Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: Matt_Arnold on July 24, 2011, 11:25:41 pm
-
Text often fails to convey tone-- I am not complaining or criticizing (which would be odd), but curious enough to wonder if there is any gossip.
Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these details. It has been previously mentioned that Rio Grande plans to publish two Dominion expansions per year: a half-size set in the spring, and a full-size set in the fall. This process is supposed to end in 2012, with the final planned expansion (although some more cards might come out in the unforeseeable future).
Last year, Dominion: Prosperity was discussed on Boardgamegeek.com as early as March, revealed its theme and color text around May 25, It was announced as an "August/September" release, Jay Tummelson revealed Counting House and Contraband around August 1, I bought it at GenCon, and by August 11 we actually had DXV's Secret History of Prosperity.
Naturally, many (if not perhaps most) highly-anticipated games arrive a couple of months later than the predicted date. That's normal. What piques my curiosity is that, nearing the end of July, we do not even know the name of this year's large Dominion expansion.
I find myself, as if an expectant uncle, at a loss for what name to call the fetus, and perhaps even its pronoun, despite that the parents have presumably had an ultrasound like they did with all their previous pregnancies. It is one of the foremost topics of discussion by the extended family, because they already know they love this person who they have not met, and yet they all circumlocute awkwardly for lack of language. That is what my game group is like now. Forgive my amazingly rubbish metaphor!
What strikes me as out of the ordinary is that the process has not publicly begun its first step. Perhaps a different, more mysterious and dramatic marketing strategy on the part of Rio Grande?
If it takes as long as previous timetables, would that not mean Dominion: 2011 will not arrive until perhaps February 2012? Has any "Dominion meteorologist" tracked how long most previous expansions have taken from name announcement to store shelves, so that we can make forecasts as foolhardy as any weatherman?
-
What strikes me as out of the ordinary is that the process has not publicly begun its first step. Perhaps a different, more mysterious and dramatic marketing strategy on the part of Rio Grande?
A better guess is "Jay is busy getting stuff done so that it can actually come out in October." This is a busy time of year for game companies.
Prosperity came out in August, at GenCon. Most people could not get it for a few more months, but that was unintentional. The next Dominion expansion comes out in October. Two months later, relatively, than Prosperity. Seaside, which came out at Essen, ~October 19th, was first announced on October 5th.
In the end the information timeline will be as follows. One day, Jay will post the blurb; there's no saying when, just, sometime after yesterday and before Essen. Then you will have that information, but no other information. Then, a week before Essen, I will post some previews. Then at Essen people will get it and then someone who has it will spoil the set. Then I'll post a Secret History.
-
Thank you very much, Donald X, for your candid summary of what to expect. I too have been wondering. I am newer to Dominion than others, but when I compared the comments about Prosperity to when it was released, it seemed like we should be hearing some tidbit soon.
-
I got to meet Jay Tummelson yesterday at GenCon. When I asked him, he cupped his hands around his mouth as a megaphone and cried out to the room, "HINTERLANDS!" He doesn't care who knows. It's like Donald said: He's just busy!
-
I got to meet Jay Tummelson yesterday at GenCon. When I asked him, he cupped his hands around his mouth as a megaphone and cried out to the room, "HINTERLANDS!" He doesn't care who knows. It's like Donald said: He's just busy!
I confirm that the next expansion is called Hinterlands.
-
I confirm that the next expansion is called Hinterlands.
I've had awful pain in my Hinterlands before. I could barely sit.
-
I got to meet Jay Tummelson yesterday at GenCon. When I asked him, he cupped his hands around his mouth as a megaphone and cried out to the room, "HINTERLANDS!" He doesn't care who knows. It's like Donald said: He's just busy!
I confirm that the next expansion is called Hinterlands.
Will it be full of trolls?
/let the WOW jokes commence!
-
Will it be full of trolls?
I think the real question we need to consider is what will the village be called? Maybe they go together--Troll's Village.
-
I got to meet Jay Tummelson yesterday at GenCon. When I asked him, he cupped his hands around his mouth as a megaphone and cried out to the room, "HINTERLANDS!" He doesn't care who knows. It's like Donald said: He's just busy!
I confirm that the next expansion is called Hinterlands.
So this may just be my limited vocabulary speaking, but is there a reason "Hinterlands" got the nod over "Frontiers" or some other more common synonym?
-
So this may just be my limited vocabulary speaking, but is there a reason "Hinterlands" got the nod over "Frontiers" or some other more common synonym?
I think it is due to the fact that the word "Hinterland(s)" has a germanic origin:
Origin: 1885–90; < German: literally, hinder land, i.e., land behind (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hinterland (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hinterland))
...and Dominion was designed and made in Germany.
Other words/phrases with similar origin ideas would be "Back Country" or "Outback" (in Australia) but I think they have connotations that wouldn't jive with the generic medieval theme.
-
So this may just be my limited vocabulary speaking, but is there a reason "Hinterlands" got the nod over "Frontiers" or some other more common synonym?
- Connotations, as Thanar notes (though Dominion was designed in the US of A). "Frontier" for example has wild west connotations that I didn't want.
- I like the sound of "Hinterlands." I like that it's an uncommon word.
- It's cute that for some people, it will sound like the opposite of Seaside. It does not however have cards that do something on your previous turn.
- David Bowie - Red Sails
-
It does not however have cards that do something on your previous turn.
Awwwwww time travelling cards would be awesome:
"Now and at the start of your previous turn: +$2.
If this card is in your deck, at the start of your turn, you may name this card and ask the player to your left to examine the top five cards of your deck. The player plays any copies of this card in front of you; these cards will have been played on your next turn, and are in play this turn. That player returns the remaining cards to the top of your deck. At the end of this turn, you draw one fewer card for each copy of this card that will have been played during your next turn.
If you play this card from your hand, you will have lost any benefit, on your previous turn, of having been allowing it to will have been played this turn, during your previous turn."
Eat your heart out, Dr. Streetmentioner...
-
Clearly the Village is going be called "Inland Village" or "Backwoods Village", combining the Village needed in with the idea that they need a card in the set that means the same thing as the name of the set.
(For those unaware, "Cornucopia" is the original Latin for "Horn of Plenty".)
-
I've been racking my brain for awhile trying to figure out a new mechanic, or a new theme that the new set could possibly be. Other than new hybrids like, Attack-Treasure, or Duration-Treasure, I can only think about cards that strictly affect only cleanup, or cards that are extremely expensive and so powerful you usually only get one or two and it changes the rest of play. This is only a few months away, so surely (no Airplane) we'll be hearing more soon.
-
Duration-Treasure
Won't happen. Durations are a Seaside-only thing.
-
Hey, it's only the 21st time that I can mention Curse - ??? as a new card type!
Heathen Village
Action - Curse
Cost: 0
+2 Actions
-2 VP
When I think about "Hinterlands" I think about unexplored jungles full of un(der)developed settlements and pagan rituals, kind of like the opposite of Prosperity. The Prosperity rulebook has a great intro text explaining how you have the world's tiniest dog and a statue of Baklava; all of which attribute to your status as a super wealthy medieval Paris Hilton.
Before hearing the name "Hinterlands" I thought the new expansion might have some Halloween-ish theme. Prosperity is about abundance and Cornucopia (Horn of Plenty) maybe even more so, because it rewards diversification. The new expansion may cause players to have to scramble more and may contain a lot of mean cards. The developers don't have to treat us like children any more, because it's already the 6th (or 5th if you don't consider Intrigue an expansion). They can throw anything our way and we will deal with it.
Here is a summary of governing ideas of the sets:
Base: The easiest cards go here, letting players get used to main ideas like extra actions, cards, buys and coins and trashing and discarding and it contains the first Curser
Intrigue: This set is about choice and interaction and has the first dual type cards
Alchemy: It's about Power, this set has some very powerful cards, but they require Potions, making them harder to obtain than regular cards
Seaside: All about your next turn and planning ahead
Prosperity: Luxury galore, do your triple King's Court-thing while I take a 10 min. toilet break
Cornucopia: Diversity is the key word, I guess
Hinterlands: Struggling and scrambling?
Another card which may fit the theme and idea of Hinterlands:
Witch Doctor
Action - Attack
Cost: 5
+1 Action
Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Put the revealed Curses into your hand. Put the other cards on top of your deck in any order.
Every other player gains a Curse.
-
I've said it numerous times before and I'll say it again every time the subject comes up: desirable cards with negative VPs on them are not balanced. You can use the card to build some awesome deck quickly and then trash it later! There are all kinds of ways to try fixing the problem (negative VP chips, "if you trash this gain curses", etc), but none of them work either.
Witch Doctor is the seed of an interesting idea but may be too weak as-is. Maybe add +1 card and price it at $6? though that kind of stomps on Familiar's territory.
-
Dice. Hinterlands is the dice expansion.
-
I suspect that Hinterlands will help big money-esque strategies a good bit. I also think it will have cards that boost silver, specifically.
What's this based on? Donald X. said somewhere that this expansion was in some way simpler than the previous one, and then there have been an increasing number of published cards (Trusty Steed) where silver pops up in a somewhat strange spot. Also Hinterlands gives me a very bare bones impression, like big money.
-
Well, Prosperity was the so-called "Big Money" expansion. I do think at some point there will be a card that gives incentives for having silver, but it won't be the theme of an entire expansion. Or maybe there won't be: Donald said he once playtested a Big Moneylender which trashed Silver for $5 and basically nobody ever bought it.
