Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]

Author Topic: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept  (Read 24261 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« on: November 27, 2011, 01:32:53 am »
0

A lot of people toy with the idea of turning Curses into Kingdom cards.  As most people I'm a fan of this idea. So I decided to take a spin on it by making a mini-expansion concept based around Kingdom Curse cards with the Seven Deadly Sins theme.  If you can't tell, the expansion will only consistent of 7 cards that compliment each other in some way or another.  Some new rules to follow when these cards are in play:

1. When a Kingdom Curse card is in play, infinite Curse cards in the Supply.  (As in, regular curses.)  Aka just combine all the Curse cards from Base and Intrigue into a pile.  If you run out for some reason, make some indication that you've obtained a Curse somehow or another (like making markers next to your deck).
2. Unless it's a Curse card, other cards cannot gain Kingdom Curse cards, unless stated otherwise.
3. You can get negative VP, which is sometimes necessary to determine who is the winner.

The centric card of this concept is this one:



Basically with Pride, you're rewarded for having a deck with Curses in it.  With this card, players are constantly having to decide whether giving a player a Curse hurts or benefits the player.  Using Pride is all about deck management, in concept, in balancing out the amount of Curses you have with the amount of VP you're getting.  This card would probably go as quickly as Gardens does at the beginning of the game.

Despite all this, getting 1 VP for every Curse is still not a lot, so I made a card to balance this factor out:



Meet Envy, a solid easy way to gain Victory cards.  On the surface it seems broken and sounds like it could be a cheap card in non-Curse-based games.  However the base idea is still there.  You pretty much don't want to use Envy unless you're using Pride too.  Much like Pride, Envy is a card that is something you'd have to be careful with and would require really solid deck management to really work.

Aside from these two, there's several more concepts I have.  One I've whipped up in photoshop already:



To balance out the fact that your deck is full of Curses, you're going to need some cards that give you a good amount of money and give it to you fast.  Digging in the trash or in opponent's discard piles is a perfect way to emulate the feeling of petty greed in the game.  Players who are striving to draw Treasure will want to use this card, or possibly a card like Treasure Map which'll give players an easy amount of Gold.  Since my ideas for Curse cards are relatively in low prices (aside from Envy), getting Silvers is fine too.  Gaining two Silvers from the Trash could save you.

Of course one new thing is that this is an Attack card, an attack that initiates when you purchase it.  This is to keep it balanced so it doesn't get abused.

Some other concepts I'm working on, for the other sins:

Lust
Treasure-Curse
Cost 2
0* Coin
-1 VP
Trash any Curse card from your hand.  The total amount of cost of the trash cards is how many coins this is worth.

Gluttony
Action-Curse
Cost 4
-3 VP
Set aside this card and any card in your hand. Return them to your deck at the end of the game
(Place them on Gluttony mat, it's basically Curse version of Island)

Still need to come up with something for Wrath and Sloth.
_____________________

I hope my idea here got across.  I know the cards are flawed and need tuning, and the concept needs work, I just think it'd be an interesting new way to play Dominion without adding a drastically brand new type of card into the fray.  All of these card concepts, even the ones I made in photoshop, are straight up brand new w/o any playtesting.

I'd like to toy with the idea of having Victory-Curse, Curse-Duration, and Curse-Reaction cards with time.  Not sure if I could fit it into this concept but all three sound interesting.  Maybe Pride should be Victory-Curse.

I also need help with the wording on some of these cards.  I tried making it Dominion-like as possible but some sound off to me.  Though you have to remember that these aren't necessarily cards, just concepts of cards to be.
Logged

def

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
  • Respect: +166
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2011, 05:20:03 am »
0

Hi!

I like the general concept, it's a nice theme. I don't think I'd like games with these cards, though. Infinte curses? 5 or 6 curses are already enough to make pretty much any engine useless. Look at councilroom data to see how cursers make games go longer. And that is with three-pile endings where curses run out, which is not possible here.

- I don't get Lust. What total amount if you only trash one card? The total amount of costs of every card in the trash? Only this and +x buys = x+1 Colonies in some setups, no way.

How many Prides are available, 8 or 10?

So let's say one player goes for normal victory cards and the other one goes for Prides. If one player gets 8 Prides, he already has 8*(16-2)=112 points, more than 8 Colonies and 5 Provinces. So you can't ignore Prides (You can ignore Gardens and Dukes sometimes), and both players have to buy it. But then, why not buy even more Curse cards? It's devilish; screw your deck to win or don't screw it and you are screwed.
Logged

Octo

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 206
  • Respect: +38
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2011, 06:00:54 am »
0

I really like the concept, and nice job with the 'shopping. It seems like it would be a very different game with these floating about. Loads of flavour to all these cards.

I think the main thing I would comment on is the infinite VP pile. If it does run out and you have to use substitutions, well how are you going account for the fact that those curses should not only create negative points, but should also clog up you deck? It seems that having an infinite pile is a mechanical problem that can't be escaped.

The most obvious problem in terms of actual games is with Pride games - with an infinite curse pile how would the game end? Whack in a load of +buys and just sit there taking free curses the whole game.

Envy - interesting idea. Just be careful to price the curses accordingly, otherwise you end up in a forge scenario with nothing that adds up to the price you want (bear in mind that not all curses will be out in any one game).
Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2011, 12:37:53 pm »
0

Thanks for the input guys.  :P

@ Pride I realize this card is actually pretty broken, but I'll fix it eventually somehow or another.  It'll probably end up being a Victory-Curse that counts for 2VP for every basic Curse card in your deck.  I wanted the main focus to be about Pride but if you do the math, Pride actually becomes a stronger alternative to getting powerful Victory cards.

