Hunter $2 – Action Quote +2 Actions | Gatehouse $5 – Action Quote +1 Card | Merry Men $4 – Action Quote +2 Cards |
Hunter $2 – Action Quote
| Gatehouse $3 – Action Quote
| Merry Men $5 – Action Quote
|
Hunter: "You may play an Action card from your hand" is effectively the same as +1 Action (except if you have Diadem). Hunter is actually a Necropolis regardless of the terminality of the played card (play a non-terminal, and you have 2 Actions remaining, same with Necropolis. Play a terminal, and you have 1 Action left, same with Necropolis).
+2 Actions
When you play the next Action card this turn,
for each +$1 it produced, take
+1 Coffers instead.
Merry Men: As currently worded, this will always Exile the played card (unless the played card is a one-shot). This is because "Exile it if you have any copies of it in play" triggers after having played the card, at which point the played card will be a copy you have in play. My suggested wording: "You may play an Action card from your hand. If you do, Exile it if you have another copy of it in play."
That said, even if this card worked as intended, this is a Lab that gives +1 Buy in exchange for a major drawback, at the same price as a Lab. The drawback is too severe to make up for a measly +1 Buy.You are probably correct, although Lab is a quite strong $5 cost card, and +1 Buy is sometimes rare in Kingdoms and Merry Men could be especially bought for that. Anyway, I'll likely reduce the cost to $4; the question then is, with or without +1 Buy (although probably not too critical for balancing this card)?
Gatehouse looks inferior to Village to me. You discard the best card and draw two average cards. I doubt that this "card quality" element is compensated for by the cycling.
Hunter is just a card from the outtakes from Renaissance. Donald X removed it because it gave too many coffers. http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19203.0 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19203.0)
"Another village converted +$ to +Coffers for your next card played. Large amounts of +Coffers are trouble."
Did you take the card idea from there, or was this incidental?
You always emphasize that you can just use the card as Necro without going into how bad that actually is. Any draw engine needs to combo splitters and drawers, and if you are forced to always play the card as Necro, that is miles worse than having Squire, Fishing Village, Villa or any other non-drawing village.
All these cards suffer from not being able to draw (decreases consistency and this the chance to match drawers and splitters) but at least they all provide some Coins or Buys. Necro does not and Necro+Smithy does only half the job as Village+Smithy does (plus the aforementioned matching Problem that even applies when you have a pretty good non-drawing village like Festival).
I simply don’t get your argument. This is pretty simple: either it is a Necro which is super bad or it is worse than Village (discard your best, draw two average cards). Optionality is usually worth something but here it is not as the options are additive.
You claimed that you should not add terminals to decks with Gatehouse ... but why would you then want a Village (that decreases the average card quality) in the first place?
Gatehouse is very strong.
Anyway, what do you think about the suggestion to reveal all, but one card? Would that work?I think that would be a good idea.
You always emphasize that you can just use the card as Necro without going into how bad that actually is. Any draw engine needs to combo splitters and drawers, and if you are forced to always play the card as Necro, that is miles worse than having Squire, Fishing Village, Villa or any other non-drawing village.
All these cards suffer from not being able to draw (decreases consistency and this the chance to match drawers and splitters) but at least they all provide some Coins or Buys. Necro does not and Necro+Smithy does only half the job as Village+Smithy does (plus the aforementioned matching Problem that even applies when you have a pretty good non-drawing village like Festival).
I simply don’t get your argument. This is pretty simple: either it is a Necro which is super bad or it is worse than Village (discard your best, draw two average cards). Optionality is usually worth something but here it is not as the options are additive.
You claimed that you should not add terminals to decks with Gatehouse ... but why would you then want a Village (that decreases the average card quality) in the first place?
No. You just cannot pick the extreme case I mentioned and then say, I emphasize it. What I have said is that you shouldn't ignore the possibility. I don't know whether the card works as it is, maybe not, and I have mentioned my uncertainty about it before. However, you also ignore the best case scenario; that is that there is no best card to discard because it has been already played. I think this is the critical point of the card. How often can a player manipulate their hand to reach this point.
Also, I haven't claimed that no terminal cards should be added; just that the player has to be more careful, i.e. adding less to their deck
Anyway, what do you think about the suggestion to reveal all, but one card? Would that work?
I agree with gambit05 that Gatehouse isn't quite as bad as people are making it out to be, and I think it's probably fine at $3. It might be better to think of it as three possibilities instead of 2:
1) Necropolis
2) discard your best card and draw 2
3) discard an average card and draw 2 -this happens whenever you don't have any good cards in hand, or if the best card you have in hand is a terminal that you have multiple copies of in hand, or if your hand is something like Copper Copper Silver Silver, or if your hand is full of cards that are so good that you can easily draw back whatever you discard, etc.
EDIT:Anyway, what do you think about the suggestion to reveal all, but one card? Would that work?I think that would be a good idea.
(...Despite what I just said about Gatehouse being fine at $3. Without that change, it would be a pretty weak $3.)
It is like buying a screwdriver that comes with the disclaimer that you should be careful about using it on too many screws.
Imagine I have a hand of 2x Gatehouse, one Mandarin, a Library and a copper.
Play Gatehouse (don't reveal)
Play Mandarin (topdeck Library)
Play Gatehouse (opponent discards Copper)
Play Library
This is one of the best scenarios I could find.
Then imagine this hand:
Gatehouse, Copper, 2x Silver, Gold
In this scenario you won't play Gatehouse.
Gatehouse can be good with virtual coin, and especially Mandarin, which lets you save a card. The only way this was better than Village was that it freed up a slot for Library by discarding the Copper. This situation is so rare that I would still prefer a Village.
