Dominion Strategy Forum

Dominion => Adventures Previews => Empires Previews => Dominion: Nocturne Previews => Dominion: Renaissance Previews => Dominion General Discussion => Dark Ages Previews => Topic started by: theory on August 23, 2012, 03:18:44 pm

Title: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: theory on August 23, 2012, 03:18:44 pm
Link to the secret history here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4318.0
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: GendoIkari on August 23, 2012, 03:43:14 pm
Awesome that you named Counterfeit! How did that come about?
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: theory on August 23, 2012, 03:50:57 pm
The card was originally named Supplies as a placeholder and DXV wanted a better name for it.  I suggested Counterfeit and it stuck. 

This was incidentally pretty much my main contribution.  I didn't do a ton of playtesting, and most of what I did do was "Yep, this works well."  Also, a lot of really smart people were working on it, so most cards already had really good names/mechanics/etc.  Counterfeit was the only one that I thought of before someone else.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Robz888 on August 23, 2012, 03:52:19 pm
The card was originally named Supplies as a placeholder and DXV wanted a better name for it.  I suggested Counterfeit and it stuck. 

This was incidentally pretty much my main contribution.  I didn't do a ton of playtesting, and most of what I did do was "Yep, this works well."  Also, a lot of really smart people were working on it, so most cards already had really good names/mechanics/etc.  Counterfeit was the only one that I thought of before someone else.

I think you deserve a Sir Theory card. Too bad it would get progressively worse when stacked...  ;)
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Kirian on August 23, 2012, 03:52:32 pm
The card was originally named Supplies as a placeholder and DXV wanted a better name for it.

(http://dennisjudd.com/albums/funpics/supplies.jpg)
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: eHalcyon on August 23, 2012, 04:05:08 pm
Quote
I tried a version of Wall here, which had been a Hinterlands card that I did a better way as Island, then tried to do another version of for a while. The version here was an action-victory worth 2 VP with "look through your discard pile, shuffle all but 5 cards from it into your deck." The various Walls all were ways to shuffle your deck without so much garbage in it; I dropped it from Hinterlands in the end because I did Inn.

Does this imply that there is a final version of Wall in Guilds?  Or just that an old card called Wall ended up becoming Island and Inn?

Quote
- There was an old old card, gain a Silver to hand, each other player gains a Copper to hand, for $5. Way back when, we didn't know any better, and this card seemed okay. Then I tried a bunch of things to make this good enough, eventually drifting into "+1 Card +1 Action +$1, each other player gains a Copper in hand then discards down to 4." In the end nothing has survived. Giving other players Copper is bad in general because the pile varies in size so much, depending on the number of players and whether or not you add together the main set and Intrigue. It's fine if the attack is limited as to how much Copper it will really give out, like Jester and Noble Brigand and Ambassador.

Good to know for future design contests...

Quote
- A few cards tried to provide other uses for the Ruins pile. One was "+1 Card +1 Action, play the top Ruins, put it on the bottom." It was cute but there's a tracking issue. I did Ironmonger instead. Another card played the top four Ruins. It gave you +$3 instead if the Ruins ran out, because what fun is that.

Those do sound really fun.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: LastFootnote on August 23, 2012, 04:27:12 pm
Quote
- The original main set had "Trash a card from your hand, discard a card, draw 3 cards." I dropped it from the main set for being redundant; there were other trashers.

The issue I have with the composition of the main set is that it only has one card that effectively trashes Curses: Chapel. Moneylender and Mine can't trash them at all and Remodel makes you take a Copper/Estate/Moat/Cellar/Chapel for each Curse you trash. This makes Witch even more powerful than it is in games with cards from other sets. Rare indeed is the Base Set-only game that Witch can't completely dominate. To make matters worse, new players usually buy Chapels (plural) reactively in a vain attempt to trash their Curses, rather than buying one preemptively.

This outtake card might have really helped that situation.

EDIT: Donald, out of curiosity, what was this card called? Also, how much did it cost?

