime.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Beyond Awesome on June 07, 2016, 09:47:18 pm
Did anyone else notice that on the second page of the rulebook it says (emphasis mine):

Dominion: Empires is an expansion, and cannot be played by itself; to play with it, you need Dominion or the first edition of Intrigue, as both provide the Basic cards as well as the full rules for setup and game play.

Seems to suggest that when the next printing of Intrigue occurs it may just be a regular expansion and not a standalone set.

I noticed that as well and was not sure what to make of it
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Seprix on June 07, 2016, 10:15:44 pm
They sell the Dominion Base cards alone now, so I would imagine they're removing the base cards from Intrigue to cut costs or something.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Moneymodel on June 07, 2016, 11:00:52 pm
(And, when you think about it, this is likely why Mountain Pass was worded in such a way. Otherwise, the person to the left of the current player just bids <40> and gets 8VP for free.)

Err, I don't believe that's true. Pulling from the rulebook: The 8VP is only given out to the highest bidder. This doesn't happen if there is no highest bidder. The other player(s) simply have to bid <40> as well.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Donald X. on June 07, 2016, 11:10:00 pm
(And, when you think about it, this is likely why Mountain Pass was worded in such a way. Otherwise, the person to the left of the current player just bids <40> and gets 8VP for free.)

Err, I don't believe that's true. Pulling from the rulebook: The 8VP is only given out to the highest bidder. This doesn't happen if there is no highest bidder. The other player(s) simply have to bid <40> as well.
"Each bid can be a pass, or a higher bid than the previous bid."

Mountain Pass is between turns because of Possession. It has a maximum bid because the "correct" bid might be "unbounded."
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: schadd on June 07, 2016, 11:27:44 pm
It has a maximum bid because the "correct" bid might be "unbounded."
"oh yeah? well i bid infinity plus two"
"my dad can beat up your dad"
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 07, 2016, 11:58:32 pm
It has a maximum bid because the "correct" bid might be "unbounded."
"oh yeah? well i bid infinity plus two"
"my dad can beat up your dad"

"Hah!  I got those 8(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)!"
"Yeah, well, good luck buying anything for the rest of the game."
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: mail-mi on June 08, 2016, 12:16:04 am
Question on Triumphal Arch: If you only have 1 kind of action card in your deck, do you still get a vp award or not?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on June 08, 2016, 02:02:33 am
It has a maximum bid because the "correct" bid might be "unbounded."
"oh yeah? well i bid infinity plus two"
"my dad can beat up your dad"

"Hah!  I got those 8(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)!"
"Yeah, well, good luck buying anything for the rest of the game."
"I can draw my deck which includes two Expands and three Ironworks. I don't need to buy anything for the rest of the game."
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Kirian on June 08, 2016, 02:23:31 am
Mountain Pass is between turns because of Possession. It has a maximum bid because the "correct" bid might be "unbounded."

I don't understand why that's a problem.  Tokens aren't physically limited, and frankly "you can't buy anything for the remainder of the game" is as easy to keep track of as 40 debt tokens is, isn't it?

I guess the difficult case is where the "correct" answer is somewhere in the 100s or 1000s and you don't want to wait for someone to make those calculations.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Donald X. on June 08, 2016, 02:53:17 am
Mountain Pass is between turns because of Possession. It has a maximum bid because the "correct" bid might be "unbounded."

I don't understand why that's a problem.  Tokens aren't physically limited, and frankly "you can't buy anything for the remainder of the game" is as easy to keep track of as 40 debt tokens is, isn't it?
It's yuck. The problem is it's yuck. Yuck ptui.

Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Davio on June 08, 2016, 03:20:07 am
Well, there's a way to create an infinite amount of $, right?
Surely CelestialChameleon or someone else figured this out.

And we don't want to go through the whole ordeal of someone actually trying to do it after bidding 99999999999D
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: SCSN on June 08, 2016, 03:25:01 am
Well, there's a way to create an infinite amount of $, right?
Surely CelestialChameleon or someone else figured this out.

Empires makes this easy: just create half of the infinite amount and then double it with Fortune.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Davio on June 08, 2016, 03:31:50 am
Or I could just play an infinite amount of Coppers with Black Market and just play a single Bank during my buy phase.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: wachsmuth on June 08, 2016, 05:43:58 am
Mountain Pass is between turns because of Possession. It has a maximum bid because the "correct" bid might be "unbounded."

I don't understand why that's a problem.  Tokens aren't physically limited, and frankly "you can't buy anything for the remainder of the game" is as easy to keep track of as 40 debt tokens is, isn't it?

I guess the difficult case is where the "correct" answer is somewhere in the 100s or 1000s and you don't want to wait for someone to make those calculations.

There can be a case where the correct bid is basically infinite. Having a bid limit seems a lot more elegant than Player 1 bidding Graham's Number, and player 2 bidding Graham's Number +1.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 08, 2016, 06:29:32 am
In hindsight, I kinda expected there would be more Debt cards and less vp stuff. I'm not complaining, though! :)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Davio on June 08, 2016, 08:24:26 am
Mountain Pass is between turns because of Possession. It has a maximum bid because the "correct" bid might be "unbounded."

I don't understand why that's a problem.  Tokens aren't physically limited, and frankly "you can't buy anything for the remainder of the game" is as easy to keep track of as 40 debt tokens is, isn't it?

I guess the difficult case is where the "correct" answer is somewhere in the 100s or 1000s and you don't want to wait for someone to make those calculations.

There can be a case where the correct bid is basically infinite. Having a bid limit seems a lot more elegant than Player 1 bidding Graham's Number, and player 2 bidding Graham's Number +1.
Having a bid limit has the upside of making it crystal clear how much to bid to make sure you're winning the bid.
This may prevent analysis paralysis; oh should I bid 13 or 23 or 103? Just bid 40 if you desperately want to win.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Marcory on June 08, 2016, 09:26:16 am
In hindsight, I kinda expected there would be more Debt cards and less vp stuff. I'm not complainin(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)g, though! :)

Dark Ages only has 3 Looters and 3 cards that interact with the trash (four if you count Fortress), despite those being major themes of the set; similarly, Prosperity only has 3 VP token cards and four (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png) cost cards, so it's not surprising that Debt is as infrequent as it is in Empires.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: DLloyd09 on June 08, 2016, 09:39:47 am
In hindsight, I kinda expected there would be more Debt cards and less vp stuff. I'm not complaining, though! :)

I hope if we're lucky enough to get more expansions it's a mechanic that gets further explored. I know that's less likely given the physical requirement of the tokens, but I feel like there's a lot more that can be done there!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 08, 2016, 10:20:10 am
In hindsight, I kinda expected there would be more Debt cards
I think what surprises me most in that respect is that there aren't any cards you can buy at strange times, given that the buy-now-pay-later mechanic supports this.

There isn't a debt-cost Reaction you can buy when you're attacked, for example.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Limetime on June 08, 2016, 10:22:39 am
How does salt the earth interact with rebuild?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: AdrianHealey on June 08, 2016, 10:23:51 am
Those are some holymotherholyfuck cards in that expansion :D
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 08, 2016, 10:53:51 am
How does salt the earth interact with rebuild?
What am I missing? So far as I can see, the answer is "it doesn't".

Well, except that VIctory cards that have been trashed by Salt the Earth can't be gained by Rebuild and vice-versa, I guess.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Limetime on June 08, 2016, 10:55:33 am
How does salt the earth interact with rebuild?
What am I missing? So far as I can see, the answer is "it doesn't".

Well, except that VIctory cards that have been trashed by Salt the Earth can't be gained by Rebuild and vice-versa, I guess.
This is a strategy question not a rules question.
In a rebuild mirror do you want to skip naming duchies so you can just salt away the provinces?
Does salt the earth help or hurt a rebuild player in a non-performing?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Seprix on June 08, 2016, 10:56:50 am
How does salt the earth interact with rebuild?
What am I missing? So far as I can see, the answer is "it doesn't".

Well, except that VIctory cards that have been trashed by Salt the Earth can't be gained by Rebuild and vice-versa, I guess.
This is a strategy question not a rules question.
In a rebuild mirror do you want to skip naming duchies so you can just salt away the provinces?
Does salt the earth help or hurt a rebuild player in a non-performing?

I think we should ask Mic Qsenoch or Geronimoo. They know all about that kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: dbclick on June 08, 2016, 11:04:49 am
Mountain Pass is between turns because of Possession. It has a maximum bid because the "correct" bid might be "unbounded."

I don't understand why that's a problem.  Tokens aren't physically limited, and frankly "you can't buy anything for the remainder of the game" is as easy to keep track of as 40 debt tokens is, isn't it?

I guess the difficult case is where the "correct" answer is somewhere in the 100s or 1000s and you don't want to wait for someone to make those calculations.

There can be a case where the correct bid is basically infinite. Having a bid limit seems a lot more elegant than Player 1 bidding Graham's Number, and player 2 bidding Graham's Number +1.
Having a bid limit has the upside of making it crystal clear how much to bid to make sure you're winning the bid.
This may prevent analysis paralysis; oh should I bid 13 or 23 or 103? Just bid 40 if you desperately want to win.


