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.

6451

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Copper-Based Spy/Witch Attack

« on: January 06, 2015, 05:28:18 pm »

GendoIkari is correct. The "may/otherwise" on Bookkeeper is not there to provide an interesting decision, but rather to make it so the card doesn't whiff. Unlike Mountebank, the "main" attack of Bookkeeper is meant to be the one you may choose to do: putting a Copper on your deck. The Copper gain clause is there so that Bookkeeper still attacks when the target has no Copper in his discard pile (unless the Copper pile runs out). It's fewer words than making the target reveal a discard pile with no Copper. And if the decision turns out to be an interesting one more often than Mountebank's decision, great.

There is something weird about this though.... if the Copper pile does run out, then the "main attack" stops working, because they can choose to gain a copper and fail instead. This is weird because the "main attack" shouldn't be affected by an empty copper pile. Maybe it's just because of Mountebank, but to me, the main attack here is gain a Copper, and there is a Mountebank-like clause that allows you to Bane the attack.

6452

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Copper-Based Spy/Witch Attack

« on: January 06, 2015, 03:35:56 pm »

Attacks that give players choices are naturally weak because, even if both effects hurt, the player will always choose the option that hurts him less.

This is incorrect.  Attacks that give the targets choices are naturally weaker, which is not the same as being naturally weak.  Torturer is still strong, despite giving other players a choice.  But for something more drastic, consider the following:

Lose-Lose
$3 - Action-Attack
+$3
Each other player chooses one: he discards 4 cards, or he gains 4 Curses.



The actual consideration to make is whether the choices are balanced enough that the decision is interesting for other players.  For this particular attack, it may be true that top-decking a Copper is often superior, so the decision is not too interesting.  Even so, I think it may be OK.  I am still against unchecked Copper junking, and the topdecking option may be a fine check.

Mountebank gives other players a choice... it COULD have forced you to discard a curse if you have one rather than choose to gain the Curse+Copper, but it didn't. And the choice in Mountebank isn't balanced at all.. you choose to discard the Curse 95% of the time. Of course you don't  ALWAYS have a choice to make, but that's exactly the same with Bookkeeper. You might not have any coppers in the discard, and then you don't have the choice to make. The choice on Bookkeeper is much more balanced than Mountebank.

6453

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Copper-Based Spy/Witch Attack

« on: January 06, 2015, 01:21:48 pm »

True enough, though none of those provide +Buys either.

I don't think "It's never been done before" is a good reason to not do something on a Dominion card. In fact it's a point in the thing's favor. There may be other good reasons not to do the thing, but that isn't one of them.

In this particular case, I could see +1 Buy being a poor match for a junker. But I'm hoping this will primarily be a bureaucrat-like attack, and that seems fine. You could argue that it's bad that a cheap source of +Buy (which you might buy for that reason alone) also happens to be an Attack. You wanted the +Buy but now you're also attacking the other players. That might be the case, though it hasn't stopped me from buying Taxman for the Treasure upgrades or Soothsayer for the Gold gaining. Or any of the Smithy attacks for the +3 Cards. Anyway we'll see how it plays out in practice.

One thing is that now that there's a +buy, this looks like woodcutter. For an increase from $3 to $4 in cost, you get the attack. Considering how little of a difference $3 and $4 are in cost, it seems like an attack, even a not super-painful one, is a lot to get for that cost increase. Obviously though, Woodcutter is one of the, if not the, weakest 3s.

6454

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Copper-Based Spy/Witch Attack

« on: January 05, 2015, 11:09:16 pm »

I have mixed feelings about the +buy. The thing is that one thing +buy allows is building up on extra copper in games where you want more Copper (Gardens, Duke, etc). And this card forces opponents to gain extra copper. So it's like a synergy and anti-synergy at the same time. If a Copper-based strategy was almost but not quite viable, your opponent playing this card will make it viable, and you'll want the card yourself for the buy.

6455

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Copper-Based Spy/Witch Attack

« on: January 04, 2015, 07:49:46 pm »

Possible huge first-player advantage here... if both players open with it, and player 1 draws it on turn 3, then player 2 has no discard pile to look through; auto copper gain.

