Other hexes:Hmm. That's slightly ambiguous. Is "it" your discard pile or the deck you just put into your discard pile?
Bad omens: Put your deck into your discard pile. Look through it and put 2 Coppers from it onto your deck (or reveal you can't).
Locusts?
True, the effect happening isn't dependent on Crypt being in play, but what does that effect do? The effect says to put Treasures that are under Crypt into your hand, and there are no Treasures under Crypt anymore, since it's in the trash. It's like Ironworks-Trader: Crypt expects there to be a Treasure underneath it, and there isn't, so the Crypt effect does nothing and the cards remain out of play.It's probably a bad strategy, but if you Bonfire your Crypt, can you keep all your set aside Treasure out of play forever?
You can’t Bonfire Crypt as the Night phase occurs after the Buy phase (I guess you can Bonfire it in future turns?)
Additionally, the effect is not contingent on the card remaining in play, so Bonfiring the Night card will have no effect.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking: it's a Duration, so it stays in play and you can Bonfire it next turn after pulling off your best Treasure.
But also, if you move Crypt to the trash, what happens to all the cards underneath it? Do they move with it (in which case, does Crypt lose track of them because they're also in the trash), or do they stay behind (in which case, Crypt loses track of them because they're no longer underneath Crypt)?
This is answered by what I already said. The effect of the action (or Night card) is not dependent on the card remaining in play. The effect is “set” or “put in motion” on-play, regardless of what happens to the card that initiated it.
Cthulu would be cool too....
I would dig a Great Old Ones pile with each card being a different (ŕ la Knights) Lovecraftian ancient.
Oh god, please no. There's plenty of other Lovecraft stuff in other boardgames - it can stay out of Dominion, thank you very much.
Lotta wooshing going on in this thread.Has anyone tried "whoosh"?
Cthulu would be cool too....
I would be down with never seeing another Cthulu or Cthulu-themed thing in any board or video game for the rest of my life. Same with Zombies.
Guys, take it to RSP
Genuine question, here. Why would this need to be taken to RSP? We're discussing whether the terminology on a card works within the theme of the expansion. Or does any mention of sex have to go to that sub-forum?
I think it was a joke.
But not just any word is right for every context. There are subtle shades to language.
Whoa there, we don't take kindly to this sort of talk around here.
Guys, take it to RSP
But not just any word is right for every context. There are subtle shades to language. When sex is coupled with the occult and ritual magic (which is subtly different from just saying "magic"), the words chosen to refer to sex usually reflect a darker side. Den of Sin sounds better than, say, Love Nest in this context. For that matter, so does brothel. So lets put them on a spectrum: Den of Sin > Brothel > Love Nest. Then you can add any number of other terms in there that have a similar meaning. At some point on this (admittedly subjective) spectrum, the terms are going to cease being appropriate for a given context.With no context, I would say those two are fairly synonymous, but within context I think the word "sin" makes "Den of Sin" more thematically appropriate than "brothel".Den of Sin is very sexual and doesn't really fit with the theme.
I don't know, sex is often coupled (hehe) with the occult and ritual magic. I think it works pretty well, given the context.
It works just as well as "brothel" would in that sense.
You said that sex is often coupled with magic. In that sense, (i.e. judging how well the name works given its sexual connotations) brothel would work equally well.
Cthulu would be cool too....
With no context, I would say those two are fairly synonymous, but within context I think the word "sin" makes "Den of Sin" more thematically appropriate than "brothel".Den of Sin is very sexual and doesn't really fit with the theme.
I don't know, sex is often coupled (hehe) with the occult and ritual magic. I think it works pretty well, given the context.
It works just as well as "brothel" would in that sense.
Den of Sin is very sexual and doesn't really fit with the theme.
Do you guys go full random?Also, stuff like Baron in a Shelter game...
...excluding the time when it didn't exist...
I don't mind potions nearly as much as some, but still, I imagine that's a strict requirement for anything even resembling the potion mechanic.That's a fantastic idea, although it might require some effort to make sure it doesn't end up like the potion mechanic.I'm intrigued by this "Night card" idea, because I don't understand what design space that would open up. Venture is kind of like a peddler that you play during the buy phase and that's not too exciting, but I expect Night cards are going for something different.
Perhaps playing a Night card changes the game state for some limited period of time and certain cards do different things depending on the game state.
I'm intrigued by this "Night card" idea, because I don't understand what design space that would open up. Venture is kind of like a peddler that you play during the buy phase and that's not too exciting, but I expect Night cards are going for something different.
Well it should have 192 metal tokens if we are extrapolating.Adventures had cardboard tokens, Empires had metal. It would be diamond tokens next.
Huh? It is fairly easy to come up with a village or trasher variant. Anybody can do that. But if a new village is not more complex than Village it'll probably suck....expansion should always strive for complexity and not simplicity.
I disagree with that wholeheartedly. Expansions should strive for variety. That's not to say complexity is necessarily a bad thing, but it's not an end unto itself.I don't like rule-messy Dominion cards like Possession. But rule difficulty has nothing to do with complexity. A Euro can be more complex than a wargame in spite of far simpler rules.I disagree with that wholeheartedly. Expansions should strive for variety. That's not to say complexity is necessarily a bad thing, but it's not an end unto itself.I'll say it: complexity sucks.
Strategic complexity is fine; I'm not talking about that. Perhaps a misunderstanding along those lines is why there's a disparity here. I'm talking about rules complexity.
Ideally you quickly read the cards and then it takes a while to explore the implications. It's great when you play with a card a bunch and still don't have a handle on it. It's awful when your eyes glaze over at all the text; maybe I'll buy some other card and worry about that one later. When you mentally shorthand the card into something that's wrong and it matters. When you aren't sure what's supposed to happen and make a thread in the rules forum.
What I meant is that stuff that makes the first and fairly non-complex deckbuilder more complex is IMO good. Whether that's stuff like Landmark that makes the road to victory more tricky to evaluate or different starting hands via Shelters and so on doesn't matter. Again, Necro is not a difficult card to understand rule-wise yet the addition of variable starting hands makes the game more complex and thus, IMO, better.
...expansion should always strive for complexity and not simplicity.
Can you link to some resources / precedent suggesting on buy effects apply to Inherited Estates? I have never heard this before and this doesn't match my intuition. I'm sure it's correct but I've just never read about it.