As long as you have a deck set up to where you don't need to buy anything the rest of the game, such as with Remodel-family cards, gainers etc., the correct bid would be infinite, since you don't care how much debt you have. Having a limit of 40 is nice since you can just say "I win the bid" and gloat as you take the whole pile of debt tokens (since there are 40 of those) rather than argue about the semantics of number theory and writing down that you have a googolplex+2 debt tokens or some such (yuck ptui, indeed).
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Seprix on June 08, 2016, 11:05:17 am
Empires is the most biggest expansion for Gold circlejerking I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Watno on June 08, 2016, 11:07:38 am
Mountain Pass is between turns because of Possession. It has a maximum bid because the "correct" bid might be "unbounded."

I don't understand why that's a problem.  Tokens aren't physically limited, and frankly "you can't buy anything for the remainder of the game" is as easy to keep track of as 40 debt tokens is, isn't it?

I guess the difficult case is where the "correct" answer is somewhere in the 100s or 1000s and you don't want to wait for someone to make those calculations.

There can be a case where the correct bid is basically infinite. Having a bid limit seems a lot more elegant than Player 1 bidding Graham's Number, and player 2 bidding Graham's Number +1.
Having a bid limit has the upside of making it crystal clear how much to bid to make sure you're winning the bid.
This may prevent analysis paralysis; oh should I bid 13 or 23 or 103? Just bid 40 if you desperately want to win.


As long as you have a deck set up to where you don't need to buy anything the rest of the game, such as with Remodel-family cards, gainers etc., the correct bid would be infinite, since you don't care how much debt you have. Having a limit of 40 is nice since you can just say "I win the bid" and gloat as you take the whole pile of debt tokens (since there are 40 of those) rather than argue about the semantics of number theory and writing down that you have a googolplex+2 debt tokens or some such (yuck ptui, indeed).

More imprtantly, without the limit, there would be no bid that lets you win guaranteed as the first player bidding, since the second player could simply bid one more.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Chris is me on June 08, 2016, 11:14:35 am
How does salt the earth interact with rebuild?
What am I missing? So far as I can see, the answer is "it doesn't".

Well, except that VIctory cards that have been trashed by Salt the Earth can't be gained by Rebuild and vice-versa, I guess.

"It doesn't interact with Rebuild, except for the part where it trashes the cards Rebuild needs in order to work".

Salt the Earth tilts a Rebuild board dramatically. The Engine player can try to burn Duchies to stop the Rebuild player from amassing more than 3. The Rebuild player can mill a Province every turn to end the game faster in a non mirror. It will be bought frequently on Rebuild boards for sure.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: drsteelhammer on June 08, 2016, 11:30:57 am
I don't see how an engine player can burn Duchies? Which engine can buy this five times before the Rebuild player aquires four duchies? To me, it is cyrstal clear that this helps the Rebuild player. Killing availalbe VP is all the rebuild player does anyway, no? This just makes it way easier to end it before the engine player can buy enough provinces.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 08, 2016, 11:53:42 am
Yeah, it's probably very relevant because it's a very good option for 4 coins hands in a Rebuild deck (both vs engine and in mirror - trashing Provinces against engine and mostly Duchies against Rebuild).
I'm no expert, but I don't see it countering Rebuild. Even opening with Salt won't stop your opponent racking in a few Provinces while salting the rest.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: GendoIkari on June 08, 2016, 11:57:18 am
Mountain Pass is between turns because of Possession. It has a maximum bid because the "correct" bid might be "unbounded."

I don't understand why that's a problem.  Tokens aren't physically limited, and frankly "you can't buy anything for the remainder of the game" is as easy to keep track of as 40 debt tokens is, isn't it?

I guess the difficult case is where the "correct" answer is somewhere in the 100s or 1000s and you don't want to wait for someone to make those calculations.

There can be a case where the correct bid is basically infinite. Having a bid limit seems a lot more elegant than Player 1 bidding Graham's Number, and player 2 bidding Graham's Number +1.
Having a bid limit has the upside of making it crystal clear how much to bid to make sure you're winning the bid.
This may prevent analysis paralysis; oh should I bid 13 or 23 or 103? Just bid 40 if you desperately want to win.

Having a limit also fundamentally changes the way the Landmark interacts with being the first person to gain a Province. If it had no limit, then the first person to gain a Province could always get the 8 vp; as long as he doesn't need to buy anything for the rest of the game (quite possible in various engine types). With the limit, the person to the left of the first person to gain a Province can always get the 8 vp if he wants.

I'm definitely with Donald, not having a limit would be very yucky; aside from the massive AP involved in engines where you can generate > 40 coins per turn, it leads to "who can name the biggest number" contests in some situations.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: pacovf on June 08, 2016, 12:25:46 pm
The limit was added so that people would stop bidding yo' mama.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: A Drowned Kernel on June 08, 2016, 12:58:11 pm
The limit was added so that people would stop bidding yo' mama.

Yo mama's so fat that when you try to trash her with catapult, the catapult gets trashed instead.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Seprix on June 08, 2016, 01:03:22 pm
The limit was added so that people would stop bidding yo' mama.

Yo mama's so fat that when you try to trash her with catapult, the catapult gets trashed instead. your opponent has to discard down to 1 and gain 2 curses!

Needs work, good idea though.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Kirian on June 08, 2016, 01:11:30 pm
Mountain Pass is between turns because of Possession. It has a maximum bid because the "correct" bid might be "unbounded."

I don't understand why that's a problem.  Tokens aren't physically limited, and frankly "you can't buy anything for the remainder of the game" is as easy to keep track of as 40 debt tokens is, isn't it?

I guess the difficult case is where the "correct" answer is somewhere in the 100s or 1000s and you don't want to wait for someone to make those calculations.

There can be a case where the correct bid is basically infinite. Having a bid limit seems a lot more elegant than Player 1 bidding Graham's Number, and player 2 bidding Graham's Number +1.

Well, I think that bidding infinity ought to be just as valid as bidding Graham's number.

And of course, the correct response to a bid of Graham's number is Busy Beaver function of (Graham's number).
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: GendoIkari on June 08, 2016, 01:57:41 pm
Mountain Pass is between turns because of Possession. It has a maximum bid because the "correct" bid might be "unbounded."

I don't understand why that's a problem.  Tokens aren't physically limited, and frankly "you can't buy anything for the remainder of the game" is as easy to keep track of as 40 debt tokens is, isn't it?

I guess the difficult case is where the "correct" answer is somewhere in the 100s or 1000s and you don't want to wait for someone to make those calculations.

There can be a case where the correct bid is basically infinite. Having a bid limit seems a lot more elegant than Player 1 bidding Graham's Number, and player 2 bidding Graham's Number +1.

Well, I think that bidding infinity ought to be just as valid as bidding Graham's number.

And of course, the correct response to a bid of Graham's number is Busy Beaver function of (Graham's number).

No, bidding infinity specifically breaks the rule of "a bid is in the form of a number".
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 08, 2016, 02:13:53 pm
<pedant>Not so! There are number systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number) that include infinities.</pedant>
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: ephesos on June 08, 2016, 02:52:26 pm
<pedant>Not so! There are number systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number) that include infinities.</pedant>

Yes, there are, and fortunately we don't use any of them when playing Dominion.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Orange on June 08, 2016, 02:53:51 pm
40 is the buy-it-now price.  You may be willing to pay 40 or even more, but if somebody else pays the buy-it-now price, well, you are out of luck.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: eHalcyon on June 08, 2016, 03:03:35 pm
<pedant>Not so! There are number systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number) that include infinities.</pedant>

Yes, there are, and fortunately we don't use any of them when playing Dominion.

But does the rulebook specify which number system we're using? ;)

Infinity is too expensive anyway. Infinity -  1, that's where it's at.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 08, 2016, 04:03:48 pm
But does the rulebook specify which number system we're using? ;)
It doesn't even specify bids have to be integers. But I don't think anything breaks if someone bids π? Just give them π debt tokens (improvise) so they're still in debt when they've paid $3 and lose the over-repayment when they pay $4, so they might as well have bid 4 in the first place rather than playing silly buggers?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: 461.weavile on June 08, 2016, 06:21:19 pm
The even better Donate/Windfall

Turn 1:
Play 5 Copper, Borrow, buy Donate, pay off 6 Debt.
Draw 4 cards.
Put your Deck and discard into your hand, Trash 3 Estate/2 Copper, Discard 5 Copper, Draw 5 Copper.

Turn 2:
Play 5 Copper, Spend Baker Token, Borrow, Pay off 2 Debt, Buy Windfall, Gain 3 Golds.

This assumes you ignore the recommendation of max. 2 Events+Landmarks. Then you need the luck to deal out 4 particular cards within the first 13 or so, and you need to draw 5 Coppers, but a lot of hypothetical situations assume that. The thing that really strikes me as weird is ignoring the official recommendation.

