Print

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

[popsofctown]

I think the card is too strong.


I think there's some circular logic in saying "When you don't trash it, Redistrict should be weaker than Remake or Develop for trashing Estates, as befits its 2$ price tag".  If the 2$ price tag was really accurate for the card, why would you even be discussing the case where you don't trash it? You would trash it for a 4$ card, which is more powerful.  Remake is a powerful 4$ card even mentioned in the statement, which makes it seem circular.
"When you don't trash it [which must mean, in situations where redistrict is more useful than a 4$ card], Redistrict should be weaker than Remake."
"When redistrict is more useful than a 4$ card it's less useful than a 4$ card"

It seems like your baseline for comparison is that people will not (always) buy this card when they have 4$ and one buy.  That seems like a weak baseline power test for a 4$ card.

When I read the card, I first misread it to mean the gained cards would have the same cost.  It seemed healthy at that kind of cost, trading a 2$ card up to a 3$ card isn't such a no brainer.  Swapping Redistrict for a 4$ card IS a nobrainer unless Redistrict is too strong in the first place.

[LastFootnote]

I think the card is too strong.


I think there's some circular logic in saying "When you don't trash it, Redistrict should be weaker than Remake or Develop for trashing Estates, as befits its 2$ price tag".  If the 2$ price tag was really accurate for the card, why would you even be discussing the case where you don't trash it? You would trash it for a 4$ card, which is more powerful.  Remake is a powerful 4$ card even mentioned in the statement, which makes it seem circular.
"When you don't trash it [which must mean, in situations where redistrict is more useful than a 4$ card], Redistrict should be weaker than Remake."
"When redistrict is more useful than a 4$ card it's less useful than a 4$ card"

It seems like your baseline for comparison is that people will not (always) buy this card when they have 4$ and one buy.  That seems like a weak baseline power test for a 4$ card.

I'm trying to wrap my head around your argument. I'm not saying it's invalid, but I'm trying to apply it to actual games. If the best play when you trash an Estate turns out to nearly always be trashing the Redistrict for a $4 card AND THEN buying another Redistrict to replace it, I won't be a big fan of that. But even that may not be a dealbreaker. Maybe it's just a pile that tends to run out quickly and if you see that happening, you're less likely to just trash your Redistricts automatically.

In general, it is silliness to claim that trading a $2 card for a $4 card is always the best move. I'm sure you've played plenty of games where you opted not to trash $2 Fool's Golds even though you would gain $6 Golds on your deck. Maybe Redistrict is the only way to trash Estates on the board and you'd like to keep it in your deck until your last Estate is trashed. Maybe there are no spammable $4 cards and you already have your copy of Moneylender or Militia or whatever. Or maybe there are no $4 cards at all.

Similarly, there are plenty of times you'd buy other $2 cards for $3 or even $4. So your baseline power test comment makes little sense to me.

When I read the card, I first misread it to mean the gained cards would have the same cost.  It seemed healthy at that kind of cost, trading a 2$ card up to a 3$ card isn't such a no brainer.  Swapping Redistrict for a 4$ card IS a nobrainer unless Redistrict is too strong in the first place.

The reason it doesn't do that is so you can't trash a $7 card for two Provinces, which I saw as a bridge too far. I could do this and stipulate that the two cards are differently named, but that doesn't sound super-appealing to me right now.

[scott_pilgrim]

I had trouble understanding pops' argument at first too, but now that I get it let me try to explain it more clearly:

If Redistrict is better than Remodel, then that's obviously it's own problem.  If Redistrict is worse than Remodel, then every time they appear together, you will use the one-shot ability of Redistrict to turn it into Remodel (assuming that you have just Redistricted an Estate).  The Redistrict will never stay in your deck for more than one shuffle (unless it misses an Estate).

I don't know how much of a problem that is.  Other official cards do that too (Feast, Pillage), but those cards aren't really intended to have a decision about when to trash them, since they only do things when you trash them.  So I'm trying to figure out whether Redistrict is strictly better than Remodel as an opening, and I think it is:

Let's say you open Remodel/$3, then Remodel Estate into a $4.  Then you end with Remodel/$4/$3.
Now say you open Redistrict/$4, then Redistrict Estate into a $3 and trash it for a $4.  Then you end with $4/$4/$3, which is the same as above but more flexible.  (It also grabs the $4 earlier which is probably slightly better.)

So if that's right then that's an issue, probably what popsofctown was worried about.

[Warfreak2]

Edge case: opening Remodel/Scheme, you can topdeck the Remodel but not a trashed Redistrict.

[LastFootnote]

I had trouble understanding pops' argument at first too, but now that I get it let me try to explain it more clearly:

If Redistrict is better than Remodel, then that's obviously it's own problem.  If Redistrict is worse than Remodel, then every time they appear together, you will use the one-shot ability of Redistrict to turn it into Remodel (assuming that you have just Redistricted an Estate).  The Redistrict will never stay in your deck for more than one shuffle (unless it misses an Estate).

