Print

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

[popsofctown]

I wouldn't call it a gimped Chapel.  The card is an even better combo enabler than Chapel because it trashes itself.  Chapel's better against curses but I think I'd rather have multiples of Pauper's feast than a single Chapel.  But of course I haven't played with the card.

[ChaosRed]

Chapel was stronger and faster at achieving density. It becomes a clog in the later rounds, while Pauper doesn't. It rated extremely high to be sure.

Turn 5 Pauper looks stronger, for example, Chapel might have a 10 card 10$ breakout (1$ exactly per card), while Pauper might have 9 cards worth 10$ (1.1) But here's the thing, to get denser you HAVE to buy another Pauper. That slows you down a buy, while Chapel surges ahead. Think about it, if the goal is to remove all 3 Estates and up to 5 Copper, that requires 4 purchases of Pauper to achieve.

In the later rounds Chapel is a pain, but the set has cards to deal with that (numerous cards set cards "aside"). So in this set, the Chapel is more prolific. You know what's actually a superb thing to do is to buy the Pauper, in hopes that you can actually trash your Chapel. Get the Chapel to narrow your deck to the point where drawing the Pauper and the Chapel together is very likely, then Pauper the Chapel to have both cards eliminated. In games where density is more important than Curse-elimination, it's a really nice move that worked out really well in a game we played.

I think you might be right in that Pauper is a tad over-powered. It certainly rated that way. It would have rated even higher if it were not for the fact a lot of times, both players purchased it. In games where one player purchased it and the other didn't, it's win rate was staggering. So it is a very strong card. I think in most instances, Chapel is better, but let's face it Chapel shouldn't cost 2$, you could make an argument Chapel is worth 4$. So Pauper is probably worth more than 2$ as well.

I think I am going to live with that though, as the card enables fast games and launches you forward in turns 4-7, which produces an exciting game. If I were more honest with myself, I'd cost the card at 3$.

However, I really value your feedback, if you feel the set would be stronger with Pauper's cost adjusted or its abilities nerfed, I will consider it. All the advice I've gotten on this forum has been excellent, I'd be a fool not to listen to it.

[Tejayes]

I think the best way to nerf Pauper is to simply remove the +$1. I don't really see how a Pauper can give anyone money, anyway -- they're poor by definition, right?

[ChaosRed]

It's an outstanding idea Tejayes. Cheers. Putting the first 8 turns in a spreadsheet however, seems to reveal that even with the +1$, the Pauper is significantly slower than Chapel in a BM engine. Of course, later the Chapel is a pain, but in terms of creating density and a higher $-per card, Chapel pulls ahead quickly.

Again the key is, you don't have to keep buying it to achieve the density, and as such, in turns 5-8, you are almost guaranteed to get those last few troubles copper/estates to trash, leaving you with just silver/gold and a chapel.

[popsofctown]

I didn't say Pauper's feast was stronger, I just said it was a better combo enabler.  The perfect Goons deck wants a pauper, though a rush might stop it before it sets that up.  Chapel is stronger because it's faster.

[ChaosRed]

I didn't say Pauper's feast was stronger, I just said it was a better combo enabler.  The perfect Goons deck wants a pauper, though a rush might stop it before it sets that up.  Chapel is stronger because it's faster.

Sorry I misunderstood your criticism.

Chapel is, as you say, much stronger for density. Pauper is a great card none the less.

What I was really trying to say is that I think I'll leave the +1$ on it for now, despite Tejayes' astute suggestion. The spreadsheet seemed to suggest that the +1$ didn't really factor in too much. It did at times, but less than I thought it would. And that Chapel is almost always the better buy for early-round trashing.

Moving on to other cards, I think whatever Pauper's faults are, the card worked well in testing and I can live with the fact its slightly overpowered, because I don't feel the power is broken. It helps the set's speed, which is something the set is designed to do.

I do however, GREATLY appreciate the feedback and comments, thanks for them!