I think there is going to be a "pain" expansion at some point: lots of attacks, cards with strong powers but significant drawbacks. Hinterlands might be that expansion. A few things I'd like to see:
* Weird spaces for new attacks. A $2 attack? An Attack-Treasure? I'm kinda disappointed that there's never going to be a Duration attack.
* A Militia-like attack where you look at their hand and choose what to discard. If there's a way to make it not too brutal, of course.
* Some sort of Tutor- look at the top X cards of your deck and put one in your hand? Feels like it would be thematic, what with all the (inland this time) exploring.
* If this is an attack-heavy expansion, it would be nice to have a card which is powerful, but prevents you from playing any of those attacks. Add sort of a "guns vs. butter" tension to the games it's in. I was sort of thinking something like this:
MONASTERY
$4
+1 Action
If you have not played an Attack this turn, draw until you have six cards in hand. You may not play an Attack card this turn.
-
No particular reason other than thinking it's a lame idea, but I'd bet there will ever be a published Dominion card that specifically boosts Silver or consumes Silver.
-
From Wikipedia:
"Hinterland" was borrowed from German, where it means literally the land behind (a city, a port or similar),[1] with the English cognate hind land.[2] In English, the term was first used in 1888 by George Chisholm in his work Handbook of Commercial Geography.[3] In German this word sometimes also describes the part of a country where only a few people live and where the infrastructure is underdeveloped; although "Provinz" (equal to "province") is more common. The direct analogy in English is "back country" or "the countryside". See also The Bush of Alaskan and The Outback of Australian usage.
"Hinterland" means a rural area surrounding the urban catchment of large cities or agglomerations. It is characterized by a less dense population and infrastructure. In shipping usage, a port's hinterland is the area that it serves, both for imports and for exports. The size of a hinterland can depend on geography, but also on the ease, speed, and cost of transportation between the port and the hinterland.[4]
Wild speculation time:
- This set will be, in some ways, the opposite of Prosperity (as previously speculated by Davio). It's about people leaving the hustle and bustle of city life to strike out into harsh new territory. Resources will be scarce, and people will have to make the best of what little they have. Estates and coppers will rise in value in the Hinterlands.
- There will be cards that punish 'city slickers', as in high costing cards. Something like Saboteur, but hopefully much, much, much better.
- There will be a card called 'Fur Trapper'. Because there's always plenty of cash to be made from slaughtering newfound species!
I was hoping for something that made cursing your opponents dangerous, such as a VP card that gives you 1 VP per 2 curses in your deck, or maybe allows you to discard curses for monetary benefit (better than Vault/Secret Chamber), but Hinterlands doesn't strike me as the right fit from a flavour perspective. Of course, I could be way off track.... which is dangerous in the HINTERLANDS!
-
Well, Prosperity was the so-called "Big Money" expansion. I do think at some point there will be a card that gives incentives for having silver, but it won't be the theme of an entire expansion. Or maybe there won't be: Donald said he once playtested a Big Moneylender which trashed Silver for $5 and basically nobody ever bought it.
Well, that's really more because the Moneylender mechanic is strong for Copper and not-strong for Silver, than because there's something inherently wrong with interacting with Silver. Moneylender's appeal depends on the notion that you start off with a ton of Copper, and don't really want that Copper, so trashing it for benefit appeals. Also, the $3 is well-situated for an early accelerator. Trashing Silver for $5 implies that you bought a ton of Silver (so that some of it coincides with the Action), and that you no longer want it, and that $5 isn't going to send you into the realm of "I just got a lot of money I can't use."
Contrast with something that, say, digs for Silver, like a more targeted Adventurer. "Action - Dig for two Silver. $4" That would clearly be a valuable-ass card in the early game. Maybe game-breakingly good, actually. I suspect also that a Silversmith card that worked like this: "Action. +1 Buy. Silver played this turn produce an extra $1" would be surprisingly good. (Obvious response: Coppersmith isn't very good, and it uses the more available Copper. Counterpoint: In a Province game which isn't engine-oriented, at least, Silver is neutral-to-positive in your deck, while Copper is bad. The +buy means that you can actually use the occasional big-extra-money hand without also somehow getting a non-terminal +buy or a village/+buy combo into play at the same time).
Or a later-game trash-for-benefit for Silver could also be useful, especially if combined with a dig. "Action - Dig for a Silver. If you find it, trash it and gain a Duchy."
Obviously, I have no idea whether there will be anything that targets silver will ever be in the game, but the failure of the super-Moneylender doesn't mean you could introduce a successful silver-targeting card.
-
Actually, that he even tried it lends more evidence in my mind that we'll see some "silver matters" cards in the future.
-
I think a Super-Moneylender that trashed a "treasure" (as in any card with type "treasure") would be at least interesting. It solves the issue of drawing Moneylender dead after most Coppers are gone.
-
I think a Super-Moneylender that trashed a "treasure" (as in any card with type "treasure") would be at least interesting. It solves the issue of drawing Moneylender dead after most Coppers are gone.
But what does it do for you? If it gives +$3, it's strictly better than Moneylender at $4, so it would need to be more expensive. But it's not a very impressive 5. So probably it would have to trash for 2 more than the treasure's face value (HOP, Bank, potion would trash for 2, talisman, quarry, copper, venture for 3, silver, harem for 4, gold, contraband for 5, and platinum for 7) then it would be an interesting 5?
-
I think a Super-Moneylender that trashed a "treasure" (as in any card with type "treasure") would be at least interesting. It solves the issue of drawing Moneylender dead after most Coppers are gone.
But what does it do for you? If it gives +$3, it's strictly better than Moneylender at $4, so it would need to be more expensive. But it's not a very impressive 5. So probably it would have to trash for 2 more than the treasure's face value (HOP, Bank, potion would trash for 2, talisman, quarry, copper, venture for 3, silver, harem for 4, gold, contraband for 5, and platinum for 7) then it would be an interesting 5?
Philosopher's Stone sits in the corner crying...
-
My bad. It also gives you 2, just like Bank. Knew I forgot something...
-
But what does it do for you? If it gives +$3, it's strictly better than Moneylender at $4, so it would need to be more expensive. But it's not a very impressive 5. So probably it would have to trash for 2 more than the treasure's face value (HOP, Bank, potion would trash for 2, talisman, quarry, copper, venture for 3, silver, harem for 4, gold, contraband for 5, and platinum for 7) then it would be an interesting 5?
It could potentially give you money equal to the card's cost.
Which would also make it "not strictly better than Moneylender," since Coppers would give you 0.
-
But what does it do for you? If it gives +$3, it's strictly better than Moneylender at $4, so it would need to be more expensive. But it's not a very impressive 5. So probably it would have to trash for 2 more than the treasure's face value (HOP, Bank, potion would trash for 2, talisman, quarry, copper, venture for 3, silver, harem for 4, gold, contraband for 5, and platinum for 7) then it would be an interesting 5?
It could potentially give you money equal to the card's cost.
Which would also make it "not strictly better than Moneylender," since Coppers would give you 0.
But strictly worse than Salvager unfortunately...
-
I think a Super-Moneylender that trashed a "treasure" (as in any card with type "treasure") would be at least interesting. It solves the issue of drawing Moneylender dead after most Coppers are gone.
But what does it do for you? If it gives +$3, it's strictly better than Moneylender at $4, so it would need to be more expensive. But it's not a very impressive 5. So probably it would have to trash for 2 more than the treasure's face value (HOP, Bank, potion would trash for 2, talisman, quarry, copper, venture for 3, silver, harem for 4, gold, contraband for 5, and platinum for 7) then it would be an interesting 5?
With all these special cards it really also does not feel good against the salvager, because the only cards where it gives more money are copper and silver. Which on the other hand should be the more common case.
So for Copper it is a moneylender, for Silver it is a Salvager +1$ -1Buy. Compared to Salvager it can't trash Estates in the beginning but coppers for the same net value, while it is mor likely to hit than the salvager, who is on the other hand getting rid of estates instead of coppers. And is not so valuable in the endgame, but probably a little bit more valuable in midgame.
But overall, compared to Salvager I wouldn't say that it would be underpriced at $4. But there is the Moneylender...
-
But strictly worse than Salvager unfortunately...
Duh, of course you're right.
You could allow it to trash multiple treasures per turn, but it's probably too close to Salvager anyway.
-
Well, the problem any Silver related card has over Copper is that you already start with 7 Coppers, but 0 Silvers.
You need to buy Silvers from the Supply. So if there is ever going to be a Big Moneylender, it may take a while to set up a good combo with it.
If there are going to be other Big Money helpers, I think the cards have to do something for every Treasure, not just Silver, like this Moneylender-esque card:
"Interest"
Treasure
Cost: 6 (5?)
+2$
When you play this, trash a Treasure card from your hand, +$ equal to half its cost in coins, rounded down; or reveal a hand with no Treasure.
Copper gives just +2$ in total.
Silver gives +3$.
Gold gives +5$.
Platinum gives +6$.
Harem gives +5$.
Potion gives +4$.
Philosopher's Stone gives +3$.
Loan gives +3$.
Quarry gives +4$.
Talisman gives +4$.
Contraband gives +4$.
Royal Seal gives +4$.
Venture gives +4$.
Hoard gives +5$.
Bank gives +5$.
