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 - LastFootnote

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 262
1
To answer the OP, I also advise you to give him Second Edition.

All the new cards in Second Edition Base have conditions or decisions, whereas Spy was the only decision-heavy card to be removed.

To be clear: I do like the new cards. They just don't feel right for new players, or for Base.

I think that comparison is pretty unfair. For instance, Bandit is less decision-heavy than Thief, and the decisions (when there are any) are spread out among the other players rather than all made by you. Merchant has a "condition" but man come on. It's not complex.

Artisan is a very decision-heavy card, I'll give you that. Sentry could be simpler, as discussed. The rest of the new cards have a smaller decision space than Workshop. Is Workshop too complex for the base set?

EDIT: Or to put it another way, Feast is a more decision-heavy card than Merchant, Vassal, Poacher, and Bandit. Also Harbinger misses a lot, so there's not always a decision there.


2
I'd actually like even more simplicity: Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. You may trash one. Discard the rest.

I can see players being annoying by feeling like being forced to discard good cards sucks too much; but I also feel like new players shouldn't have to think about in which order to put 2 cards on top of their deck.

To be fair, they don't have to think about it. They can just slam those cards back down in whatever order, consequences be damned.

3
In retrospect, I do wish we'd tried Sentry with: "Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. You may trash one. You may discard one. Put the rest back in any order." Hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

That's a lot of power to lose for the sake of simplicity. Maybe for $4?

Is it really so much power? I think being able to trash 2 cards is problematically powerful for a cantrip $5, so removing that seems great to me. It removes the games where one player gets super-lucky with their early Sentry and just cruises to victory. And then you have the late game where you'd like to discard both cards. But unless they're both Provinces, sometimes you can just discard one and trash the other. You might not have drawn it again before the game ended anyway. Maybe that is too much weaker, though. I don't know, I think it could afford to be weaker and still sit comfortably at $5. A $4 cantrip that trashes from your deck sounds nuts to me.

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the idea isn't just simplicity. It's that Sentry is sometimes crazy strong.

4
I love the 2e Base Set. That said, Sentry is a well-designed card, but when I'm playing with beginners I'd use Junk Dealer instead. Sentry can be a lot of decisions for a new player to consider, and being nonterminal exacerbates the issue.

It would be better if Donald could turn back time and put Junk Dealer in Base and Sentry in Dark Ages (where it would have a nice combo with Mystic, similar to the combo with Vassal in Base).

In retrospect, I do wish we'd tried Sentry with: "Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. You may trash one. You may discard one. Put the rest back in any order." Hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

5
Similarly, I'm uncomfortable with some of the "simplified" wording. "Trash a Copper from your hand for +$3." is only clearer than "Trash a Copper card from your hand. If you do, +$3." if that specialised use of "for" is spelled out somewhere and, so far as I can tell, it isn't.

"If you do" isn't spelled out in the rules anywhere either. Both "if you do" and "for" are spelled out in English, and I have a hard time believing that "for" is causing much confusion.

That's pretty harsh. I prefer the more explicit older wording, too. "For" as it's used here is absolutely more informal. It's not immediately clear that +$3 is something you get as a consequence of deciding to trash a Copper and not a price you pay in order to trash a Copper.

Edit: I get it's not ambiguous, though, because "+" is defined in the instructions. It just takes more parsing for me than the old wording did to get the interpretation right. Without the "+" the instruction would be ambiguous.

I think if Moneylender didn't have "you may", you'd have a good point. In generalóthough there may be exceptions!ósimilar abilities that aren't optional still have "if you do/did". Trading Post, for example. But how are you possibly rationalizing the interpretation that you can choose not to trash a Copper with Moneylender and still get +$3? "You may trash a Copper for +$3." If you didn't trash a Copper, you must have opted out of this ability! Hence, no +$3. It seems really cut and dried to me.

EDIT: Oh, OK. I misunderstood you. You're saying people could be misinterpreting "+$3" as "$3". Well, that's valid and I don't think we realized that possible misinterpretation when Donald X. was deciding this stuff. Hopefully in practice people aren't confused very often. Sorry for misreading your post!

6
To this particular piece, I feel like you're responding to the opposite of what CRJ was saying. The complaint was that second edition is TOO good at teaching that Coppers are bad, by spelling out right on the attack that it won't trash Coppers. If I read you right, you're response is pointing out that second edition does a good job of teaching it. CRJ was saying he liked how first edition did NOT teach it.

Ah, I see. Well I guess crj and I will just have to agree to disagree on that. I don't feel the base game would be better if it had, for example, a weak card that gained an Estate when you played it. Man, this card gives you a point each time you play it! Awesome! Eventually you'd learn that it's terrible, but I assume you'd think "wow the designer sure messed up" rather than "oh I see, it's here to teach me a valuable lesson".

