Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Dominion Online at Shuffle iT => Topic started by: Jimmmy on November 06, 2017, 10:59:54 am
-
I meet more and more people on Dominion Online who just gets mad if I buy Possession. Someone just outright blacklisted me for buying one.
I have to ask if there is a common consensus of banning possession every game? (I know how controversial the card is.)
If there is not, then please at least say something at the beginning of the game, like "can we play without possession?". That would be really useful to prevent misunderstandings.
-
While people here tend to dislike Possession, there is no unspoken agreement not to buy it. If the other player would rather play without it, it’s on them to be clear about it at the beginning of the game, and even then you are not forced to comply if you don’t want to.
-
Well, if your opponent blacklisted you, that saves you the trouble of having to blacklist them!
-
I black list everyone who buys silver, personally.
-
I used to really dislike Possession, but now I don't mind it. There are times where it's annoying, but interesting Possession games are really interesting.
Anyway, I played a game a few weeks ago against an opponent I'd played several times, and they asked up front if I wanted to ban Possession (it was in the Kingdom). That was the first time I'd been asked that, and I assumed it meant they didn't care for the card. I responded that I'd come around on the card, and normally didn't mind it.
They ended up beating me using Possession. :D
-
Not so long ago, i played ferry on cultist on the first turn, and my opponnent said something like "so many possibilities, and you directly go for the aggression, not my kind of player", and resigned (and probably blacklisted me, i dunno, can you see if people blacklist you?)
Since then i have a new coping mechanism for people getting mad unjustified: i just laugh once out loud, and blacklist them.
If people want to ban cards,that's ok but they should say it up front at the start of the game (and of course it's still up to you if you agree with it).
But i do hope the ban card-function will come around (all though nowadays it's more because i start to hate boring games where you see a ton of cool combo's on the board, and after that notice rebuild, and then just play a boring rebuild game.)
-
Donald just asked me to temporarily ban possession until we get the banned cards feature up.
I agreed to do that and will release it in a day or two.
I guess that settles this threads question.
-
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
This thread just got a lot more interesting now that we know that it was Donald who blacklisted the OP.
-
Donald just asked me to temporarily ban possession until we get the banned cards feature up.
I agreed to do that and will release it in a day or two.
I'm curious why Donald asked for a Possession ban now as opposed to earlier. My hypothesis is that Donald watched a number of videos/streams of the ongoing tournament and noticed that Possession was banned (by mutual agreement of the participants) far more than any other card, and possibly more than all other cards put together.
Also, I assume this ban will only apply to rated games.
-
Note that you will still be able to force the card into a game; it just won't be picked randomly.
-
Donald just asked me to temporarily ban possession until we get the banned cards feature up.
I agreed to do that and will release it in a day or two.
I'm curious why Donald asked for a Possession ban now as opposed to earlier. My hypothesis is that Donald watched a number of videos/streams of the ongoing tournament and noticed that Possession was banned (by mutual agreement of the participants) far more than any other card, and possibly more than all other cards put together.
I assume this ban will only apply to rated games.
Yes it was me seeing those videos. I have been pushing for "everyone gets a 5-card ban list," Stef likes the idea, it will happen... but in the meantime, this is the card most people would ban first.
You can play a rated game where you force a card to be used, so you can still play a rated game with Possession. It just won't show up randomly.
-
Will there ever be an option to force one of the retired cards into a game?
-
I sure hope not
-
Will there ever be an option to force one of the retired cards into a game?
The "ever" makes that question impossible to accurately answer. There are no plans to ever add the retired cards.
-
Will there ever be an option to force one of the retired cards into a game?
The "ever" makes that question impossible to accurately answer. There are no plans to ever add the retired cards.
Forcing Scout into games would make a great April Fools' Day prank.
-
This makes me sad. Though I'm also amused that Possession has gone from "man this card is garbage no one would ever pay (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) for this garbage" to so OP it's being voluntarily banned from tournaments.
-
This makes me sad. Though I'm also amused that Possession has gone from "man this card is garbage no one would ever pay (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) for this garbage" to so OP it's being voluntarily banned from tournaments.
It's not really that it's overwhelmingly powerful, it's just that it makes the game miserable garbage a lot of the time when it's out.