I don't know how much of a problem that is.  Other official cards do that too (Feast, Pillage), but those cards aren't really intended to have a decision about when to trash them, since they only do things when you trash them.  So I'm trying to figure out whether Redistrict is strictly better than Remodel as an opening, and I think it is:

Let's say you open Remodel/$3, then Remodel Estate into a $4.  Then you end with Remodel/$4/$3.
Now say you open Redistrict/$4, then Redistrict Estate into a $3 and trash it for a $4.  Then you end with $4/$4/$3, which is the same as above but more flexible.  (It also grabs the $4 earlier which is probably slightly better.)

So if that's right then that's an issue, probably what popsofctown was worried about.

Aha, I see! Thanks for going through that. Yes, that is undesirable. I guess? Probably. Yeah, let's say it is.

So a couple of possible fixes:

• Cost it at $4. Either I can include a clause that doesn't let it gain itself, or I can just suck it up and let it gain itself when you trash an Estate with it and then trash it.

• When you trash it, you just gain a differently named card costing the same as the other one you gained. This seems like it would have really awkward wording. Well, let's try it:

Redistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. You may trash this. If you do, gain a differently named card with that cost.

This is the most concise wording I can think of, but it has the issue of being unclear whether I'm talking about the card you gained or the Redistrict itself. Although it would make the card significantly more powerful when throned, I could instead have this clearer wording:

Redistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. You may gain a differently named card with that same cost. If you did gain 2 cards, trash this.

Or soulnet's wording:

Redistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Trash a card from your hand. You may gain up to 2 differently named cards each costing exactly $1 more than it. If you gained 2 cards, trash this.

Any preferences?

EDIT: Or maybe the fact that it's better for trashing Estates than Remodel isn't a big deal. It usually can't be used to trash Gold for Province, which is a big part of Remodel's power. Argh. Well, since I already cut and sleeved the original version but haven't had a chance to playtest it yet, I might as well test it as-is first and see how that goes.

EDIT 2: Yeah, the more I think about it, the more this seems OK. Chapel and Masquerade are usually better openings than Remodel as well, but neither does all the things Remodel can do.

[popsofctown]

Remodeling Golds into Provinces is a key aspect of Remodel.  One that is all yours if you trash Redistrict so that you gain a Remodel for a smooth mid-lategame transition.

I don't think being weaker than a power four is a sufficient condition for a 2$ card to be balanced in the first place, though.  A 2$ Village would be worse than Walled Village, but would that make a 2$ Village an ok thing? A 2$ card needs to be significantly worse than 4$ cards, and reasonable effect on the first play and 4$ power on every play after that seems like a hard sell for "significantly worse" for me.

[popsofctown]

I don't consider Masquerade a well designed card, so you can probably prove what you want that way.

Chapel is intended to be an incredibly strong required purchase that the 5/2 player shouldn't even be able to miss out on.  If that's your vision for the card you need not make comparisons at all, and knocking Remake into obsolesence with every appearance should be your goal.

[LastFootnote]

Remodeling Golds into Provinces is a key aspect of Remodel.  One that is all yours if you trash Redistrict so that you gain a Remodel for a smooth mid-lategame transition.

Most games won't have both. When a game does, that Redistrict-to-Remodel transition sounds like a cool combo! I don't see why I would kill it.

I don't think being weaker than a power four is a sufficient condition for a 2$ card to be balanced in the first place, though.  A 2$ Village would be worse than Walled Village, but would that make a 2$ Village an ok thing? A 2$ card needs to be significantly worse than 4$ cards, and reasonable effect on the first play and 4$ power on every play after that seems like a hard sell for "significantly worse" for me.

This is a fallacy. No $2 card should be strictly better than a $4 card, but Redistrict isn't strictly better than Remake or Remodel. Or any published card for that matter. A $2 card needs to be significantly worse than $4 cards? Nope. Is Fool's Gold significantly worse than Moneylender? How about Courtyard? Cards that are "significantly worse than $4 cards" don't get printed at all, at least not as Kingdom cards. Cards that cost $2 instead of $4 have that cost because:

1. Opening with two of them isn't crazy powerful.
2. Opening with it and most $5 cards isn't crazy powerful.
3. Being able to amass a bunch of them with extra buys isn't crazy powerful.

Maybe a turbo-Redistrict strategy is crazy powerful, but barring that, the argument that it's just not weak enough for a $2 card doesn't hold water.

I recommend this essay about the $2 to $4 cost range if you haven't already read it: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=84.0

I don't consider Masquerade a well designed card, so you can probably prove what you want that way.

Chapel is intended to be an incredibly strong required purchase that the 5/2 player shouldn't even be able to miss out on.  If that's your vision for the card you need not make comparisons at all, and knocking Remake into obsolesence with every appearance should be your goal.

My goal isn't necessarily to make Redistrict a super-powered, must-buy, game-warping card by undercosting it. I was simply illustrating that a card can be better than another, more expensive card at one thing if it's incapable or worse at doing other things.

[popsofctown]

I find those both significantly worse than Moneylender, yes.