Diadem gives +2$.
Horn of Plenty gives +4$.
Stash gives +4$.
You can always play this safely as the last Treasure in your hand if you don't want to trash something and then it's just a Silver. It's a handy card for trashing those nifty early game Treasures like Quarry, Talisman, Loan, Potion and of course Copper. I moved it out of the Action phase to differentiate somewhat from Salvager. This also solves the problem of: "It's better than Moneylender, but not a very good action card, since it's worse than Salvager." Making it a Treasure can prove very useful.
However, playing Venture and having to play this with Platinum in hand can have unwanted effects, but this may be solved by playing Venture last. Also if you have this and Bank, you have to think about the order in which you want to play them. So there may be a few problems, but overall I think a card like this has potential.
-
Silver Rush
+1 Action
Trash any number of Silvers from your hand. For each Silver so trashed, gain +2 cards and +$2.
Trash this card.
I was playing around with the idea of a card that let you successfully transition from a silver-heavy early-game into a late-game deck where Silver is a liability. I think this concept has something going for it, though it'd need some playing around with to get the balance straight. My concept was, in a few turns, burn all of the Silver in your deck into, say, Golds or high cost Actions or whatever.
-
I think the most likely Silver boosters would be:
1) a Silversmith (Each Silver produces $1 more, probably with some other bonus too)
2) a Victory card which is variable based on the number of Treasure cards in your deck.
The first may happen, the second is almost certain to IMO.
-
All this speculation about themes and cards, and none at all about the most important question: What color is the box going to be?
-
2) a Victory card which is variable based on the number of Treasure cards in your deck.
I could see this, but it's not Silver-specific at all. What I don't see is anything that specifically says "This card is good if you have Silver, and only Silver. Really, I only mean cards that say 'Silver' on the title line. Don't have any yet? Well maybe you should buy some. Sssiiillllllverrrrrrrr."
-
2) a Victory card which is variable based on the number of Treasure cards in your deck.
I could see this, but it's not Silver-specific at all. What I don't see is anything that specifically says "This card is good if you have Silver, and only Silver. Really, I only mean cards that say 'Silver' on the title line. Don't have any yet? Well maybe you should buy some. Sssiiillllllverrrrrrrr."
Just because it's not Silver-specific doesn't mean it wouldn't be an incentive to buy some Silver all the same.
-
Just because it's not Silver-specific doesn't mean it wouldn't be an incentive to buy some Silver all the same.
It's not a "silver booster" any more than Bank is a "silver booster", and the topic of discussion with respect to "silver boosters" was whether there might be upcoming cards that specifically name "Silver" and give some bonus related to it. If you were changing the subject, well, that's OK I guess.
-
Dice. Hinterlands is the dice expansion.
Is this confirmed? My first impression is that I don't like this idea. Obviously I need to see some of the cards to create my opinion, we'll see.
I think I could see this being good if the dice had only had 2 or 3 options.
I guess it's the same way I feel about tribute, it can be very good, but it can be very bad as well(+4 actions with no actions in hand).
-
No, it hasn't been confirmed, and I'm pretty sure it was either a) a wild guess; or b) a joke. I'd be shocked if this were 'the dice expansion', as I don't think there WILL be a dice expansion - maybe a dice spin-off
-
No, it hasn't been confirmed, and I'm pretty sure it was either a) a wild guess; or b) a joke. I'd be shocked if this were 'the dice expansion', as I don't think there WILL be a dice expansion - maybe a dice spin-off
Ah, yes it is the gossip thread after all :P. I just had a feeling that from the confirmations that Donald was doing that it was a legitimate post.
Back to guessing themes/cards!
-
2) a Victory card which is variable based on the number of Treasure cards in your deck.
I could see this, but it's not Silver-specific at all. What I don't see is anything that specifically says "This card is good if you have Silver, and only Silver. Really, I only mean cards that say 'Silver' on the title line. Don't have any yet? Well maybe you should buy some. Sssiiillllllverrrrrrrr."
I think a victory card which depends on the number of silvers in your deck is somewhat more likely than one that depends on the number of treasure cards in general in your deck. I mean man, people already have plenty of incentive to buy lots of gold; they don't need a special victory card to tell them to do that.
-
I think a victory card which depends on the number of silvers in your deck
Just try to imagine how boring this card would be.
I would, but my imagination just isn't big enough.
-
I think a victory card which depends on the number of silvers in your deck is somewhat more likely than one that depends on the number of treasure cards in general in your deck. I mean man, people already have plenty of incentive to buy lots of gold; they don't need a special victory card to tell them to do that.
Not always... I've played plenty of winning games where Gold wasn't necessary, and some games that ended with the winner having no treasure at all. The only problem I see with a Victory Card that counts the treasure in your deck is that it's interactions with some cards would be absolutely INSANE, but if we can have University/Vineyard I guess we can have Hoard/???.
The thing is, though, if we were going to get a VC that makes your number of treasures matter, wouldn't it have been in Prosperity?
-
I have a much higher win rate without gold (1.45) than with gold (1.31). Effect with: -1.03. Effect without: 2.19.
Disclaimer: I am not suggesting we draw any conclusions from this bizarre fact!
-
guided, I wonder if the cause of that may be that you do perform better than your average while playing decks that don't use treasure?
-
guided's "bizarre fact" is actually not that bizarre:
| Player | Effect with | Effect w/out |
| Dstern | -0.67 | 1.01 |
| Larry | -2.19 | 3.80 |
| Obi Wan Bonogi | -0.66 | 1.55 |
| drg | 0.06 | -0.19 |
| Captain_Frisk | -0.72 | 1.66 |
| tat | -0.77 | 1.33 |
| Celicath | -0.79 | 1.10 |
| theory | 0.48 | -1.17 |
| natchez | -0.4 | 0.45 |
| Blooki | -0.41 | 0.60 |
...which suggests that most top players do better than average relative to their opponents, playing strategies that do not involve gold.
-
Just because it's not Silver-specific doesn't mean it wouldn't be an incentive to buy some Silver all the same.
It's not a "silver booster" any more than Bank is a "silver booster", and the topic of discussion with respect to "silver boosters" was whether there might be upcoming cards that specifically name "Silver" and give some bonus related to it. If you were changing the subject, well, that's OK I guess.
Well, I thought the subject was more along the lines of "cards that make Silver-based strategies better" rather than the narrower "cards that specifically mention Silver". And I wasn't the only one- it isn't any less of a "silver booster" than the card people were talking about that trashes any old Treasure for benefit!
I mention it here because its practical implication would likely end up being more pro-Silver than pro-Copper or pro-Gold- assume this card costs 5 or 6: if you're going for it, you don't need Gold as much as you might for a Province strategy, but it's still too expensive to buy with a deck full of Coppers. Ergo, it would greatly boost strategies such as B-crat and Explorer, which can get to 5 or 6 with regularity while bloating your deck with... Silver. Though sure, it's also great with Hoard. That's a much different beast than Bank, which seems to me much more dependent on things like +Card and +Buy for maximum effect*.
...
Also, I do much better when I can avoid Gold as well; and frankly I'd expect the same of most high-level players.
* My pet theory regarding Bank: Venture is to Adventurer as Bank is to Coppersmith.
-
guided's "bizarre fact" is actually not that bizarre:
| Player | Effect with | Effect w/out |
| Dstern | -0.67 | 1.01 |
| Larry | -2.19 | 3.80 |
| Obi Wan Bonogi | -0.66 | 1.55 |
| drg | 0.06 | -0.19 |
| Captain_Frisk | -0.72 | 1.66 |
| tat | -0.77 | 1.33 |
| Celicath | -0.79 | 1.10 |
| theory | 0.48 | -1.17 |
| natchez | -0.4 | 0.45 |
| Blooki | -0.41 | 0.60 |
...which suggests that most top players do better than average relative to their opponents, playing strategies that do not involve gold.
Yeah, same thing applies for colonies and provinces I believe... you buy them no matter what (win or lose)... and when you aren't, you're doing something nifty (hopefully winning)
-
Here are my stats on this
Card Effect With Effect Without
Platinum -3.71 0.45
Gold -0.81 1.64
Silver -0.04 -1.03
Copper 4.15 -2.00
Colony -3.71 0.90
Province -0.85 2.71
Duchy -0.93 2.18
Estate -0.32 0.11
Curse 0.95 -0.45
And I'm considered a fairly extreme big money player amongst higher-levelers.
-
Good players have big 'effect without' stats on victory cards as they win by depleting three piles.
I consider the effect with/without stats to be generally unreliable anyway as they're dictated by not only how you play the card, but by the nature of the card and how everyone else plays it. The win rate without silver is surprisingly high overall so all the good players are probably going to have big minus for 'effect without' silver. It doesn't say anything about how they play with silver.
-
Good players have big 'effect without' stats on victory cards as they win by depleting three piles.
I consider the effect with/without stats to be generally unreliable anyway as they're dictated by not only how you play the card, but by the nature of the card and how everyone else plays it. The win rate without silver is surprisingly high overall so all the good players are probably going to have big minus for 'effect without' silver. It doesn't say anything about how they play with silver.
The effect with/out takes into consideration both your overall win percentage and the population's specific win percentage in determining what it thinks your specific win percentage for a card should be. It then states the number of standard deviations different from that calculated amount that your results have been. Your average (geometric perhaps, but some sort of average) Effect should be 0 for both, regardless of your win percentage.