-
it makes the game miserable garbage a lot of the time when it's out.
I know another card that would be a perfect fit for this list.
-
it makes the game miserable garbage a lot of the time when it's out.
I know another card that would be a perfect fit for this list.
You’ll have to take it up with Donald, you Silver Naysayer!
-
Will there ever be an option to force one of the retired cards into a game?
The "ever" makes that question impossible to accurately answer. There are no plans to ever add the retired cards.
Forcing Scout into games would make a great April Fools' Day prank.
April Fool's Day: All Kingdoms are ten piles of Scout.
-
Will there ever be an option to force one of the retired cards into a game?
The "ever" makes that question impossible to accurately answer. There are no plans to ever add the retired cards.
Forcing Scout into games would make a great April Fools' Day prank.
April Fool's Day: All Kingdoms are ten piles of Scout.
+Inheritance just to rub salt into the wound.
-
An April Fool that could actually be fun to play would be replacing all starting Estates with Scouts.
That way you get the satisfaction of trashing them, at least.
-
An April Fool that could actually be fun to play would be replacing all starting Estates with Scouts.
That way you get the satisfaction of trashing them, at least.
What if one of the remaining heirlooms is a Scout variant?
-
An April Fool that could actually be fun to play would be replacing all starting Estates with Scouts.
That way you get the satisfaction of trashing them, at least.
What if one of the remaining heirlooms is a Scout variant?
As long as it gives +$1 in addition to the Scout thing, it's pretty comparable to just having a Copper.
-
I like the decision. Possession was going into my personal ban list as well very soon, but not because it is too powerful, but just because Debt+Possession games are so terrible and maybe also because of all the rules weirdness.
-
It's not really that it's overwhelmingly powerful, it's just that it makes the game miserable garbage a lot of the time when it's out.
I used to see Possession as an interesting card that sometimes led to miserable games. But I've found that the "miserable games" part has become more frequent, and I now prefer to avoid the card completely. Some reasons for this seem to include:
Players have gotten better so games drag out more the better players get at minimizing what their deck can do when possessed. Debt cards are a further way to hamper your own deck's economy, and increase the odds of stalemates.
Trashers have gotten better, making it easier to get to stalemates and near-stalemates (see: Donate).
More boards feature the ability to reliably play multiple Possessions a turn due to card pool changes (mainly more trashers and sources of +Actions).
There are more ways to mess up an opponent's deck like the Adventures tokens.
There are more alternate VP so it is less likely that Possession can be ignored because it's too slow to have much impact.
Errata removed some counters like decks using a lot of Monuments for economy.
Also, the ban is live! http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=604.msg10646#msg10646
Version 1.3.3
Banned Possession.
Possession has been losing popularity recently, up to the point that most people are trying to avoid this card or make a deal in chat to not use it. Because the configurable banned-cards-list isn't implemented yet, this is a temporary solution that just always puts Possession on the banned list.
This means it won't show up at random in your kingdoms anymore. You can still add it to the required cards if you want to play with it. It's also still possible you find a Possession in your Black Market (but only if the kingdom already has potions).
-
An April Fool that could actually be fun to play would be replacing all starting Estates with Scouts.
That way you get the satisfaction of trashing them, at least.
What if one of the remaining heirlooms is a Scout variant?
Funny you should say that, I have just tested one for my fan expansion. Cute but rarely significant and tends to hurt you a lot if you draw it on T2. I think I prefer Chancellor-copper.
-
it makes the game miserable garbage a lot of the time when it's out.
I know another card that would be a perfect fit for this list.
Is it Feodum? That thing has three entire Silvers in it.
-
This makes me super sad.
The control somebody's turn effect is so cool. Everyone wants it to be ok, man.
MtG first did it with Mindslaver, which they had to ban (oddly, though, it didn't really have much to do with what you could do with your opponent's turn, the problem was that people were having their opponent's turn be do nothing, and had a way to play Mindslaver every turn, since it's not an -extra- turn like Possession.)
They did it again with Sorin Markov, as his ultimate, so the card didn't always do the thing. Sorin Markov has never touched a tournament table due to low power level. But it was like, hey, we did it though, it wasn't too powerful, obviously.