I don’t get the example as you would have to use Gatehouse twice as Necropolis. That is beyond bad (Necro would obviously be too weak at any price as Kingdom card) and ironically this occurs in a situation in which Gatehouse is supposed to shine.
I think it is misleading to talk about individual hands where you might use Gatehouse's ability. It is possible to construct a particular hand where Gatehouse is preferable to Village. But the problem is it's hard to imagine a deck that will give you those hands with any kind of consistency. In particular, the challenge is to imagine a deck where (2 average)+(3 worst of 4) is consistently better than/at least as good as (5 average). If no such deck exists, then you will never buy Gatehouse over Village.
The only way I can imagine that (2 average)+(3 worst of 4) will consistently be better than (5 average) is if either 1. you are manipulating bad cards into your hand, or 2. you are manipulating good cards into your draw pile. (1) sounds silly, though maybe you could argue that's what advisor, or getting hit by pillages, does. More plausibly, maybe your deck is loaded with non-terminals, so that you can play them all before your Gatehouse, then play your Gatehouse to discard terminal payload and draw more non-terminals. Then you are "manipulating" your good cards out of your hand by playing them. This is probably the strongest use case for Gatehouse. (2) could happen with things like Inn, Cartographer, Apothecary, etc.
I think I've convinced myself that Gatehouse is actually not strictly worse than Village as I had originally thought; I could imagine preferring it to Village on a board that is constructed to make me prefer it to Village. I still think it is very weak though, but I'm open to being proven wrong.
Gatehouse is very strong.
This comes as a surprise. If it is not irony, could you try to explain?
Gatehouse is very strong.
This comes as a surprise. If it is not irony, could you try to explain?
Yes. I read 'discard a card; draw two cards' and my brain concluded it increased your hand size.
My bad, but actually the hypothetical card is more interesting. Gatehouse should be +1 Card, +2 Actions, reveal your hand [...]. Increasing your hand size but having the mandatory drawback. As-is, yeah it's a worse village.
| Gatehouse v2 Quote +2 Actions | Gatehouse v3 Quote +1 Card |
...which one is the more interesting? Would yours have to cost $4?I like the version 2 better. Version 3 is too similar to Advisor for my taste, and version 2 fixes the problem with the original IMO.
Gatehouse v2 Quote+2 Actions
You may reveal all but 1 card
from your hand. If you do, the
player to your left chooses one
card. Discard it, for +2 Cards.Gatehouse v3 Quote+1 Card
+2 Actions
Reveal your hand.
The player to your left chooses
one card. Discard it, for +2 Cards.
I think that the wording could be clarified to be something like "The next action card you play generates Coffers not (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)"
$2 – ActionQuote+2 Actions
When you play the next Action card this
turn, for each +$1 it produced, take
+1 Coffers instead.
I think that the wording could be clarified to be something like "The next action card you play generates Coffers not (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)"
$2 – ActionQuote+2 Actions
When you play the next Action card this
turn, for each +$1 it produced, take
+1 Coffers instead.
The "When you play the next action card this turn" seems a little extensiveI think that the wording could be clarified to be something like "The next action card you play generates Coffers not (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)"
$2 – ActionQuote+2 Actions
When you play the next Action card this
turn, for each +$1 it produced, take
+1 Coffers instead.
Do you think the wording I used is unclear? Your suggestion is certainly an option, but what I like with my version is that "+1 Coffers" is given in the text and thus highlighted in bold.
The "When you play the next action card this turn" seems a little extensiveI think that the wording could be clarified to be something like "The next action card you play generates Coffers not (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)"
$2 – ActionQuote+2 Actions
When you play the next Action card this
turn, for each +$1 it produced, take
+1 Coffers instead.
Do you think the wording I used is unclear? Your suggestion is certainly an option, but what I like with my version is that "+1 Coffers" is given in the text and thus highlighted in bold.
I'm not one to judge, it's your cardThe "When you play the next action card this turn" seems a little extensiveI think that the wording could be clarified to be something like "The next action card you play generates Coffers not (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)"
$2 – ActionQuote+2 Actions
When you play the next Action card this
turn, for each +$1 it produced, take
+1 Coffers instead.
Do you think the wording I used is unclear? Your suggestion is certainly an option, but what I like with my version is that "+1 Coffers" is given in the text and thus highlighted in bold.
It needs "this turn" and then the difference would be just one word (when) in this part of the sentence. It could be:
"The next Action card you play this turn produces Coffers instead of $.", but I am not sure I like the second part of the sentence.
Suburb $2 Action Quote Choose one: | Hatter $4 Action - Command Quote Choose one: Exile an | Wolf $4 Night – Attack Quote Draw up to 3 cards and then |
Alice gains Hatter
Wolf - Version A $4 Night – Attack Quote
| Wolf - Version B $5 Night - Duration Quote
| Wolf - Version C $5 Night - Duration Quote
|
If it costs $5, it's not such a great early game trasher anymore, and I kind of like it as an attack even though it's a weak attack. So version A is my favorite.
My second choice would be version B2i-fjk (version B with +$1 instead of +$3 and costing $3 or $4). I say +$1 and not +$2 because it's probably still too strong for $4 with a non-terminal +$2 plus good trashing.
Draw up to 3 cards and
then trash that many cards
from your hand.
At the start of your next
turn: +$1.
Going from 3 cards to 2 doesn't always solve the missing-the-shuffle problem since 2 cards is enough if your other buy also draws. Say you draw Poacher, Wolf in turn 3 and play both; now you still drew 3 cards in total, and half of your bad cards (4 of the remaining 8) could miss the shuffle.
