Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

1126

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 23, 2019, 08:35:14 pm »

Updated Submission:


change log:
Replaced When you draw this card from your deck, trash it and gain a Will-O'-Wisp

This would work online, but not IRL. People are bad at remembering effects that hurt them. I consistently forget when I have debt when playing IRL, and only remember because my opponents remember. There needs to be something to keep you honest, because your opponents can't see what you draw.

I agree with the second part, but it should be easy to remember. Its color stands out and you do it immediately when you draw it. Debt doesn't trigger immediately. I fully agree with the no honesty issue, though.

1127

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 23, 2019, 06:54:44 pm »

Hello,
here is my card submission:

thanks!

Isn't "from your deck" redundant? Where else would you draw cards from?

If you're able to retrieve the card from the discard pile, you don't have to trash it.

That's not drawing.

1128

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 23, 2019, 06:35:41 pm »

Hello,
here is my card submission:

thanks!

Isn't "from your deck" redundant? Where else would you draw cards from?

1129

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 23, 2019, 06:11:36 pm »

But again, you're using stronger to mean "does more total stuff in the game". Your personal copy of Witch isn't stronger. The collective copies of Witch that all players have are stronger. You don't have a better reason to buy Witch over another card in 4 player than 2 player.

Dominion is not multiplayer solitaire, the Supply and the decks of the opponents matter as much as your own deck. So if the frequency of incoming junk is double as high in a 3P than in a 2P game it seems obvious that the very thing that causes this havoc is also stronger and that the very thing that helps you deal with that very problem, like a trasher or a Moat variant, also increase in strength relative to the 2P case.

I think this is a good argument that trashing is stronger in a 3 player game with Witch than a 2 player game with Witch. But the net effect of buying a Witch yourself is still actually less in 3 players... if you don't buy a Witch, you end up with 10 Curses. If you do buy a Witch, you end up with about 7. It's only 3 extra, and your opponents only end up with 2 fewer each.

In a 2 player game, the difference between buying Witch or not is whether you want Curses to be split 10-0, or 5-5.

While I still think that Segura's card is bad design, I'm starting to see his side of this argument. Let's say you don't buy a Witch and everybody else does. In a 3P game, since there are two sources of Curses, the Curses will run out and you'll get 10 Curses twice as quickly as in a 2P game. Because of this, it's more important to buy a Witch earlier if you want to avoid getting 10 Curses. So in a way, with more players, the net effect of buying a Witch is made more impactful in some ways and less impactful in others with the number of players. One could argue either way whether an individual Witch is stronger or weaker with more players.

1130

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 23, 2019, 05:50:44 pm »

In this way, Witch doesn't become stronger.

I disagree. Junkers are rarely ignorable but sometimes they are. In this very situation in which you ignore a junker in a 2P game you would perhaps not do the same in a 4P game as the junk pool is larger. So not getting that Marauder in a 2P game might be fine, you can only get a max. of 10 Ruins. But in a 4P game, if you are the only player without a Marauder, you could end up with 40 Ruins.

This isn't correct, because all the other opponents are getting some of that junk as well. Just look at the math in a game where your opponent buys Witch and you don't:

2 player game: You end up with 10 Curses, your opponent ends up with 0.
3 player game, 1 opponent buys Witch, the other doesn't: You end up with 10 Curses, so does the other opponent.
3 player game, both opponents buy Witch: You end up with 10 Curses, each opponent ends up with 5.

The point is that each time a Witch is played in 3 player games, 2 Curses are given out (from the pool of 20). So you can't end up with all 20, or even more than 10, unless some players are using cards like Moat also.

In fact it's much worse in a 2 player game; where you have 10 Curse cards more than your opponent. In a 3 player game, if both opponents buy Witches, you only end up with 5 Curses more than your opponents.

4 player math works out the same way.

True that, I was wrong. But the junking frequency still increases (doubles from a 2P to a 3P game) which is why junkers (as well as trashers and some Reactions) become stronger with an increasing number of players.

But again, you're using stronger to mean "does more total stuff in the game". Your personal copy of Witch isn't stronger. The collective copies of Witch that all players have are stronger. You don't have a better reason to buy Witch over another card in 4 player than 2 player.

I agree with the first three sentences, but not that last one. In a 2 or 3 player game, I can usually trash my Curses faster than I gain them. In games with more players, I feel more inclined to do unto others before they can do unto me.

1131

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 23, 2019, 05:47:01 pm »

Let me put it this way, Segura:

In a 2P game, the most likely outcome is +1 Coffers and your opponent gets 1 debt. I would rather buy Scout.

In a 4P game, on the other hand, the most likely outcome is +3 Coffers and your opponents each get 1 debt. +3 Coffers alone is something I would buy for $8.