Most recently, just a little over a year ago, Emrakul, the Promised End came out, which gave the opponent an extra turn instead of controlling the turn they were supposed to have. Unfortunately it was super important to the story, and was supposed to bring doomsday, and it was really important that every single number on the card be 13. But really if you playtested the thing and gave it unbiased development, it would have either come out to 15/15/15 or 13 on the bad number, the cost, lower numbers on the other good numbers, the ones that say how fat she is.
I bought 60$ worth of Emrakul, they went up to like 80, but then later, they had to ban her.
Now Donald is banning Possession.
When will I ever get to control somebody's turn.
You can control my turn too, it's ok. I just want us to have some philosophical questions about identity and some fun.
-
This makes me super sad.
The control somebody's turn effect is so cool. Everyone wants it to be ok, man.
MtG first did it with Mindslaver, which they had to ban (oddly, though, it didn't really have much to do with what you could do with your opponent's turn, the problem was that people were having their opponent's turn be do nothing, and had a way to play Mindslaver every turn, since it's not an -extra- turn like Possession.)
They did it again with Sorin Markov, as his ultimate, so the card didn't always do the thing. Sorin Markov has never touched a tournament table due to low power level. But it was like, hey, we did it though, it wasn't too powerful, obviously.
Most recently, just a little over a year ago, Emrakul, the Promised End came out, which gave the opponent an extra turn instead of controlling the turn they were supposed to have. Unfortunately it was super important to the story, and was supposed to bring doomsday, and it was really important that every single number on the card be 13. But really if you playtested the thing and gave it unbiased development, it would have either come out to 15/15/15 or 13 on the bad number, the cost, lower numbers on the other good numbers, the ones that say how fat she is.
I bought 60$ worth of Emrakul, they went up to like 80, but then later, they had to ban her.
Now Donald is banning Possession.
When will I ever get to control somebody's turn.
You can control my turn too, it's ok. I just want us to have some philosophical questions about identity and some fun.
House rule it to once per turn and be happy. You can even do that online of you trust your opponent. :)
-
Surely the real question here is: what's going to replace Possession as a $6+P card in second-edition Alchemy? At that price, something pretty spiffy!
-
Now Donald is banning Possession.
When will I ever get to control somebody's turn.
You can control my turn too, it's ok. I just want us to have some philosophical questions about identity and some fun.
Donald is not banning Possession in the way you describe here. Dominion and Magic are fundamentally different games, and the concept of banned cards in magic does not translate to Dominion. You can still play with Possession, it just won't be forced upon you anymore.
I suggest you ask your opponent once in a while what they think about Possession. If it turns out they like it, you propose another game after this one with Possession as only required card.
If you pull that off in about 3% of your games, you're back at your old Possession frequency. Except now all those games will be with players that don't yell at you for buying the card and probably like to think about its strategic implications.
In the meanwhile, the vast majority of players seems to be happy with the ban.
-
Now Donald is banning Possession.
When will I ever get to control somebody's turn.
You can control my turn too, it's ok. I just want us to have some philosophical questions about identity and some fun.
Donald is not banning Possession in the way you describe here. Dominion and Magic are fundamentally different games, and the concept of banned cards in magic does not translate to Dominion. You can still play with Possession, it just won't be forced upon you anymore.
I suggest you ask your opponent once in a while what they think about Possession. If it turns out they like it, you propose another game after this one with Possession as only required card.
If you pull that off in about 3% of your games, you're back at your old Possession frequency. Except now all those games will be with players that don't yell at you for buying the card and probably like to think about its strategic implications.
In the meanwhile, the vast majority of players seems to be happy with the ban.
Won't Possession not be auto-banned from random anymore once the 5-card ban list is implemented anyway?
-
Ironic that the card that requires the most rules considerations is the same card people most often want to just get rid of
-
Possession being banned from randoms is great, for two fundamental reasons:
1) The common play when Possession is good is to build a deck that can only play Possessions, and then you slowly squeeze down piles while playing multiple Possessions per turn in deck that has either none or nearly no economy. These games are not interesting, after you've played one of them, and perhaps more crucially they take about an hour and a half.