EDIT 2: If you ever do make a Treasure Chest expansion, I would LOVE to see this card representing the base set. It's in keeping with the simplicity of the base game, and I think it would really round it out nicely. It's a card I'd be happy to whip out with the other Base Set cards when I'm teaching new players (after the standard first-game setup, of course).
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: theory on August 23, 2012, 04:36:13 pm
Also, I didn't actually edit his post, I don't know why it says that.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Qvist on August 23, 2012, 05:25:59 pm
Quote
"Trash a card from your hand. +$1 per different treasure in the trash, +1 Card per different victory card in the trash,"
Wow, I really like that version. Seems even more combo-ish, but Forager is also nice as-is.

Quote
and it meant I could safely do other non-supply $0* cards in the future without worrying about Graverobber, if somehow that comes up.
Is this a hint??

Thanks for sharing the background of the Knights names. Very nice way of saying "thank you".

Quote
So you could go, play a Moneylender, trash it, gain a Golem, play the Golem.
Definitely crazy. Maybe someone should suggest that to the Design Contest.

Quote
There was a Throne Room variant that gave +1 Card +1 Action, and had every opponent play the card you Throned on their next turn. It had built-in super-crazy just by playing it on itself.
Oh yeah. Seems like anothe crazy card. Especially with Duration cards, it seems hard to keep track.

Quote
Another Throne hung around, set aside, until you wanted to use it (it was $5 and also gave you +1 Action when played). This works differently from Throne in multiples; two of them would let you do an action three times total, since each one just did it an extra time. This card was cool and was in the set for a while, but setting it aside indefinitely was problematic - in the past we've included playmats for that, and I didn't want playmats here - and the card was strong. A few times Bill Barksdale built a deck with lots of these Thrones and an Altar, which would take advantage of not actually having to trash a card to Altar if there are none in your hand, and would suddenly buy a pile of Duchies. One of those games, Bill pared his deck down to just an Altar and five copies of this Throne, drew the five Thrones and then watched a trashing attack trash his Altar. Good times.
Another interesting Throne Room variant. I laughed hard reading the "trashed Altar story", thanks for sharing.

Quote
I tried a victory card that was worth 1 VP per 3 copies of whatever action you had the most copies of. I had a few different reactions on the bottom, including Moat and giving you a new hand when attacked.
How much did it cost? $3 or $4? Giving a new hand when attacked is also an interesting idea although it may slow down the game.

Quote
I tried a version of Wall here
Wall? I don't know that card. Is this an unintentional Guilds spoiler?

Quote
A few cards tried to provide other uses for the Ruins pile. One was "+1 Card +1 Action, play the top Ruins, put it on the bottom." It was cute but there's a tracking issue. I did Ironmonger instead. Another card played the top four Ruins. It gave you +$3 instead if the Ruins ran out, because what fun is that.
Man, for that big set, I really expected to have more cards that care about Ruins, especially in a non-attack way. These sound like great ideas. I'm sad they had to go.

Quote
Here's a weird one. Woodcutter, copies of cards in the trash cost $1 less this turn; setup: we each put a kingdom card into the trash. Let me tell you, some slow decisions there, and then you have to keep the trash all spread out. It was interesting though. Those of you complaining about the Band of Misfits FAQ, this is how you could get King's Court to cost less than Band of Misfits.
Thanks for clarification. Interesting card. If you playing against the Golden Deck, you can really have a big end turn with this card.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Donald X. on August 23, 2012, 05:27:10 pm
Does this imply that there is a final version of Wall in Guilds?  Or just that an old card called Wall ended up becoming Island and Inn?
Does this imply that you think I'm answering questions about Guilds already?
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: eHalcyon on August 23, 2012, 05:28:34 pm
Does this imply that there is a final version of Wall in Guilds?  Or just that an old card called Wall ended up becoming Island and Inn?
Does this imply that you think I'm answering questions about Guilds already?

Just musing. :)
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Donald X. on August 23, 2012, 05:32:40 pm
Quote
- The original main set had "Trash a card from your hand, discard a card, draw 3 cards." I dropped it from the main set for being redundant; there were other trashers.
EDIT: Donald, out of curiosity, what was this card called? Also, how much did it cost?