In other words, Revenant is a must-buy if you have 4P, balanced if you have 3P, and Scout tier with 2P. Sure, a lot of official cards scale a bit with player count, but not nearly to the same degree; the official cards that do scale with player count are balanced at their cost regardless of player count. This argument is less about whether cards should scale or not and more about the degree to which a card should be allowed to scale.

I agree about the player balance issues, but I don't think that +3 Coffers on your next turn, as a Duration, is that powerful for a . The Coffers being delayed a turn matters a lot; as well as the card just staying out more because of Duration.

Fair, but you get to use the Coffers whenever you want, and you don't even have to use all of them at the same time. It's like having a Gold that's delayed by one turn but doesn't take any space in your hand afterwards and can be used whenever. Except even better.

I don't think delaying an effect by one turn is that bad a drawback.

1132

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 23, 2019, 05:40:05 pm »

Let me put it this way, Segura:

In a 2P game, the most likely outcome is +1 Coffers and your opponent gets 1 debt. I would rather buy Scout.

In a 4P game, on the other hand, the most likely outcome is +3 Coffers and your opponents each get 1 debt. A +3 Coffers Night card alone is something I would buy for $8.

In other words, Revenant is a must-buy if you have 4P, balanced if you have 3P, and Scout tier with 2P. Sure, a lot of official cards scale a bit with player count, but not nearly to the same degree; even the official cards that do scale with player count are balanced at their cost regardless of player count. This argument is less about whether cards should scale or not and more about the degree to which a card should be allowed to scale.

1133

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 23, 2019, 05:20:31 pm »

Pirate Ship doesn't scale with player count to the same degree as Revenant. The only way it scales is that it's more likely to "hit" with more players; Revenant's effect stacks for each hit. Revenant is like if Pirate Ship got a coin token for every Treasure trashed instead of just one if it trashed any.

And? In a 2P game Revenant could easily yield just 1 Coffers. Not a particularly huge benefit which is why I do not worry about the multiplayer case

In 2P games, it will usually yield 2 Coffers.

You cannot conveniently ignore that you only get the second Coffer after you bought a card and that it comes with Debt. As I already pointed out, that can be an asset as well as a liability.

Um, as worded, you buy a card and get +1 Coffers, then somebody ELSE buys a card...and you get +1 Coffers, hence why I said 2 Coffers in 2P games and 4 Coffers in 4P games. If you intended that you only get Coffers when YOU gain a card, that's not what the wording says at all.

Also, I guess Witch must also scale with players according to you. After all, if 2 players play one, it results in a net 1 Curse for everybody, and if 4 players play one, it results in a net 3 Curses for everybody.

Yep, that's how it is, junking attacks are stronger in multiplayer games. Just play some yourself to get a feel for it.

I'll give you Noble Brigand and Jester, but arguing that Ambassador scales with player count is just stupid.

Thanks for the insult. I think I am done here. The simple maths/counting speaks for itself and I have no interest in chatting about Dominion with rude people.

Still assumes that everybody plays the attack the exact same number of times. That doesn't make each individual copy of Witch stronger; it results in more junk because there are more of them.

1134

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 23, 2019, 05:10:01 pm »

Pirate Ship doesn't scale with player count to the same degree as Revenant. The only way it scales is that it's more likely to "hit" with more players; Revenant's effect stacks for each hit. Revenant is like if Pirate Ship got a coin token for every Treasure trashed instead of just one if it trashed any.

And? In a 2P game Revenant could easily yield just 1 Coffers. Not a particularly huge benefit which is why I do not worry about the multiplayer case

That's only if your opponent doesn't buy anything, and it would be very rare for them to do that just to avoid 1 measly debt. In 2P games, it will usually yield 2 Coffers. In a 3P game, it suddenly gives +3 Coffers, and has an attack along with it. For just $5. Revenant is balanced ONLY in 2 player games.

Your scenario assumes that every single player has an Ambassador

True that, I did indeed implicitly assume rational play.

Sorry, I should have specified. Your scenario assumes that every player has an Ambassador AND plays them EXACTLY the same number of times. That's very unlikely, even if Ambassador is SO great that not buying them in every possible set is irrational, which is itself an irrational assumption. No card is good in absolutely every possible deck. Also, I guess Witch must also scale with players according to you. After all, if 2 players play one, it results in a net 1 Curse for everybody, and if 4 players play one, it results in a net 3 Curses for everybody. I'll give you Noble Brigand and Jester, but arguing that Ambassador scales with player count is just stupid.

The thing about Noble Brigand and Jester is that sure, their potential strength increases with player count, but the chances of gaining more cards decreases with each card gained; you might consistently gain one powerful card in a 4 player game, but you're pretty unlikely to gain 3 Golds with either of those. Your Revenant, on the other hand, is just as likely to gain +4 Coffers in a 4P game as it is to get +2 in a 2P game.

