Dominion Strategy Forum

Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: gambit05 on August 27, 2020, 03:40:38 pm

Title: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: gambit05 on August 27, 2020, 03:40:38 pm
Inspired by the cards with varying costs in Menagerie, I played a bit with different concepts of changing costs:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200827/3fq7edo9.png)      (https://s12.directupload.net/images/200827/af3kabxt.png)     (https://s12.directupload.net/images/200827/j39ijf4j.png)

Palisade
$4* Night - Duration
Quote
While this is in play, when another
player plays an Attack card,
it doesnít affect you.
At the start of your next turn,
+1 Card and +$1.
-------------------------------
This costs $1 less as long as no Attack
card has been gained in this game.
Palisade. A structure that protects
against attacks. When attacks are
not in sight, maintaining it is cheaper
and people care about other things.
     Dyke
     $4* - Victory
     
Quote
     Worth 2VP per empty Supply pile.
     -------------------------------
     This costs $1 more per empty Supply pile.
Dyke. Supply is needed to rebuild
the dyke. The more is put into it the
more valuable the land behind it.

     Souk
     $6* - Action
         
Quote
     +1 Card
     +2 Actions
     +$2
     -------------------------------
     This costs $1 less per empty Supply pile.
Souk. Like a Summer sale. They want
to sell their stuff before the season ends.

Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: segura on August 27, 2020, 04:41:46 pm
I like Dyke a lot.
Soul does not work though. There is a reason there is no official unconditional DoublePeddler which would have to cost $7 and this comes with a village on top.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: alion8me on August 27, 2020, 05:38:57 pm
Palisade looks like a caravan guard variant. It doesn't seem that exciting to me but I would imagine it plays fine.

I like Dyke a lot.
Soul does not work though. There is a reason there is no official unconditional DoublePeddler which would have to cost $7 and this comes with a village on top.
I agree that Dyke seems pretty cool.

Grand Market is like a better Double-Peddler and it works fine. Souk should probably cost $7 and/or have something that weakens it though, at $6 this might be too accessible.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: gambit05 on August 27, 2020, 05:46:56 pm
I like Dyke a lot.
Soul does not work though. There is a reason there is no official unconditional DoublePeddler which would have to cost $7 and this comes with a village on top.

Nice to hear that you like Dyke. It's my favorite amongst those too.
About Souk: I compared it with Bazaar, which gives $1 less, and with Mining Village, which gives the same, but is a one-shot. Do you think one should not have this card as is, or that it is too cheap for $6?
Thank for your input.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: scolapasta on August 27, 2020, 06:00:32 pm
Dike looks fun.

I was wondering if it might be better at 3* (and cost $2 more per empty pile).

So it would be $1 cheaper with no piles, and $1 more expensive with 2 empty piles.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: gambit05 on August 27, 2020, 06:01:27 pm
Palisade looks like a caravan guard variant. It doesn't seem that exciting to me but I would imagine it plays fine.

The main idea here was to have a different cost for a "defense" card a la Lighthouse and Guardian when no Attack cards are in the Kingdom, which I extended to "as long as an Attack cards hasn't been gained" (this looked more exciting). The +1 Card and +$1 was secondary. I chose something that is not identical with existing cards, but comparable in their power level, e.g. Ghost Town.

I like Dyke a lot.
Soul does not work though. There is a reason there is no official unconditional DoublePeddler which would have to cost $7 and this comes with a village on top.
Quote
I agree that Dyke seems pretty cool.
Great!

Quote
Grand Market is like a better Double-Peddler and it works fine. Souk should probably cost $7 and/or have something that weakens it though, at $6 this might be too accessible.
After I saw segura's reply and before yours, I thought about a cost of $7.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: gambit05 on August 27, 2020, 06:13:04 pm
Dyke looks fun.

I was wondering if it might be better at 3* (and cost $2 more per empty pile).