[ChaosRed]

EXCURSION

GRADE:  A RATING: 1.23 +/- 0.11 RATING POSITION: 5th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 15th out of 25 BEST COMBO: This combo had a high victory percentage. The reasoning here is that both cards set you up nicely for turns 4-6, trimming your deck superbly for a nifty tight configuration. The Pauper's Feast gets out of the way, while the Excursion is a non-terminal cantrip, so it isn't really harmful after its done the main task of trashing your Estates. ASSESSMENT: I hesitate to give this an "A". It worked well, but it wasn't that popular. However, the success of the card was undeniable and its utility was obvious on certain boards. I gave it an "A" because it really seemed to be more valuable than it looks. I liked that about this card. It's a great card in the early rounds *if* you happen to draw it when there's estates in the discard pile (it is terribly frustrating when you get it with an empty discard pile). It also combined well with Dark Knight and it helped augment Pauper (the light chapel-like trasher in the set). It was a nice defense to when your opponent forced Estates on you (there was a card in the set that could do this). You could also discard a victory/action card on discard attacks, knowing you could fish it back out again when your turn commenced. There were a few Victory/Action hybrids in this set, so it shined when there was one in the kingdom. This card had value, but it has far less value than the rating demonstrates. The popularity rating of the card was more indicative of this card's strength and weakness: on some boards it makes great sense, and other times, it's a wasted purchase and lies dead. That means its not really an "A" card, but because it wasn't broken and served the testing well, I give it an "A". RECOMMENDATION: I am just making a cosmetic change with this one. I updated the verbiage a little to make it clear the victory card you trashed has to be the one you picked up from the discard pile (this was always the card's intent and how we play-tested it, but the wording now makes that abundantly clear). I also updated the artwork from photograph to art. SUGGESTED VARIANTS This is not really a variant, it's just an update to verbiage and art: Feel free to discuss the card if you like, but I'll move quickly forward, there's other cards I need real help with (this one tested pretty well).

[popsofctown]

Not overpowered, not underpowered, but a little bit boring.

Not boring enough to scrap through.  Buying estates in order to feed it is amusing.

[ChaosRed]

Not overpowered, not underpowered, but a little bit boring.

Not boring enough to scrap through.  Buying estates in order to feed it is amusing.

Yeah a tad boring to be sure, but in a way that's part of what makes the card weird, because it looks more banal than it is (at least in terms of utility). Of course, its utility was hard-wired into the expansion. That's part of the problem with my testing, I don't have the capacity to test these cards across multiple expansions, so a card's utility is judged almost entirely with how it functioned with the rest of the expansion.

Here are just a few cards in the set that Excursion helps:





So yeah, boring card, but it has some synergy with how the overall expansion is designed. I think that's part of the expansion's flaw though, its too damn "cute", it has obvious combinations, but each card on its own is often isolated or weak without its regular companions.

I concede that as a flaw, but I accept it, since, well its my first damn time ever designing a set of cards for this game. I can work on greater subtlety and flare in the next expansion, basic utility, function and a general sense of balance were the goals for this one.

Thanks for your comments and yeah, "boring" is pretty much right on the money to describe the card.

[Tejayes]

I'm really liking the new art for the cards, and would like to know where you're getting these illustrations. Also, I just want to add that an excursion usually involves a larger group of people, not just one person. Nothing against the new art used for Excursion -- it's lovely. I just think a group of people shown in the artwork would fit the theme of the name better.

[ChaosRed]

I'm really liking the new art for the cards, and would like to know where you're getting these illustrations. Also, I just want to add that an excursion usually involves a larger group of people, not just one person. Nothing against the new art used for Excursion -- it's lovely. I just think a group of people shown in the artwork would fit the theme of the name better.

Ha, we think alike! Alas, I couldn't find decent art that fits. Sometimes it's not just a nice drawing, its getting a drawing that when re-sized frames nicely in the card.

DeviantArt.com has been where I've found most of the images by the way. The cards look pretty decent when I print them out too, so thanks for noticing that!