That's not a perfect analogue to the Thief situation, but man. I think it's totally fine if the game hints that Coppers are bad. Anybody who thinks hard enough about Moneylender is going to realize that it's a terminal Silver that removes a Copper from your deck. Why would I even buy this over Silver if Coppers are good? Admittedly it does trick people who don't think hard enough about it. "+$3! It's like a cheap Gold, but I'm sacrificing a Copper." Certainly that's how I viewed it when I first played Dominion.

7
Woodcutter, for example, is an ideal card for beginners even if it then rapidly falls out of favour. Similarly, I remember having great fun with Thief when I started out; Bandit may be less wordy, but it's much more convoluted in practice. and if you don't already know that stealing Copper is bad, well, it's good to learn that rather than have the short-cut of a "fixed" card handed you on a plate.

You can make an argument that the base set benefited from having a sixth vanilla card like Woodcutter. I don't agree, but it's a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the seven new cards are all sufficiently simple, and that having more interesting cards is important for new players as well. Bruno Faidutti (another game designer whose games I enjoy) complained back in 2010 that Dominion was too simple. That the cards were not interesting enough, and felt like just shuffling numbers around between Actions, Buys, Coins, etc. And as a tangent, I think Temporum's base set suffers a bit from over-simplicity as well. But again, this is all a matter of taste.

The argument that Thief is important for teaching players a lesson about the game is pure, unadulterated nonsense. Imagine that Dominion had first been published with Bandit instead of Thief. Would you honestly be complaining that some piece of the game was missing? No, of course not.

Now maybe that's a bad argument I just made. Of course you can't miss something that was never there, but that doesn't mean having Thief instead of Bandit wouldn't have improved the game. Well I put it to you that the game does a fine job of teaching you "Coppers are usually bad" without needing a terribly weak card to do it. Moneylender teaches it. Chapel teaches it. Buying Coppers teaches it. Thief isn't special in this regard. And why have a terrible card solely for the purpose of teaching a redundant lesson.

Similarly, I'm uncomfortable with some of the "simplified" wording. "Trash a Copper from your hand for +$3." is only clearer than "Trash a Copper card from your hand. If you do, +$3." if that specialised use of "for" is spelled out somewhere and, so far as I can tell, it isn't.

"If you do" isn't spelled out in the rules anywhere either. Both "if you do" and "for" are spelled out in English, and I have a hard time believing that "for" is causing much confusion.

8
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Mixed bag of cards
« on: May 15, 2018, 11:17:58 am »
I like most of these. I think Witch's House is especially cool.

9
It's a known issue, and unfortunately has happened to a lot of printings recently. You should contact Rio Grande Games. They'll send you the correct cards as soon as they can, which is usually quite soon.

10
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Asper's Cards
« on: May 10, 2018, 02:30:55 pm »
The problem is that you rarely want to pay 5$ for your villages. So the first two or so are really good buys, but afterwards you are paying a lot to enable your engine, assuming there are no other villages around.

That's a big assumption, though. If there are other villages around, Clifftop Village is a no-brainer, since it's a cantrip trasher that also functions as a village, and then remains a village afterward. Junk Dealer doesn't turn into a Peddler once you're done with it, and it's one of the strongest $5 cards in the game.

11
Dominion General Discussion / Re: To Those Who Deny Undo Steps Online
« on: April 28, 2018, 06:39:37 pm »
I do occasionally suggest undos for my opponent after they make a move that's obviously not going to do what they hope it will. For instance, recently someone got Lost arts on Envoy, then Inheritance on it. I let them know, your Estates aren't going to get +1 Action. They took me up on my offer of undo and inherited Lighthouses instead.

12
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Would you trash an estate worth 2VP?
« on: April 18, 2018, 01:44:23 pm »
Well letís put it this way. Say we each start with three Victory cards in our deck that each cost $2 but are worth 6 VP. Are you contending that itís usually best to trash all three of those cards?

I want to say probably? I'd want to think about that, but it's pretty board dependent (isn't everything amirite).

It's an 18-VP lead you'd have to overcome. And there's only so much VP on the board. The player who didn't trash those cards could just play BM-Ultimate and crush you on all but the most ridiculous of megaturn boards.

13
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Would you trash an estate worth 2VP?
« on: April 18, 2018, 12:29:47 am »
Well letís put it this way. Say we each start with three Victory cards in our deck that each cost $2 but are worth 6 VP. Are you contending that itís usually best to trash all three of those cards?

14
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Would you trash an estate worth 2VP?
« on: April 17, 2018, 01:38:53 pm »
I think it almost always would be.

Having a Province in your deck while you're trying to build will normally cost you more than 6 points.
Potentially a lot more.