2) There are many Possession interactions which cease to be in the spirit the card was intended to be used in, and these are decidedly unfun. A lot of these are Adventures/Empires related, as reserve mats (especially with Overlord/BoM!), token placements, debt, etc., are just broken interactions. Also, cards like Masquerade and Ambassador are interactions that cause Possession to be devastatingly annoying to play with.
There is a third aspect that people don't like about Possession, which is the unfun nature of having someone play with your deck. I don't think this is ban-worthy (at least in the global sense), but I certainly get how annoying it is. The worse part of this, and I think this is something that strikes more at the heart of something I really truly dislike about Possession always, is that suddenly it makes turn ordering matter a lot more. By this I mean when you're playing Dominion decks and you dud it usually means your next turn will be good since you just got your dud cards out of the way. But no such thing exists if you get possessed on your good hand, and this can be incredibly frustrating to have happen to you.
And this isn't even mentioning all the stuff I'm forgetting, such as the pins and semi-pins such as bad shuffle triggering.
-
I don't like the idea of 1 card being given special "sorta-banned" rules, yet also only for online play. If the card is unfun and the majority of people just don't like it, just errata it out of existence like what happened with Scout, Great Hall, etc. People can still play with those cards at home if they want, nothing's stopping them.
If it's still an official Dominion card that exists for all official purposes, then having it be the one and only card that can't show up in full random online games makes online games more different from IRL play than it has to be, and gives it a special status that no other card in the game has.
-
Scout and company were not "errata'ed" out of existence. They were discontinued in the new editions of Base and Intrigue, and dropped from the online game so that online matches 2nd edition. If Donald were to do Alchemy 2nd edition, he could do the same to Possession, but as he has ruled that out, don't expect an official errata making Possession go away.
I'm happy with this solution.
-
I don't like the idea of 1 card being given special "sorta-banned" rules, yet also only for online play. If the card is unfun and the majority of people just don't like it, just errata it out of existence like what happened with Scout, Great Hall, etc. People can still play with those cards at home if they want, nothing's stopping them.
If it's still an official Dominion card that exists for all official purposes, then having it be the one and only card that can't show up in full random online games makes online games more different from IRL play than it has to be, and gives it a special status that no other card in the game has.
IRL you can simply not put out cards you don't like. The online version is moving in the direction of matching that, being more like the physical version, not less. The idea is to only allow 5 cards banned, rather than as many as you want, because if you can ban lots of cards you can game the system (you can game the system with just 5 bans but it won't amount to much).
We don't have this feature yet (due to it needing an interface) and Possession is the card most likely to make many banned lists. People are agreeing not to play with it and having 9-card kingdoms and that makes the game less fun. So.
Again you can still play with Possession online by manually adding it to your game. It's not gone, it just doesn't get picked out for you.
-
Now Donald is banning Possession.
When will I ever get to control somebody's turn.
You can control my turn too, it's ok. I just want us to have some philosophical questions about identity and some fun.
Donald is not banning Possession in the way you describe here. Dominion and Magic are fundamentally different games, and the concept of banned cards in magic does not translate to Dominion. You can still play with Possession, it just won't be forced upon you anymore.
I suggest you ask your opponent once in a while what they think about Possession. If it turns out they like it, you propose another game after this one with Possession as only required card.
If you pull that off in about 3% of your games, you're back at your old Possession frequency. Except now all those games will be with players that don't yell at you for buying the card and probably like to think about its strategic implications.
In the meanwhile, the vast majority of players seems to be happy with the ban.
Can I start a ranked play game with the old chance of having Possession in it, and ask people to join that game and play with me? Regardless of whether I can get the %age to match what it used to be precisely, to me there's something I really love about starting a game without specifying that any specific card appear in it.
-
I am happy about this Possession news!
MtG first did it with Mindslaver, which they had to ban
I was surprised to read this. When was Mindslaver banned? I went and found a banlist history at https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Banned_and_restricted_cards/Timeline and it's not mentioned there
-
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/you-decided-mindslaver-banned-2004-04-01
-
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/you-decided-mindslaver-banned-2004-04-01
>2004-04-01
Seems legit.
-
That article is satire.