[ChaosRed]

Forgive the rapid pace of me presenting these reports, some cards I really am okay with as-is or with just the smallest of revisions, slamming through these allows me to get to cards I need greater support with:

Villa

GRADE: B RATING: 1.0 +/- 0.1 RATING POSITION: 16th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 11th out of 25 BEST COMBO: This expansion's version of a "Smithy+Village" combo were these two cards put together. Actually, Fool's Choice is a tad broken (more on that later), but this combo probably wasn't as exploited as often as it should have been, and it had all the same problems of a Village+Smithy strategy and all the same benefits. It was a "nice" and rather obvious combination, and the best-rated combo for Villa in the expansion. ASSESSMENT: This card's appeal was generally higher than its performance. You can see why, the card looks decent. You can get a +2 Actions, +1$ and up to +2 cards (for discarding cards that you don't want probably). You get it for 3 dollars, so you think, "okay I'll bite". Except of course, now you need to green, because if you don't, this card doesn't get you very far. The card was sometimes the only +2 Actions in the Kingdom, and this was part of the reason its popularity is higher than its actual rating. The rating itself is neutral, which really is true when you dig deeper in the data. This card sometimes enabled some games, and other times it really didn't. We tended to ignore the card more as our testing went on, and gravitated to it when we knew greening early made tactical sense. But the card isn't useless and the card isn't broken and it did, at times, enable some nice combinations. It's the kind of card you want in your expansion, that is to say that it has utility, it is simple to enforce and understand and it isn't overpowered or broken. For a 3$ basic card, that's just fine. It's another 'boring' card in many ways, but +2 Actions are needed and this provides that, it's just a "village-type", I think every set needs one of those  right? RECOMMENDATION: I will just adjust the art work and leave the rest as is. SUGGESTED VARIANTS The current variant on the table for review for this card is this. It only has an artwork revision, that's it.

Feel free to comment if you like, but the next 3$ (that I post tomorrow) is a complete overhaul of a bad card, so that will be the one I'll really need to most support/advice for.

[Jack Rudd]

It's another 'boring' card in many ways, but +2 Actions are needed and this provides that, it's just a "village-type", I think every set needs one of those  right?

Two of those (or one if it's a minor expansion). At least, that's what all the published sets have gone with.

[popsofctown]

Excursion doesn't seem banal at all to me, it's really solid even without the synergy in the set.  It's a cantrip, other 3$ cantrips give you effects like Wishing Well's far less frequent extra card draw or "discard a card, +1$".

I say the card is boring because it's boring the way Moneylender tends to be boring.  In a setup with no other trashing and no cursing, you pretty much buy exactly one Moneylender and play it whenever you draw it.  There's not much choice to it.  Two Moneylenders is too clearly out of the question, but the card has a powerful enough interaction with its fuel that you have to pick one up.  Excursion looks like it will behave in a similar way (it's magic number might be 2, I don't know), and that doesn't foster much choice when it's obvious how much of a card to buy and obvious to play it whenever you buy it.

It is more interesting than Moneylender though, because it's not a legitimate option to buy copper to power a moneylender, but buying an Estate is plausible with this.  And with hybrid victory cards it begins to encourage clever discard pile management.  There is more there.  It's just going to be a moneylender a lot of times.

edit:
Villa needs Tournament flavor!  The card looks nice.  It actually would probably be totally inoffensive at 2$ cost.  The difference between a 3$ and a 2$ is +buy concerns, and this doesn't seem to need to be too concerned.  Amassing lots of villas will either fail to work because you don't see the other side of your engine because your hand is full of villas, or you can't reveal a green card because your hand is full of villas.  And if you reveal a green card it's probably what you want to use the cellar effect on, but then if you surprise yourself and draw into another villa, your green card is gone.

Sorry if that messes up your set's $ curve, but 2$ cards are very hard to make so it's exciting when you have a cantidate.