If you can use e.g. Salvager to get $8 worth of value out of your Province(s) in order to kick-start your deck, then sure. Totally trash those Provinces. But if you're trying to claim it's smart to Chapel away Provinces on turn 3 or 4, I don't believe you.

Do you usually trash your Heirlooms in Keep games?

15
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Would you trash an estate worth 2VP?
« on: April 17, 2018, 12:09:24 pm »
Just a though experiment...

If your starting estates were worth 2VP would still chapel them? What if they were worth 2.5VP? or 3VP? Obviously it would depend on the board, but in an average game at what point would you not trash them?

I believe that trashing is essentially the same decision as 'not buying'. In a big money game the simulations show that you shouldn't buy a duchy if you are going to draw it more than once. You shouldn't buy an estate if you have more than a 50/50 chance of drawing it. You could set up similar simulations for tunnel quite easily but it will fall into a similar range.

Those stats ignore end game competition, of course.

Itís not the same as not buying, in the sense that, say a province or a duchy are usually competing against some power card during your buy phase. When trashing, they are competing against nothing. It doesnít seem as clear cut to me.

Also you have to put forth effort to trash them. I bet it's often worth it to trash a Duchy that starts in your deck, but not a Province.

16
Dominion General Discussion / Re: note to self
« on: April 16, 2018, 10:19:18 pm »
Haunted Woods kills Night cards dead. I know it's common knowledge at this point, but apparently I need to be more careful.

17
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Being sneaky
« on: April 15, 2018, 09:56:08 am »
The rules of Dominion specify that you must announce Action cards as you play them. It does not say the same for announcing cards you buy and gain, but I think itís implied.

18
I don't know/remember how this should work. I'm sure Donald X. will weigh in when he gets the chance.

19
Crown is an example of a fairly simple card that might break things quite badly: the first ever card that can be played when you're playing Actions or when you're playing Treasures.

In fact, Crown was the catalyst for DougZ giving up on updating isotropic. Or seemed that way, anyway. It was around that time.

20
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: "Demon", the Druid of Hexes
« on: April 09, 2018, 03:50:53 pm »
I believe Tormentor originally turned over the top two Hexes and gave the victims a choice between them. Or maybe not "originally", but it was definitely a version we tested. It was waaaaay too slow. Especially if you didn't have the Hexes memorized.

I like the Druid version here better. Specifically one that lets the victim choose between two static Hexes. Rotating brings back the slowness. Having three static Hexes is maybe too much to think about, and having just one can often be too harsh. Two seems reasonable. Although I haven't thought about each combination of Hexes. Obviously if Misery is one of them, I think you just take the -4 VP and call it a day.

21
Introductions / Re: Chase Adolphson's intro
« on: April 04, 2018, 03:13:53 pm »
As you have probably noticed I argue a lot and don't give up very easily.

My advice is to give up when you're wrong, and stick to your guns when you're right. Easy!

22
Introductions / Re: Chase Adolphson's intro
« on: April 04, 2018, 03:12:47 pm »
I've introduced Dominion at work, and we're at nine current players (and three more that has quit their jobs), playing every lunch break with Dominion, Intrigue, Seaside, Prosperity, Hinterlands, Dark Ages, Adventures and three promos. Guilds & Cornucopia is soon to be added (just waiting for the updated version). This is fun!  ;D

Oh man, even I only play Dominion during lunch at work once per week, though usually we can get two games in.

23
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Favorite Expansions in 2018
« on: April 04, 2018, 12:27:38 am »
What was wrong with March? Not useful enough? Too useful?
Without looking it up, I'm going to guess that it was just, it adds nothing but shuffling. It doesn't open up strategies, it doesn't give you something interesting to think about. You buy it when you can and shuffle more.

That matches my memory. It just didnít add any gameplay.

24
I think it should be +3 Cards. And then uh maybe start it at costing $3 or $4? Probably $4.

25
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Offering, the Heirloom that time forgot
« on: April 03, 2018, 04:11:55 pm »
I don't like that each player ends up with a different set of Boons. That feels very swingy to me. I mean, Boons are already swingy in a similar way. But here, if player 1 gets a particular boon on turn 1, then player 2 immediately knows that they can never receive that Boon the entire game.

Yep. It's swingy. It's really a card for Timmy-type players. A for-fun card, and we've had a lot of fun with it indeed. I'm sure there will be a lot of players who just hate the kind of swinginess it can create. Heck some people hate Black Market, even though it's been proven to be a "high-skill" card.

EDIT: I am guessing, though, that it's not quite as swingy as it looks. Rather, I don't think it's swingy as I think it looks, but your mileage may vary.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 262

Page created in 0.305 seconds with 18 queries.