So it would be $1 cheaper with no piles, and $1 with 2 empty piles.
I am too tired now to think seriously about the impact of differences you have suggested. Just one thing: One pile will be always empty; so you would easily get 2 VP without much risk.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: segura on August 28, 2020, 02:37:31 am
Grand Market is like a better Double-Peddler and it works fine. Souk should probably cost $7 and/or have something that weakens it though, at $6 this might be too accessible.
Grand Market only works at its price because of the anti Copper clause. Similar with Vassal and Conspirator, they are not unconditional DoublePeddlers.

During playtesting of Prosperity DXV had a DoublePeddler for $7. So Souk would likely have to cost $8. I would not go into vanilla territory though, the official way to make the cards cheaper but make them trickier to buy or play seems more interesting.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: herw on August 28, 2020, 09:32:34 am
I think $3* are enough for dyke. Normally there are 2 piles empty. And they are dead carts. Nevertheless I like the idea.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: gambit05 on August 28, 2020, 11:13:35 am
I think $3* are enough for dyke. Normally there are 2 piles empty. And they are dead carts. Nevertheless I like the idea.
Dyke looks fun.

I was wondering if it might be better at 3* (and cost $2 more per empty pile).

So it would be $1 cheaper with no piles, and $1 more expensive with 2 empty piles.

Your suggestion (scolapasta) to start with an initially cost of $3* and an increase of $2 per empty Supply pile, with the same scale of VP scoring looks definitely interesting. I have thought about the Pros and Cons of both versions and both have some nice features and drawbacks.
 
An initial cost of $3 favors earlier buys of Dykes, which I like somehow. However, this can more frequently lead to premature emptying of the Dyke pile, which is not my intention. I think it is more interesting when other piles are emptied before, because then the cost increase of Dyke plays a more significant role.

In my opinion, the real race for Dykes should start shortly before other piles are running low, so relatively late in the game. On the other hand, a cost increase of $2 as you have suggested is more dramatic and can be interesting on its own.
Funny thing is that my version (after 2 empty piles) with a cost of $6 (versus yours with $7) is not immune to trashing Attacks that work in the range $3 to $6.

Anyway, I somehow like both versions and I havenít decided yet, which is the more interesting one.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: gambit05 on August 28, 2020, 11:28:33 am
Grand Market is like a better Double-Peddler and it works fine. Souk should probably cost $7 and/or have something that weakens it though, at $6 this might be too accessible.
Grand Market only works at its price because of the anti Copper clause. Similar with Vassal and Conspirator, they are not unconditional DoublePeddlers.

During playtesting of Prosperity DXV had a DoublePeddler for $7. So Souk would likely have to cost $8. I would not go into vanilla territory though, the official way to make the cards cheaper but make them trickier to buy or play seems more interesting.

Well, one thing became clear to me: $6 is clearly too cheap for Souk with the current abilities and even $7 might still be too low (although I am not yet convinced about that).

I thought about some handicaps for gaining the card, but so far didn't came up with anything exciting and not too wordy.

If $7 would be too cheap, $8 would be the next logical step, but I don't like it that much. Better would be a debt of 8 (and of course a decrease of the cost by 1 debt per empty pile). Then I thought about splitting the double-Peddler effect in form of a Duration card, in case the simple cost increase doesn't solve potential problems. The easiest and simplest version would look like:

Souk
$6* - Action - Duration
Quote
Now and at the start
of your next turn: +1 Card
and +1 Action and +$1.
-------------------------------
This costs $1 less per empty Supply pile.



Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: segura on August 28, 2020, 11:34:27 am
Grand Market is like a better Double-Peddler and it works fine. Souk should probably cost $7 and/or have something that weakens it though, at $6 this might be too accessible.
Grand Market only works at its price because of the anti Copper clause. Similar with Vassal and Conspirator, they are not unconditional DoublePeddlers.

During playtesting of Prosperity DXV had a DoublePeddler for $7. So Souk would likely have to cost $8. I would not go into vanilla territory though, the official way to make the cards cheaper but make them trickier to buy or play seems more interesting.