Making it a duration does address this since (if you draw 3 and it stays out one turn) it means Wolf itself will always miss the shuffle, both if draw non turn 3 and if drawn on turn 4. On the other hand, making it 5 introduces another asymmetry, but it'll happen less often and other cards do it, too. Given that it always stays out, at least you can't draw Wolf on Turns 3 and 4. It's probably not much worse than Sentry.
I like version C the best. But I'd probably make it cost 6$. Doesn't seem like it's weaker than Altar once you have it.
I think that Wolf maybe would be more balanced if the trashed cards have to be different, like with Temple. That makes it harder to use. Also, as worded right now you could lock out the other players if you play five of these in one turn.
Draw up to 3 cards and then* What happens then?
trash that many differently
named cards from your hand
(or reveal you can’t)*. Each
other player with 5 or more
cards in hand, discards that
many cards, and then draws
one less.
* What happens then?
I don’t think that any player can be locked out. As soon as they have less than 5 cards, they are not affected anymore.I missed the "with 5 or more cards in hand" clause. Ignore what I said!
* What happens then?
You could fix this by adding "excactly" before "that many".
Draw up to 3 cards and then trash
exactly that many cards with
different names from your hand.
If you didn’t, gain a Curse. Each
other player with 5 or more cards
in hand, discards that many cards,
and then draws one less.
Doppelgänger $6 – Action – Attack – Duration - Looter Quote Until your next turn, any | Hanging Gardens $6 – Action – Victory Quote You may Exile a card from | Master Builder $7 – Action Quote
|
I like Doppelganger and Master Builder. Hanging Gardens looks pretty weak unless there is good support for it in the kingdom (another exiler and other trashing so you don't need to exile more than one Estate or Copper).
Choose one: Exile a card from your(or some other minor bonus).
hand; or +1 Action and +$1.
You may Exile a card from your hand.
If you do and you have at least one
Exiled copy of it, +$1.
@Hanging Gardens: I don't think you should say 'you may' without reason. Exiling a card has on tracking issues, and you can just decide not to play it.First, there are forced play cards like Herald and Golem.
@Hanging Gardens: I don't think you should say 'you may' without reason. Exiling a card has on tracking issues, and you can just decide not to play it.
Actually, I think I would leave it as-is except change the cost to $5.I like Doppelganger and Master Builder. Hanging Gardens looks pretty weak unless there is good support for it in the kingdom (another exiler and other trashing so you don't need to exile more than one Estate or Copper).
Yeah, not easy to find a good balance between the lower and upper ends for VP scoring. It should be attractive enough in most Kingdoms, but without being too crazy in too many cases.
I think I managed to keep the upper end craziness within limits, but as you pointed out it could be too weak in some cases. The idea was that if there is no trasher available, players can ignore VP scoring for Coppers and Estates and use Hanging Gardens primarily to get rid of (some of) them, and to focus more on Exiling other cards in single copies, e.g. Province, Duchy, Hanging Gardens, Silver. This alone would give 2VP and seems to be doable. One problem of course is the high opportunity cost of Hanging Gardens.
Maybe I add something to it. Two things come into my mind:
Either:QuoteChoose one: Exile a card from your(or some other minor bonus).
hand; or +1 Action and +$1.
or:QuoteYou may Exile a card from your hand.
If you do and you have at least one
Exiled copy of it, +$1.
Would that or something similar help?
The 'on' in my post was a misspelled 'no'. It has no tracking issues.So what? It is not like there is any technical issue with it. It is like a very small buff that matters with cards like Herald and Golem and Ghost.
Sanctuary is different because you want to play it for the + card, so making the Exile mandatory would nerf the card significantly. (Which may actually be an improvement, but the point is, it's a big change.) Your card only exiles, so the situations in which it makes a difference are really rare. I don't think there is an existing card that says 'you may' just for the rare edge case where you flip it with a Herald or something.
The 'on' in my post was a misspelled 'no'. It has no tracking issues.So what? It is not like there is any technical issue with it. It is like a very small buff that matters with cards like Herald and Golem and Ghost.
Sanctuary is different because you want to play it for the + card, so making the Exile mandatory would nerf the card significantly. (Which may actually be an improvement, but the point is, it's a big change.) Your card only exiles, so the situations in which it makes a difference are really rare. I don't think there is an existing card that says 'you may' just for the rare edge case where you flip it with a Herald or something.
If Hanging Gardens has any problems, it is that it is too weak, not too strong. So why do you argue for nerfing it for no apparent reason?
Actually, I think I would leave it as-is except change the cost to $5.
Maybe I add something to it. Two things come into my mind:
Either:QuoteChoose one: Exile a card from your(or some other minor bonus).
hand; or +1 Action and +$1.
or:QuoteYou may Exile a card from your hand.
If you do and you have at least one
Exiled copy of it, +$1.
Would that or something similar help?
Would it be too strong if Hanging Gardens allowed you to Exile two cards instead of one?
Even if you lower the cost to $5, you would need 6 different cards to be on your Exile mat for it to give the same amount of VP as a Duchy, which I think may be too much to make it attractive in most games.
The 'on' in my post was a misspelled 'no'. It has no tracking issues.So what? It is not like there is any technical issue with it. It is like a very small buff that matters with cards like Herald and Golem and Ghost.
Sanctuary is different because you want to play it for the + card, so making the Exile mandatory would nerf the card significantly. (Which may actually be an improvement, but the point is, it's a big change.) Your card only exiles, so the situations in which it makes a difference are really rare. I don't think there is an existing card that says 'you may' just for the rare edge case where you flip it with a Herald or something.
If Hanging Gardens has any problems, it is that it is too weak, not too strong. So why do you argue for nerfing it for no apparent reason?