EDIT 2: If you ever do make a Treasure Chest expansion, I would LOVE to see this card representing the base set. It's in keeping with the simplicity of the base game, and I think it would really round it out nicely. It's a card I'd be happy to whip out with the other Base Set cards when I'm teaching new players (after the standard first-game setup, of course).
This was called Dungeon. It originally cost $3, later $4. Two per large expansion and one per small expansion is 13 cards, leaving no room in a small Treasure Chest for a new main set card.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Donald X. on August 23, 2012, 05:33:07 pm
Also, I didn't actually edit his post, I don't know why it says that.
It looks like it counts pinning the thread as modifying it.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: theory on August 23, 2012, 05:35:34 pm
I guess so!  Also I changed the icon on it to be a light bulb.  Otherwise the gospel is authentic and I am but a stickying prophet.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Donald X. on August 23, 2012, 05:42:57 pm
Quote
Another Throne hung around, set aside, until you wanted to use it (it was $5 and also gave you +1 Action when played). This works differently from Throne in multiples; two of them would let you do an action three times total, since each one just did it an extra time. This card was cool and was in the set for a while, but setting it aside indefinitely was problematic - in the past we've included playmats for that, and I didn't want playmats here - and the card was strong. A few times Bill Barksdale built a deck with lots of these Thrones and an Altar, which would take advantage of not actually having to trash a card to Altar if there are none in your hand, and would suddenly buy a pile of Duchies. One of those games, Bill pared his deck down to just an Altar and five copies of this Throne, drew the five Thrones and then watched a trashing attack trash his Altar. Good times.
Another interesting Throne Room variant. I laughed hard reading the "trashed Altar story", thanks for sharing.
Oh I can fill in details on another story, mentioned in the uh rant in reply to someone saying "maybe you should get beat up by KC/Masq/Goons before giving an opinion of it." Once Trader's reaction was on a card that cost $2. There was a game with heavy trashing attacks, probably cards/versions that do not survive. Keeping cards over $2 was getting hard, and Bill built a deck out of $2's. It had the Trader-ish card, Pawn, and a version of Squire. He massed $2's and then suddenly gained a ton of Silver by buying Coppers, in a deck he was drawing all of prior to that. He lost some immediately but got some Provinces and went on to win.

Quote
I tried a victory card that was worth 1 VP per 3 copies of whatever action you had the most copies of. I had a few different reactions on the bottom, including Moat and giving you a new hand when attacked.
How much did it cost? $3 or $4? Giving a new hand when attacked is also an interesting idea although it may slow down the game.
It cost $3. Another victory-reaction card in this slot was worth 2 VP if the Province pile was empty. I guess I missed that outtake.

Quote
I tried a version of Wall here
Wall? I don't know that card. Is this an unintentional Guilds spoiler?
It is me trying to write a paragraph in a readable fashion guys.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: LastFootnote on August 23, 2012, 05:48:09 pm
This was called Dungeon. It originally cost $3, later $4. Two per large expansion and one per small expansion is 13 cards, leaving no room in a small Treasure Chest for a new main set card.

Ah, touché. I suppose it's a little bland for a Promo, or for a card representing Intrigue or Dark Ages in a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion. Still, I'd love to get my hands on it someday.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: AJD on August 23, 2012, 06:16:19 pm
This was called Dungeon. It originally cost $3, later $4. Two per large expansion and one per small expansion is 13 cards, leaving no room in a small Treasure Chest for a new main set card.

Ah, touché. I suppose it's a little bland for a Promo, or for a card representing Intrigue or Dark Ages in a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion. Still, I'd love to get my hands on it someday.

I'm sure no one would cry if a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion had one card representing the main set and one representing Intrigue. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: LastFootnote on August 23, 2012, 06:18:41 pm
This was called Dungeon. It originally cost $3, later $4. Two per large expansion and one per small expansion is 13 cards, leaving no room in a small Treasure Chest for a new main set card.

Ah, touché. I suppose it's a little bland for a Promo, or for a card representing Intrigue or Dark Ages in a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion. Still, I'd love to get my hands on it someday.

I'm sure no one would cry if a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion had one card representing the main set and one representing Intrigue.

I sure wouldn't. It's not like we've got a shortage of cards with choices on them in the later expansions, and I'd be perfectly happy with just one additional Action/Victory card (or one additional one-shot).
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: engineer on August 23, 2012, 08:40:37 pm
These "secret histories" are a fascinating look into the process of designing a successful yet complex board game.  As an amateur board game designer, I find them enthralling.  Thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: michaeljb on August 23, 2012, 09:17:09 pm
This was called Dungeon. It originally cost $3, later $4. Two per large expansion and one per small expansion is 13 cards, leaving no room in a small Treasure Chest for a new main set card.