-
The effect with/out takes into consideration both your overall win percentage and the population's specific win percentage in determining what it thinks your specific win percentage for a card should be. It then states the number of standard deviations different from that calculated amount that your results have been. Your average (geometric perhaps, but some sort of average) Effect should be 0 for both, regardless of your win percentage.
Whatever that means, it doesn't happen.
-
Good players have big 'effect without' stats on victory cards as they win by depleting three piles.
I consider the effect with/without stats to be generally unreliable anyway as they're dictated by not only how you play the card, but by the nature of the card and how everyone else plays it. The win rate without silver is surprisingly high overall so all the good players are probably going to have big minus for 'effect without' silver. It doesn't say anything about how they play with silver.
The effect with/out takes into consideration both your overall win percentage and the population's specific win percentage in determining what it thinks your specific win percentage for a card should be. It then states the number of standard deviations different from that calculated amount that your results have been. Your average (geometric perhaps, but some sort of average) Effect should be 0 for both, regardless of your win percentage.
Essentially effect with takes your win percentage when you buy that card, then subtracts your overall win percentage, and divides by the standard deviation, then does the same for the overall group of players, then it subtracts those two results. Effect without is the same, except for games where that card was available and you did NOT buy it. So you really wouldn't expect these things to average out to 0 overall unless you played the cards relatively as well as the isotropic population as a whole. But that would mean you would have no strong or weak cards compared to the average player, which is a bit outlandish.
-
Witch Doctor
Action - Attack
Cost: 5
+1 Action
Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Put the revealed Curses into your hand. Put the other cards on top of your deck in any order.
Every other player gains a Curse.
Here's another version:
Witch Doctor
Action - Attack
Cost: $6
"+2 Cards
Choose One: trash any number of curses from your hand, gaining 1 VP [token] per curse trashed, OR each other player gains a curse and returns 1 VP [token] to the supply."
I think this card is interesting by itself, but creates some very fun interactions both with cursers and with other VP token cards. Thematically, I like the idea of a card that can dish out curses and get rid of them - hence Witch Doctor.
-
Good players have big 'effect without' stats on victory cards as they win by depleting three piles.
I consider the effect with/without stats to be generally unreliable anyway as they're dictated by not only how you play the card, but by the nature of the card and how everyone else plays it. The win rate without silver is surprisingly high overall so all the good players are probably going to have big minus for 'effect without' silver. It doesn't say anything about how they play with silver.
The effect with/out takes into consideration both your overall win percentage and the population's specific win percentage in determining what it thinks your specific win percentage for a card should be. It then states the number of standard deviations different from that calculated amount that your results have been. Your average (geometric perhaps, but some sort of average) Effect should be 0 for both, regardless of your win percentage.
Geometric average is the squareroot of the product. So m=sqrt(a*b). This won't be zero unless a or b is zero, and is not really a good idea if one of the factors might be negativ. Unless you want to have imaginary means.
I guess what should be zero (if at all) is some weighted average, where the weights are the standarddeviations on winrate with/wo, as the effect with/wo are somehow scaled with the standarddeviation.
-
Essentially effect with takes your win percentage when you buy that card, then subtracts your overall win percentage, and divides by the standard deviation, then does the same for the overall group of players, then it subtracts those two results. Effect without is the same, except for games where that card was available and you did NOT buy it. So you really wouldn't expect these things to average out to 0 overall unless you played the cards relatively as well as the isotropic population as a whole. But that would mean you would have no strong or weak cards compared to the average player, which is a bit outlandish.
I don't expect it to be zero by any sort of calculable average, I meant in the sense that you'll always have cards you play better and cards you play worse. I suppose I stated it a bit more forcefully than I meant. Because all the stats boil down to when you win or lose, there should be balance between positive and negative Effects of the same type. You can't do better (or worse) than expected with every single card, because then you'd just have done better overall.
And I certainly didn't mean to say that a card's Effect With was related in any way to its Effect Without, which I feel as though I might have been interpreted as meaning; I meant that if there are some positive Effects, there have to be negatives of the same type.
-
Yes, I think that the way everyone was reading you was that you were saying that for any given player and card, the average effect with and without that card is 0. Whereas what you meant to say (and correctly so) is that if you take every card for a given player, that player's effect with across every card should average out to 0, and the same with the effect without.
-
The set has been officially announced.
http://www.riograndegames.com/games.html?id=396
-
3 reactions wut.
-
The central theme is cards that do something immediately when you buy them or gain them.
You mean immediately in the sense of at least faster compared to other cards that do something at first at the next turn?
@Thisisnotasmile: Maybe they don't react on attacks, but on buys? Including their own...
-
Possibly. I'm just surprised to see the jump from roughly 1 reaction per expansion to 3. That's quite significant. And I guess the "do something immediately" implies that we're going to be getting more cards similar to Mint.
Also, "26 new Kingdom cards to Dominion, including 20 Actions, 3 Treasures, 3 Victory cards, and 3 Reactions. The central theme is cards that do something" implies three more dual-type cards, or maybe even a triple-type card or two.
-
The game descriptions sounds like it was written during a party with some friends and some more wine. Very simpatico. *g*
Btw: Is there sth. missing or does this just sort of match the overall babble of the text?
But in a big world like this one - big when compared to smaller worlds anyway, if such things exist;
-
It reminds me of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
I was imagine cards that say things like "when you buy this card, draw two cards" or something. It would certainly be a new mechanic. And some.. unusual interactions with Ironworks/Bridge I imagine.
-
Also, "26 new Kingdom cards to Dominion, including 20 Actions, 3 Treasures, 3 Victory cards, and 3 Reactions. The central theme is cards that do something" implies three more dual-type cards, or maybe even a triple-type card or two.
I was thinking that too, but then I thought 20 Actions (including 3 Action-Reaction) + 3 Victory + 3 Treasure = 26.
-
Drawing cards in the buy phase does not make any sense to me (or am I missing something apart from Black Market?).
In fact I could imaging cards that give you virtual money or +buys, when you buy them. But they would have to be really bad when you draw them.
-
Oh yeah. So 20 Actions, 3 Treasures and 3 Victory. 3 Of which are also Reactions, but I don't think we can assume that they will all be Action-Reaction type cards.
-
I could imagine some quite expensive Victory card (like $5) that gives you just 1 VP but hands out 1 curse to each opponent when you buy it. Or any other action that attacks other players in some way when bought.
-
WOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
I'd like to see a treasure-reaction or a victory-reaction.
-
Lots of ideas.
"When you gain this card, every other player gains a curse"
"When you gain this card, you may trash a card from your hand"
"When you gain this card, +1 VP token" (unlikely)
"WYGTC, you may put it on top of your deck"
"WYGTC, you may gain (a silver)(another copy of this card)(an estate)(a duchy)"
Reactions
"When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, set this aside on the table. At the beginning of your next hand +2 cards and discard this card." (or many similar things) - incidentally, this could be your first just reaction that's not also an action. Conceivably you could also have victory-reactions or treasure-reactions.
"When an opponent plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a card costing up to $4 and discard this card"
I'm thinking these cards may have pretty big impacts on the very first two turns. I mean, whatever you do on turn one might actually impact turn 2. That's pretty crazy.
I'm actually most intrigued by the 3 victory cards. That's quite a few, and victory and this theme don't obviously go together to me.
-
A possible workaday effect: "When you gain this card, +2 Buys"
-
Three Piler
Action - $2
When you buy this, +1 Buy and all cards cost $2 less, but not less than $0.
-
Three Piler
Action - $2
When you buy this, +1 Buy and all cards cost $2 less, but not less than $0.
Recursive!
Buy Three Piler -> You have still 1 buy and everything costs $2 less, especially Three Piler Costs $0, so buy some more Three Piler for free and buy whatever you want.
-
I suspect that some of these on-purchase effects could be quite strong, since they are one-time events. On the the other hand, none of the cheap cards are likely to have escalating effects or else they could be exploited too easily with a talisman, bridge, or ironworks.
-
A while back, Donald mentioned he had a one-shot themed set for a while, but "people" didn't like it, because they like to keep the cards they buy. I wonder if this is a way to keep the one-shot idea while still letting people keep their purchases.
-
I know it gets mixed reactions but I just have to say I love the game descriptions and this one is probably my favorite yet.
-
I know it gets mixed reactions but I just have to say I love the game descriptions and this one is probably my favorite yet.
I'm going to have to weigh in with a negative reaction to ensure that the reaction to the game descriptions is indeed mixed. Good thing that I only need to hear about it while waiting for the set to come out.
-
I normally love the game descriptions (Prosperity was my favorite) but this one isn't quite up to Donald's usual standards IMO.
Hopefully the cards will be, though!
-
My reaction to the description text is mixed, at least compared with other mixed reactions; it's slightly more positive compared to chwhite's, and maybe a bit less positive compared to jonts's.
/to get the obvious joke out of the way.
-
Tell us what you think
Reaction - $2
When you read the description text for Dominion: Hinterlands, reaveal this card from your hand and tell everybody what you think about the description text, at least when compared to other description texts.
-
Tell us what you think
Reaction - $2
When you read the description text for Dominion: Hinterlands, reaveal this card from your hand buy this card, tell everybody what you think about the description text, at least when compared to other description texts.
/also obvious.
-
"WYGTC, you may gain (a silver)(another copy of this card)(an estate)(a duchy)"
That seems problematic...