Looks like you are grabbing for straws to justify an argument which has no sound basis after you got reminded that Hanging Gardens is worded precisely like Sanctuary.The 'on' in my post was a misspelled 'no'. It has no tracking issues.So what? It is not like there is any technical issue with it. It is like a very small buff that matters with cards like Herald and Golem and Ghost.
Sanctuary is different because you want to play it for the + card, so making the Exile mandatory would nerf the card significantly. (Which may actually be an improvement, but the point is, it's a big change.) Your card only exiles, so the situations in which it makes a difference are really rare. I don't think there is an existing card that says 'you may' just for the rare edge case where you flip it with a Herald or something.
If Hanging Gardens has any problems, it is that it is too weak, not too strong. So why do you argue for nerfing it for no apparent reason?
You may Exile a card is more complicated than Exile a card, which I think should matter a lot more than the difference in the effect.
Looks like you are grabbing for straws to justify an argument which has no sound basis after you got reminded that Hanging Gardens is worded precisely like Sanctuary.The 'on' in my post was a misspelled 'no'. It has no tracking issues.So what? It is not like there is any technical issue with it. It is like a very small buff that matters with cards like Herald and Golem and Ghost.
Sanctuary is different because you want to play it for the + card, so making the Exile mandatory would nerf the card significantly. (Which may actually be an improvement, but the point is, it's a big change.) Your card only exiles, so the situations in which it makes a difference are really rare. I don't think there is an existing card that says 'you may' just for the rare edge case where you flip it with a Herald or something.
If Hanging Gardens has any problems, it is that it is too weak, not too strong. So why do you argue for nerfing it for no apparent reason?
You may Exile a card is more complicated than Exile a card, which I think should matter a lot more than the difference in the effect.
That is true, "you must" is not a wording in Dominion. But in common English this is meant, normally all stuff in Dominion is mandatory. If something is non-mandatory that is not more complex.Looks like you are grabbing for straws to justify an argument which has no sound basis after you got reminded that Hanging Gardens is worded precisely like Sanctuary.The 'on' in my post was a misspelled 'no'. It has no tracking issues.So what? It is not like there is any technical issue with it. It is like a very small buff that matters with cards like Herald and Golem and Ghost.
Sanctuary is different because you want to play it for the + card, so making the Exile mandatory would nerf the card significantly. (Which may actually be an improvement, but the point is, it's a big change.) Your card only exiles, so the situations in which it makes a difference are really rare. I don't think there is an existing card that says 'you may' just for the rare edge case where you flip it with a Herald or something.
If Hanging Gardens has any problems, it is that it is too weak, not too strong. So why do you argue for nerfing it for no apparent reason?
You may Exile a card is more complicated than Exile a card, which I think should matter a lot more than the difference in the effect.
No; I haven't changed what I'm arguing for. I think Sanctuary is a complete non-sequitor.
"Exile a card" is simpler than "You may exile a card". "You must" doesn't appear on the card.
I'd try it at $5. It takes quite some work to push it into 6 single Exiled cards Duchy territory so it really should be OK at $5. I don't see anything else. If you work on the effect instead of the price, it becomes a monster at a "1 single Exiled card = 1 VP" ratio; and 3 for 2 would be a weird ratio.
Looks like you are grabbing for straws to justify an argument which has no sound basis after you got reminded that Hanging Gardens is worded precisely like Sanctuary.The 'on' in my post was a misspelled 'no'. It has no tracking issues.So what? It is not like there is any technical issue with it. It is like a very small buff that matters with cards like Herald and Golem and Ghost.
Sanctuary is different because you want to play it for the + card, so making the Exile mandatory would nerf the card significantly. (Which may actually be an improvement, but the point is, it's a big change.) Your card only exiles, so the situations in which it makes a difference are really rare. I don't think there is an existing card that says 'you may' just for the rare edge case where you flip it with a Herald or something.
If Hanging Gardens has any problems, it is that it is too weak, not too strong. So why do you argue for nerfing it for no apparent reason?
You may Exile a card is more complicated than Exile a card, which I think should matter a lot more than the difference in the effect.
No; I haven't changed what I'm arguing for. I think Sanctuary is a complete non-sequitor.
"Exile a card" is simpler than "You may exile a card". "You must" doesn't appear on the card.
To give you some perspective, Donald X said that his biggest regret about Guilds is that Soothsayer says "each other player gains a curse; each player who did draws a card" rather than "each other player gains a curse and draws a card" because the second is simpler. I wouldn't go quite that far, but I definitely think that in this case, simplicity wins out.
Honestly, I think it's a no-brainer. And more than that, it's a design principle of dominion, not unlike having no terminal +1 Card. Official cards don't say 'you may' unless there's a good reason. Consider Forager, Research, Trade Route, Bounty Hunter, Scrap, Remodel, Remake, Sacrifice, Replace, Stonemason, and the list isn't even complete. All of those cards exile or trash a card, and then get some benefit, but don't produce resources if they don't trash a card. For all of them, trashing is mandatory. Now consider Goatherd, Sanctuary, Butcher, Upgrade, Rats. Those also trash a card, but there, you have a reason to play them, so whether or not they say 'you may' changes the power level. For those cards, it's 'you may' or not you may, depending on what makes sense power-level wise. Then, there is a third group where they have to say 'you may' for tracking issues, like Pooka.
I don't think there is a single official card that violates this principle.
What about Mine, Moneylender, Spice Merchant, Taxman and Zombie Apprentice?
What about Mine, Moneylender, Spice Merchant, Taxman and Zombie Apprentice?
All five in the third group (along with Pooka). They require you to trash a card with a specific type, so if it were mandatory, it would introduce tracking issues. (There's no way for your opponent to tell whether you have a Treasure card in hand.)
What about Mine, Moneylender, Spice Merchant, Taxman and Zombie Apprentice?