Ah, touché. I suppose it's a little bland for a Promo, or for a card representing Intrigue or Dark Ages in a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion. Still, I'd love to get my hands on it someday.

I'm sure no one would cry if a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion had one card representing the main set and one representing Intrigue.

I sure wouldn't. It's not like we've got a shortage of cards with choices on them in the later expansions, and I'd be perfectly happy with just one additional Action/Victory card (or one additional one-shot).

And once Guilds is released, we can start demanding the Treasure Chest set, and speculating on what the new Duration and VP token cards will be. Man, I hope we do get a Treasure Chest set.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: werothegreat on August 23, 2012, 09:54:07 pm
Quote
A two-use Gold (you trash it and gain a Spoils).

This card + Venture = Win.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Hockey Mask on August 23, 2012, 10:25:33 pm
If Donald ever has more kids he's going to have to come out with some Promo Knights.  No way he could live with himself if he didn't.  :P

DX, time to light a couple of candles and pour some wine.  I'll be looking for my Promo card in 9 months.  ;D

And no fair naming your next kid 'Province'.  >:(
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: wcbarksdale on August 23, 2012, 10:47:52 pm
Quote
Another Throne hung around, set aside, until you wanted to use it (it was $5 and also gave you +1 Action when played). This works differently from Throne in multiples; two of them would let you do an action three times total, since each one just did it an extra time. This card was cool and was in the set for a while, but setting it aside indefinitely was problematic - in the past we've included playmats for that, and I didn't want playmats here - and the card was strong. A few times Bill Barksdale built a deck with lots of these Thrones and an Altar, which would take advantage of not actually having to trash a card to Altar if there are none in your hand, and would suddenly buy a pile of Duchies. One of those games, Bill pared his deck down to just an Altar and five copies of this Throne, drew the five Thrones and then watched a trashing attack trash his Altar. Good times.
Another interesting Throne Room variant. I laughed hard reading the "trashed Altar story", thanks for sharing.
Oh I can fill in details on another story, mentioned in the uh rant in reply to someone saying "maybe you should get beat up by KC/Masq/Goons before giving an opinion of it." Once Trader's reaction was on a card that cost $2. There was a game with heavy trashing attacks, probably cards/versions that do not survive. Keeping cards over $2 was getting hard, and Bill built a deck out of $2's. It had the Trader-ish card, Pawn, and a version of Squire. He massed $2's and then suddenly gained a ton of Silver by buying Coppers, in a deck he was drawing all of prior to that. He lost some immediately but got some Provinces and went on to win.

Of course, the reason I was drawing all of my deck is that it was fewer than five cards.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 24, 2012, 12:49:12 am
Very interesting read

Interesting that there was a "top of deck" theme distinct from Seaside's "next turn" theme - seemed like they'd be a natural fit.

"There was a Spy variant for $2 that put bottom cards on top or didn’t." - Pearl diver?

I'm also wondering why it was decided that there'd be exactly 5 different ruins, especially since it affected the design of the Shelters. Considering not much attention was paid to making them all internally balanced (Ruined Village), wouldn't having lots of different Ruins have been more interesting? I'm sure there was no shortage of ideas.

Also I'm not convinced that "gain a copper to hand" is actually a bad idea from the explanation here. It seems like the idea was dismissed because it was tied to a cantrip attack, so of course the size of the copper pile would be a problem. I hope the idea gets tried again in the future.

Same problem here: "There was a Remodel that put the card into your hand. Originally it didn’t give +1 Action; then it did and was crazy." It's annoying to see good ideas (in that case the terminal remodel to hand) be given up on for no good reason - although I guess Mine fills that niche.

Knowing that there'll be at most 13 more Kingdom cards is saddening as it's clearly evident that there's no shortage of ideas (both from Donald X and from everyone else). There'll be promos I guess - and it will be easier to design and playtest cards one at a time going forth.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Donald X. on August 24, 2012, 05:37:21 am
"There was a Spy variant for $2 that put bottom cards on top or didn’t." - Pearl diver?
No dude, it was an attack. Pearl Diver is Pearl Diver.