6456

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Homage to the Best Card

« on: January 03, 2015, 10:46:34 pm »

Decline of civility on Homage to the Best Card?

6457

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: What would a "Legacy" variant look like?

« on: January 03, 2015, 10:32:37 pm »

The only realistic options would seem to be allowing you to have some control over the set of cards for the next game. Any of your other suggestions, or anything you do to give you an advantage in the next game, would just make the next game way too easy for you.

6458

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: More Spoils gainers

« on: January 02, 2015, 03:52:03 pm »

I'd switch Dungeon's top to +1 card, +2 Actions, +1$, discard a card.

Why? This should be too weak in games without Attacks (Bazaar). Maybe okay for $4. But I'd prefer something simple, maybe a $4 Woodcutter, or, as I said, a $5 Peddler?
It could also be a Treasure worth $2 that gives you Spoils per Attack cards in play for $5. (Edit: No - this is Silver in non-attack games)

I like the +3 cards / discard 2 cards because the extra sifting will increase the chances of finding an attack card to play.

But remember, +2 cards +1 action discard a card is too strong for $4. +3 cards +1 action discard 2 cards is probably a fair amount better than that, plus you have the Spoils gaining. So it might be too strong.

Another thing you could do with it is to make it a (weak) attack. That way it will always have a way to trigger itself.

6459

General Discussion / Re: Awesome Christmas Present

« on: January 02, 2015, 03:47:36 pm »

And it gets better! As a late Christmas gift, I just received the Base Cards Set! So now I actually do have ALL of Dominion. And with great timing too; my first-set base cards are now so worn that I was just about to switch to my Intrigue base cards.

6460

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: More Spoils gainers

« on: January 02, 2015, 01:34:40 am »

Wouldn't Ambush need a clause for revealing? Or while-in-play?

No. It stays in play until another player buys a Victory card. Then you gain a Spoils and discard the Ambush at the end of that player's turn.

I don't think this is right. Durations stay in play until the cleanup phase of the last turn in which they do something. Nothing on the card here says which turn is the last turn it will do something. The first time another play buys a victory card is simply the first turn (after the time you played it) that it does something. It's not the last turn that it does something. The last turn it does something is the last turn that another player buys a victory card. Nothing in the duration rules, or the card text, lets you know that you should discard the card when it first does something for you.

*Edit* Just saw that I'm wrong... I missed "the next time" on the card text, thought it was just "when"... I suppose this changes it. It can't do anything past "the next time an opponent buys a victory card", thus it is done doing stuff at that point.

However, I do still think that even though Duration card rules technically allow for this sort of thing, custom Duration cards would be much better off following the pattern of every other real Duration card and simply having a this-turn and a next-turn effect. This card could be reworked as a reaction instead.

6461

Dominion Articles / Re: Prince

« on: December 26, 2014, 01:06:20 am »

A throned discard is sort of the inverse effect

Should be "Princed", not "Throned".

n a Colony game, you usually don't want to go for Provinces expect in the endgame

"Except."

6462

General Discussion / Awesome Christmas Present

« on: December 25, 2014, 12:01:16 pm »

Since I already have every Dominion expansion there is; and my wife wasn't able to talk Donald X. into letting her have a pre-release copy of the new set to give me, here's what I got:





They're from The Broken Token, who had a booth at bgg.con.

6463

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Hunting

« on: December 24, 2014, 10:20:30 pm »

When we're talking about "weaker" engines that use Rabbit for +Buy, I think we're talking about "should have played a non-engine strategy instead".

Yes, I'm saying that I think Rabbit could be enough to make the weaker engine viable in that scenario, where something like Herbalist wouldn't cut it.  That's exactly my point.

I disagree.

And that's cool.  It's not like either of us have playtested this extensively, or at all.

To clarify, "weaker engine" might not be the best term here. I'm thinking more of the kind of deck that sits.between engine and BM archetypes.  I think reliable +Buy via tokens could really help even BM-leaning strategies in that continuum.

