Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Donald X.

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 223
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: April 04, 2020, 01:18:28 pm »
The Basic premise being that it's a junker that only works if you have more than 1 per turn?
The premise being, the card alternates what it does, though it's fine that one of those things is Cursing.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: April 04, 2020, 03:57:02 am »
Did you ever consider doing what you did with Blessed Village's on-gain Boons with Idol?  I.e., give players the option of receiving the Boon at the start of their next turn?
What I should have done with Idol is not have it give Boons. The basic premise of the card would have still been doable.

I am not a fan of adding more words to Idol to deal with how you'd rather save some Boons for later. We may have considered that. We considered stuff; it was clear that some Boons were not great with Idol. One direction is tweaking the Boons, but the Boons could only do so much to deal with this.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: April 04, 2020, 03:54:31 am »
I was thinking more about weighing Mouse that only works during your turns against Mouse that works always. Was that considered? Was it a cool feature that it could be played during other players' turns, that you didn't want to lose?
I didn't consider it, but the card already drops the word "card" in order to fit the text. It sure wasn't getting another clause. It's not a great clause either. It makes it different from other Ways in a way that makes no sense at first; it's more complex all the time in exchange for simplifying some specific cases. What you could do is limit all Ways to your turn. Again I am thinking, extra rules for not much gain.

It wasn't a cool feature; it was just how it goes.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: April 03, 2020, 12:43:50 pm »
Did playing Reactions (Sheepdog/Falconer/Black Cat/Village Green/Caravan Guard) using Way of the Mouse come up during playtesting? If so, was this something you considered as potentially creating weird or confusing interactions? Or did you mostly see it as a good and fun feature of the card?
It did come up. It's potentially confusing; weighing that against the joy of Mouse, Mouse got to exist anyway.

The Bible of Donald X. / The Secret History of Dominion: Menagerie
« on: April 01, 2020, 01:00:24 am »
I took a break after Renaissance, and worked on other games. One night there was just me and Kevin. What's good with two? I dunno, Dominion? It happened again a week or two later. And then that was that, I was making an expansion. A lesson for us all.

There were two ideas waiting to be used, from when working on Renaissance. First, the Jail mat. This was a mat cards could put cards onto, and then it had a built-in rule that let you get the cards back when gaining another copy of whichever card. This mat and the associated cards had been good, but I didn't want more mats in Renaissance. At one point it had four mats; in the end it has one that does double duty. So I saved this for next time, and well, it was next time. So this went right into the set and had good cards right away. Eventually I renamed it to Exile, because I wasn't looking to make a wild west expansion, which is what "jail plus horses" sure suggested. "Exile" was nice because you can use it as a verb too, and it made at least some sense for a medieval game.

The other idea was for a particular way to do "+1 Card tokens." I considered them for Renaissance, but it didn't sound great to have a pile of tokens you could constantly consider cashing in for cards. What I ended up doing for Renaissance was Sinister Plot, which just happens at the start of a turn. But another approach was to have a pile of one-use Labs you could gain. It was like a +1 Card token, except different in all the ways it's different - you can only use it when drawing it, you can Remodel it, and so on. There wasn't room for a big pile of those in Renaissance, though it got Experiment. So this was another thing to try right away, and right away I liked it. Horse itself started and ended costing $3, but I tried having it cost $2, to make it weaker with trash-for-benefit. I preferred it being stronger there.

The first two cards using Horses were "Gain 3 Horses" and "+1 Action, discard any number of cards for that many Horses." They both immediately showcased the beauty of Horses. "Gain 3 Horses" is like Smithy... but it doesn't draw dead cards, and doesn't draw at all the first time you play it, and well more differences, Remodel and stuff. It was a pretty neat variation on Smithy and still really simple. And then the Cellar variant was nothing like Cellar. It was pretty neat too. Well as you may have noticed, these cards aren't in the set. They both just produced too many Horses. Another way "Gain 3 Horses" is different from Smithy is, it takes longer to resolve - not just playing it, but playing it and playing the three Horses. So in the end there are "Gain 2 Horses" cards, but no 3, and only Livery gets to really go nuts gaining Horses.

I tried several new kinds of landscape cards for the set. The one that stuck was Ways, which let any Action be played for a particular effect. I liked the vanilla ones right away. I also planned to add Events to the set. The set was going to have to be 400 cards, to include 30 Horses and some landscapes and not have fewer Kingdom cards than usual. So, it had space. It took me a while to get around to trying some Events, but when I did that all worked out, there were new things to do, not all of them involving Exile and Horses.