1135

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 23, 2019, 04:56:44 pm »

I am very well aware that the benefits of this card depend on the player count. Just like Pirate Ship, Jester and Noble Brigand (ironically all not particularly powerful Attacks). Ambassador is the most funky one. It is a net trasher in 2P, a "distributor" in 3P games and a net junker in 4P games.
I don't consider any of these cards to be broken just because their strength scales with player count.

Pirate Ship doesn't scale with player count to the same degree as Revenant. The only way it scales is that it's more likely to "hit" with more players; Revenant's effect stacks for each hit. Revenant is like if Pirate Ship got a coin token for every Treasure trashed instead of just one if it trashed any, and then got + $1 per Coin token on your Pirate Ship mat after the attack. Except it's even better, because their Coffers instead of $, and Coffers are strictly better.

I don't get what you mean about Ambassador scaling

Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that all players do play Ambassador at the same frequency and are always able to trash 2 cards.

In a 2P game you trash 2 via your own Ambassador and get 1 via the one of your opponent. Net trash 1.
In a 3P game you trash 2 and get 2 via the ones of your opponents. Net effect of 0.
In a 4P game you trash 2 and get 3 via the ones of your opponents. Net junk 1.

This makes Ambassador arguably the most player count sensitive card, it literally changes its core behaviour from a net trasher to a net junker! If you play a Kingdom with 2P you can easily use Ambassador as trasher whereas in the very same Kingdom with 4P you have to either rely on another trasher or, if there are no other trashers, Ambassador does not reduce but amplifies the junk.

Your scenario assumes that every single player has an Ambassador, which is unlikely and requires more Ambassadors to be taken from the Supply. Sure, Ambassador could be said, based on your example, to scale with the player count, but it scales with the number of copies shared by players, not just player count. Revenant, however, scales with player count alone.

1136

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 23, 2019, 03:54:51 pm »

If it is too strong, buy instead of gain is an obvious nerf. Note that this could be beneficial during your turn (when you spend less than you total) but also hurt you (when you have $10 and want to buy 2 $5s but are unable to due to the Debt that you incur between the two Buys)

I think the +1 Coffers effect is problematic. There's a reason that cards like Smuggler and Treasure Hunter only give you benefits based on ONE other player's turn, not everyone's. This effect scales badly with player count.

Here's my idea of how to fix it:

"Until your next turn, when any player (including you) gains a card, they take <1>. At the start of your next turn, take Coffers equal to the greatest number of cards any one player gained since your last turn." Something like that.

1137

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 23, 2019, 01:15:40 pm »

Monoculture:

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

I don't think, this even needs Debt. Poor House has negative money, which would work here as well.

$5
When you play this,
+1 Buy
-$1 per differently named card in play. (You can't go below $0.)

Debt can make you lose more money than you have. Your wording can't.

1138

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 22, 2019, 07:26:59 pm »

Monoculture:

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

Given the format for all official Treasures so far, it should also say "when you play this, take <1> per differently named card in play." I'm not sure why Treasures need to specify that, but all official cards do.

1139

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Contest #30: Design a card involving debt

« on: May 22, 2019, 06:15:59 pm »

EDIT: It now specifies that this occurs after cost-reduction, so cards like Bridge and Highway can still reduce cards' costs.

1140

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #30: debt

« on: May 22, 2019, 06:12:29 pm »

I've gone in with the creative use approach:

Technically, there's no rule saying that Duration effects stop if they leave play; You can use Improve on a Duration card and still get its next-turn(s) effect, for example. Recompense should say "At the start of each of your turns that this remains in play:"

1141

Dominion FAQ / Re: What's the best card?

« on: May 21, 2019, 01:21:24 pm »

I think that Hireling might actually help every possible strategy. I don't know of any strategies that aren't improved by having a larger handsize.

1142

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Kudasai's Random Dominion Cards

« on: May 20, 2019, 11:51:41 pm »

Thank you everyone for the feedback!

+1 Action and +$2 (which is worse than Silver since it can be drawn dead)

There are threads on this forum about the difference between Ducat and Candlestick Maker which show why the opposite is true. Action Silver is most definitely better than Silver. If Patron did not exist, Action Silver would be a $4.

I think this is relevant because it sets the low-bar for what value Vanguard has if it were played 100% incorrectly (i.e. +1 Action and +$2 every play).

+1 Action and +$2 (which is worse than Silver since it can be drawn dead)

There are threads on this forum about the difference between Ducat and Candlestick Maker which show why the opposite is true. Action Silver is most definitely better than Silver. If Patron did not exist, Action Silver would be a $4.

How so? Throne Room variants and Storyteller are too fringe-case to really say that Actions are better than Treasures because of those combos. (And even if Action Silver is between $3 and $4 worthy, that still doesn't change Vanguard being generally worse than Laboratory.)