I agree with you in general, but I think you're underestimating the opportunity cost. Rabbit is as bad as a Curse for the turns that you draw it.

6464

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Really bad card ideas

« on: December 23, 2014, 10:49:52 am »

Coin Magnet
$4
Action - Reaction
You may play any number of Coppers from your hand right now. | When another player plays a Copper, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, remove that Copper from play and put it into your hand.



This card might not be that bad, actually.

It's like a worse Cutpurse where you keep the dumb copper and clear it for your opponent. I'd almost NEVER use that Reaction unless I knew that that Copper was the only thing stopping him from getting something that screws you hard.

But I like the action benefit a bit. It utilizes Watchtower a lot more. Interesting synergy there.

You're thinking that Coin Magnet is actually much stronger than it really is... it doesn't stop your opponent from getting the $1 that turn. They already played the Copper; so it already generated the coin for them. Removing the Copper from play doesn't change that.

That makes the idea even worse than I intended it to be. I should rather have written, "When another player would play a Copper, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, he passes that Copper to you instead."

Ah that makes more sense. Except it just can't work, because how do you know when another player "would play" a copper? By the time you know he's going to play a copper, he's played a copper. Perhaps you could technically say something like "when another player would get +$1 from playing a Copper..."

6465

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Hunting

« on: December 22, 2014, 05:58:52 pm »

Rabbit
(Action) $2
+1 action
Take a buy token

XerxesPraelor commented that Buy tokens aren't very good.  I disagree.  The main effect of tokenizing vanilla bonuses is to make them more consistent.  If you have a coin token, you smooth out your purchasing power.  If you have a buy token, you can be sure to have +Buy when you need it (i.e. when you have enough money that you want to buy two things).  Buy tokens are weaker when you can draw your entire deck, but this is not the usual case.  Rabbit is probably good enough to support a middling engine with just 1 or 2 copies.  Rabbit is fine for $2.

Even with your arguments that buy tokens can be pretty good, are you suggesting that they are much better than coin tokens? Because if buy tokens are as good as coin tokens, this card is a worse version of Candlestick Maker, and should have +$1 to make it balanced. If buy tokens are a little worse than coin tokens, then this card is a much worse version of Candlestick Maker. If buy tokens are better than coin tokens, then they need to be so much better that it's worth not getting +$1 here...

6466

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Fealty

« on: December 22, 2014, 11:07:53 am »

Not every card has to be on theme.

They can't all be the most on-theme card ever.

6467

General Discussion / Re: Financial Management

« on: December 22, 2014, 10:55:00 am »

This is funny because WW had to explain his own joke.

This is funny because explaining jokes is a joke/meme that we have here at F.DS.

6468

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Really bad card ideas

« on: December 21, 2014, 10:49:52 am »

Coin Magnet
$4
Action - Reaction
You may play any number of Coppers from your hand right now. | When another player plays a Copper, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, remove that Copper from play and put it into your hand.



This card might not be that bad, actually.

It's like a worse Cutpurse where you keep the dumb copper and clear it for your opponent. I'd almost NEVER use that Reaction unless I knew that that Copper was the only thing stopping him from getting something that screws you hard.

But I like the action benefit a bit. It utilizes Watchtower a lot more. Interesting synergy there.

You're thinking that Coin Magnet is actually much stronger than it really is... it doesn't stop your opponent from getting the $1 that turn. They already played the Copper; so it already generated the coin for them. Removing the Copper from play doesn't change that.

6469

General Discussion / Re: Financial Management

« on: December 18, 2014, 10:28:18 pm »

Sorry, I meant to write salary eligibility.  Traditional deductible IRAs have an income limit of ~$70k / ~$115k (single / joint), and Roth IRAs have an income limit of ~$116k / ~$183k (single / joint). There's also a very popular way to get around the Roth IRA income limit but no corresponding maneuver for traditional deductible IRAs.