I considered having another card like Horse, a pile that some cards could give you. I didn't get around to trying one for a while, and meanwhile two minor themes crept into the set. So I never tried one, I had plenty of stuff going on. The minor themes are Reactions and uh weird costs. It seemed cool to have a bunch of Reactions, and I had this good trick to do to get some, which was letting you play the card. Caravan Guard had done that, but it had +1 Action, which severely reduced how exciting that was. And then the weird costs, I added Wayfarer and Animal Fair and they were just immediately highlights of the set, so I looked for a couple more.

* Kingdom Cards *

Animal Fair: The premise was the alternate cost; the first version had +2 Cards +2 Actions on top. It was just too important to madly try to acquire them. Then for a long time it was +$4 +1 Buy. This seemed to work out fine. But late in the going I was worried about player interaction and tried out +1 Buy per empty pile here. It worked great, it makes it less important early and well does have a little interaction.

Barge: A late card, trying to get more use out of "now or later" after I had it on Village Green. It started out without the +Buy; I gave it that to make it compare more favorably to Merchant Ship (just a joke for you people who read all the Secret Histories). Since your intention is to use it right away most of the time, it seemed like it needed more than just +3 Cards, and we weren't buying it enough without the +Buy.

Black Cat: The second reaction in the set. I wanted a black cat! Probably it would curse people? Could it be blue? I got all those things. At first it triggered on their gain and you discarded it to Curse them. It wasn't good enough. Shifting it to being played also let it be an Attack; Moat couldn't stop the discarded version.

Bounty Hunter: This started in Renaissance. That version gave +$1 always, and +$2 if you jailed a unique. There was just that version and the final version; it's more fun to have a bigger reward for the unique, and it didn't want to be as good otherwise. An early poster child for Exile.

Camel Train: Originally it had no below-the-line part. Some people liked it but for me it wasn't quite good enough. I tried letting you play it when you gained it, but it ran out piles too fast. So now it exiles a Gold when you gain it.

Cardinal: A card that started in Renaissance. It was an obvious thing to try with the Exile mat, and mirrored Old Witch's temporary Cursing. That version dug for a card to exile; this one just looked at the top 2, and then dropped down to costing $4.

Cavalry: Sometimes I try to make a new version of a favorite card. This is the new Villa. Villa saves you when what you needed was more Actions; this saves you when what you needed was more cards. It didn't change, though there was some noise about, should you get +1 Buy if you gain it in your Action phase, since that's easy to forget. Good luck remembering that. For years I wanted to make a when-gain that drew you cards, and tried some that died; all it took was returning you to your Action phase so you could play them.

Coven: Somehow this never changed.

Destrier: Trying to get one more weird cost into the set. Changed from counting all gains to just your own, suggested by Matt.

Displace: The first version gained a card costing "exactly $2 more," now it's "differently named" with "up to $2 more." I think Ben King suggested that. It's nicer as an exiler while still stopping you from using Province to gain Province.

Falconer: This started as a Smithy you could play when someone gained a particular thing - first a card they had a copy of in play, then when they gained either this or a 3rd card on their turn. I found it just too hard to pay attention to when they got a 3rd card. At the same time the set was packed with card-drawing, it didn't need more. Some people were sad to see it go, but I switched it to gaining a cheaper card to hand, Matt's suggestion, and then found a better reaction condition for it.

Fisherman: The first version gave you +$1 conditionally if your right-hand opponent had an empty discard pile (and cost $2). It was trying to be interactive, but that's not a great thing to have to pay attention to, as sometimes they're shuffling, and sometimes they're pre-shuffling. I switched it to caring about your own discard, but also tried it being a full-time Peddler that only costs $2 if your discard pile is empty. It was buy-phase only like Peddler, but we misplayed that some, so now it's full-time.

Gatekeeper: The premise remained constant. Some versions always exiled the card; you'd get back the previous one, so once you had e.g. Silver in exile, gaining Silver would work, you would just technically put one Silver into exile and discard the other one. I never liked that much, plus the card felt too oppressive, so it changed to just not working every other time. Some versions cost $4, but man you don't want to be under this right away.

Goatherd: I tried to make an interactive trasher that cared about the trash. At first it counted copies of itself in the trash, to determine how many times you could trash a card or gain a Silver. Then it counted Actions in the trash, and divided the count by 2. A bunch of versions followed, trying to zero in on the good parts of the card. Some versions gained a card that varied in cost with the trash; at first it could get Province. Some had a threshold rather than scaling with the trash. And well then I tried to think of what other way a trasher could be interactive, and came up with Goatherd and hooray, it was better. At first it counted all trashes, then it shifted to only ones you personally trashed, at Matt's suggestion.

Groom: An early card. The only change was the precise wording, "Action card" rather than "Action."