I'm also wondering why it was decided that there'd be exactly 5 different ruins, especially since it affected the design of the Shelters. Considering not much attention was paid to making them all internally balanced (Ruined Village), wouldn't having lots of different Ruins have been more interesting? I'm sure there was no shortage of ideas.
As explained, there are five (with those particular four) so you can learn them quickly. Some people would not like not knowing what they were.

Also I'm not convinced that "gain a copper to hand" is actually a bad idea from the explanation here. It seems like the idea was dismissed because it was tied to a cantrip attack, so of course the size of the copper pile would be a problem. I hope the idea gets tried again in the future.

Same problem here: "There was a Remodel that put the card into your hand. Originally it didn’t give +1 Action; then it did and was crazy." It's annoying to see good ideas (in that case the terminal remodel to hand) be given up on for no good reason - although I guess Mine fills that niche.
Dude, that Remodel got so many chances. Giving opponents copper, I tried that for years in various forms. These are not things I just ditched after a game where no-one bought them or whatever.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Copernicus on August 24, 2012, 10:17:28 am
Did you ever try out having Spoils just be purchasable for $3? 

I was amused that two "Gain silver" cards were turned into "Gain spoils" since I've been struggling to compare Silver to Spoils in terms of how valuable it is.  And I kind of want to play a game where someone can choose to gain either Silver or Spoils for any card that gains silver...
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Avin on August 24, 2012, 12:33:12 pm
Quote
Another Throne variant in Dark Ages didn't work out, and I thought of that old card and made this one. It does not go so crazy but can still facilitate a cool transforming engine.

If a card that facilitates acquiring 18 provinces by the end of turn 2 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3585.msg93723#msg93723) is not so crazy, I'd love to hear the Throne variant that was!
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: eHalcyon on August 24, 2012, 12:38:19 pm
Quote
Another Throne variant in Dark Ages didn't work out, and I thought of that old card and made this one. It does not go so crazy but can still facilitate a cool transforming engine.

If a card that facilitates acquiring 18 provinces by the end of turn 2 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3585.msg93723#msg93723) is not so crazy, I'd love to hear the Throne variant that was!

That's not crazy because it requires 6 players cooperating.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: werothegreat on August 24, 2012, 12:55:56 pm
Quote
Another Throne variant in Dark Ages didn't work out, and I thought of that old card and made this one. It does not go so crazy but can still facilitate a cool transforming engine.

If a card that facilitates acquiring 18 provinces by the end of turn 2 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3585.msg93723#msg93723) is not so crazy, I'd love to hear the Throne variant that was!

That's not crazy because it requires 6 players cooperating.

And immaculate shuffle luck.  How did he even come up with that?
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Donald X. on August 24, 2012, 04:32:19 pm
Did you ever try out having Spoils just be purchasable for $3? 
Feast was originally "+$3, trash this" for $4.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Axe Knight on August 24, 2012, 11:08:11 pm
Were there ever any curse givers in Dark Ages? 
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Donald X. on August 24, 2012, 11:20:51 pm
Were there ever any curse givers in Dark Ages?
Yes, as detailed in the secret history! Including an earlier Cultist and "Gain an Estate, each other player gains a Curse."
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Axe Knight on August 24, 2012, 11:30:19 pm
Ahh!  Somehow, I missed that.  Thanks.  That was the one thing that jumped out of me about this set, but, I guess that's what Ruins are for.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Tmwinand on August 24, 2012, 11:32:21 pm
Just played 3 games with the new set.  Thanks DxV for making this and providing us with the secret histories!
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Fuu on August 26, 2012, 01:48:40 am
Just want to say that I love the secret histories. They provide a fascinating insight into the design process and hearing about things like the failed Altar strategy is wonderful. Also, the secret history does a really good job of not giving away spoilers about how the cards that did make it into a set are best used.

Oh, and one more thing:

I'm also wondering why it was decided that there'd be exactly 5 different ruins, especially since it affected the design of the Shelters. Considering not much attention was paid to making them all internally balanced (Ruined Village), wouldn't having lots of different Ruins have been more interesting? I'm sure there was no shortage of ideas.
As explained, there are five (with those particular four) so you can learn them quickly. Some people would not like not knowing what they were.

That is one of the main reasons I really don't enjoy Race for the Galaxy.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Kuildeous on August 28, 2012, 03:50:25 pm
Quote
Ruins obv. doesn't work, because some people would make out

Whoa, what kind of game were you trying to sell there, Donald?