Well, one thing became clear to me: $6 is clearly too cheap for Souk with the current abilities and even $7 might still be too low (although I am not yet convinced about that).

I thought about some handicaps for gaining the card, but so far didn't came up with anything exciting and not too wordy.

If $7 would be too cheap, $8 would be the next logical step, but I don't like it that much. Better would be a debt of 8 (and of course a decrease of the cost by 1 debt per empty pile). Then I thought about splitting the double-Peddler effect in form of a Duration card, in case the simple cost increase doesn't solve potential problems. The easiest and simplest version would look like:

Souk
$6* - Action - Duration
Quote
Now and at the start
of your next turn: +1 Card
and +1 Action and +$1.
-------------------------------
This costs $1 less per empty Supply pile.
Just think about Grand Market: you would often be willing to pay $8 for it / you often have 2 Coppers in hand when you buy it.
8D is roughly equivalent to $6 and definitely too cheap.
The Duration version is probably sound. But as it is Captain-Peddler≤, it seems not that innovative.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: gambit05 on August 28, 2020, 11:45:44 am
Grand Market is like a better Double-Peddler and it works fine. Souk should probably cost $7 and/or have something that weakens it though, at $6 this might be too accessible.
Grand Market only works at its price because of the anti Copper clause. Similar with Vassal and Conspirator, they are not unconditional DoublePeddlers.

During playtesting of Prosperity DXV had a DoublePeddler for $7. So Souk would likely have to cost $8. I would not go into vanilla territory though, the official way to make the cards cheaper but make them trickier to buy or play seems more interesting.

Well, one thing became clear to me: $6 is clearly too cheap for Souk with the current abilities and even $7 might still be too low (although I am not yet convinced about that).

I thought about some handicaps for gaining the card, but so far didn't came up with anything exciting and not too wordy.

If $7 would be too cheap, $8 would be the next logical step, but I don't like it that much. Better would be a debt of 8 (and of course a decrease of the cost by 1 debt per empty pile). Then I thought about splitting the double-Peddler effect in form of a Duration card, in case the simple cost increase doesn't solve potential problems. The easiest and simplest version would look like:

Souk
$6* - Action - Duration
Quote
Now and at the start
of your next turn: +1 Card
and +1 Action and +$1.
-------------------------------
This costs $1 less per empty Supply pile.
Just think about Grand Market: you would often be willing to pay $8 for it / you often have 2 Coppers in hand when you buy it.
8D is roughly equivalent to $6 and definitely too cheap.
I agree. I have just enumerated the next logical steps without changing the abilities of the card.
Quote
The Duration version is probably sound. But as it is Captain-Peddler≤, it seems not that innovative.
Funny, that you consider Captain. I have looked to various Duration cards, but not to this one.
The more innovative part is the changing cost, which remains intact.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: pubby on August 28, 2020, 01:19:18 pm
I'm guessing you meant to spell it "Dike". The word "Dyke" is lesbian slang.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: gambit05 on August 28, 2020, 01:31:33 pm
I'm guessing you meant to spell it "Dike". The word "Dyke" is lesbian slang.

I am aware of the slang word (not before yesterday), but as far as I know, Dyke is the British-English spelling, Dike is American-English. Please, any Brits correct me if I am wrong.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: Jack Rudd on August 28, 2020, 07:53:34 pm
How strong is the Ironworks-Dyke rush deck going to be? That sort of thing might be an important consideration in deciding where to price it.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: segura on August 29, 2020, 05:28:48 am
How strong is the Ironworks-Dyke rush deck going to be? That sort of thing might be an important consideration in deciding where to price it.
Ironworks does not care about the difference between $3 and $4 ... and at a base price of $5 the card is obviously too weak.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: herw on August 30, 2020, 02:04:42 am
my suggestion (http://forum.dominion-welt.de/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1078&p=11312#p11312) (sorry, text in German)

(https://imgur.com/yHLKuVl.png)
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: gambit05 on August 30, 2020, 04:53:12 am
Thanks. I think this is exactly what scolapasta suggested. Please have a look about my thoughts about the two versions:
 
I think $3* are enough for dyke. Normally there are 2 piles empty. And they are dead carts. Nevertheless I like the idea.
Dyke looks fun.