It was super briefly banned in block constructed, is what I heard, unlikely to have a large digital footprint since it's a small format.
-
Hmm... I wonder if there is an errata, limiting the possession to work only once per turn, will it be enough to make the card playable again?
I mean, that should eliminate the stalemate situation, since it will be a lot harder to get more out of your opponent's deck then your own. With the buff coming from messing up other's deck via debt tokens and vp tokens, I don't think the card is underpowered with this constraint.
-
Surely the real question here is: what's going to replace Possession as a $6+P card in second-edition Alchemy? At that price, something pretty spiffy!
Nothing, it's only a temp ban.
-
Hmm... I wonder if there is an errata, limiting the possession to work only once per turn, will it be enough to make the card playable again?
I mean, that should eliminate the stalemate situation, since it will be a lot harder to get more out of your opponent's deck then your own. With the buff coming from messing up other's deck via debt tokens and vp tokens, I don't think the card is underpowered with this constraint.
Very unlikely, for at least 4 reasons:
1) Donald is against errata as a general rule, and has only used it on rare occasion.
2) It is very unlikely that Alchemy will ever get a second edition update. If it gets a second printing, it would just be the same minor updates as the other sets other than Base and Intrigue.
3) The errata that have been done for a few cards like Masquerade were things that don't matter 99% of the time the card gets played.
4) Ok so Possession has already gotten errata to include the tokens thing. But this wasn't intended as a nerf to the power level; it was because otherwise a different new mechanic (debt) simply couldn't work.
-
Speaking speculativly, I don't see Alchemy making it to 2nd edition at all. Donald has said on several occasions that he has better things to do than work on the least popular Dominion expansion. Unless he hands off control of the game to another designer (an even less likely scenario) I just don't see it happening. Honestly, I'm saddened more by the removal of Coppersmith than Possession. There's just too much rules weirdness with Possession.
-
Speaking speculativly, I don't see Alchemy making it to 2nd edition at all. Donald has said on several occasions that he has better things to do than work on the least popular Dominion expansion. Unless he hands off control of the game to another designer (an even less likely scenario) I just don't see it happening. Honestly, I'm saddened more by the removal of Coppersmith than Possession. There's just too much rules weirdness with Possession.
All the old cards have updated wordings already, including Alchemy. That work is already done. Updated printings will be done if and when the current printing sells out.
-
Coppersmith is a great card. How is that some kind of low bar to demonstrate how awful Possession must be?
Debt should have been implemented by adding a stack of debt cards that you put on your tavern mat and ungain by paying 1$. Isn't that so beautiful? Also, a stack of 9999 coin token cards that are always gained to the tavern mat, may be called for +1 coin, then trashed, and are treasures with "When you play this +9$ +9 VP +9 Buys" (and in this world the player who got them into their discard pile through Possession's special text is going to keep those VP tokens any time it's played".
This post is so serious.
-
Personally, I think Alchemy wouldn't be as horribly received if it had better cards. That looks like a truism at first, but the point is that the potion mechanic, while not necessarily universally loved, still has lots of fans. But Alchemy is a tiny expansion, and of that expansion, at least two cards are so weak they are basically not there, one is Possession, and Scrying Pool has all that makes Spy bad, just on a card that's useful enough to be played often. If the set had more than just a few cards that are actually fun to play with, people wouldn't dislike it as much.
But yeah, we'll never know. I know I wouldn't bet money on Alchemy second edition.
-
Trouble is, Alchemy also has some awesome-looking cards.
I'd love to play it some more, but we don't have the expansion where I usually play, and people aren't keen.
This is in part because of that one time player A Possessed player B and "for fun" had them play King's Court - Possession. Needless to say, B then won by Possessing C three times over, which kinda threw the game. Nobody seemed very keen after that. )-8
-
Personally, I think Alchemy wouldn't be as horribly received if it had better cards. That looks like a truism at first, but the point is that the potion mechanic, while not necessarily universally loved, still has lots of fans. But Alchemy is a tiny expansion, and of that expansion, at least two cards are so weak they are basically not there, one is Possession, and Scrying Pool has all that makes Spy bad, just on a card that's useful enough to be played often. If the set had more than just a few cards that are actually fun to play with, people wouldn't dislike it as much.