-
"WYGTC, you may gain (a silver)(another copy of this card)(an estate)(a duchy)"
That seems problematic...
"When it is possible to buy this card, the game ends when any two card supplies have been depleted."
-
Yep. I clearly wasn't thinking that through. I want the talisman effect, but you either need to make it buy, or put in a clause that makes it trigger only once per 'natural' gain.
-
Oh yeah. So 20 Actions, 3 Treasures and 3 Victory. 3 Of which are also Reactions, but I don't think we can assume that they will all be Action-Reaction type cards.
It seems like the wording is intentionally ambiguous, which suggests to me that we will see some new dual-type like Treasure-Reaction or Victory-Reaction.
Coincidentally, one of my earliest card ideas was for a Treasure-Reaction called Bribe (I know others have used that title for their own card ideas). The idea was to have a weak treasure that you can choose to give to an attacking player in exchange for avoiding the effects of the attack. I like the idea because it gives the attacking player a one-time benefit (he gets to put the bribe card right into his hand to play during his buy phase) for playing the attack card, but in the long run has the potential to slow him down by adding what amounts to a copper to his deck.
The card had problems--the most obvious of which is that nobody wants to buy a copper just for the chance to avoid one attack. But if the treasure was worth much (even $2 perhaps), then it wouldn't have the desired effect of diluting the attacker's deck. So in order to induce people to buy the Bribe, it had to provide some benefit when you buy it, but not later on when you had it in your hand. I tried lots of different when-you-buy benefits but didn't like any of them and eventually gave up on the card. And now here comes a set of cards with when-you-buy benefits as the dominant theme and which possibly includes a Treasure-Reaction. I'm eager to see what Donald came up with, and if Bribe was anywhere in the ballpark.
-
I'll duplicate the gist of my BGG commentary:
-Unless there are single-type reactions, then the only dual-type cards (among the Action/Treasure/Victory/Reaction types) are the Reaction cards.
-But maybe there are single-type reactions! They could give some on-gain benefit and then react to something that happens all the time (like Watchtower's reaction effect).
-In any case, I'm hoping for at least one Reaction/Treasure or Reaction/Victory card.
-
I just checked and the Seaside and Prosperity texts don't seem to mention anything about components, so it's possible that this set will have some components (perhaps tokens, as we've seen for Pirate Ship, Trade Route, Embargo, and the VP tokens)?
-
I just checked and the Seaside and Prosperity texts don't seem to mention anything about components, so it's possible that this set will have some components (perhaps tokens, as we've seen for Pirate Ship, Trade Route, Embargo, and the VP tokens)?
Hinterlands has no tokens or mats or anything, just cards, and thus the MSRP is $5 less than for those other sets.
-
Hinterlands has no tokens or mats or anything, just cards, and thus the MSRP is $5 less than for those other sets.
I guess that rules out all the 'when you gain this card, +n VP tokens' ideas.
-
Oh yeah. So 20 Actions, 3 Treasures and 3 Victory. 3 Of which are also Reactions, but I don't think we can assume that they will all be Action-Reaction type cards.
It seems like the wording is intentionally ambiguous, which suggests to me that we will see some new dual-type like Treasure-Reaction or Victory-Reaction.
Coincidentally, one of my earliest card ideas was for a Treasure-Reaction called Bribe (I know others have used that title for their own card ideas). The idea was to have a weak treasure that you can choose to give to an attacking player in exchange for avoiding the effects of the attack. I like the idea because it gives the attacking player a one-time benefit (he gets to put the bribe card right into his hand to play during his buy phase) for playing the attack card, but in the long run has the potential to slow him down by adding what amounts to a copper to his deck.
The card had problems--the most obvious of which is that nobody wants to buy a copper just for the chance to avoid one attack. But if the treasure was worth much (even $2 perhaps), then it wouldn't have the desired effect of diluting the attacker's deck. So in order to induce people to buy the Bribe, it had to provide some benefit when you buy it, but not later on when you had it in your hand. I tried lots of different when-you-buy benefits but didn't like any of them and eventually gave up on the card. And now here comes a set of cards with when-you-buy benefits as the dominant theme and which possibly includes a Treasure-Reaction. I'm eager to see what Donald came up with, and if Bribe was anywhere in the ballpark.
Hrm, for your consideration:
Bribe, $4, Treasure/Reaction
Big $2
----
When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this card. If you do, you are unaffected by the attack, and your attacker gains +$2.
--
I don't think it should dilute the opponent's deck, as that is--again--an attack reflection, something Donald has said time and again "no" to, vociferously.
-
I don't think it should dilute the opponent's deck, as that is--again--an attack reflection, something Donald has said time and again "no" to, vociferously.
I appreciate the feedback, but Bribe is not even close to an attack reflection. The card was specifically designed to avoid the problems inherent in such reactions. It provides the attacker an immediate benefit, but with potential long-term downside. Because you have to give up the card to use the reaction, you would likely choose to suffer most attacks and use the reaction only to protect what seems likely to be an excellent next turn. And of course, if you also play attack cards, there is a chance that the Bribe could end up back in your deck in the future. This is not nearly as imbalanced and attack-discouraging as a simple reflect reaction.
-
I have an idea for a Treasure/Reaction Card:
Big $2
__________
When another player plays an attack, you may reveal this card.
If you do, play it and +1 Card.
This stays in play until the end of your next turn.
hm, having 5 of them in your hand would be a bit imbalanced.
-
Big $2
----
When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this card. If you do, you are unaffected by the attack, and your attacker gains +$2.
Under most circumstances, I would not give my opponent a free $2 just to protect myself from their attack. Can you imagine it in a 4-player game? Free Provinces for the attacker!
Big $2
__________
When another player plays an attack, you may reveal this card.
If you do, play it and +1 Card.
This stays in play until the end of your next turn.
So, the idea is that you get the $2 benefit of the card on your next turn? I don't think the rules define what happens when you play a Treasure card any other time than during your own buy phase.
-
Big $2
__________
When another player plays an attack, you may reveal this card.
If you do, play it and +1 Card.
This stays in play until the end of your next turn.
So, the idea is that you get the $2 benefit of the card on your next turn? I don't think the rules define what happens when you play a Treasure card any other time than during your own buy phase.
I'm sure it would be covered in the FAQ for the card, and I'm also pretty sure it would work exactly like when you play Treasure cards during your action phase because of Black Market... Only a little bit earlier.
-
Big $2
----
When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this card. If you do, you are unaffected by the attack, and your attacker gains +$2.
Under most circumstances, I would not give my opponent a free $2 just to protect myself from their attack. Can you imagine it in a 4-player game? Free Provinces for the attacker!
There is another potential scaling problem from multiple reveals (say it's a 3-player game with one province left, you have a narrow lead over player 3 and player 2 is far behind, and player 2 plays an attack card--you could help him buy the last province by revealing this multiple times) and from a player who plays multiple attacks (you wouldn't want to let someone get +$8 just by playing four torturers).
-
Big $2
----
When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this card. If you do, you are unaffected by the attack, and your attacker gains +$2.
Under most circumstances, I would not give my opponent a free $2 just to protect myself from their attack. Can you imagine it in a 4-player game? Free Provinces for the attacker!
Oh wow, hadn't thought of that at all. Yeah. That would not work.
Big $2
__________
When another player plays an attack, you may reveal this card.
If you do, play it and +1 Card.
This stays in play until the end of your next turn.
So, the idea is that you get the $2 benefit of the card on your next turn? I don't think the rules define what happens when you play a Treasure card any other time than during your own buy phase.
Why not just use the set-aside mechanic from Horse Traders?
-
Big $2
__________
When another player plays an attack, you may reveal this card.
If you do, play it and +1 Card.
This stays in play until the end of your next turn.
So, the idea is that you get the $2 benefit of the card on your next turn? I don't think the rules define what happens when you play a Treasure card any other time than during your own buy phase.
Why not just use the set-aside mechanic from Horse Traders?
That would work, but I'd rather they not reuse the same reaction mechanics from earlier cards, even if the non-reaction part of the card is different.
-
Oh, I didn't think about a card being in my play making money for my opponent. I just thought, you play it in front of you so you have the benefit of +1 Card now and money on your next turn...
when thinking about it, it is just too near the Horse Traders.
-
Occasionally my friends and I play Dominion with the silliest setups. "All Victory Cards", "All Durations", "All Alchemy", and so on. All of these setups are quite terrible.
I look forward to the "All Reactions" game we can play 8)
-
How about something like this:
Forbidden Land (Victory Card)
Cost: $5
2 VP
----
When you buy this card, each player gains a curse card.
--
Hold onto your watchtowers!
-
How about something like this:
Forbidden Land (Victory Card)
Cost: $5
2 VP
----
When you buy this card, each player gains a curse card.
--
Hold onto your watchtowers!
Seems like that would want to be priced at $6. (Logic: Duchy costs $5 and gives you +3 VP. This card gives you an expected +3 VP swing, and also dilutes your opponents' decks, so it is mostly superior to Duchy).
Alternately, it could be worth 1 VP instead of 2.
-
Except that the curses may be out when you turn to green, which is really when you want to be buying duchies. If you made it worth 1 VP, it's not that appealing - I mean, it dilutes your deck just as much as it does theirs, plus you wasted a primo $5 buy, all for a 2VP swing? Heck, I don't think I'd even want it too often at $4.