I guess it really doesn't matter, but I wasn't sure it was a useful example... whatever.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Deadlock39 on June 08, 2016, 06:30:52 pm
The even better Donate/Windfall

Turn 1:
Play 5 Copper, Borrow, buy Donate, pay off 6 Debt.
Draw 4 cards.
Put your Deck and discard into your hand, Trash 3 Estate/2 Copper, Discard 5 Copper, Draw 5 Copper.

Turn 2:
Play 5 Copper, Spend Baker Token, Borrow, Pay off 2 Debt, Buy Windfall, Gain 3 Golds.

This assumes you ignore the recommendation of max. 2 Events+Landmarks. Then you need the luck to deal out 4 particular cards within the first 13 or so, and you need to draw 5 Coppers, but a lot of hypothetical situations assume that. The thing that really strikes me as weird is ignoring the official recommendation.

I guess it really doesn't matter, but I wasn't sure it was a useful example... whatever.

I had no intentions of being useful here. I just realized you could get Windfall turn 2, and thought it was cool.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: singletee on June 08, 2016, 09:32:51 pm
Poor House is also good with Donate:
T1 Poor House
T2 Donate everything but PH
T3 Pay off debt
T4 Pay off debt if any left and start buying

If you have a splitter:
T1/T2 Poor House/splitter
T3 Poor House
T4 Donate all starting cards
T5 Play 2 Poor Houses, pay off debt and start buying
This takes one more turn but you have an additional Poor House and splitter.

This has the advantage of not clogging up your deck with yucky Golds.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: ConMan on June 08, 2016, 10:38:27 pm
If you want to start getting specific, how about a Shelters game with Poor House, Donate and Travelling Fair?

T1: Travelling Fair/PH/PH
T2: Donate everything except PH and Necropolis
T3: Play Necro/PH/PH, pay off debt
T4: Debt? What debt?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Jimmmmm on June 08, 2016, 10:46:07 pm
If you want to start getting specific, how about a Shelters game with Poor House, Donate and Travelling Fair?

T1: Travelling Fair/PH/PH
T2: Donate everything except PH and Necropolis
T3: Play Necro/PH/PH, pay off debt
T4: Debt? What debt?

If you draw Necropolis on turn 2, you can pay off your debt that turn.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: eHalcyon on June 08, 2016, 10:53:10 pm
If you want to start getting specific, how about a Shelters game with Poor House, Donate and Travelling Fair?

T1: Travelling Fair/PH/PH
T2: Donate everything except PH and Necropolis
T3: Play Necro/PH/PH, pay off debt
T4: Debt? What debt?

If you draw Necropolis on turn 2, you can pay off your debt that turn.

You'd also have to not draw any Copper on turn 2, which is possible but not guaranteed.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Jimmmmm on June 08, 2016, 11:13:45 pm
If you want to start getting specific, how about a Shelters game with Poor House, Donate and Travelling Fair?

T1: Travelling Fair/PH/PH
T2: Donate everything except PH and Necropolis
T3: Play Necro/PH/PH, pay off debt
T4: Debt? What debt?

If you draw Necropolis on turn 2, you can pay off your debt that turn.

You'd also have to not draw any Copper on turn 2, which is possible but not guaranteed.

Right of course, it's pretty unlikely.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: ConMan on June 09, 2016, 12:50:43 am
We're talking fairly specific scenarios in the first place (two Events plus a Kingdom card plus a Shelters game plus opening minimum 4 coppers), why not assume everything else is perfectly arranged?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: pacovf on June 09, 2016, 01:03:04 am
This was probably answered before for Forge, but can I:

-I buy donate.
-I put all cards in hand.
-I have (among other things) two rats and a market square in hand.
-I trash a rat, and discard market square to gain a gold.
-I draw a card from trashing rat, so I get market square back in hand.
-I trash the other rat.
-I reveal the same market square again to gain another gold.

Can I do this?

(I am wondering if there is any way to exploit putting your whole deck in hand, even though it's not your turn)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: AJD on June 09, 2016, 01:19:19 am
This was probably answered before for Forge, but can I:

-I buy donate.
-I put all cards in hand.
-I have (among other things) two rats and a market square in hand.
-I trash a rat, and discard market square to gain a gold.
-I draw a card from trashing rat, so I get market square back in hand.
-I trash the other rat.
-I reveal the same market square again to gain another gold.

Can I do this?

(I am wondering if there is any way to exploit putting your whole deck in hand, even though it's not your turn)

So, you can't do what you describe, because you trash all cards simultaneously. You can't trash one Rats, discard Market Square for that, and then trash the other Rats.

However, you can:

Trash two Rats,
discard one Market Square to gain one Gold,
+2 cards (from the Rats),
discard the same Market Square again.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: scott_pilgrim on June 09, 2016, 03:03:11 am
I think you can do what pacovf described, it's just misleading because the way he said it made it sound like the trashes are not simultaneous.

You trash two Rats.
Reveal and discard MS to gain Gold.
Resolve the on-trash of Rat #1, draw one card (MS).
Reveal and discard MS to gain Gold.
Resolve the on-trash of Rat #2, draw one card (Gold).

In fact, if you use Cultist, I think you can reveal the same MS three times for only two cards, which seems extra weird.

Trash two Cultists.
Reveal and discard MS to gain Gold.
Resolve the on-trash of Cultist #1, drawing Gold and MS.
Reveal and discard MS to gain Gold.
Resolve the on-trash of Cultist #2, drawing Gold and MS.
Reveal and discard MS to gain Gold.

You could continue doing this as many times as you like, so that if you trash n Cultists, one MS will give you n+1 Golds.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 09, 2016, 10:43:07 am
Open Banquet, gain Cache.

Fountain/Gardens game.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 09, 2016, 12:11:10 pm
Once you have $8 to spend: Travelling Fair, Banquet gaining Cache, Banquet gaining Cache, top-deck both Caches and two of the Coppers. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Limetime on June 09, 2016, 12:13:28 pm
Open Banquet, gain Cache.

Fountain/Gardens game.
Let me guess: wall was in the kingdom.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 09, 2016, 12:43:48 pm
And here the mandatory art commentary:

It might be an effect of the low resolution, but Charm must really be magic. How else could it be floating a few centimeters above the table? It must also have the power of not casting shadows (a power it shares with the candles).
Some of the worst of Dominion.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Seprix on June 09, 2016, 12:47:10 pm
I don't want to give a commentary on art until I see the full resolution. Some of the good art shown in the previews looks bad in the low res.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: trivialknot on June 09, 2016, 01:00:50 pm
The blurry aesthetic is cool, really draws the set together, like the bald theme in Guilds.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: bedlam on June 09, 2016, 08:03:55 pm
My question is, if all the cards are listed in alphabetical order, then why is Royal Blacksmith found where it is?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: J Reggie on June 09, 2016, 08:07:07 pm
My question is, if all the cards are listed in alphabetical order, then why is Royal Blacksmith found where it is?

Probably so that no card notes would span two pages.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Donald X. on June 09, 2016, 08:15:50 pm
My question is, if all the cards are listed in alphabetical order, then why is Royal Blacksmith found where it is?

Probably so that no card notes would span two pages.
But then why is it in the wrong place on the inlay?

We didn't think that art looked "Old."
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Seprix on June 10, 2016, 12:23:10 am
Okay! Time for a lengthy post on my thoughts:
Engineer: The on play effect seems fine, I'll probably trash it after a few plays. The 4 debt cost is what intrigues me. It's so small it seems like it is essentially a 4 costing card. My guess is the debt cost is so it can't gain itself. Don't know why that would be too good though. I do appreciate having a wider variety of debt costs. The art seems decent, especially for a first time artist. Interesting that it features a woman, don't know what to think about that. There do need to be more cards with women but I would have put a dude on engineer.

That is the reason why there is a woman on it!
There weren't very many female engineers/inventors in the Roman times. A male would have been more historically accurate, but compared to steward it's not that bad.

Dominion isn't history though. There certainly weren't any Enchantresses or Ghost Ships or Scrying Pools or real Alchemists in historical times; so why not make the world a little better and more equal rather than constraining ourselves to the sexism of the past?

That people see the word "Engineer" and think "male" is more than enough reason to not do that, really. That gender conception exists TODAY.

Most engineers are male. Assuming an engineer is a male isn't sexism, it's reality. When more women complete STEM in college (which is happening now) that stigma will soon vanish. Women already outnumber men in college, and that number is growing.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: J Reggie on June 10, 2016, 12:44:12 am
Okay! Time for a lengthy post on my thoughts:
Engineer: The on play effect seems fine, I'll probably trash it after a few plays. The 4 debt cost is what intrigues me. It's so small it seems like it is essentially a 4 costing card. My guess is the debt cost is so it can't gain itself. Don't know why that would be too good though. I do appreciate having a wider variety of debt costs. The art seems decent, especially for a first time artist. Interesting that it features a woman, don't know what to think about that. There do need to be more cards with women but I would have put a dude on engineer.

That is the reason why there is a woman on it!
There weren't very many female engineers/inventors in the Roman times. A male would have been more historically accurate, but compared to steward it's not that bad.