[ChaosRed]

Jack: There is indeed another "village clone" in the set, it's in the 4$ range.

pops - You make a good point that you can argue that Villa should be 2$ and Pauper could be 3$. I think because the card rated exactly at 1.0, I'd be a bit foolish to mess with the pricing. The card has merit, when there's an obvious path to green early, and after that, it is sometimes the only +2 actions in the Kingdom. After that, yeah, the card is not worth it. You have been really great here, reading the cards and providing feedback, I am very grateful.

My next card needs serious work, I'll look forward to your comments on it.

[ChaosRed]

Wooden Bridge

GRADE: F RATING: 0.85 +/- 0.18 RATING POSITION: 21st out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 23rd out of 25 BEST COMBO: The truth is, the card didn't work particularly well with any other card in the set. In particular, the card was really dissonant in theme, flavor and ability to the rest of the set. It never really fit in anywhere. It had mild success with Silver Vein, (mostly for the +buy), but really this card was a train wreck. ASSESSMENT: Ever look back on something you've done and wince? Ever look at an old college paper and wonder why and how the prof ever let you get away with it? That's how I feel about Wooden Bridge, quite possibly the worst card I've ever designed (well there's a few others that are really bad that I'll reveal later). Wooden Bridge was an early design, it's not only completely derivative, it does to Bridge what should never be done. It takes away the core feature of price reduction, but then adds the danger of making it non-terminal. Then it allows you to get the main feature back, if you trash the card. The idea was it would produce this mini-game where you'd rush the Wooden Bridge and blow them all up to win, (I think my love of the film Bridge Over River Kwai helped influence me). In theory, with this card, if you rushed 7, got them all out on a single turn and blew them up, you could collect all Provinces in a single swoop. Well what a ridiculous idea to build a card around, and worse it does it by essentially copying verbatim an existing card. YUCK. We tried to pull the trick off several times, in the end, the expansion is too fast and because the set is actually weak on card-draw, you can never pull it off anyway (there's only one really strong terminal-card draw card in the set, and one nice one, but it's mitigated across 2-turns). Even when you do finally get four or five out there and blow them up, most of the Provinces are eaten up, or you are so far behind you lose. The ONLY thing I liked about the card was the gimmick, that all 0-cost cards, got upgraded to 1-cost and you could never get less than 1 for any card. That turned out to be kinda fun (at least interesting). The rest of it was a terrible derivative card, that was against the flavor/theme of the set, with bad art, a bad name and just overall was general suckitude. RECOMMENDATION: Scrap this thing and never mention it again. SUGGESTED VARIANTS So this isn't really a variant, it's an entirely new replacement for the card. For this reason, I'll write a longer intro to the concept than I normally would. One quick note however, is that because this new replacement does not have +buy on it, I'll probably need to add +buy to another card. I want just a few +buy opportunities in the set. There were only 3 in the expansion, and I feel 2 is not enough, so I will find a place to put the +buy on another card. I wanted a thematic card. One of the key themes of the set is that it encourages and rewards greening early. It also has several kingdoms where 3-piling is an optimal strategy (although it doesn't always win, which I also like). In fact, not to sound too arrogant, but I am very proud of how many of our games went, because of the different routes you could take to win. Also victory points are a factor in this expansion, they often tilt the balance with the right cards. Also, I had just removed a full-defensive ability from one of the 2's, and I wanted at least 2 cards that could fully deflect an attack. I wanted a card that gave you a bonus, (in addition to deflecting the attack), but I come up against the way reactions work (they can be revealed endlessly). (This is where I need the most help, although, in general I could use a lot of help with this card) The combination of all these wishes for the card led me to this initial design. Here's the worry I have about the card, right up front. In order to ensure you can't get the additional VP bonus for deflecting an attack, I've made the player discard the card. This causes problems in multi-player games. The player to your left, has a small disadvantage, because his attack is the first one that can get deflected and when it does, the card's primary defense is eliminated. How does on solve the problem? Or is it something I can tolerate? Or is it something that can only be solved with complicated wording and mats (which I want to avoid if possible)? Don't worry about the "gain an Estate" ability for the secondary ability. That's there as part of the set's overall theme. In fact, discarding to gain an Estate has a lot of utility in this expansion. It also helps accommodate the fact I took the +buy away just a little. If you feel strongly the card is broken or weak, let me know as well of course. This has not been play-tested at all. It is purely an artifact of blending elements that the set complements and works with well, rather than careful consideration of balance.

