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.

6651

Goko Dominion Online / Re: A Tiny Little Goko Rule Mistake

« on: October 18, 2012, 11:11:36 am »

Seriously. One guy created an online implementation of Dominion in his free time far better than an entire team with millions of dollars behind them ever will. Sad.

Agreed. I think the big difference is that DougZ really knew the game mechanics well when he started coding. There are tons of bad assumptions about the Dominion mechanics that are really easy to make if you're not an expert at the game, and Goko made most of them. Fixing those mechanics after you've built the entire game already is a nightmare.

6652

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Starting my own collection and gaining experience

« on: October 16, 2012, 11:34:14 pm »

Since your roommate has the base set, I would definitely get Intrigue and Seaside.

Also, don't forget about Hinterlands once you start buying other sets. I have a feeling that once the newness of Dark Ages wears off, Hinterlands will end up as my favorite set.

6653

Dominion Articles / Re: Explorer

« on: October 16, 2012, 02:03:31 pm »

I'm pretty sure that the Possessing player would gain the treasure and so the value of gaining in hand would be totally lost.

Correct.

6654

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Design Contest: RinkWorks Cards!

« on: October 10, 2012, 06:05:38 pm »

You discard your own cards when you play it.

If you pull off a pin with it I say you deserve it.

Well, you draw 2 cards first, so you break even in terms of hand size. It wouldn't be easy to play a bunch of these in a turn, but it wouldn't be tough to create an engine that plays 2 of them, and 2 is enough to destroy most turns.

More importantly, pops, your head is stuck in 2-player land. In a 4-player game, each of my opponents only has to play one of these to destroy my turn utterly.

6655

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Design Contest: RinkWorks Cards!

« on: October 10, 2012, 06:00:55 pm »

Matador
$3 - Action-Attack
+2 Cards
Each player (including you) reveals a card from his hand.  He discards it or puts it on top of his deck, your choice.

Am I missing something about this card, or can it pretty easily wipe out you opponents' turns if played repeatedly?

6656

Dominion Articles / Re: Request: The Value of (Not) Trashing

« on: October 10, 2012, 05:02:02 pm »

Menagerie seems like a pretty awesome counter to Bishop. Similarly, I once played a game where my opponent went Bishop and I bought Libraries to counter. I think I bought all 8 Provinces/Colonies that game (can't remember which).

6657

Dominion General Discussion / Re: There's room for an extra card in the Base Set and Seaside

« on: October 10, 2012, 03:53:09 pm »

If I remember correctly, Dungeon is the name of a Card that Donald X. wrote, but was never published, and it was reworked into another card in Dark Ages.

Not quite. It was in Dark Ages briefly, but it didn't get reworked. It just left.

Dungeon
Type: Action
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. Discard a card. +3 Cards.

It's not a knock-out interesting card by the standards of later expansions, but the Base Set could really use it to make Witch less dominant.

6658

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What would make Scout better?

« on: October 10, 2012, 11:26:23 am »

I've actually had several games recently where Shanty Town helped me win. It basically allows you to build an engine without trashing.

6659

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: The Contest Set Card List

« on: October 09, 2012, 06:20:27 pm »

So, I'm kinda jumping into this conversation without reading much.

But I've kinda wondered why Canal isn't just worth 5 - the number of empty piles?  Like if there is a design reason it shouldn't be I'm open to hearing it, but my gut feels like that's the best implementation for what it does.

Yeah, I'd like that too. You could also reduce the cost of the card by the number of empty piles.

6660

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: The Contest Set Card List

« on: October 09, 2012, 06:13:25 pm »

The "(if it was available)" clause is there to emphasize that you do not need to play with Colony in order to play with this card. Maybe this would be better suited to a rules clarification, but it is not as obvious that it can be eliminated. My specific reason for including it is that without it, in non-Colony games, it raises the question: "If Colonies aren't available, is the Colony supply pile empty?" Or, someone may think, "Oh, Canal's in play, we need to put Colony in play, too."