But yeah, we'll never know. I know I wouldn't bet money on Alchemy second edition.
I agree wholeheartedly. And it's sad because some of Alchemy's cards are great, but the bad cards have a net negative effect on the expansion's perception.
I suspect that Alchemy without Possession, PS, and Transmute would have made a more popular product than Alchemy.
-
I don't like the idea of 1 card being given special "sorta-banned" rules, yet also only for online play. If the card is unfun and the majority of people just don't like it, just errata it out of existence like what happened with Scout, Great Hall, etc. People can still play with those cards at home if they want, nothing's stopping them.
If it's still an official Dominion card that exists for all official purposes, then having it be the one and only card that can't show up in full random online games makes online games more different from IRL play than it has to be, and gives it a special status that no other card in the game has.
IRL you can simply not put out cards you don't like. The online version is moving in the direction of matching that, being more like the physical version, not less. The idea is to only allow 5 cards banned, rather than as many as you want, because if you can ban lots of cards you can game the system (you can game the system with just 5 bans but it won't amount to much).
We don't have this feature yet (due to it needing an interface) and Possession is the card most likely to make many banned lists. People are agreeing not to play with it and having 9-card kingdoms and that makes the game less fun. So.
Again you can still play with Possession online by manually adding it to your game. It's not gone, it just doesn't get picked out for you.
As somebody who was originally skeptical of this idea, I've come around to seeing it as a good thing. Even people who game it are at best gaming 10 cards* out of existence (5 of which would be the least popular cards, and 5 of which are the ones they suck the most with- if you're lucky the 5 most hated cards are also among your 10 worst cards). You're probably not going to become the highest rated player just by ditching the 5-10 cards you're the worst with. Plus it's not like you're the only player given that luxury. If we really wanted, we could all attempt to game the system to our cold little hearts content until the system is so chaotic and unanalyzable that it doesn't matter. Meanwhile everyone else is having a more pleasant experience, and the players who just focus on playing the game and getting better will probably actually do better than if they worried about calculating optimal bans.
Plus, Masquerade turns are too freaking slow relative to their fun factor online, so I'm kinda glad I can ban that...
*Obviously in reality the real numbers are much more complicated, because it'll be more like "You are x% likely to see card A, y% likely to see card B, etc." but let's not split hairs here. At best you guarantee 10 cards you never play with by gaming the system.
-
Personally, I think Alchemy wouldn't be as horribly received if it had better cards. That looks like a truism at first, but the point is that the potion mechanic, while not necessarily universally loved, still has lots of fans. But Alchemy is a tiny expansion, and of that expansion, at least two cards are so weak they are basically not there, one is Possession, and Scrying Pool has all that makes Spy bad, just on a card that's useful enough to be played often. If the set had more than just a few cards that are actually fun to play with, people wouldn't dislike it as much.
But yeah, we'll never know. I know I wouldn't bet money on Alchemy second edition.
I agree.
Me personally, I don't care about the strength of Alchemy cards so much as I care about there not being many of them. For a 2nd type of currency, there's really very few cards that use it, and the ratio shrinks with every expansion (for obvious reasons). At the time of release, about 10% of released cards used Potions, and I think 15%-25% might be best for a secondary currency. Today, about 3% of cards use Potions. The problem is that buying that potion has to really be worth it, but you don't want the Potion costing cards to be so good that the Potion becomes an auto-buy. So the interesting decisions seem to come from having 2 or 3 Alchemy cards out. Obviously, as Donald X has pointed out many times, you could just houserule it so that if an Alchemy card comes out then you put out at least one more. But you know, at this point in time we've seen all of those combinations so many times.
Of course, we all know the history of how Alchemy got this way, with it originally being the last big expansion planned and then getting split in half. No use crying over spilled milk. I mentioned that only about 3% of cards today use Potions, but at the same time I can't fault Donald X for that. Why would you release more cards from the least popular expansion when you have plenty of fun new ideas that don't have that negative association? Especially given that- up until Adventures- there was a lot of hesitation to do anything resembling an "expansion to the expansion".
