Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Convince me this is a bad idea  (Read 4299 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3347
    • View Profile
Convince me this is a bad idea
« on: December 22, 2013, 01:11:28 pm »
+3

Diamond
Action/Treasure - $4P
+$3
---
At the start of your buy phase, you may put this on top of your deck

(Clarification: If you play this as an action, it still produces the treasure value)

So I kind of accidentally stumbled into this idea while thinking through things that would be possible with a Potion price that wouldn't be possible otherwise (like Alchemist). I initially was just trying to make a flat +$4 treasure, decided it was boring, thought about how I could do something with Alchemy's action theme, decided giving some bonus if there were actions left might work, realised that would be awkward to word, though about playing it... as an action, and suddenly realised I'd managed to stumble into an action/treasure that existed because it wanted to run on both types, not a card which was shoehorned into having both types because "wouldn't it be cool?"

And now I kind of feel two things. Firstly I feel like it works. But secondly I feel like there's some glaring flaws which I'm not seeing. I mean more than just maybe the numbers are not quite right. It could easily become +$4 or +$2 and/or go up to $5P or down to $3P. I mean it feels like there's something more problematic, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1886
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me this is a bad idea
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2013, 01:18:03 pm »
+1

The most obvious hurdle is the confusion it would cause, I think. I'm sure most of the people around here would "get" that if you play it during your action phase, it needs an action, and as a treasure it doesn't, but the average dominion player is just going to look at this and say "wha...?"

So if during your buy phase, you play this and then Diadem, did this take up an unused action?
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me this is a bad idea
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2013, 01:27:39 pm »
0

The most obvious hurdle is the confusion it would cause, I think. I'm sure most of the people around here would "get" that if you play it during your action phase, it needs an action, and as a treasure it doesn't, but the average dominion player is just going to look at this and say "wha...?"

So if during your buy phase, you play this and then Diadem, did this take up an unused action?

I really don't think this would be too confusing.  At worse they would check the FAQ which could easily explain it.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3347
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me this is a bad idea
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2014, 10:26:43 am »
0

Can anyone think of a way this kind of idea could be implemented without needing the action/treasure type? Is there a better way to do this card idea?
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me this is a bad idea
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2014, 11:28:40 am »
0

Can anyone think of a way this kind of idea could be implemented without needing the action/treasure type? Is there a better way to do this card idea?

Diamond
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
Worth $3.

When you discard this from play, you may spend an Action to put it on top of your deck.

Not an identical effect, but close enough in most cases.
Logged

GeoLib

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 965
  • Respect: +1265
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me this is a bad idea
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2014, 03:34:34 pm »
0

Can anyone think of a way this kind of idea could be implemented without needing the action/treasure type? Is there a better way to do this card idea?

Diamond
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
Worth $3.

When you discard this from play, you may spend an Action to put it on top of your deck.

Not an identical effect, but close enough in most cases.

Rather than "spend an action" which doesn't seem like a standard wording. "When you discard this from play, if you have any unused actions you may put this on top of your deck."
Logged
"All advice is awful"
 —Count Grishnakh

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me this is a bad idea
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2014, 03:47:33 pm »
+2

Can anyone think of a way this kind of idea could be implemented without needing the action/treasure type? Is there a better way to do this card idea?

Diamond
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
Worth $3.

When you discard this from play, you may spend an Action to put it on top of your deck.

Not an identical effect, but close enough in most cases.

Rather than "spend an action" which doesn't seem like a standard wording. "When you discard this from play, if you have any unused actions you may put this on top of your deck."

Nope. Then you can buy 3 of these, not use any terminal Actions, and just buy a Province every turn and return them to the top of your deck.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 04:03:04 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

Jean-Michel

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jean-Michel
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me this is a bad idea
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2014, 05:46:30 pm »
+1

Diamond
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
Worth $3.

When you discard this from play, you may spend an Action to put it on top of your deck.

Not an identical effect, but close enough in most cases.

This has an interesting combo with Walled Village btw. A hand of 3 Diamonds and 2 WVs guarantees a Province each turn. Even a Colony each turn is possible I think.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me this is a bad idea
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2014, 05:54:49 pm »
0

Diamond
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
Worth $3.

When you discard this from play, you may spend an Action to put it on top of your deck.

Not an identical effect, but close enough in most cases.

This has an interesting combo with Walled Village btw. A hand of 3 Diamonds and 2 WVs guarantees a Province each turn. Even a Colony each turn is possible I think.

Huh, you're right. Tables's original version has this combo too. Neat.
Logged

liopoil

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2587
  • Respect: +2479
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me this is a bad idea
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2014, 06:01:01 pm »
0

Diamond
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
Worth $3.

When you discard this from play, you may spend an Action to put it on top of your deck.

Not an identical effect, but close enough in most cases.

This has an interesting combo with Walled Village btw. A hand of 3 Diamonds and 2 WVs guarantees a Province each turn. Even a Colony each turn is possible I think.

Huh, you're right. Tables's original version has this combo too. Neat.
no it doesn't, because you wouldn't be able to put back the walled villages I think.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me this is a bad idea
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2014, 06:05:15 pm »
0

Diamond
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
Worth $3.

When you discard this from play, you may spend an Action to put it on top of your deck.

Not an identical effect, but close enough in most cases.

This has an interesting combo with Walled Village btw. A hand of 3 Diamonds and 2 WVs guarantees a Province each turn. Even a Colony each turn is possible I think.

Huh, you're right. Tables's original version has this combo too. Neat.
no it doesn't, because you wouldn't be able to put back the walled villages I think.

Yes, you would, because by the start of Clean-up, the Diamonds are no longer in play.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me this is a bad idea
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2014, 06:08:15 pm »
+1

Diamond
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
Worth $3.

When you discard this from play, you may spend an Action to put it on top of your deck.

Not an identical effect, but close enough in most cases.

This has an interesting combo with Walled Village btw. A hand of 3 Diamonds and 2 WVs guarantees a Province each turn. Even a Colony each turn is possible I think.

Huh, you're right. Tables's original version has this combo too. Neat.
no it doesn't, because you wouldn't be able to put back the walled villages I think.

As Tables wrote it ("At the start of your buy phase, you may put this on top of your deck"), yes you can: what Walled Village cares about is whether there are Actions in play at the start of the Cleanup phase. Since this is top-decked during the Buy phase, Walled Village can't see it.

Interestingly, playing Tables's version as a Treasure would block Walled Village.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 20 queries.