Yeah, I can understand your stance here. If it were me, I'd probably take Colonies out of the equation entirely and have it only care about Provinces, but my goal here was not to mess with the actual effects of the card.

One interesting and clean way to "fix" this would be:

Canal
$6* - Victory

If three Supply piles are empty, then this is worth 2 VP. Otherwise, this is worth 4 VP.
--
During your Buy phase, if two supply piles are empty, then this costs $3 less (but not less than $0).

It works differently when you empty Provinces/Colonies as the third pile, but in most games it's the same effect without needing to name Province or Colony specifically. It's win-win!

6661

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: The Contest Set Card List

« on: October 09, 2012, 05:48:56 pm »

On Crystal Ball -- I put the reveal in there to be consistent with Tunnel.  Perhaps the "Set aside" mechanic should be enough that the reveal isn't necessary.  Hmm.

With Tunnel, you're revealing it because it's ending up in your discard and might not otherwise be revealed (because it could be hidden under other discarded cards). If you set aside a card as you're discarding it, it's implicitly revealed.

By the way, I absolutely love Harbinger. I think it could create a lot of AP, which is something I normally try to avoid in fan cards, but the card is so cool that I don't care.

6662

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: The Contest Set Card List

« on: October 09, 2012, 05:34:16 pm »

Here are my suggested wording changes for the contest-winning cards. I tried not to alter their effects in any way.

Tea House
$4 - Victory

2 VP
--
At the start of Clean-up on the turn you buy this, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck.

Tea House
$4 - Victory

2 VP
--
When you buy this, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard that card from play this turn, put it on top of your deck.

The difference between choosing a card immediately upon buying it and at the beginning of cleanup is negligible. You can't play any more Actions or Treasures at that point anyway.

Canal
$6* - Victory

When the game ends, if the Province or Colony supply pile is empty (if it was available), then this is worth 4 VP. Otherwise, this is worth 2 VP.
--
During your Buy phase, if two supply piles are empty, then this costs $3.

Canal
$6* - Victory

If the Province or Colony supply pile is empty, then this is worth 4 VP. Otherwise, this is worth 2 VP.
--
During your Buy phase, if two supply piles are empty, then this costs $3 less (but not less than $0).

You don't need to specify 'when the game ends'. All VP calculations are done at the end of the game. Also, there are potential rules conflicts when setting a card's cost dynamically. This card says it now costs $3, but this other card says it costs $1 less? How much does it cost? $5? $3? $2?

Pawn Shop
$3 - Action

Choose one: trash a card from your hand, gaining a number of Coppers equal to its cost in coins, putting them into your hand; or trash any number of Coppers from your hand, gaining a card with cost exactly equal to the number of Coppers you trashed.

Pawn Shop
$3 - Action

Choose one: trash a card from your hand, gaining a number of Coppers equal to its cost in coins and putting them into your hand; or trash any number of Coppers from your hand, gaining a card costing exactly $1 per Copper you trashed.

Slightly cleaned-up wording regarding the cost of gained cards.

Crystal Ball
$5 - Treasure-Reaction

Worth $2
When you play this, reveal the top card of your deck and either discard it or put it back.
--
When you discard this other than from play, you may reveal it and set it aside. At the start of your next Buy phase, play this card.

Crystal Ball
$5 - Treasure-Reaction

Worth $2
When you play this, reveal the top card of your deck. Discard it or put it back.
--
When you discard this other than from play, you may set it aside. At the start of your next Buy phase, play this card.

You don't need to reveal a card before setting it aside. Set aside cards are implicitly revealed.

Academy
$4 - Action

+2 Cards
+1 Action
Each other player draws a card, then discards a card from hand.

Academy
$4 - Action

+2 Cards
+1 Action
Each other player draws a card. Each other player discards a card.