All I can say is that I definitely wouldn't want an Alchemy 2nd Edition. If there were ever going to be anything else Alchemy related, I would want it to be a new expansion of cards using Potions. A 2nd Edition wouldn't fix all of the issues in my opinion.
Not that I'm betting my money on that either. But I'd be happy if it existed.
-
I wonder how broken it would be to replace a Copper with a Potion if Alchemy cards are out? You aren't at risk of missing the shuffle that way.
-
I wonder how broken it would be to replace a Copper with a Potion if Alchemy cards are out? You aren't at risk of missing the shuffle that way.
Pretty bad/broken/awful.
1) It kills the potion mechanic (potion is an opportunity cost, the strength of the potion cards revolve around having to invest into potion first, otherwise they'd be super strong)
2) Sometimes you want Potions late, and it's irritating why you would have to start with them in those games (aka vineyard,golem, posssession)
3) Hitting 3 Potion is already annoying on the second shuffle, but imagine one player getting a Familiar and one player getting nothing instead.
-
I agree.
Me personally, I don't care about the strength of Alchemy cards so much as I care about there not being many of them. For a 2nd type of currency, there's really very few cards that use it, and the ratio shrinks with every expansion (for obvious reasons).
[...]
I don't know. I'm not bothered that there is only one card that uses Urchin as secundary currency. Or Hermit, or Devil's Workshop, or Province (ok, it's five, but you know what I mean), or Curses.
Donald has moved away from the idea of a common secondary currency and is doing more and more "upgrade" cards, which fill a very similar niche, are more exciting and probably also allow more flexibility in design.
Still, I sort of wish that he'd clean up the whole Potion thing. Not sure what it would take, but even just a couple of fixes and replacements would help make Alchemy feel more like a part of modern Dominion and less like the dull disowned expansion that you should buy last.
#aNewHomeForAlchemist
-
I agree.
Me personally, I don't care about the strength of Alchemy cards so much as I care about there not being many of them. For a 2nd type of currency, there's really very few cards that use it, and the ratio shrinks with every expansion (for obvious reasons).
[...]
I don't know. I'm not bothered that there is only one card that uses Urchin as secundary currency. Or Hermit, or Devil's Workshop, or Province (ok, it's five, but you know what I mean), or Curses.
I'm not really sure what you're saying. Could you please clarify?
-
Mercenary costs one Urchin trash
Madman costs one Hermit trash
Imp costs a Devil's Workshop play (or an Exorcist trashing a 3+ cost)
Prizes cost a Province discard
Quest costs 2 Curses
--
I don't know why people dislike Alchemy so much... Possession aside, Familiar should cost 2P but that's about it.
-
Mercenary costs one Urchin trash
Madman costs one Hermit trash
Imp costs a Devil's Workshop play (or an Exorcist trashing a 3+ cost)
Prizes cost a Province discard
Quest costs 2 Curses
--
I don't know why people dislike Alchemy so much... Possession aside, Familiar should cost 2P but that's about it.
Have you ever played a 2-hour IRL Scrying Pool game or tried to make a feasible strategy out of Transmute?
-
I played Transmute+Bonfire today and won easily.
IRL Scrying Pool games are simple enough to avoid--though in some ways faster because you can tell people to just "discard if it's an action"
-
I just think Scrying Pool isn't that interesting. I don't think the 0-1 Silver call successfully sorts the wheat from the chaff in player skill.
-
I wonder how broken it would be to replace a Copper with a Potion if Alchemy cards are out? You aren't at risk of missing the shuffle that way.
Pretty bad/broken/awful.
1) It kills the potion mechanic (potion is an opportunity cost, the strength of the potion cards revolve around having to invest into potion first, otherwise they'd be super strong)
2) Sometimes you want Potions late, and it's irritating why you would have to start with them in those games (aka vineyard,golem, posssession)
3) Hitting 3 Potion is already annoying on the second shuffle, but imagine one player getting a Familiar and one player getting nothing instead.
I guess I was figuring the starting deck would be EEECCCCCCP, and like Shelters or Heirlooms the Potion would not be a supply pile. Now your opening hands can get those Potion cost cards without worrying about missing that shuffle. You don't pay the opportunity cost on a Buy, but you are stuck with it unless you trash it. I'm going to try it next time Potion cards come up, just because I want to see how much it affects those first few turns.
