Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 on: Today at 02:26:32 pm 
Started by JimJammer - Last post by Holunder9
I disagree. It is usually good to use words that are anchored in something concrete.

Splitter means the same as village, not Village which is one particular type of village or splitter. Given that it reflects how many people physically play Action cards that net yield an extra Action in their play area (I use the splitter method to track Actions myself and always recommend it to Dominion newbies) splitter is a pretty good term (except perhaps for the crowd that only plays Dominion in a digital form).

While talking about different type of splitters and differentiating between drawing and non-drawing village or conditional and unconditional villages I prefer to use the term villages over splitters (which I only use to refer to villages in general) but that's just a stylistic kind of thing.
If you talk about Village and villages in general at the same this can become pretty confusing (e.g.: even though a deck requires less copies of Spillage Village than copies of Village it is a pretty bad, high risk village) so this is where splitter is the stylistically superior term that helps to increase readability.

 on: Today at 01:54:29 pm 
Started by kru5h - Last post by Holunder9
What about this version of Ox?

Slightly more useful in some games, but not overpowering.
Great idea! I think that mechnically something like this is a necessary buff and "feel-wise" this is a cool enough twist to make the card interesting.

 on: Today at 11:00:41 am 
Started by Seprix - Last post by LaLight
Completionist in me is happy.

Turn 4 - LaLight
La plays a Fool.
La takes Lost In The Woods.
La takes The Sky's Gift.
La takes The Flame's Gift.
La takes The Swamp's Gift.
La receives The Flame's Gift
La trashes an Estate.
La discards The Flame's Gift.
La receives The Swamp's Gift
La gains a Will-o'-wisp.
La discards The Swamp's Gift.
La receives The Sky's Gift
La discards 3 Coppers.
La gains a Gold.
La discards The Sky's Gift.

 on: Today at 10:53:36 am 
Started by RTT - Last post by samath
Disappointed that Hauted Castle didn't make the list in the "not really an attack" category.

Only happening once makes it pretty bearable.
Bearable yes but it still functions like an attack. More disappointed from a completionist perspective than something Id vote for.

 on: Today at 09:09:47 am 
Started by TP - Last post by ipofanes
Some of the cards that arguably added a bit to the game (Thief was considered one of the pillars of Dominion) but were bad were re-implemented (said Thief by Noble Brigand and Bandit, Spy by Zombie Spy, Saboteur by the Knights and Giant, Secret Chamber by Vault, Great Hall by Mill), so the general ideas were not lost.

 on: Today at 09:00:00 am 
Started by kru5h - Last post by ipofanes
Having an Attack card in hand may occur about as often as having a card not blockable by LHO in hand, so it may be compared to Gladiator, which is a strong $3. Considering that, unlike Gladiator, this would be effectively non-terminal, and considering what DXV said about the price of Silver-plus cards, $5 sounds about right.

 on: Today at 08:12:49 am 
Started by Aquila - Last post by faust
On the Reassign change - not sure that "counts as Kin cards for you" is clearly defined. Just one example: assume I have Highland Village in play, and play Swindler. Another player trashes a card with my Kin token costing $5. "For me" that is a Kin card and thus would cost $4. But it is not my card. So does the cost reduction apply? And I am sure other problems like this can arise.

Exile - It feels that this is to Swindler what Legionary is to Militia. More economy, and a stronger attack. Makes me think that maybe it wants a similar restriction for the attack, like "you may reveal a Kin from your hand. If you do...". Like it is, it seems oppressively strong, and I don't think the negative VP do a lot to dissuade you from getting it.

Piper - like a mix of Cultist and Avanto. I think it definitely needs to cost $5, even without the text below the line. And the below-the-line line text is a bit strange in execution since I can use both the below-the-line and the on-play effects to play Piper-Piper. Not sure if it makes any actual difference, but it's kinda weird.

Travelling Merchant - if you don't want the other Kins, this is very automatic. And if other Kins are nonterminal, you're always going to activate one of these. It's kind of like a less interesting Conspirator. The buy restriction is kind of random and artificial and you can still easily gain this with Alms or most gainers. Would be slightly more interesting of the restriction was to have a Kin in play, but of course that gives a small chance that the card will be impossible to buy.

 on: Today at 07:36:41 am 
Started by Commodore Chuckles - Last post by ghostofmars
Some of the decisions in Dominion are made by the player, e.g. which card to play, buy, or gain. What rules should we make regarding these decisions? Below I will outline a basic Touring machine in Dominion, where these choices are dictated by a set of instructions, i.e., not rooted in the rules of Dominion.