Hostelry: This didn't change. I did however compare "when you gain this, gain a Horse." We liked this better. I also tried letting you discard non-Treasures too; it was too generous.

Hunting Lodge: The first version of this was a duration card that let you get a new hand once during your next turn's Action phase. It never had a good wording, saying "...when nothing is happening..." Some players liked it, but I felt like it was too strong when it was good, and awful the rest of the time. Plus it did have this wording problem. So it changed to working immediately, with +$2, and then into the village that made the set.

Kiln: The only change here was adding "first," as people want to reach right over and take their card.

Livery: Another early card. Originally it triggered on gaining cards from the Supply; in the end if cares if the card costs $4 or more. Somehow or other it had to rule out Horse itself triggering it, and also Silver (due to Trader).

Mastermind: The initial idea was to use Exile to make a new King's Court that could somehow cost $5. It exiled both itself and the card it played. I was not thrilled with it, and making it a duration was the first new direction I thought of.

Paddock: The first version was +$2, gain 2 Horses. A variant on "+$2, +2 Cards," an ancient card that never seemed worth doing. For a while it filled its slot, looking like I might add a dividing line and some other ability, but being simple and inoffensive. Finally in the later days I was worried about having enough player interaction, and tried out the +1 Action per empty pile here.

Sanctuary: The initial premise was to have a way to exile cards that could also get cards out of exile. There were multiple versions and well. You don't want to exile good cards. If you can exile junk you will sure do that instead. It never really gave me a good "I'm saving a card for later" feeling. Some versions rewarded you for taking a card back by being a village; some players complained about these ones being disjointed messes. Plus it's not great that it hoses the exiling attacks. I stripped it down to a pure exiler, then gave it +1 Buy, and well there it is.

Scrap: This was a very old idea I just never got around to trying before. At first it cost $2.

Sheepdog: This has two origins. One is a treasure from Empires that had +1 Buy and gave you +$1 per Buy you had. I thought there was something there, and tried a new version, an action that gave you +$1 per card you gained that turn. Some people liked it but man the math was too much to ask of people. No really, it was bad. I tried multiple versions trying to fix it up and make it fair, some of which could also count trashes. I tried versions that triggered at one point in the turn. I switched to reactions and card-drawing (no math there) and was making progress. Now it resembled an outtake from Renaissance, that gave you +1 Card +1 Action when gaining a card, and some versions of this did just that. I got a version that seemed promising but had a bad wording - it wasn't trivial to communicate that you could reveal a copy for each gain, but not multiple copies for one gain. I tried it as draw-to-6 - now I didn't need to limit you to one use because it was naturally limited. Again I thought maybe this would do the trick, but more testing suggested it wasn't there. I came up with a few directions and one of them was Sheepdog. It's sleek and pretty and a delight. Sometimes it takes a while to get there.

Sleigh: Initially you just revealed it, but that was too much, so now you discard it. That had rules issues - wait you just lost track of the card you gained, you can't move it. A few different versions of the card tried to address this satisfyingly. Finally I bent time and space and fixed the rules.

Snowy Village: This started life as a joke card, in a Christmas kingdom I made (with help from Matt). Hey that idea wasn't bad. I made it more exciting by giving it +4 Actions and +1 Buy. Eventually it dropped from $4 to $3. The original:

Stockpile: Renaissance had tried out a one-shot Smithy that went to your Jail. When the Jail left, it turned into Experiment. I knew Smithy wasn't great due to tracking, and after a game with it as a gold-gainer, went with +$3 +1 Buy. Those of you who have really been paying attention remember that Feast was originally a one-shot +$3 for $4; wasn't that too good or something? Apparently not!

Supplies: One of the first cards in the set. At first it just gained a Horse; it looked nice to me but people were dissatisfied. So now the Horse goes on top.

Village Green: With a Reaction theme having appeared, I thought, how about a Tunnel. I came up with the now-or-later concept and was instantly enamored with it. It was a good fit for the Tunnel too. I needed a village so I made this a village and well there it is. At first it only worked in an Action phase, but people misplayed that, so now it matches Tunnel.

Wayfarer: The original idea predates Dominion being published; you can see a picture in the outtakes article (, the last section). Like always, at some point I thought, are there any old ideas I haven't tried to fix up yet, and there it was. That one was a one-shot Gold, which I already had; this one started as a Smithy. Since some games that would just be Smithy, it got an optional Silver.

* Ways *

Well most of these did not change. Let's just look at the few that did.

Way of the Butterfly: At first you trashed the card. That's no good with Fortress and Adventures tokens. Also I gave it an anti-Throne wording.