My sincere gratitude in advance of any comments or feedback on this particular report.

[plasticbrain]

i know you said not to worry about Hero's discard/Estate text but i do. it makes the card overly complex, which makes it seem like a fan card, if you know what i mean. just having the Hero gain +1vp, and then 1 more when defending against an attack is clean and enough. and him being a Hero, i don't think you should need to discard him to defend. this would be a fair card to be able to use against multiple attacks.
that said, i really like Hero.

[Jack Rudd]

i don't think you should need to discard him to defend. this would be a fair card to be able to use against multiple attacks.

If you don't have to discard/set aside him when defending, you can gain arbitrarily many points whenever an Attack card is played. This might be considered a flaw.

[ChaosRed]

i know you said not to worry about Hero's discard/Estate text but i do. it makes the card overly complex, which makes it seem like a fan card, if you know what i mean. just having the Hero gain +1vp, and then 1 more when defending against an attack is clean and enough. and him being a Hero, i don't think you should need to discard him to defend. this would be a fair card to be able to use against multiple attacks.

It needs to either discarded or be set aside. Otherwise you could endlessly reveal the card to get +1VP, because in DOMINION there's technically no limit to the number of times you can reveal a reaction card. It's weird that DOMINION works that way but it does. One of the reasons is so that you can continually defend against all attacks, there's a good thread on this issue on this forum.

Once you get a bona fide benefit for deflecting the attack, things get complicated (and really I probably shouldn't attempt to do this), But, I think the discard feature might work, although it will more-often deflect the next opponent (and then fail to deflect the next one), it doesn't actually hurt the opponent and most attacks are penalties to opponents. In other words, there's no real politics involved here. Deflecting Militia once, and not the second time doesn't really benefit the opponents. Even curse attacks, (with some small exceptions) it doesn't really matter who gave you the curse, only that you got it.

It weakens the card of course in multi-player games, which is an issue, given its cost, but I don't think it creates a larger problem about politics or bias in a multi-player game.

The gain the estate trick, yeah it is weird. It's there because the expansion could use a cheap source of Estate-piling (to make up for the lack of +buy for one thing). Also a lot of cards in the expansion thirst for green in the hand. It is very tacked on, your point is well taken, and perhaps I can add the Estate-gain feature to another card. It might be better without it. I think you are right.

[popsofctown]

This easy to fix because the rules of Dominion are so elegant!  Just separate the abilities.


"When you are attacked, you may reveal this.  If you do, you are immune to that attack"

"When you are attacked, you may reveal this and discard it.  If you do, +1 VP."

You can reveal it for the first ability seven times when player two attacks you, then three times when player three attacks you, and then, when player four attacks you, reveal it ten times for redundant immunity to the attack, but you can only reveal it and discard it once for VP.

This means you have to guess whether to cash in on VP or to keep it in case you're attacked again.  That's absolutely fine for multiplayer.

As for card power, I think the main ability is a tad bit weak, maybe +action or +buy.  +action would be nice for when it fraternizes with other sets because it could be used during greening phase even without attacks on the board.

Removing the estate ability seems like a good idea when I think about it, because the card could get too purely VP oriented, which could stall games.  In fact, since the reaction gains VP it's probably best the main effect do something else entirely.

[plasticbrain]

firstly, the main ability is not weak, imo. but secondly, the 'main' ability on this card should be weaker than its Reaction ability, because its Reaction is what it's really about. this is a Hero afterall.
that said, the idea to seperate the abilities is an interesting one.

This easy to fix because the rules of Dominion are so elegant!  Just separate the abilities.
"When you are attacked, you may reveal this.  If you do, you are immune to that attack"
and
"When you are attacked, you may reveal this and discard it.  If you do, +1 VP."
You can reveal it for the first ability seven times when player two attacks you, then three times when player three attacks you, and then, when player four attacks you, reveal it ten times for redundant immunity to the attack, but you can only reveal it and discard it once for VP.