Yeah I just found out about this income limit yesterday when following up on your post and learning what a back door Roth was. Man I didn't know about this! Erm, do you know if it depends on your income during the year that you made the contribution? I mean, I made my 2014 contribution near the beginning of this year... and there's a chance I'll be over the limit this year, though I'm not sure. So if I am over the limit, how would that work? I've already made the contribution. Does that mean that I'll pay some penalty for having made the contribution when I wasn't eligible? But I didn't know at the start of the year when I made it if I would be eligible or not.

Also, unless I'm mireading something, traditional IRAs don't have any income limits; only Roths do. And this is the basis of the back-door Roth; that you can contribute the money to a regular, then roll it into a Roth, even if you are over the income limit for a Roth.

6470

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Hunting

« on: December 18, 2014, 12:26:55 pm »

Here's a weird thing about terminal Moose... in a game with no Villages at all, it simply can't be used. Any time you play it, you'll just get 2 cards that you can never play nor get out of your hand in any way, so they'll just go back. I dunno what percentage of games have no Village (including TR/KC/Procession), but it's worth considering.

It isn't limited to just actions.  So it is a terminal $4 by picking up 2 silvers, or too coppers for a terminal $2.

Oh right, duh.

6471

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part II

« on: December 18, 2014, 11:59:41 am »

This is old, but I just rewatched it yesterday for the first time in a long time. Still great.

6472

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Hunting

« on: December 18, 2014, 11:55:49 am »

If Camouflage is way too weak, what about allowing you to play any number of treasures from your hand instead of just 1? It's still limited to the same combos, meaning that it's still not useful most of the time, but it would be better when it is useful, and much better with draw-to-x.

6473

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Hunting

« on: December 18, 2014, 11:54:15 am »

I like Duck Call pretty well. I disagree with eHalcyon that it's obviously too strong for $2; it might work fine at that cost. Worth testing.

I really think it needs to be compared to Donald's never-made Lab variant. If +2 cards, +1 action, discard a card is too strong for $4, then I don't see how this card can be anything but $4... it just seems like a little weaker version of the same thing. Put it this way... if you have a whole bunch of them in your deck, then you should be able to get pretty much any 3-5 card hand you want for that turn. So as long as you have a couple Golds in your deck, that should be a Province every turn. And Gold-Gold-Silver is hardly the best 3-5 card hand you can come up with.

6474

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Hunting

« on: December 18, 2014, 11:50:28 am »

Here's a weird thing about terminal Moose... in a game with no Villages at all, it simply can't be used. Any time you play it, you'll just get 2 cards that you can never play nor get out of your hand in any way, so they'll just go back. I dunno what percentage of games have no Village (including TR/KC/Procession), but it's worth considering.

6475

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Hunting

« on: December 18, 2014, 11:47:41 am »

You still need accountability for the case where the cards are (possibly) in your hand, and clarity on what happens if you have exactly one in play and one in your hand, which is hard to do without the text being too long. How about this:

Moose
(Action) $6
Gain 2 copies of a card costing less than this, putting them into your hand. At the start of Clean-up phase this turn, reveal your hand and return 2 copies of the gained card, from play and/or your hand, to the Supply.

This sounds ok. Though I'm also ok with the idea of not having accountability sometimes. Throne Room doesn't have it ,and although I know Donald has said that Throne Room would be different if created today; a couple other things like Graverobber don't have it also. I was never big on the accountability thing... the card says "return 2 copies from your hand or in play", so if you have the ability to do so, but don't do so, you are cheating. You shouldn't need to "prove" that you aren't cheating. The game rules are written with the assumption that you aren't going to cheat.

Plus, players should know if you still have the cards in your hand, most of the time. Most of the time you won't have played Celler / Warehouse / etc afterwards, so if you didn't discard any cards then players know they're still in your hand... and if you did discard some cards, then you could have just as easily have discarded your Moose cards anyway. So you would have had to have first chosen to not discarded your Moose cards, even though you got no extra advantage out of discarding whatever else you did instead, and then decided later that you didn't want to return your Moose cards to the supply, so you lie and say that they were in the discarded cards. Sure there's edge cases where you might want to do that, but it's not the normal situation. I'm ok with trusting players to not cheat in the edge cases where such things matter. That's what Graverobber does.