Dominion isn't history though. There certainly weren't any Enchantresses or Ghost Ships or Scrying Pools or real Alchemists in historical times; so why not make the world a little better and more equal rather than constraining ourselves to the sexism of the past?

That people see the word "Engineer" and think "male" is more than enough reason to not do that, really. That gender conception exists TODAY.

Most engineers are male. Assuming an engineer is a male isn't sexism, it's reality. When more women complete STEM in college (which is happening now) that stigma will soon vanish. Women already outnumber men in college, and that number is growing.

If we're discussing this could we take it to rsp? I don't want this thread to get closed.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Elanchana on June 10, 2016, 02:53:32 am
I came up with a killer combo the other day (that everyone probably saw already but eh). Advance+Fortress with extra buys? Borked?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 10, 2016, 07:08:22 am
The blurry aesthetic is cool, really draws the set together, like the bald theme in Guilds.

I think that's just because of poor scan quality.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 10, 2016, 08:19:13 am
The blurry aesthetic is cool, really draws the set together, like the bald theme in Guilds.

I think that's just because of poor scan quality.

There haven't been any scans yet (my copy is still en route).  These images are all taken from the rulebook online.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 10, 2016, 10:21:49 am
My question is, if all the cards are listed in alphabetical order, then why is Royal Blacksmith found where it is?

Probably so that no card notes would span two pages.
But then why is it in the wrong place on the inlay?

We didn't think that art looked "Old."

Well, it could have explained why he's wearing glasses.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: LastFootnote on June 10, 2016, 11:26:55 am
My question is, if all the cards are listed in alphabetical order, then why is Royal Blacksmith found where it is?

Probably so that no card notes would span two pages.
But then why is it in the wrong place on the inlay?

We didn't think that art looked "Old."

Well, it could have explained why he's wearing glasses.

I assumed it was because he was from the future, or had modern glasses delivered to him via time travel.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Asper on June 10, 2016, 11:53:11 am
My question is, if all the cards are listed in alphabetical order, then why is Royal Blacksmith found where it is?

Probably so that no card notes would span two pages.
But then why is it in the wrong place on the inlay?

We didn't think that art looked "Old."

Well, it could have explained why he's wearing glasses.

I assumed it was because he was from the future, or had modern glasses delivered to him via time travel.

I assumed he was the time traveller, on a quest to deliver glasses from the late 13th century to ancient rome.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 10, 2016, 12:57:00 pm
My question is, if all the cards are listed in alphabetical order, then why is Royal Blacksmith found where it is?

Probably so that no card notes would span two pages.
But then why is it in the wrong place on the inlay?

We didn't think that art looked "Old."

Well, it could have explained why he's wearing glasses.

I assumed it was because he was from the future, or had modern glasses delivered to him via time travel.

It really seems like for this set Alayna Lemmer went "shit, it's almost the deadline uh let me see what I have on file... Yeah, that works!"
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 10, 2016, 04:43:35 pm
Oh my. Surely somebody has said it already, but I just realized: Possession+Donate is going to be so degenerate.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: LastFootnote on June 10, 2016, 04:48:20 pm
Oh my. Surely somebody has said it already, but I just realized: Possession+Donate is going to be so degenerate.

???
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: JW on June 10, 2016, 04:50:30 pm
Oh my. Surely somebody has said it already, but I just realized: Possession+Donate is going to be so degenerate.

Donate takes place after your turn, so if the Possessor has the Possessed player buy Donate, the Possessed player gets to decide what to trash.

Edit: As drsteelhammer and Deadlock point out, Possession + strong trashing has the potential to result in stalemates. Donate is similar to Chapel in this regard. Both players will often be aiming for a deck that can't do anything besides play multiple Possessions a turn. So Donate is a problem with Possession in the sense that any strong trashing + Possession is a problem. But blame Possession, not Donate!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: SuperHans on June 10, 2016, 04:56:20 pm
Oh my. Surely somebody has said it already, but I just realized: Possession+Donate is going to be so degenerate.

It shouldn't be a problem. Donate takes place after your turn, so if the Possessor has the Possessed player buy Donate, the Possessed player gets to decide what to trash.
Good guy possessor. Takes 8 debt tokens and let's me trash whatever cards I want.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: drsteelhammer on June 10, 2016, 04:57:44 pm
Oh my. Surely somebody has said it already, but I just realized: Possession+Donate is going to be so degenerate.

It shouldn't be a problem. Donate takes place after your turn, so if the Possessor has the Possessed player buy Donate, the Possessed player gets to decide what to trash.

Will it be a problem if I donate and trash my deck down to village-village-possession-possession-possession?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: SuperHans on June 10, 2016, 04:58:34 pm
Oh my. Surely somebody has said it already, but I just realized: Possession+Donate is going to be so degenerate.

It shouldn't be a problem. Donate takes place after your turn, so if the Possessor has the Possessed player buy Donate, the Possessed player gets to decide what to trash.
Good guy possessor. Takes 8 debt tokens and let's me trash whatever cards I want.
Edge case. That's what he wants me to do so that I clean my deck up for him.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Seprix on June 10, 2016, 05:05:07 pm
I'll say it again: Ban Possession.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Deadlock39 on June 10, 2016, 05:07:41 pm
Oh my. Surely somebody has said it already, but I just realized: Possession+Donate is going to be so degenerate.

It shouldn't be a problem. Donate takes place after your turn, so if the Possessor has the Possessed player buy Donate, the Possessed player gets to decide what to trash.

Will it be a problem if I donate and trash my deck down to village-village-possession-possession-possession?

Yeah... so I am pretty swayed toward the degenerate case here actually. When you can reach a deck that plays more than 1 Possession a turn without falling super far behind, the goal turns into building this up as quickly as possible and then destroying your own economy. You can destroy your own economy instantly with Donate, and leave your deck in debt so your opponent can't use it. If this is mirrored, the game is locked out and you starve to death.


Also... FTFY:
Will it be a problem if I donate and trash my deck down to king's court-king's court-possession-possession-possession?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 10, 2016, 05:10:44 pm
Oh my. Surely somebody has said it already, but I just realized: Possession+Donate is going to be so degenerate.

It shouldn't be a problem. Donate takes place after your turn, so if the Possessor has the Possessed player buy Donate, the Possessed player gets to decide what to trash.

Will it be a problem if I donate and trash my deck down to village-village-possession-possession-possession?

That's what I was referring to.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: drsteelhammer on June 10, 2016, 05:12:21 pm
The problem is... the opponent doesn't even have to mirror it, he just has to kill all his economy aswell the following turn.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: JW on June 10, 2016, 05:19:37 pm
The problem is... the opponent doesn't even have to mirror it, he just has to kill all his economy as well the following turn.

Anticipating this, the player aiming for the multi-Possession deck might keep a single Gold with Donate. If the opponent isn't mirroring on Possession but trashes all economy/gaining, the Possession player can re-buy Silver, morph into a money deck, and win from there. But if both players build decks that can play multiple Possessions each turn, the game will just end in a stalemate.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Deadlock39 on June 10, 2016, 05:28:23 pm
It doesn't necessarily have to stalemate if you can get enough of a lead that your opponent can't win on Estates.  You can just keep $2, and pile Estate/Curse/Copper while periodically donating to make sure your opponent can't score any points with your deck.  To do this you have to also maintain the threat of multi-Possessing them so they can't build back up.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: drsteelhammer on June 10, 2016, 06:43:35 pm
The problem is... the opponent doesn't even have to mirror it, he just has to kill all his economy as well the following turn.

Anticipating this, the player aiming for the multi-Possession deck might keep a single Gold with Donate. If the opponent isn't mirroring on Possession but trashes all economy/gaining, the Possession player can re-buy Silver, morph into a money deck, and win from there. But if both players build decks that can play multiple Possessions each turn, the game will just end in a stalemate.

Oh, I meant that he doesn't have to build up to triple Possession turns, a single one of them is enough. Otherwise the player who donates first can win, you are right.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Asper on June 10, 2016, 10:33:52 pm
If i can play several Possessions each turn, and my opponent can so, too, i would consider deliberately going into Debt with Donate. It would set up my deck to be only Possessions for my opponent, and as he uses my deck more than i do, while i mostly play his deck, i am better off being the one who has a debt. So i certainly understand why it would create a stalemate - you can not progress during your turn without helping your opponent more, and stalling makes your position stronger. It's a situation where the one moving first loses, so nobody moves.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 11, 2016, 05:12:59 am
Oh my. Surely somebody has said it already, but I just realized: Possession+Donate is going to be so degenerate.

It shouldn't be a problem. Donate takes place after your turn, so if the Possessor has the Possessed player buy Donate, the Possessed player gets to decide what to trash.

Will it be a problem if I donate and trash my deck down to village-village-possession-possession-possession?

Yeah... so I am pretty swayed toward the degenerate case here actually. When you can reach a deck that plays more than 1 Possession a turn without falling super far behind, the goal turns into building this up as quickly as possible and then destroying your own economy. You can destroy your own economy instantly with Donate, and leave your deck in debt so your opponent can't use it. If this is mirrored, the game is locked out and you starve to death.