All five in the third group (along with Pooka). They require you to trash a card with a specific type, so if it were mandatory, it would introduce tracking issues. (There's no way for your opponent to tell whether you have a Treasure card in hand.)
I'm saying that, among official cards, you may is only included if there is a good reason. One possible reason is tracking issues, another is if you have a reason to play the card even if you don't trash anything, in which case it becomes a question of powerlevel. Essentially, it has to give you something other than + 1 action.
The reason to play mercenary without trashing anything is to activate urchins.
Yeah. I had exactly that choice to make for Temple Garden (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg858592#msg858592) and I also went with 'you may' for the same reason, even though I would read 'Exchange any number ...' to be identical since 'any number' includes 0.
I'm saying that, among official cards, you may is only included if there is a good reason. One possible reason is tracking issues, another is if you have a reason to play the card even if you don't trash anything, in which case it becomes a question of powerlevel. Essentially, it has to give you something other than + 1 action.
The reason to play mercenary without trashing anything is to activate urchins.
I'm saying that, among official cards, you may is only included if there is a good reason. One possible reason is tracking issues, another is if you have a reason to play the card even if you don't trash anything, in which case it becomes a question of powerlevel. Essentially, it has to give you something other than + 1 action.
The reason to play mercenary without trashing anything is to activate urchins.
So, Mercenary has a reason to has "you may" which isn't related to the fact that the card does or not somethng dependent of trashing.
So, cards can have "you may" for other good reasons than this factor.
I don't understand why you think this good reason can't be "I don't want it to be played automatically by Herald, Golem and others."
I don't understand why you think this good reason can't be "I don't want it to be played automatically by Herald, Golem and others."
I'm saying that, among official cards, you may is only included if there is a good reason. One possible reason is tracking issues, another is if you have a reason to play the card even if you don't trash anything, in which case it becomes a question of powerlevel. Essentially, it has to give you something other than + 1 action.That is beyond ludicrous. If you play Mercenary and trash nothing, chances are slim that you want another Mercenary.
The reason to play mercenary without trashing anything is to activate urchins.
I don't want to write an essay here, but I have a short answer: Using the wording "You may..." in some cases to avoid drawbacks of rare edge cases is okay-ish. Making it mandatory in those cases is simpler and elegant.
Because that applies to every card, but we know that official cards need another reason to say 'you may' (otherwise, all cards would do that).
Also, what others? Aren't herald and Golem the only ones? That's two cards out of 585. Seems objectively a much smaller reason than Mercenary activating Urchin, which is there is every game.
It's an official design principle.
To give some evidence in the other direction, Donald X thinks that throne rooms are a sufficient reason to include 'you may', which I find odd.
Small Castle saysFor Soothsayer, the "if" is so that you can play Soothsayer with no Curses left and not feel stupid. That was not something I needed to care about. The extra words don't matter much but I didn't need them.
"Trash this or a Castle from your hand. If you do, gain a Castle."
Looking at this, are you happy with this phrasing? I'm asking because I recall you being unhappy with Soothsayer saying "each other player gains a curse. each player who did draws a card" rather than "each other player gains a curse and draws a card". Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."
I personally like the wording you chose both times, but I'm just wondering how you think about the complexity/precision tradeoff and whether it's different between both cases.
For Small Castle, the "if" is so that one Small Castle doesn't turn into multiple Castles. I still want to do that; it affects how powerful the card is, and better matches intuition. I might reword it today though, because these days I don't like mandatory things to say "if you do." I don't need to rule it out completely but don't like it. It looks weird. I prefer a "you may" typically, though the "you may" is annoying online, where it has to ask you but you sure wanted to do the thing. Here as noted you might be able to say "to" instead. I guess the jury is still out on "to," is that really good enough for casual players.
Small Castle saysFor Soothsayer, the "if" is so that you can play Soothsayer with no Curses left and not feel stupid. That was not something I needed to care about. The extra words don't matter much but I didn't need them.
"Trash this or a Castle from your hand. If you do, gain a Castle."
Looking at this, are you happy with this phrasing? I'm asking because I recall you being unhappy with Soothsayer saying "each other player gains a curse. each player who did draws a card" rather than "each other player gains a curse and draws a card". Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."
I personally like the wording you chose both times, but I'm just wondering how you think about the complexity/precision tradeoff and whether it's different between both cases.
For Small Castle, the "if" is so that one Small Castle doesn't turn into multiple Castles. I still want to do that; it affects how powerful the card is, and better matches intuition. I might reword it today though, because these days I don't like mandatory things to say "if you do." I don't need to rule it out completely but don't like it. It looks weird. I prefer a "you may" typically, though the "you may" is annoying online, where it has to ask you but you sure wanted to do the thing. Here as noted you might be able to say "to" instead. I guess the jury is still out on "to," is that really good enough for casual players.
It is not just that, he actually wrote „I prefer a you may typically“.Small Castle saysFor Soothsayer, the "if" is so that you can play Soothsayer with no Curses left and not feel stupid. That was not something I needed to care about. The extra words don't matter much but I didn't need them.
"Trash this or a Castle from your hand. If you do, gain a Castle."
Looking at this, are you happy with this phrasing? I'm asking because I recall you being unhappy with Soothsayer saying "each other player gains a curse. each player who did draws a card" rather than "each other player gains a curse and draws a card". Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."
I personally like the wording you chose both times, but I'm just wondering how you think about the complexity/precision tradeoff and whether it's different between both cases.