You don't need to specify that a card is discarded "from hand" any more than you need to specify that you gain a card "to your discard pile". It's the default.

6663

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What would make Scout better?

« on: October 09, 2012, 04:47:18 pm »

I'll meet you halfway: I now agree that Scout, Thief, Adventurer, Counting House, and Saboteur are all definitely worse than Transmute.

If you're playing games with 3 to 5 Alchemy cards at a time, I'll grant that Transmute could be better than Counting House. If you're playing full random games, there's just no way that's true. I win with Counting House decks far more frequently than I win buying a Potion just for Transmute.

6664

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What would make Scout better?

« on: October 09, 2012, 11:52:54 am »

I think the cleanest change to Scout would be to give it a flat +$1. +1 Card would make it too powerful for a $4 card, on par with Cartographer. Increasing its search range would make it take much longer to resolve. Having it put Curses into your hand would also be a nice change, making it useful in a different kind of game than it's normally used in.

Scout:

+1 Card sounds fair, but is rather uninspiring - it essentially makes it a worse version of Cartographer (which is really already is I suppose).

Worse? In any game with a sifter (Cellar, Warehouse), it's a much better version of Cartographer. Cartographer can't increase your hand size.

What about something a bit more controversial like "gain a VP costing less than 5" ? Or increase the number drawn to 5 or even 6?

Looking at the next 5 cards would slow things down, but looking at the next 6 cards is right out. If you don't reveal any Victory cards, you might be deciding which of these 6 cards goes into the hand after your next hand? No thanks.

6665

Dominion General Discussion / Re: There's room for an extra card in the Base Set and Seaside

« on: October 08, 2012, 05:11:34 pm »

If these slots were to be filled, I'd like to see Dungeon in the base set and Stash in Seaside.

6666

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dark Ages: Part 2 stealth launched in private beta

« on: October 08, 2012, 10:39:24 am »

Cards in part 2 are : Beggar, Catacombs, Death Cart (*o*), Feodum, Forager, Junk Dealer, Market square, Mystic (*.*), Pillage, Rats (*O*), Rebuild, Wandering minstrel

For those that aren't keeping track, the cards in part 3 are: Counterfeit, Graverobber, Hermit, Hunting Grounds, Knights, Marauder, Poor House, Rogue, Squire, Storeroom, Urchin.

So yes, the later Dark Ages sets are getting the more interesting cards. Part 3 has 4 of the set's 6 Attack cards, along with Squire (which makes sense). It also has both cards that gain from the trash and both cards that become other cards (Hermit and Urchin).

6667

Dominion General Discussion / Re: The value of a terminal Gold

« on: October 05, 2012, 02:37:02 pm »

It seems to me that terminal-coins-with-a-benefit cards get the short shrift on this forum because we overwhelmingly concentrate on 2-player games. In a 3- or 4-player game where engines are less viable, the terminal Gold cards (Harvest, Merchant Ship, Adventurer, Mandarin, Explorer) are likely more useful (relative to engine-enabling cards, that is).

6668

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money

« on: October 04, 2012, 06:28:44 pm »

Because I have yet to see any legitimate reason against it. Your "tons of other threads" excuse is a classic ploy by people who claim something, yet resort to a vague existence of evidence without actually providing any.

Hee hee! My laziness is a "classic ploy". I like that!

Really it's just that this conversation has already been done to death in this very forum and I'm sick of having it.

Rinkworks's post on why you need to be very careful when using "can't".

Thanks a lot for finding this.

6669

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money

« on: October 04, 2012, 05:44:33 pm »

Here's an idea that hurts VP acquisition without Cursing...

BLOOD MONEY
$5 - Treasure
Worth $3
-
While this is in play, you may not gain Victory cards.

This needs to be "you may not buy Victory cards". Otherwise it has rules clashes with a number of cards.

You mean like Horn of Plenty, Border Village, etc.? That was the entire point of the wording change -- to prevent players who play this version of Blood Money to acquire Victory cards in ANY manner.