This means you have to guess whether to cash in on VP or to keep it in case you're attacked again.  That's absolutely fine for multiplayer.

As for card power, I think the main ability is a tad bit weak, maybe +action or +buy.  +action would be nice for when it fraternizes with other sets because it could be used during greening phase even without attacks on the board.

Removing the estate ability seems like a good idea when I think about it, because the card could get too purely VP oriented, which could stall games.  In fact, since the reaction gains VP it's probably best the main effect do something else entirely.

[ChaosRed]

"When you are attacked, you may reveal this and discard it.  If you do, +1 VP."

Nice. I can't think of any attack where you bias the game by choosing which next attack might work on you. The only REMOTE possibility I see for political bias here is keeping a strict count of remaining curses...

4 Player Game

Player 1 draws a Hero at the end of his turn
Player 2 plays Witch
Player 1 sees 3 Curses left, deflects the attack and does not discard.
Player 3 & 4 get Curses
Player 3 plays Witch
Player 1 sees 1 Curse left, deflects the attack, then discards for +1VP, player 4 gets a Curse.
Player 4 plays With, no effect

I mean, in the original incantation, you were forced to discard, meaning this is the scenario:

Player 1 draws a Hero at the end of his turn
Player 2 plays Witch
Player 1 sees 3 Curses left, deflects the attack discards for +1VP
Player 3 & 4 get Curses
Player 3 plays Witch
Player 2 gets a Curse
Player 4 plays Witch, no effect

I think it's a pretty minuscule point though. Really, in the first scenario, you gambled and it paid off, and really curse distribution is always a little uneven in multi-player games, because at some point the number left doesn't match the number of players effected.

I can't think of any attack that would have political effects. Masquerade is not an attack. Oh wait, Thief.

Thief creates problems, you can now selectively choose which player gets the potential benefit of a Thief attack.

[popsofctown]

huh.

I thought Theif attacks everyone.

[ChaosRed]

It does, but that's not the issue. The issue is if you know two opponents have Thief, you can choose to let one work, in lieu of stopping the first one early with a bonus.

For example, if I know Player 2 has a Thief and I know he's ahead on money (or is bigger threat than Player 3), I can use the discard effect on Player 2, knowing I am guaranteed the VP and that Player 3's Thief attack is less punishing, (because he's not as much of a threat).

Really any attack, where the attacker doesn't just harm you (but also benefits himself) has small political problems with the card. It sucks that it does, but it does. You can argue the politics are minute (or no different than electing not to reveal the reaction at all), but I should probably think of another way.

Your solution is a better one pops, because it ensures that the next player in line isn't the one to be most likely defended (while others will not be). But since I want to discard it eventually and I need to choose when, one way I can choose is letting the card go when a weaker opponent is next in line, knowing that if an attack-for-benefit play has less of an impact on my course to victory.

Perhaps the more elegant solution is to put the card on a mat?

When another player plays an Attack card you may reveal this card or from the Hero mat, if you do you are unaffected by the attack. If there are no Hero cards on the Hero mat, you must place this card on the Hero mat, +1VP. At the start of your next turn, you may return Hero to your hand.


This is clunky, but it assures you can always defend for the entire cycle of turns (preventing any bias), but also ensures you can never get more than +1VP as the additional bonus. It also ensures you can defend and play the card when it is your turn again, which boosts the power of the card, also keeps it compatible with other defensive reactions.

It's clunky though, pretty damn clunky.

[popsofctown]

The internet ate my post I guess.

The issue you're talking about is a way smaller deal than issues Masquerade creates.  Optimal play is always to preserve your Gold from thief and get VP off the last attack.  There is a tiny space where you might let your guard down more for someone who is playing poorly but it might not even kick in.  People who play MP instead of 2P are generally ready for small interactions like this.