For Small Castle, the "if" is so that one Small Castle doesn't turn into multiple Castles. I still want to do that; it affects how powerful the card is, and better matches intuition. I might reword it today though, because these days I don't like mandatory things to say "if you do." I don't need to rule it out completely but don't like it. It looks weird. I prefer a "you may" typically, though the "you may" is annoying online, where it has to ask you but you sure wanted to do the thing. Here as noted you might be able to say "to" instead. I guess the jury is still out on "to," is that really good enough for casual players.
IMHO, all this quote is about better wording to implement certain rule and why some cards have some wording, not about how rules should be. I don't see anything from what could be derived a general rule for the use of "you may". Maybe I'm wrong.
Edit: To me, what is said is: There's a kind of contradiction when something is mandatory but you derive a consequence from the fact if it was done or not. So, when you have to derive a consequence from the fact that it's done or not, it's better to make the fact from which you derive the consequence voluntary, using "you may".
It's a specific case in which something can't be mandatory. It doesn't implie that only in this case things can be voluntary.
I think it's probably more that the problem won't come up with Chapel because people have no reason to play it if they don't want to trash, unlike with Dame Anna and Temple Garden.
The principle is, "if a trasher doesn't have a unique reason to say 'you may', it doesn't do it." This correctly predicts every card that trashes without exception. There are too many cards for this to be coincidence. This is slam-dunk evidence.
My main point here is that Donald didn't dispute my framing of 'simplicity is super ridiculously important, why did you not do the simple thing in this case?'.
But I don't think you need any more official confirmation for the design principle. The principle is, "if a trasher doesn't have a unique reason to say 'you may', it doesn't do it." This correctly predicts every card that trashes without exception. There are too many cards for this to be coincidence. This is slam-dunk evidence.
I guess it doesn't feel that way because the concept took some clarifying and that's why it seemed like it's unclear or I changed it? But I really didn't.
Either way, if you do doubt it, how about we just ask? Donald still responds to the interview thread (but never looks into the Fan cards section of the forum).
What do you mean when you say "unique"?
In the parts of the forum that shall not be named, there was a disagreement about the design principles for official cards. One person thought there was a soft rule that cards that can trash or Exile other cards don't have 'you may' on them without a good reason. Cards like Spice Merchant have 'you may' for tracking reasons, cards like Sanctuary have it because they provide a benefit other than the Exile; Mercenary has it because it can activate Urchins; Death Cart has it to prevent getting the +5$ twice with Throne Room. But, according to this person, all the cards that usually wouldn't do anything without trashing/Exiling and don't have tracking issues, like Forager or Bounty Hunter or Remodel, are mandatory. Is this a real rule you've followed?I don't have any rule like that, specific to trashers, no. My "you may" rules are:
- I don't like having a mostly pointless "you may"; if you would mostly achieve not doing whatever it is by not playing the card, or if you will almost always choose the option, then it probably doesn't say "you may." "You may" wants to be used for things where it's really an option, you will play the card and sometimes go one way sometimes the other.
- I use "you may" as a keep-you-honest thing, like on Moneylender; "Trash a Copper from your hand" means you might not trash one and be cheating, and "Trash a Copper from your hand (or reveal a hand without one)" is longer than "You may trash a Copper from your hand."
- In some cases there's a "do x to have y happen" where it reads much better with "you may."
- Reactions of course naturally say "you may."
- When it could go either way, it comes down to power level or fun.
- As always, on pre-Adventures cards, sometimes there wasn't a good reason. Farmland omits "you may" because I required the text to fit in a certain amount of space at a certain font size, and "you may" didn't fit.
It is totally fine to have non-mandatory effects. They don’t need any justification (not that buffing the card via making it better with Piazza, Golem, Ghost and Herald isn’t a perfect justification) as they at not better or worse or less or more complex than mandatory effects.
-I don't like having a mostly pointless "you may"; if you would mostly achieve not doing whatever it is by not playing the card, or if you will almost always choose the option, then it probably doesn't say "you may." "You may" wants to be used for things where it's really an option, you will play the card and sometimes go one way sometimes the other.
As you said, it is not a rule or design principle or whatever.
It is totally fine to have non-mandatory effects. They don’t need any justification (not that buffing the card via making it better with Piazza, Golem, Ghost and Herald isn’t a perfect justification) as they at not better or worse or less or more complex than mandatory effects.-I don't like having a mostly pointless "you may"; if you would mostly achieve not doing whatever it is by not playing the card, or if you will almost always choose the option, then it probably doesn't say "you may." "You may" wants to be used for things where it's really an option, you will play the card and sometimes go one way sometimes the other.As you said, it is not a rule or design principle or whatever.
What's the timing for gaining a Ruins via Doppelganger's attack? Is it when you play a second copy of any given card? I think it needs rephrasing to make the timing clear.
What's the timing for gaining a Ruins via Doppelganger's attack? Is it when you play a second copy of any given card? I think it needs rephrasing to make the timing clear.
Yes! When a player plays a second copy of a card they gain a Ruins; not for the first and not for the following copies. I was struggling with the wording quite a bit without making the text too long. Do you have any suggestions how to word it unambiguously (and not too much text)?
What's the timing for gaining a Ruins via Doppelganger's attack? Is it when you play a second copy of any given card? I think it needs rephrasing to make the timing clear.
Yes! When a player plays a second copy of a card they gain a Ruins; not for the first and not for the following copies. I was struggling with the wording quite a bit without making the text too long. Do you have any suggestions how to word it unambiguously (and not too much text)?
"Until your next turn, when any other player plays a second copy of any given Action card, they gain a Ruins."
Golden Fleece $5 Action – Treasure - Night Quote
| Mutiny $5 – Action – Attack - Duration Quote Each other player with 5 or | Pied Piper $5 - Action Quote
| Golden Apples $6 – Treasure Quote
|
Part 4
Probably the last couple of cards I want to present here. Maybe finally I will show you some more cards (without comments) that I do not consider being included in my set for one or the other reason.