Or to be more on theme with the land being forbidden...
Forbidden Land (Victory)
Cost: $6
5 VP
WYGTC, gain a curse.
-
Except that the curses may be out when you turn to green, which is really when you want to be buying duchies.
Sure. But, then... just don't buy it. I mean, you won't buy it when Curses are depleted if it costs $5, either, so why not make it cost $6 for when it's actually superior to Duchies, and in the (rarer) cases where it is inferior to Duchies, let people buy Duchies.
If you made it worth 1 VP, it's not that appealing - I mean, it dilutes your deck just as much as it does theirs, plus you wasted a primo $5 buy, all for a 2VP swing? Heck, I don't think I'd even want it too often at $4.
Then go with the $6 2 VP version instead of the $5 1 VP cost, I'm easy. I'm just saying, it shouldn't be strictly-superior-to-Duchy-unless-your-opponent-is-holding-Watchtower-or-Curses-are-deleted. Witch is strictly inferior to Smithy when Curses are depleted, that doesn't mean the correct cost for Witch is $3.
-
Occasionally my friends and I play Dominion with the silliest setups. "All Victory Cards", "All Durations", "All Alchemy", and so on. All of these setups are quite terrible.
I look forward to the "All Reactions" game we can play 8)
I wonder if BMU + Moat is better than BMU...
-
Except that the curses may be out when you turn to green, which is really when you want to be buying duchies.
Sure. But, then... just don't buy it. I mean, you won't buy it when Curses are depleted if it costs $5, either, so why not make it cost $6 for when it's actually superior to Duchies, and in the (rarer) cases where it is inferior to Duchies, let people buy Duchies.
If you made it worth 1 VP, it's not that appealing - I mean, it dilutes your deck just as much as it does theirs, plus you wasted a primo $5 buy, all for a 2VP swing? Heck, I don't think I'd even want it too often at $4.
Then go with the $6 2 VP version instead of the $5 1 VP cost, I'm easy. I'm just saying, it shouldn't be strictly-superior-to-Duchy-unless-your-opponent-is-holding-Watchtower-or-Curses-are-deleted. Witch is strictly inferior to Smithy when Curses are depleted, that doesn't mean the correct cost for Witch is $3.
Sure, I don't disagree, I just don't think the $6 2 VP version will get bought very often at all either, especially in a way that's different from just buying a duchy basically at all. I just don't think I'd print such a card, given what else is established.
-
Occasionally my friends and I play Dominion with the silliest setups. "All Victory Cards", "All Durations", "All Alchemy", and so on. All of these setups are quite terrible.
I look forward to the "All Reactions" game we can play 8)
I wonder if BMU + Moat is better than BMU...
It is, if you buy the moats at the right time. That is, for instance, if you hit $2 early. Also at some point if you don't rather than a silver for like 1 moat's worth. But don't hold your breath.
-
Sure, I don't disagree, I just don't think the $6 2 VP version will get bought very often at all either, especially in a way that's different from just buying a duchy basically at all. I just don't think I'd print such a card, given what else is established.
I can agree with that. Is there a way to jazz it up a little, make it more worthwhile? "$6. 5 VP. WYGTC, all players, including you, gain a Curse."
It creates a 4 point VP swing instead of a 3, slows you down more, slows your opponents down, but is a good buy rather than a bad one when Curses are depleted.
-
Here's an uber-wacky possibility for a Reaction-only card (no, it's not an action!) that's mostly an effort to fix the idea of a one-shot Chapel (which apparently was tried but didn't work) but also inspired a little bit by Trade Route and Horse Traders:
Pilgrimage
$4
Reaction
When you buy this card, trash up to four cards from your hand.
When you gain or trash a card, you may reveal Pilgrimage and set it aside. During your buy phase, you may choose to discard all your set-aside Pilgrimages for +1 Buy and +$1 per Pilgrimage.
...
No idea if it's balanced.
-
Sure, I don't disagree, I just don't think the $6 2 VP version will get bought very often at all either, especially in a way that's different from just buying a duchy basically at all. I just don't think I'd print such a card, given what else is established.
I can agree with that. Is there a way to jazz it up a little, make it more worthwhile? "$6. 5 VP. WYGTC, all players, including you, gain a Curse."
It creates a 4 point VP swing instead of a 3, slows you down more, slows your opponents down, but is a good buy rather than a bad one when Curses are depleted.
Possible. I think it's probably a little too good, obv. based on what I proposed above. But this is a different dynamic than that, and probably both could show up somewhere on the ladder in a balanced fashion. It would take playtesting to work out where this balance is.
-
Here's an uber-wacky possibility for a Reaction-only card (no, it's not an action!) that's mostly an effort to fix the idea of a one-shot Chapel (which apparently was tried but didn't work) but also inspired a little bit by Trade Route and Horse Traders:
Pilgrimage
$4
Reaction
When you buy this card, trash up to four cards from your hand.
When you gain or trash a card, you may reveal Pilgrimage and set it aside. During your buy phase, you may choose to discard all your set-aside Pilgrimages for +1 Buy and +$1 per Pilgrimage.
...
No idea if it's balanced.
Don't think this works as you intend as it's currently worded because you have to play your coppers to buy this thing, and then they aren't in your hand anymore. But maybe that is what you intended? Also, I'd guess that it's super broken because if you don't use them immediately, nothing bad happens to you, so you just let them hang out there until your late-game super-mega turn and then really rake.
-
Sure, I don't disagree, I just don't think the $6 2 VP version will get bought very often at all either, especially in a way that's different from just buying a duchy basically at all. I just don't think I'd print such a card, given what else is established.
I can agree with that. Is there a way to jazz it up a little, make it more worthwhile? "$6. 5 VP. WYGTC, all players, including you, gain a Curse."
It creates a 4 point VP swing instead of a 3, slows you down more, slows your opponents down, but is a good buy rather than a bad one when Curses are depleted.
This is actually in line with what I was thinking earlier, and what I think I actually wrote: each player (i.e., including you) gains a curse card. I can't actually think of any other times when any card automatically gives you a curse. Seems like fodder for card development, if you asked me. @WanderingWinder - I think you're right. It would definitely require some playtesting to work out the balance of price, VPs, and curse cards, but I think there is a balance in there somewhere.
-
Here's an uber-wacky possibility for a Reaction-only card (no, it's not an action!) that's mostly an effort to fix the idea of a one-shot Chapel (which apparently was tried but didn't work) but also inspired a little bit by Trade Route and Horse Traders:
Pilgrimage
$4
Reaction
When you buy this card, trash up to four cards from your hand.
When you gain or trash a card, you may reveal Pilgrimage and set it aside. During your buy phase, you may choose to discard all your set-aside Pilgrimages for +1 Buy and +$1 per Pilgrimage.
...
No idea if it's balanced.
Don't think this works as you intend as it's currently worded because you have to play your coppers to buy this thing, and then they aren't in your hand anymore. But maybe that is what you intended? Also, I'd guess that it's super broken because if you don't use them immediately, nothing bad happens to you, so you just let them hang out there until your late-game super-mega turn and then really rake.
Yes, that is what I intended. The idea is that its trashing power is actually pretty weak in the opening turns, and is best in the midgame, say if you have something like Militia-Silver-Copper-Estate-Estate. I don't know if that's the right way to do a card like this, it's probably not, but at least theoretically I like how it provides a contrast to Mint (which gets rid of cards in play instead).
And, yeah, of course the best way to use them would be to buy a few and save up for a megaturn. But I don't see how that would be "super-broken"- they're only worth a Copper each (okay, the first one's actually worth an Herbalist); I don't see how that's much more powerful than a big Native Village mat.
-
Okay, maybe not super-broken, but they work exceptionally well with a number of strategies - bridge, Goons, conspirator chains, Bank, any number of things that can produce mega mega coins. And since they don't take actions to play, that makes them significantly better than many many other sources of buy. I still have mega doubts, but okay, it would take testing.
-
Funny card I came up with that would fit the Hinterlands theme:
Fool's Gold
$1
Treasure
Worth $0
When you buy this card, place it on top of your opponent's deck. (If you have more than one opponent, place it on the deck of your choice)
---
I have always wished there was an alternative to Curse, and something akin to this would be amusing. The basic appeal would be that it's cheap to purchase (for turns when you have crappy hands) but it can also interrupt your opponent in the right situation. With +Buys it might be a little ridiculous though. I haven't tested it (Only played Dominion on Isotropic) but the idea intrigues me.
-
While I like the idea of stalling your opponent somehow with something other than curses, I have a few issues with the card as proposed. First there's the issue of having a card that costs $1 - I think there should never be such a card, since it would be such a hot seller with cards like remake, upgrade, and bridge relatively early in the game. Poof - there goes one pile and only two more need to go before the game's over. I also think it's a little too powerful to cost only $1. I think it's probably more in the $2-3 range in terms of value. Plus it is effectively one of those one-hitter cards Donald has said don't sell well with his co-developers.
I do like the idea of a treasure that curses your opponents though. Maybe something like this:
Spoils
Treasure Card
Cost: $4
Worth $2
When you buy this card, one opponent of your choosing gains a curse card.
What do you think?
-
Targeted attacks aren't gonna fly.
-
When you buy this card, one opponent of your choosing gains a curse card.
I think Donald avoided attacks that single out opponents, just to stop politics from interfering with the game. Very wise I think.