[LastFootnote]

I find those both significantly worse than Moneylender, yes.

Well then I don't know what to tell you. What $2 cards do you buy, if you think they should all be weak? (Other than Chapel.)

[Grujah]

Why $1 more than first gained rather than 2$ than trashed card?

[LastFootnote]

Why $1 more than first gained rather than 2$ than trashed card?

It's a nerf so that you can't use it to trash Coppers into Redistricts (thereby running out the pile) or Golds into Provinces without a card to bridge the gap. Also once you've trashed the Redistrict, "the trashed card" becomes a bit ambiguous.

[popsofctown]

I find those both significantly worse than Moneylender, yes.

Well then I don't know what to tell you. What $2 cards do you buy, if you think they should all be weak? (Other than Chapel.)

I buy 2$ cards when I have less than 4$ spend, when I'm in the unusual position where the 2$ card is better than 4s, or when I'm making use of +buy.  Fool's Gold is good when you can buy two in one turn, that's the main time it is competitive with engines.  There's not a comparison between Fool's Gold and Moneylender, but rather a comparison between double Fool's Gold and Moneylender, because you usually buy your first 4$ Fool's Gold to make the ones you buy with 5$ and +buy more meaningful.

Courtyard is usually not good.  It is one of the best BM+X cards in the game, but it's not good in engines, and more games favor engines than ones that don't.  It's cheaper than Smithy because it's usually worse.  So that's one of those unusual positions where the 2$ card is better than the 4s.  It's admittedly one of the more remarkable significant majorities, but it's still a 2$ quality card.

Neither of these cards can net you +1 to <handsize + action total> after they resolve, and power an endgame engine that way.  Redistrict can do that, every single play after it has replaced itself with a 4$ card.  In fact, I cannot think of a single 2$ card that consistently nets you a +1 to <handsize + action total>.  Hamlet does so if you have a useless card or draw until X.  Crossroads does, but only if it's the first Crossroads you've played.  Pawn certainly can't..

[LastFootnote]

Neither of these cards can net you +1 to <handsize + action total> after they resolve, and power an endgame engine that way.  Redistrict can do that, every single play after it has replaced itself with a 4$ card.  In fact, I cannot think of a single 2$ card that consistently nets you a +1 to <handsize + action total>.  Hamlet does so if you have a useless card or draw until X.  Crossroads does, but only if it's the first Crossroads you've played.  Pawn certainly can't..

OK, I'm confused. Redistrict certainly doesn't net you +1 to <handsize + action total> after it resolves. In fact, it nets you –3. But somehow you're saying that it does so after it replaces itself with a better card? Could you explain that part of your logic a bit more?

And sorry to nitpick, but Vagrant can net you +1, if <handsize + action total> means what I think it means. Beggar can too, for what that's worth.

EDIT: Oops, sorry. You said "consistently". So Vagrant wouldn't count. Apologies.

[popsofctown]

The first time you play Redistrict, it's a Redistrict.  When it trashes itself and you gain a 4$ card, it's roughly equivalent to the Redistrict itself transforming into a 4$ Dominion card instead of trashing or gaining anything.

I've been reading too much about Theseus's paradox.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus_paradox


Beggar works if your opponent is consistently playing attacks, yes. 

[LastFootnote]

The first time you play Redistrict, it's a Redistrict.  When it trashes itself and you gain a 4$ card, it's roughly equivalent to the Redistrict itself transforming into a 4$ Dominion card instead of trashing or gaining anything.

Sure, I get that. But the fact is that there are two circumstances that mitigate that power. First, you get –3 to your <handsize + action count> on the turn you pull that off. Second, you don't actually get the benefit of that $4 card until your next shuffle (or until the game ends if it's a Victory card). That delay matters a lot. By your logic, it seems like Feast would have to cost $5 because it can transform into a $5 card.

I argue that a $2 card that can (conditionally) trash itself to gain a $4 card is weaker than a $4 card that can trash itself to gain a $5 card because the difference between $2 and $4 is less than the difference between $4 and $5 when it comes to Dominion costs. Of course, you're also trashing an Estate and gaining a $3 card in the bargain, which is very significant, but I don't think it's so cut-and-dried that this is too strong.

Furthermore, if a <handsize + action count> reduction on the current turn is not significant when paired with a corresponding increase later, you should take issue with Haven. It's –1 the turn you play it, but +1 on the next turn.

Beggar works if your opponent is consistently playing attacks, yes.

Actually, I was talking about its Action effect. –1 Action and –1 handsize when you play the Beggar, but +3 handsize when you gain 3 Copper in hand. Sum total: +1.

By the way, thanks for having this conversation with me. I find it very fascinating and I do like the <handsize + action count> as a metric.

[popsofctown]

I am surprised you like it even though I am quite stubborn.

I had a mindblown when I started using <handsize + actions> as a metric like a year ago (which is nowhere near when I started Dominion).  It helps me understand stuff like why Festival + Moat can work, why Necropolis is good with Nobles, and blahblah.