Also... FTFY:
Will it be a problem if I donate and trash my deck down to king's court-king's court-possession-possession-possession?

I've thought a bit more about this:

Stalling and Donating all the money is strictly worse than stalling and donating everything but a copper. Your opponent can't do anything with your deck anyway, except buy coppers and curses (and poor houses and Debt stuff), which they would do anyway with their own deck if they kept a copper.

If you are ahead by more than 4-8 points, keeping a Silver's worth probably makes you win. (you slowly win by three-piling and Donating Curses, Coppers and Estates, or three 2-4$ cards as long as the extra economy needed doesn't give your opponent access to more points than just the Estate pile). If you don't have that point advantage, your opponent will probably use your not-completely-dead deck to gain more points than you do and you'll lose, so it's in your best interest to starve to death (nobody likes losing).

Supposing that the players are playing to win, and supposing that starving to death counts at best as a draw, it would be in their interest not to build a stall-inducing Possession deck unless they are going to win after most Estates go to their opponent.

So, I don't see the stall happening a lot of the time. You don't often have both a point lead and the time to buy Possessions while defending that lead.

(the long and drawn-out endgame of such a scenario might offer some small chances for the losing player to build up a sloggish deck with coppers silvers and Estates and lucksnipe a couple of Duchies while their opponent does not. Thus, they unfortunately might not want to resign right away)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: eHalcyon on June 11, 2016, 10:25:03 am
Oh my. Surely somebody has said it already, but I just realized: Possession+Donate is going to be so degenerate.

It shouldn't be a problem. Donate takes place after your turn, so if the Possessor has the Possessed player buy Donate, the Possessed player gets to decide what to trash.

Will it be a problem if I donate and trash my deck down to village-village-possession-possession-possession?

Yeah... so I am pretty swayed toward the degenerate case here actually. When you can reach a deck that plays more than 1 Possession a turn without falling super far behind, the goal turns into building this up as quickly as possible and then destroying your own economy. You can destroy your own economy instantly with Donate, and leave your deck in debt so your opponent can't use it. If this is mirrored, the game is locked out and you starve to death.


Also... FTFY:
Will it be a problem if I donate and trash my deck down to king's court-king's court-possession-possession-possession?

I've thought a bit more about this:

Stalling and Donating all the money is strictly worse than stalling and donating everything but a copper. Your opponent can't do anything with your deck anyway, except buy coppers and curses (and poor houses and Debt stuff), which they would do anyway with their own deck if they kept a copper.

If you are ahead by more than 4-8 points, keeping a Silver's worth probably makes you win. (you slowly win by three-piling and Donating Curses, Coppers and Estates, or three 2-4$ cards as long as the extra economy needed doesn't give your opponent access to more points than just the Estate pile). If you don't have that point advantage, your opponent will probably use your not-completely-dead deck to gain more points than you do and you'll lose, so it's in your best interest to starve to death (nobody likes losing).

Supposing that the players are playing to win, and supposing that starving to death counts at best as a draw, it would be in their interest not to build a stall-inducing Possession deck unless they are going to win after most Estates go to their opponent.

So, I don't see the stall happening a lot of the time. You don't often have both a point lead and the time to buy Possessions while defending that lead.

(the long and drawn-out endgame of such a scenario might offer some small chances for the losing player to build up a sloggish deck with coppers silvers and Estates and lucksnipe a couple of Duchies while their opponent does not. Thus, they unfortunately might not want to resign right away)

It sounds to me like you're describing the prisoner's dilemma but assuming that players will cooperate for mutual benefit.  Your options are to either build a Possession-centric deck or not. If both players do it, they probably starve to death and that's bad, so neither play should do it. If neither player does, then the game can proceed as normal and everybody wins (especially the player who actually wins). The problem here is that if only one player goes for the Possession-heavy strategy, that player will win. So then your options end up being "skip Possession, either have a chance at winning or lose badly" vs. "go for Possession, either draw or win easily". Guess which one players choose?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Deadlock39 on June 11, 2016, 10:54:58 am
Quote
Possession/Donate stuff

Just want to add that being able to play tons of Possessions, and then destroy your economy isn't a new stalemate inducing condition. Donate just makes the second part so much easier/faster.

With slower trashers, usually someone gets lucky and scores some points to stop the stalemate before it can happen.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 11, 2016, 11:25:06 am
All the Secret Histories have been added to the wiki.  Working on card scans now.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: quazerflame on June 11, 2016, 10:45:29 pm
All the Secret Histories have been added to the wiki.  Working on card scans now.

Awesome, can't wait to see the completed thing. This is including the split card randomizers?

Also, my first post in the forum. Hi everyone.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 11, 2016, 10:58:13 pm
All the Secret Histories have been added to the wiki.  Working on card scans now.

Awesome, can't wait to see the completed thing. This is including the split card randomizers?

Yep!  Those randomizers are lowest priority right now, though.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: quazerflame on June 11, 2016, 11:01:51 pm
All the Secret Histories have been added to the wiki.  Working on card scans now.

Awesome, can't wait to see the completed thing. This is including the split card randomizers?

Yep!  Those randomizers are lowest priority right now, though.

Of course, gotta have the actual cards that are played with looking nice first. Any idea how they'll be made selectable in the wiki?

I mean, Knights, Ruins and Castles have names of their own that you click on, but the naming system for the other multicard piles feature Card1/Card2 as their names.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 11, 2016, 11:11:47 pm
All the Secret Histories have been added to the wiki.  Working on card scans now.

Awesome, can't wait to see the completed thing. This is including the split card randomizers?

Yep!  Those randomizers are lowest priority right now, though.

Of course, gotta have the actual cards that are played with looking nice first. Any idea how they'll be made selectable in the wiki?

I mean, Knights, Ruins and Castles have names of their own that you click on, but the naming system for the other multicard piles feature Card1/Card2 as their names.

My current plan is to just use the top card in the pile when using the Kingdom template, and put the randomizers into the Split pile article, except for the Castles randomizer, which goes on the Castles page.  I don't see a point in having a separate card1/card2 article.

EDIT: Also, Jesus, there's a lot of blood on Conquest's art.  I think that's the most blood we've ever seen on a card before.

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/0/08/Conquest.jpg)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: quazerflame on June 11, 2016, 11:17:42 pm
All the Secret Histories have been added to the wiki.  Working on card scans now.

Awesome, can't wait to see the completed thing. This is including the split card randomizers?

Yep!  Those randomizers are lowest priority right now, though.

Of course, gotta have the actual cards that are played with looking nice first. Any idea how they'll be made selectable in the wiki?

I mean, Knights, Ruins and Castles have names of their own that you click on, but the naming system for the other multicard piles feature Card1/Card2 as their names.

My current plan is to just use the top card in the pile when using the Kingdom template, and put the randomizers into the Split pile article, except for the Castles randomizer, which goes on the Castles page.  I don't see a point in having a separate card1/card2 article.

EDIT: Also, Jesus, there's a lot of blood on Conquest's art.  I think that's the most blood we've ever seen on a card before.

(picture removed for sanity's sake)

All of this over two Silvers. Yikes.

And that idea makes sense, put the randomizers in the same page as the article. What do you mean by Kingdom template, though?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Beyond Awesome on June 11, 2016, 11:23:25 pm
All the Secret Histories have been added to the wiki.  Working on card scans now.

Awesome, can't wait to see the completed thing. This is including the split card randomizers?

Yep!  Those randomizers are lowest priority right now, though.

Of course, gotta have the actual cards that are played with looking nice first. Any idea how they'll be made selectable in the wiki?

I mean, Knights, Ruins and Castles have names of their own that you click on, but the naming system for the other multicard piles feature Card1/Card2 as their names.

My current plan is to just use the top card in the pile when using the Kingdom template, and put the randomizers into the Split pile article, except for the Castles randomizer, which goes on the Castles page.  I don't see a point in having a separate card1/card2 article.

EDIT: Also, Jesus, there's a lot of blood on Conquest's art.  I think that's the most blood we've ever seen on a card before.

(picture removed for sanity's sake)

All of this over two Silvers. Yikes.


SCSN is out for blood
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: quazerflame on June 12, 2016, 12:30:21 am
Quote
Other Rules clarifications: You receive +1VP.png from all Victory cards in play, including your opponents'.

Saw this pop up while I was wandering the wiki. I don't know how an opponent might be able to have a victory card in play during your turn. I don't think there are any Action-Victory-Duration cards, for example.

EDIT: How do you get the VP symbol to show up? I want to replace "VP.png" up there with it.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 12, 2016, 12:31:16 am
Quote
Other Rules clarifications: You receive +1VP.png from all Victory cards in play, including your opponents'.

Saw this pop up while I was wandering the wiki. I don't know how an opponent might be able to have a victory card in play during your turn. I don't think there are any Action-Victory-Duration cards, for example.

You can gain cards when it isn't your turn.  :)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: singletee on June 12, 2016, 12:32:52 am
Quote
Other Rules clarifications: You receive +1VP.png from all Victory cards in play, including your opponents'.

Saw this pop up while I was wandering the wiki. I don't know how an opponent might be able to have a victory card in play during your turn. I don't think there are any Action-Victory-Duration cards, for example.