Way of the Chameleon: At first you could mix up the four basic +'s any which way. It's too hard to communicate what happens with +2 of something - can you split it up or not - in the space available, plus it was too many options. I fixed both things by having it just exchange cards and $. Then I added "this turn" so you didn't have tracking on durations.

Way of the Frog: Originally it just put itself right on your deck. This can cause a loop, those Adventures tokens again. Pointed out by werothegreat. So now it has a way wordier wording but there is no loop.

Way of the Mole: This fought it out with another Way that first gave +1 Action, +2 Cards, discard 2 cards, then switched the order of drawing and discarding. My feeling was, we used that one so much, was that really the best gameplay. This one is harder to use but has its moments.

Way of the Mouse: At first it tried to single out the cheapest supply Action to play. This doesn't work due to debt and potions, oops. So it sets aside a card in setup. There was a late question, should it be just $2's, or $2's and $3's.

Way of the Rat: This didn't change, but we did try a version with no discard for comparison.

Way of the Seal: At first it was like an Artifact - you claimed the Royal Seal ability until someone else used an Action as a Seal. Then it just Royal Seal'd, then it died, then I brought it back with +$1. Arf!

* Events *

Alliance: Matt wanted some expensive Events. Okay, how about, gain a lot of cards? I tried two of them and liked them both. This one was always like this. I considered putting Curse on it but man you already don't want all of what you're getting.

Banish: An early Event, stayed just like this.

Bargain: A late Event, stayed just like this. I guess ahead of it I tried another $4 that gained $5's; that one only worked if there was an empty pile.

Commerce: A late one. At first it was "gain a Horse, gain a Gold per card you've gained this turn." It seemed too generous and lost the Horse. It was too strong with Horse-gainers, too expensive (at $8) otherwise; so, it counts differently named cards, Matt's suggestion.

Delay: Didn't change. There was some talk of dropping it due to also having Way of the Turtle, but I liked the effect enough to want to do two of them, and man they're different.

Demand: At first it gained a $4 onto your deck, plus put a card you'd discard from play this turn onto your deck. It was oppressive with Coven and probably had other bad scenarios, as had an endless Scheming Project in Renaissance. I tried getting a card from your discard pile, but ended up with just pairing the $4 with a Horse.

Desperation: At first it wasn't limited to once per turn. You don't need to have the experience of "okay I take 15 Curses and buy 6 Provinces" twice.

Enclave: Didn't change. It's a bigger Harem!

Enhance: At first it said "Action or Treasure," now it says "non-Victory."

Gamble: The wording changed late to get rid of a poor Village Green interaction (that Vassal has).

Invest: Originally you just drew one card. It was cool when we tried it in the first game with it, then we never bought it. I upped it to 2 (and fiddled with the wording), and then we played it a bunch, trying to see just how good this experience was.

March: The initial idea was to let you play all copies of one action from your deck/discard (a descendant of a very old card that played all of your attacks). It was usually weak and sometimes nuts. I fixed it up by having it only play one copy and charging less for it.

Populate: Didn't change. Foosh!

Pursue: Didn't change.

Reap: At first it gained two Silvers for next turn, for $5. I won a game just doing that, so I changed it to a Gold for $7.

Ride: Didn't change, though I briefly tried adding +1 Buy to it.

Seize the Day: Originally you took an extra turn in which you couldn't draw cards. This seemed neat and then weak but maybe okay, but then Ben and Steveie played a game with it and Scrying Pool, oops. Not all card-drawing is "drawing." We talked about wordings to fix that, then I tried a version that limited your cards in play to 5; that was not remotely restrictive enough, you could do plenty. Maybe there was a good version of one of those, but it was late, and I tried a straight "once per game, an extra turn" and was happy with it.

Stampede: The initial idea was to reward you for not having very many cards in play; it started as "if you have 3 or fewer cards in play, gain 5 Horses." It wasn't getting used much; so, it's more generous on the situationalness and puts the Horses onto your deck.

Toil: Didn't change. This led the charge of new Events, showing that there were in fact more good things to do.

Transport: Didn't change.

* Outtakes *

As I mentioned above, the first two cards were the Smithy of Horses and the Cellar of Horses. They were great except for how slow they made games. I tried a smaller Cellar before killing it.

Already there's a card I don't want to share. This card was fine, it just wasn't great with the other things in this set. Well let's move along.

One direction I looked in for new cards was "this turn" abilities. It sounded good to trigger on treasures, effectively giving them an ability, and I tried "when you play a Gold, gain a Horse" and "when you play a Copper, +1 Buy." I had big plans to try "When you play a Silver, +$1" again too, but that didn't happen and those cards didn't work out.