1. So I agree with this, they would be strong, but its equal for everyone. Maybe this version of Potion would be like Cursed Gold, where you gain a curse by playing it...
2. It's irritating to start with Estates and Copper, too right?
3. It really just deflects that randomness to the opening hands instead of that first shuffle. Starting hands would be 2/4P, 3/3P, 4/2P, 5/1P instead of the 3/4, 2/5 of a non-Potion game.
-
Donald just asked me to temporarily ban possession until we get the banned cards feature up.
I agreed to do that and will release it in a day or two.
I guess that settles this threads question.
Just curious, will this feature be part of your previously announced Thursday update, since you haven't implemented it yet?
-
Donald just asked me to temporarily ban possession until we get the banned cards feature up.
I agreed to do that and will release it in a day or two.
I guess that settles this threads question.
Just curious, will this feature be part of your previously announced Thursday update, since you haven't implemented it yet?
The Possession ban is already implemented.
http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=604.msg10646#msg10646
-
Donald just asked me to temporarily ban possession until we get the banned cards feature up.
I agreed to do that and will release it in a day or two.
I guess that settles this threads question.
Just curious, will this feature be part of your previously announced Thursday update, since you haven't implemented it yet?
The Possession ban is already implemented.
http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=604.msg10646#msg10646
I was referring to the banned cards feature.
-
Donald just asked me to temporarily ban possession until we get the banned cards feature up.
I agreed to do that and will release it in a day or two.
I guess that settles this threads question.
Just curious, will this feature be part of your previously announced Thursday update, since you haven't implemented it yet?
The Possession ban is already implemented.
http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=604.msg10646#msg10646
I was referring to the banned cards feature.
AFAIK, it's implemented server-side, but it still needs a UI counterpart in the client. I haven't seen any ETA for that.
-
Mercenary costs one Urchin trash
Madman costs one Hermit trash
Imp costs a Devil's Workshop play (or an Exorcist trashing a 3+ cost)
Prizes cost a Province discard
Quest costs 2 Curses
--
I don't know why people dislike Alchemy so much... Possession aside, Familiar should cost 2P but that's about it.
Ahhh thank you! So he was saying that the opportunity cost for those cards is a second currency?
I'm not sure I agree that Upgrade/Traveller style cards count as a secondary currency. For one, Urchin, Hermit, DW, Province, and Curse all do something alone and have their own functions, which are modified into also having gaining power. On the other hand, Coins and Potions (as in the abstract spent/unspent things given to you by cards, not the cards themselves) are always buying power (which you can sometimes also use in functional ways like with Storyteller). When you play an Urchin Card, you don't get one "Unspent Urchin", and then look in the supply and see Mercenary which has a cost of 0 Coin currency and 1 "Urchin" currency.
Even Debt doesn't really count as a currency, because it's really more of a cost modifier in the same way that Overpay is. Ie it's shorthand for "If you don't have enough Coins for this, you can pay what you have now and pay the rest later over as many turns as you want, but you can't Buy again until this is fully paid for", but the payment is still being made in Coins. Coins and Potions are really the only existing currencies.
(Dear god, please don't let this turn into a debate about fiat money...)
-
I know what Alchemy needs in order to breath new life into the Potion mechanic: Potion Debt ;)
-
I know what Alchemy needs in order to breath new life into the Potion mechanic: Potion Debt ;)
And green potions.
-
I know what Alchemy needs in order to breath new life into the Potion mechanic: Potion Debt ;)
And green potions.
Those are worse, they don’t restore health too.
-
Donald just asked me to temporarily ban possession until we get the banned cards feature up.
I agreed to do that and will release it in a day or two.
I guess that settles this threads question.
Just curious, will this feature be part of your previously announced Thursday update, since you haven't implemented it yet?
The Possession ban is already implemented.
http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=604.msg10646#msg10646
I was referring to the banned cards feature.
AFAIK, it's implemented server-side, but it still needs a UI counterpart in the client. I haven't seen any ETA for that.
It's been a while; is there any ETA on implementing the banned cards feature yet?