Are you missing the fact that Vanguard gives +$2 when you've drawn your deck and a Lab would do nothing? I know Vanguard can get messed up by mid turn reshuffles but that shouldn't happen too often if you play carefully - and if you're drawing your deck every turn that just won't really happen. It seems better than lab generally to me (not strictly better).

It seems we are all now in somewhat agreement that a card that can both draw and provide coin afterwards has value beyond $5, but how much value is what I hope to understand. This probably depends on the average value, which cannot be figured out without knowing what the value of Vanguard is if it is played 100% correctly every time. Something like:

"Choose one: +2 Cards and +1 Actions; or +1 Card, +1 Action and +$1; or +1 Action and +$2."

I have to assume this might be around a weak $6 cost, or maybe a very strong $5 cost. All in all, I feel good playtesting this at $5.

The option where you get to choose between the three effects is strictly better than Lab. I think it would actually be a fairly strong $6 cost, anyway; versatility is very valuable and underrated imo.

1143

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 20, 2019, 09:31:03 pm »

Is it about that time to travel to the next Weekly Challenge?

Based on when this challenge was given, we're two days overdue.

1144

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Kudasai's Random Dominion Cards

« on: May 20, 2019, 09:30:11 pm »

+1 Action and +$2 (which is worse than Silver since it can be drawn dead)

There are threads on this forum about the difference between Ducat and Candlestick Maker which show why the opposite is true. Action Silver is most definitely better than Silver. If Patron did not exist, Action Silver would be a $4.

How so? Throne Room variants and Storyteller are too fringe-case to really say that Actions are better than Treasures because of those combos. (And even if Action Silver is between $3 and $4 worthy, that still doesn't change Vanguard being generally worse than Laboratory.)

Are you missing the fact that Vanguard gives +$2 when you've drawn your deck and a Lab would do nothing?

I didn't think about that situation, but the fact that it can't trigger a reshuffle makes that far harder to trigger. I'd say it's around the same strength as a Lab, though.

1145

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Kudasai's Random Dominion Cards

« on: May 20, 2019, 05:55:45 pm »

+1 Action and +$2 (which is worse than Silver since it can be drawn dead)

There are threads on this forum about the difference between Ducat and Candlestick Maker which show why the opposite is true. Action Silver is most definitely better than Silver. If Patron did not exist, Action Silver would be a $4.

How so? Throne Room variants and Storyteller are too fringe-case to really say that Actions are better than Treasures because of those combos. (And even if Action Silver is between $3 and $4 worthy, that still doesn't change Vanguard being generally worse than Laboratory.)

1146

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Swords & Sorcery

« on: May 19, 2019, 08:05:58 pm »

I just realized something. Even if it isn't in print anymore, isn't it bad to have a card type share a name with a card? Specifically Adventurer in this case.

1147

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Swords & Sorcery

« on: May 19, 2019, 06:44:43 pm »

Cleric: ...In addition I think the other revealed cards could go back on top in any order.

The problem with this is, Cleric could hit the card at the very bottom of your deck after going through even your discard pile for all you know. And do you really want players analyzing the best possible ordering of 20+ cards? Going back on top in any order should only happen for a relatively small, fixed number of revealed cards for this reason.

1148

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Kudasai's Random Dominion Cards

« on: May 19, 2019, 02:37:54 pm »

This last one is a more recent attempt at a Laboratory variant. It has the draw back of not being able to draw through a reshuffle, but has two benefits of adding coin if you've overdrawn and not forcing unwanted reshuffles. I'm unsure if this equals out to a $5 cost card. I have a feeling a card that is non-terminal and can draw and add coin might be too strong. Although early game you have little control over which you get. Any thoughts are appreciated.

It definitely doesn't seem worth $5 to me. The most common effect by far is a Lab, but the other possible effects are either +1 Action and +$2 (which is worse than Silver since it can be drawn dead) or +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$1, which is between Poacher and Market. Unfortunately, while I don't think it's quite strong enough for $5, I think it's also too strong for $4, since the "worse" effects rarely trigger anyways. I think it needs to be either nerfed or buffed.

1149

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Swords & Sorcery

« on: May 18, 2019, 03:18:24 pm »

Dark Priest, like Tunnel, relies on another discarder. Fortunately Cleric is one such discarder (and a particularly effective one in the absence of curses).

Cleric doesn't discard from play, and Dark Priest specifically says that it has to be discarded from play, which is impossible as no official card and none of your cards discard from play. I assume Dark Priest's extra effect is supposed to trigger just when it's discarded in general. Either way, it should be a Reaction card; look at Faithful Hound and the aforementioned Tunnel.

1150

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: May 17, 2019, 05:03:36 pm »