One of the very old cards I dredged up was "Trash a card from your hand, discard a card, +3 Cards." It holds the distinction of being the first card in the oldest Dominion file, though I know it replaced something; I wasn't saving every image back then. In its day it was fine but then seemed redundant. I brought it back with exiling, and we tried it with the +3 Cards first and last, and then versions to try to iron out things I didn't like about it. I was never happy with it and then did a different trasher, which got me to Goatherd in the end.

Some attacks tried to cause discarding after each card play. Oh boy. Yes, "attacks," I tried more than one of these.

The cards that tried to save cards for later in Exile included one suggested by Matt, that seeded Exile with something and always made you swap. Initially it was Silver but that was nuts; then it was Copper and well, did I mention you don't really want to put your good cards into Exile for later? You just don't.

I tried some takes on cantrips that gained Horses. Conditionally; for discarding a card. It was always dangerous space; Horses are more interesting on terminals, but also I didn't want the game to get too slow, and the cantrips threatened that or did it.

Here's a cantrip that dug for an Action and put it onto your deck. Kind of a fixed Harbinger. It was unobjectionable but did not add much to the game. Another short-lived card was a cantrip that Exiled a Gold from the Supply.

I tried a card that added another VP card to the top of the Province deck. Well I never made the card, since it didn't matter for testing out the concept, but I made the VP card (it came with 2 Horses) and we played some games with one per player on top of the Provinces. You know, it has a mild charm, but did not add much.

There was a Smithy that Exiled a supply card for up to $6 when you gained it, and let other players get in on it by discarding a treasure. Then, a Smithy that let each other player play any Action card from their hand when you gained it. Sometimes it was very cool, but in practice they so often could not get use out of it. I replaced it with the first of the cards that led to Falconer.

One concept I trotted out briefly was to trash cards from low supply piles. There isn't much like that in the game and well the game doesn't need much of it.

For a while I liked the idea of a village with 20 cards in its pile, with no special connection to the pile being 20 cards. You know, it wouldn't gain copies of itself or anything, there would just be 20 of them. The idea was, for multiplayer, you put in this card and you are set for villages. So many multiplayer games, if there aren't two village piles, you have to build a deck that doesn't need very many villages. But uh surely the multiplayer players know about this already? They must be putting in those villages or living without them already, that's what I think. And it ate up a slot that stopped seeming so available, I could have a pretty 30 kingdom cards 20 events 20 ways. I came up with a lot of villages trying to be the good 20-card village; many were bad, some have potential but were no good for a 20-card pile, and some got tried out. In the end I did Village Green for this slot.

A couple cards tried to be some slightly novel way to discard cards for $.

I briefly tried a Haggler variant that had Treasures come with a cheaper card. It seemed promising and then had issues to fix and I grew weary of it.

There are Way outtakes. There were multiple versions of a Workshop. Multiple cards tried to give +$ with some formula, e.g. "per copy of this you have in play." None of those seemed as good as just plain old +$2. There was a Scheme for all copies of "this." A flip side to Butterfly, turning a card into a cheaper one but to your hand. I tested "play this twice then trash it," which had wording issues, was a lot of fun, and just messed up the game too much. A couple cards were one-shot +$ formula things. I tried Band of Misfits - all your cards do a zillion things! I tried Throne and Scepter that only worked on cheaper cards, and a Throne for Treasures. I tried Training - choose a card, the last one picked with the Way has +$1. There was an Embargo, man it didn't do much. Coppersmith seemed promising but oops it was way too mathy, you play lots of cards as Coppersmith and not all at once necessarily. There was a Bridge. There were a couple versions of Navigator, for a bit it seemed like one would make it. There was "gain 2 Horses" - what animal does that? It was an okay ability but not essential, and the name was trouble. It was called Way of the Mare, which I didn't like. I also tried a Way that gained Silver, and a "card from discard to hand."

And there are Event outtakes. An early one gave you a Gold and a Horse per Gold you had in play; man it's okay but I did better. Similarly there was, when drawing your hand this turn, +4 Cards then discard 4 cards. I tried a Witch variant that was no good. There were a couple versions of a trasher/exiler (it tried both) that looked through all your cards like Donate. There was a Harbinger. I had a free Event that gave you +$1 or a Silver; it let you turn extra Buys into $. It was a runner-up for making the set; I did better.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 28, 2020, 12:58:00 pm »
Experiment clearly followed the theme of Laboratory; making “+2 cards +1 action” cards have a common theme; like how Villages and Trashing cards have a common theme. But now both Horse and Destrier have the same effect with a new theme. Did you consider this connection; and decide it was more important to fit with Menagerie’s theme than it was to fit with the pre-existing theme?