The basic idea is to use the deck and the hand of the player as storage (Copper and Silver as 0 and 1, and Gold as blank). Keeping track of the order in which you drew the cards to decide which one is currently active (the last one you drew). The underlying method to work on the storage uses the following algorithm:

Kingdom: Overlord, Crown, Mandarin, Watchtower, Ambassador, Smuggler, Lurker, Treasure Map, Smithy, Pawn
Setup: Mandarin in trash, Watchtower and 6 Overlords (OL) in hand, in the previous turn, I gained a Copper, Silver, and Gold

OL1 as Crown
... OL2 as Crown
... ... OL3 as Crown
... ... ... OL4 as Crown
... ... ... ... OL5 as Crown
... ... ... ... ... OL6 as Treasure Map, trash OL6
... ... ... ... ... OL6 as Lurker, gain/trash Mandarin, put OL1-5 on deck
... ... ... ... OL5 as Lurker, gain OL6 on deck
... ... ... OL4 as Smithy, draw OL1-3
... ... OL3 as Smithy, draw OL4-6
... OL2 as X

The important part of this algorithm is that it keeps the hand unmodified and allows to play one action X every cycle. To implement the Turing machine, we can modify the currently active card using X = Pawn or X = Mandarin by adding another card to our hand or putting the active one back on the deck. Overwriting the storage depends on the cards used to store the information. Writing is a combination of returning the old card with X = Ambassador, gaining a new card with X = Smuggler, watchtowering it on top of the deck, and then drawing it with X = Pawn.

 on: Today at 05:46:37 am 
Started by Aquila - Last post by Aquila
Whilst waiting for Renaissance to know what will happen with Revolution, I turned my attention to these. Updated OP, changes here:

Chief - fair point with cost definition. $4 is a big boost, and a simpler way to ensure balance is to have the player to your left discard one, so that's changed. I considered the idea of making it a non-Supply pile and came up with:
Vice - Action Kin, $2 cost.
+2 Actions
+1 Buy

In games using this, when you gain a 3rd differently named Kin on your turn, you may gain a Chief from its pile.
It's not set yet because it may not have to be. My overall concern is, though, that Chief is too strong a free giveaway when you can get the other Kins. A weak non-terminal variant could work (though Vice would help with Actions) but as a terminal it's more definitive as a game strategy if the tribe is right.

Reassign now gains a Kin costing up to $4 more than the one trashed, to help enable the copper recruiting and so help cut down its wall of text. It wants to make recruits Kins just for you, thanks for pointing that out faust, so it uses the wording "cards from that pile count as Kin type for you" so it works whilst they're in the Supply.

Telltale is out. It either didn't do anything or it was unpleasant to play. There's a really bitter feeling when you play a Kin knowing you have to get a crow for it. Gazbag's analysis too.

Onto new ones:

Exile - Action Attack Kin, $5 cost.
+ $3
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one that you choose, and gains a card with the same cost as it that you choose.
In games using this, when scoring, -2VP per differently named Kin you have.
Yes another wall of text, yes another 'in games using this' effect; it works at the end so it shouldn't get too much with the others. The premise is making a bad tribe, and this gets it involved in the game by being a Swindler variant. I'm aware that making a strong card worth negative VP is poor design, but I think it can work on this?

Piper - Action Reaction Kin, $4 cost.
+2 Cards
You may play an Action Kin from your hand.
Directly after resolving an Action Kin, you may play this from your hand.
It lets you play a chain of Kins. It's been strong in testing, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a $5.

Travelling Merchant - Action Kin, $4 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action

Reveal your hand. + $2 if there are no Kins.
You can't buy this if you have 3 or more Coppers in play.
The premise is, use the other Kins or use this. Mid to late game it's fine, but automatic early, so it has a semi Grand Market limiter on it. I'd prefer something like it to making this also cost $5 as buying too many of these is bad.

Poor execution still?

 on: Today at 04:13:08 am 
Started by kru5h - Last post by kru5h
What about this version of Ox?

Slightly more useful in some games, but not overpowering.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10

Page created in 0.086 seconds with 16 queries.