(https://i.ibb.co/52cqPbJ/Golden-Fleece.png) (https://i.ibb.co/Z1074NV/Mutiny.png) (https://i.ibb.co/Msc2T4T/Pied-Piper.png) (https://i.ibb.co/pw2fxbh/Golden-Apples.png)
$5 Action – Treasure - NightQuote
If it’s your…
Action phase, +$3;
Buy phase, +1 Buy and +$2;
Night phase, +2 Coffers.
$5 – Action – Attack - DurationQuoteEach other player with 5 or
more cards in hand reveals 2.
Choose for each player
whether they discard those or
2 of the unrevealed cards.
At the start of your next turn,
+1 Card and +1 Coffers.
$5 - ActionQuote
+3 Cards
Discard a card.
--------------------------
While you have this in play,
when you buy a card, you may
overpay for it. For each $1
you overpaid, +1 Villager.
$6 – TreasureQuote
$2
+2 Cards. Discard any
number of Action cards,
revealed, for +$1 each.
Golden Fleece
A card that can be played in any of 3 phases.
Mutiny
A nasty hand-size reducer, where also the attacker has a word on what has to be discarded.
Pied Piper
This allows overpaying when other cards are bought, which means that the overpay ability persists and can be used whenever a Pied Piper is in play.
If several Pied Pipers are in play, overpaying multiplies the Villager output. If a card is bought that has the overpay function itself, then overpaying gives the card’s regular bonus plus the Villagers from Pied Piper.
Golden Apples
A Silver that draws cards during the Buy phase. Basically any drawn card is welcome in one way or the other; either for sifting (Victory cards and Curses), for payload (Treasures and Action cards) or for playing them later (Night cards). The other side of the coin is that drawn Action cards (usually) cannot be played in the same turn.
I love Golden Fleece! It is pretty good, especially the Night option. But I don't think it is overpowered.
Weird argument given that most $5s are bought when you hit $6.
The card is undoubtedly strong but it is no $6.
You said that you would even buy it at $6. That is true for a large majority of $5s, you often prefer them over Gold. Spices is often better than Gold and yet it only costs $5.
Golden Fleece is a good $5 but most definitely no $6.
I just elaborated in my last post on the 5 and 6 thingy and I disagree about the power level: it is good but not a super strong $5. Charm, Spices, Crown and Counterfeit are all $5 Treasures that I would prefer over this in the majority of Kingdoms.
In Action phase, it does less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) cost terminal Golds like Legionary, Sacred Grove and Livery.
In Buy phase it does non-terminal Woodcutter, less than Charm.
In Night phase, though non-terminal, it does less than Butcher.
So , I think it's OK at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png). Versatility makes it a strong (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) but not a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).
I like it very much and I think it's well balanced.
You are overestimating the strength of the Action option. Otherwise you would not claim that Golden Fleece is better than Spices, which is the Treasure option of Golden Fleece on play and the Night option on gain.I just elaborated in my last post on the 5 and 6 thingy and I disagree about the power level: it is good but not a super strong $5. Charm, Spices, Crown and Counterfeit are all $5 Treasures that I would prefer over this in the majority of Kingdoms.
OK, let's compare it to Spices and Charm, since as a Treasure, they give the same vanilla bonuses. Why would you choose Spices over Golden Fleece at $5? I think that the versatility over the course of the game that you would get with Golden Fleece is better than the 2 Coffers you get with Spices. I might prefer Charm over Golden Fleece in certain kingdoms, but I think I would prefer Golden Fleece more often than not.
I agree that Crown can be very strong, especially once you've thinned out your deck or have better control of it. However, there are some turns where Crown won't be particularly strong. Golden Fleece will almost never be useless in your hand. It's a trade-off between something that's potentially quite powerful (and versatile in its own right) and something that is quite reliable and versatile.
You are overestimating the strength of the Action option. Otherwise you would not claim that Golden Fleece is better than Spices, which is the Treasure option of Golden Fleece on play and the Night option on gain.I just elaborated in my last post on the 5 and 6 thingy and I disagree about the power level: it is good but not a super strong $5. Charm, Spices, Crown and Counterfeit are all $5 Treasures that I would prefer over this in the majority of Kingdoms.
OK, let's compare it to Spices and Charm, since as a Treasure, they give the same vanilla bonuses. Why would you choose Spices over Golden Fleece at $5? I think that the versatility over the course of the game that you would get with Golden Fleece is better than the 2 Coffers you get with Spices. I might prefer Charm over Golden Fleece in certain kingdoms, but I think I would prefer Golden Fleece more often than not.
I agree that Crown can be very strong, especially once you've thinned out your deck or have better control of it. However, there are some turns where Crown won't be particularly strong. Golden Fleece will almost never be useless in your hand. It's a trade-off between something that's potentially quite powerful (and versatile in its own right) and something that is quite reliable and versatile.
I do think Golden Fleece is arguably stronger than Spices even without the Action option.The Action option of Golden Fleece is negligible but the on-gain option of Spices is not. You gotta play Golden Fleece one time more often than Spices until it catches up in power. Good luck achieving that with a non-drawing card.
Segura, if Golden Fleece were only a Night card that gave you +2 Coffers, how much do you think it should cost?+1 Action
It is easier to start with $5, instead of $6, since I expect to see the dynamics of the card much more often. If it turns out that Golden Fleece causes a flood of Coffers too often, well then I guess it will have to cost $6.That's also DXV's design principle: make a card as strong/cheap as possible and try to get away with it. There are quite some official cards which could cost more: Spices could be a $6, Lackeys could be a $3 and so on. Better err on the side of cheap, strong and available than expensive and rarely used.