Or course, Stables and Trusty Steed both fit within that same mechanic; while sharing the horse theme. Did that play into it?
They were called Horses before the set had a theme. I didn't have to put a lot of thought into that and have no story of what went through my head. They're transportation and get you through your deck; probably something like that. I could have renamed them to fit a different theme; I considered trying to do Vikings, and they would have been boats or something. What happened though is that I picked animals as the theme and kept them Horses.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 28, 2020, 04:50:39 am »
As you would know, several mechanics from Renaissance were touched on in earlier sets, ie Coin of The Realm predicted Villagers, Inheritance kinda predicted Projects, and Lost in the Woods predicted Artifacts. Did you have an intention to explore these mechanics further from the start? Or did you start making Renaissance and decide to revisit them then? Or even, was this completely unrelated?
No, the original cards were just whatever idea. Villagers came from 2-sided States, not from Coin of the Realm; some Adventures Events are like Projects, but Projects also came from 2-sided States. Artifacts did come from Lost in the Woods though; States appeared in Nocturne to deal with tracking on some Hexes, and then, surely I could do something with those.

Rules Questions / Re: Looking at cards as you draw them
« on: March 27, 2020, 02:54:25 am »
With first edition Library that's definitely correct, since you set aside actions that are "drawn this way". With second edition Library, it's more ambiguous... it never says you draw the actions, it says you "skip" them. It doesn't give a mechanism for how you go about seeing the actions that you choose to skip; but it doesn't make it sound like they were ever drawn or in your hand either.

If there were a Project/Landmark that said "+1 for each card you draw during your action phase", it's clear with first edition Library that skipped action cards would still give you a , but I don't think they would with second edition library.

I have not heard that 2nd-edition Library is supposed to be functionally different. This was never mentioned as a problematic mechanism in the first edition, so I don't see why it would be changed.

Since we know that all the cards that Library puts in your hand are drawn (because otherwise you wouldn't be able to remove your -1 Card token), the only way it can work like you say, is that the card is still on your deck as you're deciding whether to set it aside or not.

Let's say the top card is an Action card and you want it. According to your interpretation you look at it without putting it in your hand, then you choose to draw it. So either you can draw it from a place outside your deck, or it's still on your deck. Well, the first option is definitely out. So then Library tells you to "look at" the card from your deck before deciding whether to draw it or set it aside. But it can't be look at, because cards being looked at are not on your deck (see Lookout).

So to me it really sounds like it's still like the first edition: Physically, you pick up the card and look at it, making sure that it's not put in with the rest of your hand yet, but this counts as drawing. Then you decide.
Correct; I haven't studied it but there was no intentional change there.

Rules Questions / Re: Discard Patron to Hostelry
« on: March 27, 2020, 02:53:57 am »
So I was wondering if "discard cards, revealed" means discad or reveal first.

This could matter if all these cards are in the game: Patron, Hostelry, Tunnel, Sheepdog, Way of the Mouse and Black Market

I can't come up with any other situation when it would matter, which means in practice it will never matter. As such I'm fine without an answer. Just an interesting theoretical thing.
I guess tentatively you reveal the cards first.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion: Menagerie
« on: March 27, 2020, 02:52:11 am »
Any word on physical copies?
They arrived in the warehouse on Thursday (today, to me). Now it's up to how long it takes them to get to distributors and then to online stores and then to players. My copies are coming directly from the warehouse so I'll have them in a few days. Some distributors will have them at the same time.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 25, 2020, 06:55:54 pm »
And as you (NoMoreFun) may already know, Wedding was originally: "Gain a Gold. Receive a Boon." Which to be fair, was way cooler. Of course at that time, Boons were all trying to be useful during the part of your Buy phase when you bought cards. I'm not sure it would be so hot with the printed set of Boons.
And I think it was a mistake to do Idol, since people don't like that some Boons will be less good or even bad then.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Fleet vs Seize the Day
« on: March 25, 2020, 02:29:19 pm »
I just noticed that Fleet and Seize the Day are very similar. Why does Fleet cost more? It seems to me that the extra turn you get from Fleet is generally going to be worse than the extra turn you get from Seize the Day... the Fleet turn will often have no more Provinces available, gaining non-VP cards won't help, etc.
Main answer: When I made Fleet, I settled on $5; when I made Seize the Day, I settled on $4. They were made at different times and each had to deal with "what should I cost." Seize the Day was not going to answer that with "just copy Fleet, whatever." If Fleet had been a whole category of cards, I might have felt like, this needs to fit in relative to Fleet; it wasn't, it was one card, and I could just make Seize the Day better or worse than it if that was best.