I was wondering if it might be better at 3* (and cost $2 more per empty pile).

So it would be $1 cheaper with no piles, and $1 more expensive with 2 empty piles.

Your suggestion (scolapasta) to start with an initially cost of $3* and an increase of $2 per empty Supply pile, with the same scale of VP scoring looks definitely interesting. I have thought about the Pros and Cons of both versions and both have some nice features and drawbacks.
 
An initial cost of $3 favors earlier buys of Dykes, which I like somehow. However, this can more frequently lead to premature emptying of the Dyke pile, which is not my intention. I think it is more interesting when other piles are emptied before, because then the cost increase of Dyke plays a more significant role.

In my opinion, the real race for Dykes should start shortly before other piles are running low, so relatively late in the game. On the other hand, a cost increase of $2 as you have suggested is more dramatic and can be interesting on its own.
Funny thing is that my version (after 2 empty piles) with a cost of $6 (versus yours with $7) is not immune to trashing Attacks that work in the range $3 to $6.

Anyway, I somehow like both versions and I havenít decided yet, which is the more interesting one.


Edit: I think the best thing to do right now is to test both of the versions in a couple of games to see which is the more interesting card. Feel free to do so, and if you do, please report about it.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: Jack Rudd on August 30, 2020, 08:04:42 pm
How strong is the Ironworks-Dyke rush deck going to be? That sort of thing might be an important consideration in deciding where to price it.
Ironworks does not care about the difference between $3 and $4 ... and at a base price of $5 the card is obviously too weak.
No, but if you cost it at $4, then you can't gain Dykes with Ironworks once the Ironworks pile is empty, which makes a difference.
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: gambit05 on August 31, 2020, 03:39:19 am
How strong is the Ironworks-Dyke rush deck going to be? That sort of thing might be an important consideration in deciding where to price it.
Ironworks does not care about the difference between $3 and $4 ... and at a base price of $5 the card is obviously too weak.
No, but if you cost it at $4, then you can't gain Dykes with Ironworks once the Ironworks pile is empty, which makes a difference.

I donít understand. When the Ironworks pile is empty, both Dyke versions will cost $5 at that point ($4 + $1 versus $3 + $2) and thus neither can be gained by Ironworks anymore. Do I miss something?
Title: Re: Some cards with changing costs
Post by: gambit05 on September 03, 2020, 02:29:38 pm
(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200903/oaqgrbsy.png)             (https://s12.directupload.net/images/200903/23i8swt2.png)

Vanguard
$6* - Night - Duration
Quote

At the start of your next turn, reveal
5 cards from your hand. For each
card revealed, if itís anÖ
Action card, +1 Action;
Treasure card, +$1;
Victory or Night card, +1 Card.
-------------------------------
This costs $1 less for each Vanguard
(from all players) in play.

I have thought about improving Souk,   
but havenít found a satisfying solution.
Here is a potential substitute:
Vanguard. This gives a boost at the   
start of the next turn. Its cost depends   
on the number of Vanguards that are
actually in play.

Coffersmith
$2* - Action
Quote
+2 Cards
For each coin token on the Coffersmith
pile, +1 Card. If you have 7 or fewer   
cards in hand, add a coin token to the
Coffersmith pile. Otherwise, you may
move one of them to your Coffers mat.
----------------------------------
This costs $2 more per coin token
on the Coffersmith pile.


I have been working for quite a while on this one.
It could be easily the most ambiguous
among the cards I presented here:
Coffersmith. A terminal card drawer
with variable costs and abilities. The actual
cost and drawing power is determined by
the number of Coffers tokens on the pile,
which can change during the game in either direction.
 

I hope you find these cards interesting and I would be very happy to have your feedback.