EDIT: How do you get the VP symbol to show up? I want to replace "VP.png" up there with it.

They could Inherit a Duration.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: quazerflame on June 12, 2016, 12:39:14 am
Quote
Other Rules clarifications: You receive +1VP.png from all Victory cards in play, including your opponents'.

Saw this pop up while I was wandering the wiki. I don't know how an opponent might be able to have a victory card in play during your turn. I don't think there are any Action-Victory-Duration cards, for example.

EDIT: How do you get the VP symbol to show up? I want to replace "VP.png" up there with it.

You can gain cards when it isn't your turn.  :)

They could Inherit a Duration.

First up, I had forgotten that you can gain cards while it isn't your turn. Second off, how the heck did I forget about Inheritance? XD

Ooo! What if you managed to gain that Castle between turns while resolving Dominate? Now I want to figure out how to do that!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 12, 2016, 09:46:31 am
Okay, these three Landmarks are definitely Lynell Ingram's best artwork to date, but what the hell is the lady on the left just casually pouring into the bath???

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/a/a9/Baths.jpg)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 12, 2016, 09:59:45 am
what the hell is the lady on the left just casually pouring into the bath???
Rare ungulants.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 12, 2016, 10:00:41 am
They could Inherit a Duration.
Or a Caravan Guard.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 12, 2016, 10:21:55 am
And here the mandatory art commentary:

It might be an effect of the low resolution, but Charm must really be magic. How else could it be floating a few centimeters above the table? It must also have the power of not casting shadows (a power it shares with the candles).
Some of the worst of Dominion.

I don't want to give a commentary on art until I see the full resolution. Some of the good art shown in the previews looks bad in the low res.

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/de/Charm.jpg/374px-Charm.jpg)

I can now safely say, I preferred it when it was in low resolution. 'Cause now the tall candle is floating too.
The dodecahedron is rotated towards us with respect to the table. No shadows at all on the table, not even directly below the floating dodecahedron thing.
The candles have different shadowing than the rest.

It's not even half-baked art, it's just a mess.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: markusin on June 12, 2016, 10:32:07 am
The top right hole on Charm seems to have shading, which means it would have to be floating in front of the candles on other right.

Let's just say Charm is meant to be an example of surrealism art and leave it at that.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Asper on June 12, 2016, 10:53:58 am
And here the mandatory art commentary:

It might be an effect of the low resolution, but Charm must really be magic. How else could it be floating a few centimeters above the table? It must also have the power of not casting shadows (a power it shares with the candles).
Some of the worst of Dominion.

I don't want to give a commentary on art until I see the full resolution. Some of the good art shown in the previews looks bad in the low res.

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/de/Charm.jpg/374px-Charm.jpg)

I can now safely say, I preferred it when it was in low resolution. 'Cause now the tall candle is floating too.
The dodecahedron is rotated towards us with respect to the table. No shadows at all on the table, not even directly below the floating dodecahedron thing.
The candles have different shadowing than the rest.

It's not even half-baked art, it's just a mess.

Dodecahedron? You mean that floating proximity mine from the 31st century?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 12, 2016, 10:58:43 am
And here the mandatory art commentary:

It might be an effect of the low resolution, but Charm must really be magic. How else could it be floating a few centimeters above the table? It must also have the power of not casting shadows (a power it shares with the candles).
Some of the worst of Dominion.

I don't want to give a commentary on art until I see the full resolution. Some of the good art shown in the previews looks bad in the low res.

I can now safely say, I preferred it when it was in low resolution. 'Cause now the tall candle is floating too.
The dodecahedron is rotated towards us with respect to the table. No shadows at all on the table, not even directly below the floating dodecahedron thing.
The candles have different shadowing than the rest.

It's not even half-baked art, it's just a mess.

Dodecahedron? You mean that floating proximity mine from the 31st century?

I actually like the concept because it's original and heaven knows we need more platonic solids in Dominion. (Donald, no dice please)

But the actual piece of art is an awful copypaste of different stuff drawn at different angles, and that bothers me a lot.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 12, 2016, 11:08:50 am
EDIT: Also, Jesus, there's a lot of blood on Conquest's art.  I think that's the most blood we've ever seen on a card before.

I hadn't noticed the blood squirting in from the right side of the picture.
Oh, the gore.

Did we even have any blood on a Dominion card before? I can't think of any.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Kirian on June 12, 2016, 11:42:59 am
Charm appears to have influenza.  I hope you're all vaccinated.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: A Drowned Kernel on June 12, 2016, 12:07:47 pm
Okay, these three Landmarks are definitely Lynell Ingram's best artwork to date, but what the hell is the lady on the left just casually pouring into the bath???

Bubbles? Some sort of scented oil? What sort of decadent aristocrats take baths in just plain water?

Also, I have to say that Baths is my new favorite thematic thing in Dominion. You neglect your royal duties to go lounge about in a spa and somehow this earns you victory points.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Seprix on June 12, 2016, 02:07:04 pm
Okay, these three Landmarks are definitely Lynell Ingram's best artwork to date, but what the hell is the lady on the left just casually pouring into the bath???

Bubbles? Some sort of scented oil? What sort of decadent aristocrats take baths in just plain water?

Also, I have to say that Baths is my new favorite thematic thing in Dominion. You neglect your royal duties to go lounge about in a spa and somehow this earns you victory points.

Harem also earns you "Victory Points".
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: eHalcyon on June 12, 2016, 02:26:41 pm
Okay, these three Landmarks are definitely Lynell Ingram's best artwork to date, but what the hell is the lady on the left just casually pouring into the bath???

Bubbles? Some sort of scented oil? What sort of decadent aristocrats take baths in just plain water?

Also, I have to say that Baths is my new favorite thematic thing in Dominion. You neglect your royal duties to go lounge about in a spa and somehow this earns you victory points.

I would guess that it's filled with water from the bath, for pouring over oneself.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 12, 2016, 03:32:47 pm
Okay, these three Landmarks are definitely Lynell Ingram's best artwork to date, but what the hell is the lady on the left just casually pouring into the bath???

Bubbles? Some sort of scented oil? What sort of decadent aristocrats take baths in just plain water?

Also, I have to say that Baths is my new favorite thematic thing in Dominion. You neglect your royal duties to go lounge about in a spa and somehow this earns you victory points.

I would guess that it's filled with water from the bath, for pouring over oneself.

Then why is it yellow???
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: pacovf on June 12, 2016, 04:25:29 pm
Kids are allowed in.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: SuperHans on June 12, 2016, 04:55:59 pm
Thank you for posting the high-resolution scans.

I have to say, other than a few cards, the art for this expansion is tremendous. The events and landmarks feature some of the best art in the entire game and almost all of the art for the events and landmarks is good to great (e.g., Annex, Bandit Fort, Defiled Shrine, Keep, Mountain Pass, Obelisk, Tower, Triumph, Windfall).

For kingdom cards, Castles is stunning from top to bottom and may be my favorite art of the set, if not all of Dominion. No matter how this pile actually plays, I cannot dislike these cards because of that art. Chariot Race, Enchantress, Overlord are also great and immediately memorable. Then getting the job done is Archive, Bustling Village, Catapult, City Quarter, Crown, Emporium, Encampment, Engineer, Farmer's Market, Forum, Legionary, Patrician, Plunder, Sacrifice, Settlers, Temple, Villa, and Wild Hunt.

Rocks and Capital are certainly not bad but they don't do much for me. Groundskeeper and Royal Blacksmith seem wonderful at first glance, but the anachronisms are frustrating and confusing.  At least the glasses on Royal Blacksmith don't seem too noticeable. Battlefield looks like they are fighting on a cloud. Wolf Den has a style of art that I generally like but the positioning of the wolves is strange. Charm has framing issues that makes the art look cluttered, in addition to the other complaints in this thread. Gladiator is actually not that bad by itself, but the art for Fortune is disappointing on so many levels, especially in light of the fact that this is such a unique and fun card.

EDIT: I actually like the Gladiator/Fortune randomizer art. In fact, all of the art for the split pile randomizers is really good. That settlers/bustling village randomizer art!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 12, 2016, 05:07:11 pm
Thank you for posting the high-resolution scans.

You're welcome!  Everything is uploaded now, including Split pile randomizers.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 12, 2016, 05:11:07 pm
Thank you for posting the high-resolution scans.

You're welcome!  Everything is uploaded now, including Split pile randomizers.

That catapult/rocks randomizer, it's pretty sweet.

Thanks wero, you're great!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: eHalcyon on June 12, 2016, 06:40:22 pm
Okay, these three Landmarks are definitely Lynell Ingram's best artwork to date, but what the hell is the lady on the left just casually pouring into the bath???

Bubbles? Some sort of scented oil? What sort of decadent aristocrats take baths in just plain water?

Also, I have to say that Baths is my new favorite thematic thing in Dominion. You neglect your royal duties to go lounge about in a spa and somehow this earns you victory points.

I would guess that it's filled with water from the bath, for pouring over oneself.

Then why is it yellow???