But also. Fleet you can buy whenever, just do it before the game is over. The extra turn is likely to at least get you a Duchy, so it wants to cost at least as much as Duchy. Seize the Day does its thing when you buy it; it wants to be cheaper so that it's tempting to buy it earlier in the game, making it more interesting.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 25, 2020, 02:23:41 pm »
When doing a new expansion, when do you decide what mechanics from prior sets are on or off the table? (Eg Events returning in Empires and Menagerie, but not Nocturne and Renaissance)
The intention is to decide on mechanics first; sometimes the mechanics change while working on the set (e.g. dropping Boons from Empires).

For Empires I thought, Events went great, maybe I always do them. It was hard enough to find good ones that I then thought, let's wait on revisiting those for a while. A big thing being, that they can work with the other set mechanics, and want ones that are good for that. Renaissance had Projects, it wasn't looking for more sideways cards. And then for Menagerie I was planning on Events from early on but it took me a while to actually make some.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 25, 2020, 03:15:39 am »
Are there any ideas you have been keen to playtest which require set exclusive mechanics from more than one set (eg a Project that gains Horses)?
Not really. People are always somehow excited by these things, but for me they're never anything. I don't think about them; I don't feel like I'm missing out. If the mechanics are ever in the same set it will be a thing I can consider then.

The closest to this situation I can think of is, Boons were originally in Empires, where one of the Boons was +1 VP. In Nocturne I had to replace that one (think of it as the Wisp replacing it, since Empires didn't have those). But if Boons had originally been in Nocturne, I wouldn't have been all, oh man if only I could have +1 VP on one of them. And it was fine that I couldn't have one give you a Spoils or whatever.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 24, 2020, 08:43:54 pm »
Any reason Reap says to play the Gold at the start of your next turn, instead of just putting it into your hand? The two are mildly different, but it doesn't feel like there's a good reason for this to play Treasures in your action phase, compared to cards like Storyteller and Black Market.
I considered it both ways. To-play was just trying to be a tiny bit more novel.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: "You may" on Events
« on: March 24, 2020, 01:17:51 pm »
I'm not sure if this has been asked before, or maybe someone just understands it. Why do Advance, Quest, Delay and Enhance start with "you may"? Does it make any difference, since you could just choose not a buy it?
I'm not sure if this has been asked before, or maybe someone just understands it. Why do Advance, Quest, Delay and Enhance start with "you may"? Does it make any difference, since you could just choose not a buy it?

You could just choose not to buy it, but Donald X. doesn't like creating cards where accountability could be an issue. If Advance said, "trash an Action card from your hand," then there is no way for other players to know if you have an Action card in your hand. This never matters, because why would you choose to buy Advance otherwise, but maybe in the future there will be a Reaction discard-attack type thing which reacts to buying an Event, or something.
I'm not sure if this has been asked before, or maybe someone just understands it. Why do Advance, Quest, Delay and Enhance start with "you may"? Does it make any difference, since you could just choose not a buy it?

You could just choose not to buy it, but Donald X. doesn't like creating cards where accountability could be an issue. If Advance said, "trash an Action card from your hand," then there is no way for other players to know if you have an Action card in your hand. This never matters, because why would you choose to buy Advance otherwise, but maybe in the future there will be a Reaction discard-attack type thing which reacts to buying an Event, or something.
Correct. For those four in particular, you may not be able to do the thing, and it's telling you to do the thing; "you may" is the tersest way to deal with "keeping you honest." In practice it doesn't matter - since you'd just not buy the Event - but it's a good habit picked up from it actually mattering for kingdom cards.

In some cases, "you may" helps me get a more natural phrasing; I prefer not to tell you to do something and then check if you did it, because it looks weird to casual players.

For online play, the "you may" can be annoying; you wouldn't have clicked on whatever if you didn't want to do it, and sure don't need to be asked again. That's the kind of thing that can be fixed with an autoplay though.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion: Menagerie
« on: March 24, 2020, 01:11:17 pm »
When is the secret History for this set supposed to come out?
Probably when someone could conceivably have the physical set.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Menagerie Bonus Previews
« on: March 24, 2020, 03:12:04 am »
A release date update: delayed. The expansion is in Chicago, but there is a shortage of drivers, and it isn't expected to make it over to RGG's warehouse until Thursday.

Rules Questions / Re: Mountain Pass and gaining Province during Donate
« on: March 24, 2020, 03:10:27 am »
Until/unless in-between things are errata'd away; can we get a ruling about whether you lose your leftover actions and coins at the end of turn, or at the start of turn? In other words, if you play Storyteller during a Donate; does it count the coins you had leftover at the end of the turn?
I just, I just feel like I need to make you answer some questions too. Why, GendoIkari? Are you writing your own Dominion program?