-
I hear that. Would upping the price to $5 but changing it so that all other players gain a curse balance it out?
-
Well, you'd need to up it to 5 anyway, as silver-plus-a-benefit basically doesn't make for fun games at $4 (Donald has said this too), as silver is supposed to often be a competing factor at the $4 price point. Also, making it all other players instead of one of your choice doesn't really mess with the power level - it's the same in 2p, and in multiplayer, your original is awkwardly weird.
I think that that probably wouldn't be too strong at $5, but it does compare rather favourably with Royal Seal and Stash.
-
You think it compares that favorably, eh?
That actually raises another question I had been thinking about when I saw the description of the new expansion set. How important/powerful do we really think these when-you-buy-it, one-time effects will be? In particular, how much more should a card cost if it has one additional relatively minor benefit (like "all other players gain a curse card")? In my mind, the Spoils card I proposed is just about on level with Stash or Royal Seal because the somewhat lesser benefits of a Royal Seal, for example, can be experienced regularly throughout the remainder of the game. The one-time cursing is just a one-time cursing.
-
There's no question in my mind. Really, how often do you get to use a Royal Seal's ability (sometimes you want to buy provinces with it...)? 3 times? Giving a curse is much better than getting an extra play out of a gold or something, I think almost certainly more than twice as good. The more times you can use that Seal, the more times that curse is annoying your opponent, clogging his deck.
-
Playing with the concept of a small, poor, sentinel border estate:
Frontier
Victory - Reaction
1 VP
When your opponent plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do so, set aside this card. At the beginning of your next turn, for every card set aside this way, +1 Card +$1, and then discard the card set aside.
Wording probably needs work.
-
While I like the idea of stalling your opponent somehow with something other than curses, I have a few issues with the card as proposed. First there's the issue of having a card that costs $1 - I think there should never be such a card, since it would be such a hot seller with cards like remake, upgrade, and bridge relatively early in the game.
Actually, a $1 card would really weaken Upgrade and Remake. You want your coppers trashed and gone so your deck gets small, not turned into marginally-more-powerful cards that still leave your deck bloated.
-
While I like the idea of stalling your opponent somehow with something other than curses, I have a few issues with the card as proposed. First there's the issue of having a card that costs $1 - I think there should never be such a card, since it would be such a hot seller with cards like remake, upgrade, and bridge relatively early in the game.
Actually, a $1 card would really weaken Upgrade and Remake. You want your coppers trashed and gone so your deck gets small, not turned into marginally-more-powerful cards that still leave your deck bloated.
Right. The issue, though, is that with the $1 card as proposed, which you would then immediately drop in your opponent's deck, the upgrade and remake would still work just as well if not better. Not only would you be killing the coppers, but junk would end up in your opponent's deck on top of it. Seems too much to me.
In the general case, though, I agree with you about $1 cards hurting upgrades and remakes.
Playing with the concept of a small, poor, sentinel border estate:
Frontier
Victory - Reaction
1 VP
When your opponent plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do so, set aside this card. At the beginning of your next turn, for every card set aside this way, +1 Card +$1, and then discard the card set aside.
Wording probably needs work.
I like it.
-
While I like the idea of stalling your opponent somehow with something other than curses, I have a few issues with the card as proposed. First there's the issue of having a card that costs $1 - I think there should never be such a card, since it would be such a hot seller with cards like remake, upgrade, and bridge relatively early in the game.
Actually, a $1 card would really weaken Upgrade and Remake. You want your coppers trashed and gone so your deck gets small, not turned into marginally-more-powerful cards that still leave your deck bloated.
Right. The issue, though, is that with the $1 card as proposed, which you would then immediately drop in your opponent's deck, the upgrade and remake would still work just as well if not better. Not only would you be killing the coppers, but junk would end up in your opponent's deck on top of it. Seems too much to me.
In the general case, though, I agree with you about $1 cards hurting upgrades and remakes.
We're getting rather technical for a hypothetical card, but based on the wording of Fool's Gold ("when you buy this"), you - and not your opponent - would gain the Fool's Gold after Upgrading/Remaking a Copper.
-
Plus it shouldn't make you choose an opponent in a multiplayer game: no attack has so far, they affect all players the same.
I wonder if it would even work to have an "attack" that triggers when you buy/gain a card. Since you are not technically playing an attack, I don't think it would trigger reactions at all (unless there are new reactions that trigger specifically when another player buys/gains a card). I'm not sure if it would be wise to create attacks that ignore every anti-attack card up to this point.
-
I wonder if it would even work to have an "attack" that triggers when you buy/gain a card. Since you are not technically playing an attack, I don't think it would trigger reactions at all (unless there are new reactions that trigger specifically when another player buys/gains a card). I'm not sure if it would be wise to create attacks that ignore every anti-attack card up to this point.
I would tend to agree, although it's not as bad as it sounds, since such an attack could only happen a maximum of ten times during the game. If the card isn't spammable, its attack aspect is probably no concern at all.
-
I wonder if it would even work to have an "attack" that triggers when you buy/gain a card. Since you are not technically playing an attack, I don't think it would trigger reactions at all (unless there are new reactions that trigger specifically when another player buys/gains a card). I'm not sure if it would be wise to create attacks that ignore every anti-attack card up to this point.
I would tend to agree, although it's not as bad as it sounds, since such an attack could only happen a maximum of ten times during the game. If the card isn't spammable, its attack aspect is probably no concern at all.
Ambassador begs to differ. That is a very edge case though.
-
First there's the issue of having a card that costs $1 - I think there should never be such a card
I don't know about this particular card, but in general I think there are so many Dominion cards by now, so it would be possible with a $1 card. Yes, it would be very atypical, and change a lot, but why not if it's only once in awhile you got a game like that. (Not so very long ago it seemed like there never would be a $7 card!)
-
First there's the issue of having a card that costs $1 - I think there should never be such a card
I don't know about this particular card, but in general I think there are so many Dominion cards by now, so it would be possible with a $1 card. Yes, it would be very atypical, and change a lot, but why not if it's only once in awhile you got a game like that. (Not so very long ago it seemed like there never would be a $7 card!)
The exact wording on Upgrade and Remake heavily suggests that there is absolutely never going to be a $1 cost card. If there ever was a card of such cost available, Upgrade and Remake would be severely weakened as it could no longer straight up trash Copper and Curses. As it is, you have to be careful with when to play Bridge so that you don't make yourself gain some crappy $2 when you upgrade Copper/Curse, but that's very rare.
-
First there's the issue of having a card that costs $1 - I think there should never be such a card
I don't know about this particular card, but in general I think there are so many Dominion cards by now, so it would be possible with a $1 card. Yes, it would be very atypical, and change a lot, but why not if it's only once in awhile you got a game like that. (Not so very long ago it seemed like there never would be a $7 card!)
The exact wording on Upgrade and Remake heavily suggests that there is absolutely never going to be a $1 cost card. If there ever was a card of such cost available, Upgrade and Remake would be severely weakened as it could no longer straight up trash Copper and Curses. As it is, you have to be careful with when to play Bridge so that you don't make yourself gain some crappy $2 when you upgrade Copper/Curse, but that's very rare.
I'm not sure what in the wording suggests this. The word "exactly"? But that's what emphasizes the difference from Remodel and Expand, which are "up to." In any case, I don't know why the wording is necessarily specific to $0 cards.
I think I remember Donald saying there wouldn't be a $1 card, so you're probably right. But I'm also reminded of his remarks about pre-Prosperity observations that it was important, from a gameplay perspective, not to have a $7 card. He disagreed, saying that if he made a $7 card, the majority of games still wouldn't have a $7 card -- so adding one wouldn't change or "break" anything in the majority of games, but it *would* make a set of games with their own flavor possible.
I would think having one or two $1 cards in the rotation would be very interesting. Upgrade and Remake remain unchanged for most games, but then in some games their behavior is changed. That's all in the spirit of Dominion, which is that every game has its own unique set of interactions to puzzle through.
-
I would think having one or two $1 cards in the rotation would be very interesting. Upgrade and Remake remain unchanged for most games, but then in some games their behavior is changed. That's all in the spirit of Dominion, which is that every game has its own unique set of interactions to puzzle through.
Exactly. That's why I stressed that the reason it could work is that there are so many cards by now so this wouldn't be usual. Speaking of Upgrade/Remake it's also true that usually you can't get Provinces from them, but in some games you can.
But how unusual it would be depends of course on what cards you have. If such a $1 card was in a 25 set expansion and you only had that expansion and Intrigue, then 18% of the games you played with Upgrade the $1 card would be there as well, which might be too often, so my argument "there are so many cards" really doesn't hold water since not everyone has many cards just because there are many cards.
So it could probably be fun, but isn't a good idea anyway.
But... I don't know if anyone has toyed with the idea of an Anti-Peddler; a card with a low printed cost but that usually costs more. The cost increase should not occur only during the buy phase so usually it would have a higher cost even when you're Upgrading etc. The printed cost of such a card could be $1, but probably it would be cleaner/better with $0. Once in a blue moon with clever play you could play in such a way that it costs $1 right when you're Remaking curses. Kudos to you!
-
I would think having one or two $1 cards in the rotation would be very interesting. Upgrade and Remake remain unchanged for most games, but then in some games their behavior is changed. That's all in the spirit of Dominion, which is that every game has its own unique set of interactions to puzzle through.