Lighting!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 12, 2016, 07:05:51 pm
Okay, these three Landmarks are definitely Lynell Ingram's best artwork to date, but what the hell is the lady on the left just casually pouring into the bath???

Bubbles? Some sort of scented oil? What sort of decadent aristocrats take baths in just plain water?

Also, I have to say that Baths is my new favorite thematic thing in Dominion. You neglect your royal duties to go lounge about in a spa and somehow this earns you victory points.

I would guess that it's filled with water from the bath, for pouring over oneself.

Then why is it yellow???

Lighting!

Speaking of lighting, I'm sure you could change your avatar to Charm, eHalcyon, and no one would notice the difference.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: eHalcyon on June 12, 2016, 07:21:37 pm
Speaking of lighting, I'm sure you could change your avatar to Charm, eHalcyon, and no one would notice the difference.

It's been Charm since the rulebook went up...
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: levymealone on June 12, 2016, 08:52:00 pm
Looking at the art for Tax and Salt the Earth, I feel like there's a story there, but I cant quite place it...
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/9d/Tax.jpg/320px-Tax.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/66/Salt_the_Earth.jpg/320px-Salt_the_Earth.jpg)

I'm pretty sure its the same woman, getting taxed and then salting the earth, but then why have the soldiers swapped sides?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Deadlock39 on June 12, 2016, 08:57:03 pm
Are they forcing her to salt the earth because she didn't pay her taxes? I don't really know if that would make any sense.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: markusin on June 12, 2016, 09:43:49 pm
Are they forcing her to salt the earth because she didn't pay her taxes? I don't really know if that would make any sense.

When I was reviewing the cards for my first impressions, I noticed that the two events looked like they featured the same woman, perhaps in the same town/city. Indeed, the art for both these events was made by the same artist. Even the guards look the same. It stood out to me because I was reviewing the events in alphabetical order and Tax immediately followed Salt the Earth in that alphabetical sort.

On the blurry scans, I couldn't be sure that the woman was the one salting the earth. I thought maybe she was watching the earth get salted and being a bit depressed about it.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: markusin on June 12, 2016, 09:54:38 pm
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/4/48/Wild_Hunt.jpg)

Check out that man in the moon. It looks like a bowling ball ghost.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Beyond Awesome on June 13, 2016, 12:07:11 am
Are they forcing her to salt the earth because she didn't pay her taxes? I don't really know if that would make any sense.

When I was reviewing the cards for my first impressions, I noticed that the two events looked like they featured the same woman, perhaps in the same town/city. Indeed, the art for both these events was made by the same artist. Even the guards look the same. It stood out to me because I was reviewing the events in alphabetical order and Tax immediately followed Salt the Earth in that alphabetical sort.

On the blurry scans, I couldn't be sure that the woman was the one salting the earth. I thought maybe she was watching the earth get salted and being a bit depressed about it.

I don't think it's the same woman. She's dressed differently in each picture. So are the guards.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: chipperMDW on June 13, 2016, 12:33:20 am
Are they forcing her to salt the earth because she didn't pay her taxes? I don't really know if that would make any sense.

When I was reviewing the cards for my first impressions, I noticed that the two events looked like they featured the same woman, perhaps in the same town/city. Indeed, the art for both these events was made by the same artist. Even the guards look the same. It stood out to me because I was reviewing the events in alphabetical order and Tax immediately followed Salt the Earth in that alphabetical sort.

On the blurry scans, I couldn't be sure that the woman was the one salting the earth. I thought maybe she was watching the earth get salted and being a bit depressed about it.

I don't think it's the same woman. She's dressed differently in each picture. So are the guards.

Sometimes I dress differently, and I'm still me at those times.  I think.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Burning Skull on June 13, 2016, 05:46:38 am
Looking at the art for Tax and Salt the Earth, I feel like there's a story there, but I cant quite place it...
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/9d/Tax.jpg/320px-Tax.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/66/Salt_the_Earth.jpg/320px-Salt_the_Earth.jpg)

I'm pretty sure its the same woman, getting taxed and then salting the earth, but then why have the soldiers swapped sides?

Scene 1 (Terribly Atrocious Xenophobia)

An extraterrestrial cyborg (you can clearly see aluminium lid on his head, covering gears and wires) is a friendly diplomat from outer worlds.
He is studying human language writing new words down using his hipster laptop when local rednecks, annoyed by unusual looks of a stranger, surround him.
Their leader, cocaine abuser with unknown gender identity punches him in the face.
Soon after the picture was taken the mob brutally kills the stranger and his alien nature is soon revealed.

Scene 2 (Redemption)

While the mob leader, blinded by hate and drugs, continues to humiliate the corpse, the rest of the party feel like conscience rapidly fills their insides.
They are soon aware of irreparableness of what they done and run away in horror and shame.
After reaching their shelter two men look at each other gravely and decide to take a vow:
"We never kill a stranger again
We will fight drugs till we die
We won't hide our identity anymore
Cthulhu fhtagn Cthulhu fhtagn"
With that words being said they threw away their fake right hands covering their claws and revealed who they truly are: half-men half-crab from the deep sea!
Their lady friend is shocked by the revelation at first, but she quickly comes to herself and accepts the vow after her lobster buddies.
Shortly after that they take the bowl of cocaine belonging to their ex-leader and proudly disperse it upon the earth, thus starting their new lives.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 13, 2016, 05:47:23 am
I'm a wee bit disappointed that Wild hunt doesn't have anybody topdeck cards.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: markusin on June 13, 2016, 07:51:18 am
I'm a wee bit disappointed that Wild hunt doesn't have anybody topdeck cards.

I still have no idea what the connection is between a "Wild Hunt" and a spectral hunting party. What do ghosts have to do with Empires anyway (well okay, Haunted Castle is a thing, and covers the topdeck quota of the expansion).
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Donald X. on June 13, 2016, 07:56:40 am
I'm a wee bit disappointed that Wild hunt doesn't have anybody topdeck cards.

I still have no idea what the connection is between a "Wild Hunt" and a spectral hunting party. What do ghosts have to do with Empires anyway (well okay, Haunted Castle is a thing, and covers the topdeck quota of the expansion).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Hunt

It does not have much to do with empires.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Ankenaut on June 13, 2016, 08:51:12 am
Looking at the art for Tax and Salt the Earth, I feel like there's a story there, but I cant quite place it...
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/9d/Tax.jpg/320px-Tax.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/66/Salt_the_Earth.jpg/320px-Salt_the_Earth.jpg)

I'm pretty sure its the same woman, getting taxed and then salting the earth, but then why have the soldiers swapped sides?

Here's the explanation I posted on Reddit about this:

Tax appears to have some people in dispute over a tax. Later, the two main guys don't appear. They're probably both dead. But, the widow seems to have brought the opposing army under her control and is now salting the earth of her enemies as a warning to anyone else who might try to cross her.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: JThorne on June 13, 2016, 10:28:13 am
Quote
I'm pretty sure its the same woman, getting taxed and then salting the earth, but then why have the soldiers swapped sides?

Look again. They're not guarding, they're coercing, hands on their swords, staring her down and making sure she obeys. Can't pay your taxes? Fine. We have no use for this land, and now neither do you.

I couldn't find any historical references to salting the earth as a punishment for not paying taxes, but plenty of references to it used as a punishment for vanquished enemies. In any case, definitely a punishment and a way to render the land useless.

This could actually work pretty well. Small amounts of salt would eventually wash away with the rain and the land would be usable again (unlike the biblical implication that it destroys the land forever) so the landowners would have a chance to recover and pay up in the future. Plus it could be applied in amounts and locations proportional to the amount of tax they owed if nothing else could be seized.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Seprix on June 13, 2016, 11:15:18 am
Quote
I'm pretty sure its the same woman, getting taxed and then salting the earth, but then why have the soldiers swapped sides?

Look again. They're not guarding, they're coercing, hands on their swords, staring her down and making sure she obeys. Can't pay your taxes? Fine. We have no use for this land, and now neither do you.

I couldn't find any historical references to salting the earth as a punishment for not paying taxes, but plenty of references to it used as a punishment for vanquished enemies. In any case, definitely a punishment and a way to render the land useless.

This could actually work pretty well. Small amounts of salt would eventually wash away with the rain and the land would be usable again (unlike the biblical implication that it destroys the land forever) so the landowners would have a chance to recover and pay up in the future. Plus it could be applied in amounts and locations proportional to the amount of tax they owed if nothing else could be seized.

The only problem is that it makes no sense at all. Hey, you can't pay your taxes, so we'll destroy your only source of revenue. It seems more likely she was probably cheating on her taxes and they punished her for it.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Deadlock39 on June 13, 2016, 11:36:51 am
makes no sense at all.

Since when do ancient forms of punishment make sense?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 13, 2016, 01:16:39 pm
The only problem is that it makes no sense at all.
Nor does putting somebody in a debtors' prison until they can repay what they owe. The astute will realise this somewhat restricts their ability to earn the necessary money...