No-one needs to know what happens if Storyteller is played during a Donate.

Now that I'm understanding the order of operations, I think the reply below might not have been a complete answer:

Lantern modifies what happens due to following the instructions on Border Guard. With Enchantress in effect, you ignore those instructions, so Lantern does nothing.

Yes, with Enchantress in effect, you are ignoring the instructions, so Lantern does nothing. But the question remains: What if you apply Lantern before Enchantress? Are you then ignoring the instructions so that Enchantress can't find the very specific thing it's looking for?
Lantern never gets involved; we never reach the point at which Lantern would do anything.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 23, 2020, 02:40:54 pm »
Why did you decide to make Horses cost instead of costing like most non-supply cards?

My philosophy changed there, originally I thought "make them $0 so it's clear you must not be able to buy them," now I think "make them a cost that makes sense, so that they interact better with cards that care about costs." Except sometimes there might still be a reason for an exception, e.g. the Spirit Costs are all based on what Exorcist wants.

And then Experiment (which plays a lot like Horse) costs $3, so that's the cost that makes the most sense.
We tried Horse at $2 also, but I liked $3 for making TFB more relevant there.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 23, 2020, 02:40:15 pm »
You once said:

Today I would have you do the effect without Estate changing, e.g. you can discard Estate to play the set-aside card, leaving it there, and it's limited to non-durations (like Necromancer). That gives you "my Estates do this thing" but cuts out things like "they are Actions for Herald." And the Estates are always just Estates so so much for that.

When you made the Inheritance errata later, I think you explained why it still allows you to do Duration cards, because there was too much backlash against removing the ability to Inherit Durations.

But you also kept the way Estates become actions that can be played; instead of what you suggested before about having you discard the Estate to play the set-aside card. Did you try to make that version work? Clearly you can't just simply discard it, as that would lead to recycling the same Estate multiple/infinite times throughout a turn; but did you try other errata to avoid actually giving Estate the action type?
A big thing about Inheriting Durations was that Adventures itself has so many Reserve cards and Durations in the "up to $4" range. IRL sometimes someone doesn't have very many expansions; sometimes they buy a set and play with just that set for a bit. Inheritance was going to be really sad in those contexts, if it didn't work with Durations.

A lot of discussion went into the errata for Inheritance, and I printed and tested multiple versions. I put in the hours, now I am resting. It's work just looking through the archives at every suggestion and wording. I don't think we tried "discard an Estate"; we did try stuff that didn't make Estates into Actions.

The tokens apply to whatever you end up with after applying Way of the Chameleon.

Thanks. Does Way of the Chameleon also override Enchantress this way? It seems to me that with Chameleon you're following the card's instructions when Enchantress tries to replace them (and then Chameleon kicks in whenever you get to +Cards or +$). Otherwise I guess it means that Chameleon replaces the instructions with different ones right then, so that you're not following the card's actual instructions any more.
Way of the Chameleon also overrides Enchantress.

Let's see the card text for Enchantress.

"Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card on their turn, they get +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions.
At the start of your next turn, +2 Cards."

Enchantress looks for something very specific. It only does its thing the first time you play an Action card, instead of following its instructions.

With Way of the Chameleon, we replaced that with something else. The something else happens around the same time, and also involves following the instructions... but it's something else. It's not what Enchantress was referring to. So Enchantress still doesn't happen.

It's Ironworks all over again.

Rules Questions / Re: Mountain Pass and gaining Province during Donate
« on: March 22, 2020, 04:35:10 pm »
I'm actually thinking that Way of the Mouse should have said "if it's your turn", like Innovation. That way we would have avoided all these questions, including the ones about +Actions on another player's turn or during Donate, and probably a bunch of others. I always assumed Innovation had that restriction in order to avoid exactly this kind of undefined space. Maybe it could be an errata at some point. BoM and Inheritance got errata to make them clearer and avoid all this confusing stuff.
This isn't the fix at all. The fix is, there should not be stuff happening between-turns (except for determining whose turn is next, which Outpost etc. can safely mess with). Why is there? Because of the interaction between Donate and Possession (it's not that you trash all their stuff, which doesn't matter since Possession gives it back; it's that you empty their hand). The correct thing there was to give up on that; that game is still awful, there was no fixing it. Then, Mountain Pass is between turns so Possession doesn't affect who makes the decision to take 40 debt. But I later fixed that on Possession itself.

Will I ever fix Donate and Mountain Pass to not be between turns? Man, maybe. I don't need to make that decision today.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 223

Page created in 0.146 seconds with 18 queries.