Exactly. That's why I stressed that the reason it could work is that there are so many cards by now so this wouldn't be usual. Speaking of Upgrade/Remake it's also true that usually you can't get Provinces from them, but in some games you can.
But how unusual it would be depends of course on what cards you have. If such a $1 card was in a 25 set expansion and you only had that expansion and Intrigue, then 18% of the games you played with Upgrade the $1 card would be there as well, which might be too often, so my argument "there are so many cards" really doesn't hold water since not everyone has many cards just because there are many cards.
So it could probably be fun, but isn't a good idea anyway.
But... I don't know if anyone has toyed with the idea of an Anti-Peddler; a card with a low printed cost but that usually costs more. The cost increase should not occur only during the buy phase so usually it would have a higher cost even when you're Upgrading etc. The printed cost of such a card could be $1, but probably it would be cleaner/better with $0. Once in a blue moon with clever play you could play in such a way that it costs $1 right when you're Remaking curses. Kudos to you!
Antipeddler
Action $0*
+1 Action
+1 Card
+1 Coin
This card cost $1 more per card you have in play.
Edit: Okay, that's going to be too good for workshop/ironworks etc
Antipeddler V2
Action $0*
+1 Action
+1 Card
+1 Coin
This card costs $2 more per card you have in you hand and $1 more per card you have in play.
(Even more crazy than Peddler)
Edit 2: Typo
-
Antipeddler
Action $0*
+1 Action
+1 Card
+1 Coin
This card cost $1 more per card you have in play.
Edit: Okay, that's going to be too good for workshop/ironworks etc
No, I think you're okay. A vanilla card offering +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$1 would probably cost around $4 (think of it as a Market without the +Buy, a Bazaar without one of the +Actions, a Treasury you can't reuse from turn to turn, or a Tournament in a game where nobody buys Provinces), which Workshop and Ironworks would be able to snap up anyway.
Interesting idea. Whereas Peddlers make it easier to buy Peddlers, this is just the opposite: buy enough Anti-Peddlers, and you'll likely have to purposely withhold them to buy more.
-
Vale
Victory-Reaction $6
2VP
When another player buys a Province, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, +$4 and return this to your hand.
Though the exact numbers are free to be fiddled with, I like the idea of this card. Quick thoughts about its impact:
- Useless in colony games, but it wouldn't be the only card like that, so I think it's okay.
- Could cause a chain reaction if both players go for them (one player reacts, then buys a province which causes the other player to react, and so on).
- Stronger AND weaker in games with +buy. Multiple +$4s could be devastating with +buys, but more buys would also make going for duchies and running out the piles much more viable against a player who buys a lot of these.
- If someone is holding one of these when they get militia'd/tortured, it could cause some hard feelings.
My goal with the card is to alter the dynamic of the game when it is available, but not so much so that any normal province-buying strategy becomes nonviable. I'd love to playtest a card like this to see how effective it actually is.
-
Antipeddler
Action $0*
+1 Action
+1 Card
+1 Coin
This card cost $1 more per card you have in play.
Edit: Okay, that's going to be too good for workshop/ironworks etc
Interesting idea. Whereas Peddlers make it easier to buy Peddlers, this is just the opposite: buy enough Anti-Peddlers, and you'll likely have to purposely withhold them to buy more.
Playing an antipeddler gives you a coin and raises the antipeddler cost by $1, so the net effect is zero. If you've played at least one action card (that doesn't make you richer) you couldn't buy this even with every copper in the game. In the early game any estate is going to make it almost impossible to buy it as you'd need a gold to make up for the extra card in your hand. Late game you usually have quite a couple of cards in play and the card won't be attractive anymore anyway.
-
Playing an antipeddler gives you a coin and raises the antipeddler cost by $1, so the net effect is zero. If you've played at least one action card (that doesn't make you richer) you couldn't buy this even with every copper in the game. In the early game any estate is going to make it almost impossible to buy it as you'd need a gold to make up for the extra card in your hand. Late game you usually have quite a couple of cards in play and the card won't be attractive anymore anyway.
When I first read this card I read it as +$1 per action card in play, but you are right; it does just say card. But your reasoning about the estate is flawed. Estates never make it in play and thus don't increase the cards cost.
-
I quoted the wrong part, he amended his card so gainers would have more trouble gaining it. Lookie here:
Edit: Okay, that's going to be too good for workshop/ironworks etc
Antipeddler V2
Action $0*
+1 Action
+1 Card
+1 Coin
This card costs $2 more per card you have in you hand and $1 more per card you have in play.
(Even more crazy than Peddler)
Edit 2: Typo
An estate on hand means $2 more to the cost, and any treasure will add another $1. Thus, only a gold or better could "counter" an estate. I think this type of cost will get no love as it's incredibly hard to actually obtain the card and it also doesn't do anything that other cards don't already do.
You could get it with a chapel and a silver, trashing the other three cards, but that's a bit too niche.
-
Well, how about these?
The Real Loan
Type: Treasure
Cost: Negative $1
When you buy this, +1 Buy.
When played, gives you: $0
Army
Type: Victory/Duration/Attack
Cost: $5
+2 VP
+1 Action
Each other player cleans up an Army from play.
At the start of your next turn,
if you have as at least 5 Armies in play
(minus the number of players, but no fewer than 1),
the game ends.
-
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=114.0
-
They released the game description. I haven't seen it anywhere on this site so here it is for those who haven't read it yet.
The world is big and your kingdom small. Small when compared to the world, that is; it's moderate-sized when compared to other kingdoms. But in a big world like this one - big when compared to smaller worlds anyway, if such things exist; it's moderate-sized when compared to worlds of roughly the same size, and a little small when compared to worlds just a little larger - well, to make a long story short - short when compared to longer stories anyway - it is time to stretch your borders. You've heard of far-off places - exotic countries, where they have pancakes but not waffles, where the people wear the wrong number of shirts, and don't even have a word for the look two people give each other when they each hope that the other will do something that they both want done but which neither of them wants to do. It is to these lands that you now turn your gaze.
Dominion: Hinterlands is the sixth addition to the game of Dominion. It adds 26 new Kingdom cards to Dominion, including 20 Actions, 3 Treasures, 3 Victory cards, and 3 Reactions. The central theme is cards that do something immediately when you buy them or gain them.
-
I'm expecting to see a card similar to:
Type: Victory
Cost: $5
Worth 2 VP
----------------------------
When you buy this, reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Discard the revealed Victory and Curse cards and put the other cards back on top of your deck in any order.
-
And I'm expecting a victory card that involves trashing upon purchase. Something with either the purchaser trashing, or the Bishop penalty such as:
Territory
Type: Victory
Cost: $5
4 VP
------------
When you buy this, every player, including you, may trash a card from their hand
(Alternatively: when you buy this, every player, including you, must trash a card from his hand.)
**********************************************************************
My thinking is that this is strictly better than a Duchy in the late game, but helps your opponents more than it helps you in the early game. The alternative could mean that the purchaser may be forced to trash a victory if they are left in hand, or trash no card at all if all cards have been played.
-
I was quite tempted by the thought of barbarians. I'm sure it's imbalanced but Donald X. likes to surprise with some crazy looking cards that tend to be balanced.
Barbarians
Type: Action/Attack
Cost: 5
+1$. Each opponent must choose and discard a card from hand. For each treasure card discarded, +1$.
When you gain this card, every player must reveal a hand with no victory cards or return a victory card to the supply.
-
Does this topic actually have anything to do with Hinterlands?
-
Does this topic actually have anything to do with Hinterlands?
I linked to the "make up a card" topic a while ago in the hopes that people would stop posting made up cards here but it doesn't seem to have worked.
-
How about an attack card like Masquerade but better. Try this:
Super Masquerade [Cost: $5] (Or Some Better Name)
Reveal cards until a treasure is revealed. Pass
that card to the player to your left.
So say you reveal a platinum - PASS IT TO THE LEFT! Sucks, eh?
Or a card like this:
I call it "Dance Magic Dance" (It's an inside family joke from Labyrinth) [Cost: $6 and Potion]
Each other player gains two curses putting them on top
of his/her deck.
Cannot be King's Courted or Throne Roomed
Bonus Village [Cost: $10]
+3 Cards
+3 Actions
+2 Buy
+$3
Cannot be King's Courted or Throne Roomed
And then of course, one of my favorite ideas:
DIAMOND [Cost:$15]
Treasure card worth $10!!!
-
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=114.0 ffs
-
How about something like this:
Forbidden Land (Victory Card)
Cost: $5
2 VP
----
When you buy this card, each player gains a curse card.
--
Hold onto your watchtowers!
This was a nice prediction!
-
How about something like this:
Forbidden Land (Victory Card)
Cost: $5
2 VP
----
When you buy this card, each player gains a curse card.
--
Hold onto your watchtowers!
This was a nice prediction!
Hovel becomes the second card which gives no bonus to an opponents tribute. And it's a dual type to boot.
Fun fact; my Ironmonger (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Ironmonger) hit Hovel (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Hovel) last week in a game. :(
Dude you must be soooooo bored
-
I thought it was odd that someone decided to necro this topic, but it was worth reading just for this.
So this may just be my limited vocabulary speaking, but is there a reason "Hinterlands" got the nod over "Frontiers" or some other more common synonym?
- David Bowie - Red Sails
I sing that song in my head everytime I think of this expansion. Occasionally out loud.