I really like this idea, even though it's pretty similar to Quarry. That being said, it should definitely be 'buy' instead of 'gain'. It's a Treasure card anyway, and the number of situations in which you'd be gaining a Victory card without buying it during your Buy phase is small. In fact, it's so small that it's not worth the terrible rules interactions that 'you may not gain' would cause. Why in the world would you want to insert terrible rules interactions just to eliminate cool combos with Horn of Plenty and Border Village? Makes no sense.

What terrible rules interactions? Other than HoP, BV, and the aforementioned Swindler interaction that isn't a Swindler interaction?

The problem with 'you may not gain' is that there are cards effects that tell you to gain things. The rules do not cover what would happen when these two effects conflict. 'You may not buy' is fine, because no card forces you to buy things. There are tons of other threads in this forum where people list examples of why 'you may not gain' is bad, and I'm not going to waste time dredging them up for you.

Here's my question for you: why are you so stuck on using 'you may not gain'?

6670

Dominion Articles / Re: Request: The Value of (Not) Trashing

« on: October 04, 2012, 05:39:29 pm »

For you smart-allics out there, Masquerade is not included here, even though it's possible for it to work like this.

It's spelled 'smart aleck'. 

6671

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money

« on: October 04, 2012, 05:33:47 pm »

Here's an idea that hurts VP acquisition without Cursing...

BLOOD MONEY
$5 - Treasure
Worth $3
-
While this is in play, you may not gain Victory cards.

This needs to be "you may not buy Victory cards". Otherwise it has rules clashes with a number of cards.

You mean like Horn of Plenty, Border Village, etc.? That was the entire point of the wording change -- to prevent players who play this version of Blood Money to acquire Victory cards in ANY manner.

I really like this idea, even though it's pretty similar to Quarry. That being said, it should definitely be 'buy' instead of 'gain'. It's a Treasure card anyway, and the number of situations in which you'd be gaining a Victory card without buying it during your Buy phase is small. In fact, it's so small that it's not worth the terrible rules interactions that 'you may not gain' would cause. Why in the world would you want to insert terrible rules interactions just to eliminate cool combos with Horn of Plenty and Border Village? Makes no sense.

6672

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money

« on: October 04, 2012, 04:31:12 pm »

Nonetheless, I think a score-manipulating Blood Money ought to be doable if the penalty happens on-play, in keeping with the principles of balance I started this post talking about.  "When you play this, gain a Curse token."  A Curse token would be like a VP token but worth -1 point instead of 1.  Something along those lines can probably work.

You could also just have it give each other player a VP chip, and not need to create new components.

I wish I could give this more '+1's. Brilliant! This is what I want to see for one of the Prosperity cards in the Treasure Chest expansion: a powerful card that gives opponents VP chips when played. That's two of Prosperity's themes right there. Seems perfect!

6673

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Looking to the future: The Guilds

« on: October 04, 2012, 03:58:33 pm »

If I remember correctly, Walled Village is a Guilds outtake. Take from that what you will, but I think it indicates that Guilds will mostly (or entirely) consist of normal Kingdom cards that will add to the strategy space of the game (which is good), but won't fundamentally change how the game works (which is also good).

6674

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Bizarre bot strategies?

« on: October 02, 2012, 11:56:50 am »

Some of the AI for specific cards is just blatantly sub-par. The biggest example I can think of is Salvager. The bot will always prioritize salvaging Copper over Estate, which is just awful.

6675

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 1: Assassin

« on: September 28, 2012, 02:32:21 pm »

Warrior
$5 - Action/Attack
+$2
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand chooses a card from his hand and reveals the others.  Choose one of the revealed cards for him to discard.

I still prefer this wording, which I see as more elegant:

$5 - Action/Attack
+$2
Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand reveals 4 cards from his hand. He discards one of them card that you choose.

It performs differently in games with Governor and Council Room, but I think I prefer it this way.