I mean, in the right groups, this would be awesome, but I definitely don't want to make out with the average gamer.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: werothegreat on August 28, 2012, 03:52:57 pm
Quote
Ruins obv. doesn't work, because some people would make out

Whoa, what kind of game were you trying to sell there, Donald?

I mean, in the right groups, this would be awesome, but I definitely don't want to make out with the average gamer.

Dominion: Spin the Bottle

----

Orgy
Action - $4

*CENSORED*
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: WheresMyElephant on August 30, 2012, 10:28:31 am
After Guilds comes out, would you ever consider posting a list of cards (in full detail) that were fun but were cut for non-gameplay-related reasons like "Too much text to fit on the cards/finicky rules that would annoy casual players" or "Needed extra components" or "No room in the set for another Village"? Or even if there are some cards that are fun but a couple of specific interactions break them, and you could just warn us, "Hey don't play this one with King's Court you guys"?

I know we already have more cards than we could ever need, and I can of course understand if this runs afoul of the whole "designer-endorsed variants lead to trouble" concept, or various other reasons for not wanting to do this. But somehow I can't help being disappointed reading about fun cards I can't play; and I'm sure that for instance you have some great Duration or VP chip cards that we'll never get to see in print.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 30, 2012, 02:18:52 pm
After Guilds comes out, would you ever consider posting a list of cards (in full detail) that were fun but were cut for non-gameplay-related reasons like "Too much text to fit on the cards/finicky rules that would annoy casual players" or "Needed extra components" or "No room in the set for another Village"? Or even if there are some cards that are fun but a couple of specific interactions break them, and you could just warn us, "Hey don't play this one with King's Court you guys"?

I know we already have more cards than we could ever need, and I can of course understand if this runs afoul of the whole "designer-endorsed variants lead to trouble" concept, or various other reasons for not wanting to do this. But somehow I can't help being disappointed reading about fun cards I can't play; and I'm sure that for instance you have some great Duration or VP chip cards that we'll never get to see in print.

I would love to see this. I don't even think it would be a problem if you decided to make them official cards later.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: ftl on August 30, 2012, 02:41:29 pm
If he was going to make them official cards later, he certainly wouldn't post them in a pre-published form...
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 30, 2012, 03:48:08 pm
If he was going to make them official cards later, he certainly wouldn't post them in a pre-published form...

I personally wouldn't have any problems, and would rather see cards that have a 1% chance of being made official in the future than not see them.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Donald X. on September 08, 2012, 02:45:57 am
After Guilds comes out, would you ever consider posting a list of cards (in full detail) that were fun but were cut for non-gameplay-related reasons like "Too much text to fit on the cards/finicky rules that would annoy casual players" or "Needed extra components" or "No room in the set for another Village"? Or even if there are some cards that are fun but a couple of specific interactions break them, and you could just warn us, "Hey don't play this one with King's Court you guys"?
Without more work, that would amount to maybe one card, depending on whether or not we do more promos. If a card was worth doing it made a set; the ones that didn't make it are earlier versions of things that made it in better forms, or things that people didn't like, or which seemed unfixable. I am not sitting on a file of great cards that didn't make it. Anything that seemed like it should really be in a set and wasn't yet, I worked on for Dark Ages (which was going to be the last set; I started Guilds later but finished it first). And my outtakes section is pretty complete there.

I could post more outtakes for the earlier sets someday, since those Secret Histories didn't go into as much detail, since those outtakes didn't know so much if they would ever make it or not. They will not be cards worth proxying up, but I will try to get to posting them someday.
Title: Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
Post by: Polk5440 on September 13, 2012, 11:13:54 pm
Quote
- There was an old old card, gain a Silver to hand, each other player gains a Copper to hand, for $5. Way back when, we didn't know any better, and this card seemed okay. Then I tried a bunch of things to make this good enough, eventually drifting into "+1 Card +1 Action +$1, each other player gains a Copper in hand then discards down to 4." In the end nothing has survived. Giving other players Copper is bad in general because the pile varies in size so much, depending on the number of players and whether or not you add together the main set and Intrigue. It's fine if the attack is limited as to how much Copper it will really give out, like Jester and Noble Brigand and Ambassador.

Good to know for future design contests...

So this is why you are doing so well in rinkworks's design contest -- you're doing some serious research!