...and now I feel like that's a missed opportunity for an attack in Empires. I've no idea what it would have done, but the theme would have been awesome.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: markusin on June 13, 2016, 04:29:59 pm
The only problem is that it makes no sense at all.
Nor does putting somebody in a debtors' prison until they can repay what they owe. The astute will realise this somewhat restricts their ability to earn the necessary money...

...and now I feel like that's a missed opportunity for an attack in Empires. I've no idea what it would have done, but the theme would have been awesome.

Or it could have been a debt-cost card that punishes you for not paying off the debt at the end of the next turn.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Destry on June 13, 2016, 04:38:23 pm
Sounds like a job for the Really Bad Card ideas!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: blaisepascal on June 13, 2016, 04:38:56 pm
The only problem is that it makes no sense at all.
Nor does putting somebody in a debtors' prison until they can repay what they owe. The astute will realise this somewhat restricts their ability to earn the necessary money...

...and now I feel like that's a missed opportunity for an attack in Empires. I've no idea what it would have done, but the theme would have been awesome.

Or it could have been a debt-cost card that punishes you for not paying off the debt at the end of the next turn.

Interest Payment: <8> Treasure. +$1 now and at the start of your next turn. When you buy this, play it immediately. When this is discarded from play, if you have any debt, gain one curse.

Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Accatitippi on June 13, 2016, 05:38:28 pm
makes no sense at all.

Since when do ancient forms of punishment make sense?

Uh, since we moved on to the modern era, I guess (and them with us).  :) :P
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Kirian on June 13, 2016, 06:32:06 pm
Also, salting the earth with, say, potassium nitrate would be beneficial to the plants.  So make sure you're using the *right* salt.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Asper on June 13, 2016, 06:41:38 pm
"I hear you didn't pay your potassium nitrate tax?"
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: werothegreat on June 13, 2016, 10:55:07 pm
I'm a wee bit disappointed that Wild hunt doesn't have anybody topdeck cards.

I still have no idea what the connection is between a "Wild Hunt" and a spectral hunting party. What do ghosts have to do with Empires anyway (well okay, Haunted Castle is a thing, and covers the topdeck quota of the expansion).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Hunt

It does not have much to do with empires.

Now I want to write a tone poem entitled "Wild Hunt".
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: tailred on June 14, 2016, 07:37:42 am
I'm a wee bit disappointed that Wild hunt doesn't have anybody topdeck cards.

I still have no idea what the connection is between a "Wild Hunt" and a spectral hunting party.
Heh. Haunting party.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: minstrel on June 23, 2016, 12:50:59 pm
For the sake of clarity, if a card existed that cost 3 coin and 2 debt, could I use a card such as Armory to gain it. Would I then gain the debt? And if so, could I then pay off the debt potentially in my Buy phase?
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: GendoIkari on June 23, 2016, 12:54:42 pm
For the sake of clarity, if a card existed that cost 3 coin and 2 debt, could I use a card such as Armory to gain it. Would I then gain the debt? And if so, could I then pay off the debt potentially in my Buy phase?

No, for the exact same reason you can't use Armory to gain a Scrying Pool. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png) is NOT "up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)". It doesn't matter whether the Debt cost is anywhere from 1 to anything, the fact that it's there at all makes it not cost less than something that costs only (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png).
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Asper on June 23, 2016, 10:11:17 pm
For the sake of clarity, if a card existed that cost 3 coin and 2 debt, could I use a card such as Armory to gain it. Would I then gain the debt? And if so, could I then pay off the debt potentially in my Buy phase?

No, for the exact same reason you can't use Armory to gain a Scrying Pool. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png) is NOT "up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)". It doesn't matter whether the Debt cost is anywhere from 1 to anything, the fact that it's there at all makes it not cost less than something that costs only (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png).

Although i understand the misconception here a lot better than with Potions. Potions and coin is just apples to oranges. Debt on the other hand "feels" cheaper than coin. If i can afford to buy a card costing $4, i can also afford to buy a card costing 4 debt, but not vice versa. This, in a "common sense"-way, makes it easy to come to the conclusion debt was just "cheaper coins".
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Beyond Awesome on June 23, 2016, 10:33:17 pm
The best way to think of Debt as a third currency. We have coins, potion, and now debt. It's like traveling to another country. You can't use Canadian money in France.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Minotaur on June 27, 2016, 09:03:03 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/2hw8y1j.jpg)
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Jeebus on June 28, 2016, 04:11:04 pm
Although i understand the misconception here a lot better than with Potions. Potions and coin is just apples to oranges. Debt on the other hand "feels" cheaper than coin. If i can afford to buy a card costing $4, i can also afford to buy a card costing 4 debt, but not vice versa. This, in a "common sense"-way, makes it easy to come to the conclusion debt was just "cheaper coins".

I hadn't thought about it, but that's actually true. The Alchemy rulebook even compares gaining potion cost cards with buying:

"when a player uses University to Gain an action card costing up to $5, the player may not gain a card with [P] in the cost. ...
It is just like Buying a card - if a player just has $5, he cannot buy a card with [P] in the cost."


Obviously this thinking doesn't work with debt cost.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: GendoIkari on June 28, 2016, 04:26:43 pm
Although i understand the misconception here a lot better than with Potions. Potions and coin is just apples to oranges. Debt on the other hand "feels" cheaper than coin. If i can afford to buy a card costing $4, i can also afford to buy a card costing 4 debt, but not vice versa. This, in a "common sense"-way, makes it easy to come to the conclusion debt was just "cheaper coins".

I hadn't thought about it, but that's actually true. The Alchemy rulebook even compares gaining potion cost cards with buying:

"when a player uses University to Gain an action card costing up to $5, the player may not gain a card with [P] in the cost. ...
It is just like Buying a card - if a player just has $5, he cannot buy a card with [P] in the cost."


Obviously this thinking doesn't work with debt cost.

It *sort of* does. If you think of "debt cost" as "how much debt you have to take" as opposed to what you have to "pay", then in order to purchase a card costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/21/Debt5.png/18px-Debt5.png), you must have the ability to take at least (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/21/Debt5.png/18px-Debt5.png). The sentence above, in Debt terms, still applies... if a player just has (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), he cannot buy a card with (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) in the cost. But you don't have "just" (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), you have (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) + the capacity to take unlimited debt.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Chris is me on June 28, 2016, 04:36:32 pm
I think of debt the same way I think of imaginary numbers. This is an easy way to explain the concept to nerdy types to give an intuitive understanding of "cost more" and "cost less" situations.

2+3i is "more than" 2+2i or 1+3i, but it is not more than (or less than) 1+4i. Same with debt, 0+8d is less than 8+8d but it is neither more nor less than 2+0d.

And you don't "pay debt", you take debt. This handles "can I overpay debt" - you don't pay Debt, you take it as a cost, and pay *off* debt.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: drsteelhammer on June 28, 2016, 04:37:47 pm
It's like ordering Dominion from another country: You may have as much cash lying around as you like, but that doesn't help you since you need your credit card.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: schadd on June 28, 2016, 05:27:32 pm
new idea: $8 + 8d costs the same amount as $8√2
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Minotaur on June 28, 2016, 07:04:25 pm
Donald could have made <1> = $(1-e), where e is an infinitesimal.  But then Engineer would be able to three-pile too fast, which is ultimately why we end up going back to the product order (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_order") again.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Minotaur on June 28, 2016, 07:19:54 pm
In the infinitesimal (http://"https://bondmatt.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/nsa3.pdf") scheme, you could Remodel an Engineer to get a Stables, but not a Gold.  And a sabotaged Engineer could gain you a <2>, Poor House, or a $0.  An arbitrartily expensive card costing <M> could be remodeled to gain a card costing <M+2> or $(M+1), but not $(M+2).  The linear way to prevent a jump down is if e is infintesimal.  Otherwise, a fan card costing the amount <1/e> (with e a small real number, such as 10^-(10^10^10^10^10)) would cost the same as $(1/e-1), which should not be the case if you have exactly $(1/e-1) to pay right now.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: crj on June 28, 2016, 07:52:24 pm
I think of debt the same way I think of imaginary numbers. This is an easy way to explain the concept to nerdy types to give an intuitive understanding of "cost more" and "cost less" situations.

2+3i is "more than" 2+2i or 1+3i, but it is not more than (or less than) 1+4i.
Um. Your mathematics is broken.

While |3i| is more than |2i|, |-3| is also more than |+2|, which isn't at all what you want here. You can't say 3i is more than 2i because, although we know that +i and -i are different, we can't tell which is which.

The correct model, as Minotaur mentioned in passing, is a product order over the integers or naturals.
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: pacovf on June 28, 2016, 08:42:20 pm
new idea: $8 + 8d costs the same amount as $8√2

And Wedding is cheaper than Gold!
Title: Re: Empires Rulebook
Post by: Minotaur on June 28, 2016, 08:46:28 pm
Another good reason for the product order is that you "can afford" <100> even when you can't afford $5.  So is <100> < $5?  I still wouldn't think so.

For mechanics involving card costs, some heuristic could have been used like <1>=$1, but it's definitely reasonable to regard them the way you would regard gold/wood/food in Age of Empires, even if there is a one-way street from gold to wood.