It is easier to start with $5, instead of $6, since I expect to see the dynamics of the card much more often. If it turns out that Golden Fleece causes a flood of Coffers too often, well then I guess it will have to cost $6.That's also DXV's design principle: make a card as strong/cheap as possible and try to get away with it. There are quite some official cards which could cost more: Spices could be a $6, Lackeys could be a $3 and so on. Better err on the side of cheap, strong and available than expensive and rarely used.
I like very much all these ideas, specially Golden Fleece, a three-phase card, and the interactivity of Mutiny.
Golden Apples is a kind of Treasure version of Crusader of my Venus set (or Crusader is a Action version of Golden Apples) . I don't know which came first. I don't mind with the resemblance and I hope you also don't. Because of the different type, they play differently anyway.
I am always wondering where you people get the knowledge about Donald's design principles.I don't remember where he wrote that about making cards as strong as possible, perhaps somebody can find a quote.
I am always wondering where you people get the knowledge about Donald's design principles.I don't remember where he wrote that about making cards as strong as possible, perhaps somebody can find a quote.
That you shouldn't do something with VP tokens that doesn't lead to the game ending is fairly obvious but is probably also somewhere to be found concerning playtesting experiences in Prosperity.
Other principles change over time, e.g. Attacks were always terminal but often very strong in earlier expansions (Torturer, Mountebank) whereas nowadays there are often weaker but also more frequently non-terminal.
That you shouldn't do a Silver+ for $4 is something that DXV has often said, but then he did Patron and the world did not end.
I never got the principle either and am glad that it is gone. It probably evolved during the more Treasure-y early days of Dominion. Royal Seal is e.g. a clear $4 for me.I am always wondering where you people get the knowledge about Donald's design principles.I don't remember where he wrote that about making cards as strong as possible, perhaps somebody can find a quote.
That you shouldn't do something with VP tokens that doesn't lead to the game ending is fairly obvious but is probably also somewhere to be found concerning playtesting experiences in Prosperity.
Other principles change over time, e.g. Attacks were always terminal but often very strong in earlier expansions (Torturer, Mountebank) whereas nowadays there are often weaker but also more frequently non-terminal.
That you shouldn't do a Silver+ for $4 is something that DXV has often said, but then he did Patron and the world did not end.
I have seen this last statement more than once and I always wondered what the reason is. Are such cards too boring or is it too easy to accumulate $ for that card cost? At least such cards to not draw.
I never got the principle either and am glad that it is gone. It probably evolved during the more Treasure-y early days of Dominion. Royal Seal is e.g. a clear $4 for me.I am always wondering where you people get the knowledge about Donald's design principles.I don't remember where he wrote that about making cards as strong as possible, perhaps somebody can find a quote.
That you shouldn't do something with VP tokens that doesn't lead to the game ending is fairly obvious but is probably also somewhere to be found concerning playtesting experiences in Prosperity.
Other principles change over time, e.g. Attacks were always terminal but often very strong in earlier expansions (Torturer, Mountebank) whereas nowadays there are often weaker but also more frequently non-terminal.
That you shouldn't do a Silver+ for $4 is something that DXV has often said, but then he did Patron and the world did not end.
I have seen this last statement more than once and I always wondered what the reason is. Are such cards too boring or is it too easy to accumulate $ for that card cost? At least such cards to not draw.
It also teaches you do use your own brain when designing cards. Some principles make sense, like don't do a cantrip VP token card. Some like no Silver+ for $4 don't.
"Silver with a bonus for $4" was considered one of the taboos of card design here, but that's what Patron is. Was it ever actually a rule for you?Yes, I am the source of that idea. The problem is that normal people buy Silver for $4 often enough that they just automatically empty the Silver-plus-for-$4 pile, without regard even for what the bonus is.
Patron does have this issue, though not always. As you can see it seemed like it wasn't enough of a problem to not do the card. And the fact that I hadn't done one of these meant... that I hadn't done one of these.
I never got the principle either and am glad that it is gone. It probably evolved during the more Treasure-y early days of Dominion. Royal Seal is e.g. a clear $4 for me.I am always wondering where you people get the knowledge about Donald's design principles.I don't remember where he wrote that about making cards as strong as possible, perhaps somebody can find a quote.
That you shouldn't do something with VP tokens that doesn't lead to the game ending is fairly obvious but is probably also somewhere to be found concerning playtesting experiences in Prosperity.
Other principles change over time, e.g. Attacks were always terminal but often very strong in earlier expansions (Torturer, Mountebank) whereas nowadays there are often weaker but also more frequently non-terminal.
That you shouldn't do a Silver+ for $4 is something that DXV has often said, but then he did Patron and the world did not end.
I have seen this last statement more than once and I always wondered what the reason is. Are such cards too boring or is it too easy to accumulate $ for that card cost? At least such cards to not draw.
It also teaches you do use your own brain when designing cards. Some principles make sense, like don't do a cantrip VP token card. Some like no Silver+ for $4 don't.
From the interview with Donald X.:"Silver with a bonus for $4" was considered one of the taboos of card design here, but that's what Patron is. Was it ever actually a rule for you?Yes, I am the source of that idea. The problem is that normal people buy Silver for $4 often enough that they just automatically empty the Silver-plus-for-$4 pile, without regard even for what the bonus is.
Patron does have this issue, though not always. As you can see it seemed like it wasn't enough of a problem to not do the card. And the fact that I hadn't done one of these meant... that I hadn't done one of these.
I think principles are not to be followed blindly. If you understand why the principle exists, you are free to follow it or try to create a solution which avoids the issues the principle tries to prevent.
Amazing! How did you found that? It's two years old. Thanks for the information.