We're on a forum about Dominion strategy, so, unsurprisingly, people are concerned about things being strategically useful. Obscure edge-cases and endless lists of theoretical interactions are not.
The proper place for arguing for the sake of arguing is a debate club.
I think it might be. The "th" sounds are not native for many of us foreigners, and non-proficient speakers may associate/substitute them with sounds that are used in their language, like some form of "T" or "F" in this case. Once you've done that, you'll have trouble remembering which words contained "t" and which "th".Wait a minute.... are they actually misspelling "Trashing" as "Thrashing"??
Well, there are other misspellings around...I know that possession is consistently misspelled in the code for just such a reason.
Yes but I can understand the posession one. That's not knowing how to spell a word that's not an immediately obvious spelling. Thrashing is not just a misspelling of Trashing, it seems more like they were under the impression that "Thrash" is a Dominion term instead of "Trash".
"Rebuild" would be an amusing poke at what MF supposedly did for the last six months.
In fact, if you do say that prices and names (and Possession) are the only edge cases to ignore, then I do believe that the only real strictly better situations I can think of are:By those rules, I think Mining Village > Village also applies.
Butcher > Remodel
Expand > Remodel
Worker's Village > Village
So it's a month late, but I got Hinterlands as a late Christmas gift! Have them all now.
Then chastise him first. "It's worse than Wharf because it gives a worse benefit both this turn and next turn."+2 cards > +2$. +2 Actions < +2$.
That's not how it works though.
Be consistent.
i wonder if the issue in europe is some weird thing against the word "sorceror"? i know they had problems with "ninja" for a while, which is why TMNT was called Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles there
That was a Sorcerer's stone...How'd they get that stone into that bottle though?The Philosopher's Stone isn't a stone. It's a substance, typically imagined in powder form (as here).
Sounds like Harry Potter got it wrong then.
Only in America.
Because long words in the title would turn off the readers. Too much stuff to read, apparently.
Three syllables = fine
Four syllables = WHAT? WHAT IS THIS...WELL, SORCERY?
I like the idea of Sheriff... but isn't it almost automatic to open double Sheriff? Handing out 2 curses until turn 4 is just so strong. I guess that's not as big of a problem as you can do that even with 5/2, but it does seem a tad boring.
Accatitippi, I think there are lots of good ways to try the card, so don't be discouraged. I just suggest trying one of the simpler versions even if it doesn't do exactly what you originally envisioned.
I would actually like some sort of delay when I'm playing with Possession because the log doesn't tell me what cards I have in my hand. I don't know if it's possible to make it happen for just Possession though, probably not.
The correct solution isn't a delay, the correct solution is to allow you to toggle to view your hand. Though doesn't the log show what you drew from the previous turn?
Maybe this has been answered elsewhere, but are you allowed in F2F Dominion to look at your previous hand during your Possession turn? At that point it's not your turn with your deck. It's your turn with your opponent's deck. I could see how someone would interpret the rules such that you can't look at your own deck during this Possession turn.
Am I missing something, or does this do what you want?
+3 Cards
+2 Actions
You may discard a Curse. If you didn't, gain a Curse.
This card is better than the original once Curses run out, since you will still get +2 actions even if you have no Curses to discard. But at that point, does it matter? Your deck may be full of Curses then anyway. If you find it too strong, you can nerf it by moving the vanilla bonuses to the bottom, which will force you to gain Curses more often.
In any case, I'm personally not a fan of the "strong card that curses the user on play" concept.
Well, your version is just a "strong card that curses the user on play".
The purpose of mine was letting you build a deck which uses curses as an Engine component, and which ideally is built and plays differently enough than village smithy. I just failed, it seems.
Unless Curses run out, yours is the exact same thing... Meaning yours is also it's a strong card that curses the user on play...
That was a Sorcerer's stone...How'd they get that stone into that bottle though?The Philosopher's Stone isn't a stone. It's a substance, typically imagined in powder form (as here).
Sounds like Harry Potter got it wrong then.
Only in America.
Am I missing something, or does this do what you want?
+3 Cards
+2 Actions
You may discard a Curse. If you didn't, gain a Curse.
This card is better than the original once Curses run out, since you will still get +2 actions even if you have no Curses to discard. But at that point, does it matter? Your deck may be full of Curses then anyway. If you find it too strong, you can nerf it by moving the vanilla bonuses to the bottom, which will force you to gain Curses more often.
In any case, I'm personally not a fan of the "strong card that curses the user on play" concept.