Here's some more card concepts:



The Village of this set, basically.



Changed this up quite a bit in concept.  Basically the idea is to turn your Curses into Treasure, to solve the problem of overflowing your hand with Curses.



Same as the previous description pretty much.  I like it and don't really want to change it drastically.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 12:59:00 pm by bmtrocks »
Logged

def

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
  • Respect: +166
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2011, 01:55:41 pm »
0

Hehe. Normally one might say "non-terminal curser, totally broken at this price", but not with the concept that curses can help you.

I don't think it would fit to Sloth, but what about a card-drawer like
"+1 card
 Discard any number of cards.
 +1 card per card discarded,
 +1 card per every Curse card discarded."
to overcome the problem of drawing only curses and bad cards?
+1 card to make it differ from Cellar; the cards are discarded so you can't go Crossroads-like crazy with multiple copies in one turn.

Maybe it fits to wrath (the more curses, the angrier you are), and wrath could become sloth (your inactivity is virulent and goes to your opponent in the form of curses)?

And I forgot, great artwork.
Logged

Elyv

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • Respect: +15
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2011, 01:58:31 pm »
+1

I don't think bonuses for curses is enough to make up for the 5 vp difference between gluttony and island.
Logged

def

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
  • Respect: +166
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2011, 06:28:51 pm »
0

Three Prides in their current form are more than enough.
Logged

rspeer

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +877
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2011, 06:32:10 pm »
0

I have a few major doubts about these cards. You should think about these at a high level, because I think it'll take more than minor tweaks to cards to fix them.

  • It seems like it'll cause endless rules confusion to use "Curse" as a type containing multiple cards, one of which is Curse. Other cards can say "a Curse" because the card and the type are identical, and you're changing that. Why not make a new type called "Sin", and then some of your cards can refer to "a Sin or a Curse", instead of the awkward clarification you have now, which is "a Curse that is not a Kingdom card"?
  • I'll echo the fact that you can't actually have infinite cards in Dominion, because at some point you have to shuffle them. When you read Donald X's design notes on Dominion, he talks about how much of the game is designed around the limitation that there are only 200-400 cards per set and most of them aren't in the game.
  • The only ways to benefit from curses are Pride (absurdly strong, flips the game around into massively positive VP) and Lust (absurdly weak). Without these cards, the game is Dominion plus added failure modes.
  • If I understand correctly, Wrath gives out plain curses. In the absence of Pride, it's an absolutely broken must-buy that will cause the game to freeze out.
  • Consider a state where each player has 40 curses (some of them are Sins, but Pride and Lust aren't in the game), 5 copper, and 1 silver. I find this state very realistic given these cards and rules. How does the game end?
  • Greed is a targeted "screw you" action. Dominion doesn't have those for very good reasons. Feel free to argue that they add to the gameplay of your expansion, but you're arguing against Donald X, and he'll win.
  • What the devil is a "Curse - Attack"? You might as well have said "Curse - Apricot" for all the effect that type will have on the game, because the card is never played. Realize that "Attack" has a specific meaning in the Dominion rules.
  • A lot of these cards make very little sense if they're the only Sin in the game. Compare to Alchemy, where every card (except Transmute) has legitimate uses, even when it's the only Potion-costing card.
Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2011, 07:29:30 pm »
0

@ rspeer

I'll try to clarify what I mean on some of these.

Curses:
Yes the Curse confusion is there, but I think the rule that only Curses can give out Kingdom Curses is perfectly fine.  It doesn't have to be printed on each of the cards for players to figure this out, just like how Duration cards are said to be played above your normal play area and then shifted down on the next turn for the Clean-up phase.  However you are right that making them a different type might balance things out, but I like sticking to a pre-existing card type with them.

Cards like Fortune Teller still apply, since you aren't gaining a Curse, but any card like Witch or Jester that allows players to gain a Curse can only gain a basic Curse card.  Cards that allow you to gain Kingdom cards are exempt from this, like Ambassador can very well give someone a Kingdom Curse.

As for infinite Curses I'll probably fix that.  I just want to get across that when these are in play, there are a lot of Curses available.  I'd have to figure out a solid amount with playtesting with time, but for now think of "infinite" as merely being a pile of all the Curses you own.

As for how the game ends in that scenario I thought I'd make it clear.  Whoever has the highest VP wins.  Negative VP exists in a game with Curse cards in the Kingdom.

Greed:
Actually one of my main inspiration is a card in the recent Hinterlands set called Noble Brigand!  You can't say a card like that in Dominion doesn't exist.  But you are right, it probably should just be a basic Curse card like Pride.  Maybe when you buy it, you play it immediately allowing it to be countered by Moat or another card.  I want to be able to have a really strong Treasure-grabbing card that attacks an opponent directly, emulating the feeling of being greedy.  Having it to be Action-Attack-Curse would be rather broken, so I think limiting it's effect as being a one time thing is really a must.

About them working in other games:
Well yeah, that's kind of the idea.  You either play with the Seven Sin cards, or you don't.  The thing about these Curses is that you're meant to play older cards in different ways.  One that comes to mind is Jester in which you have to be careful because using him may benefit other players in a Curse centric game, while it could benefit you greatly by giving yourself a free Curse (basic or Kingdom),
Logged

PseudoPserious

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2011, 07:51:57 pm »
0

On the infinite pile issue...

Would there be a problem with instead setting up the pile as normal and having the rule "When a Kingdom Curse* is in play, trashing a Curse instead returns it to the supply" in place?

PP

*I like the idea of using "Sins" in place of "Kingdom Curses" -- it seems like that would solve a lot of ambiguity issues.
Logged

rspeer

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +877
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2011, 07:54:55 pm »
0

@ rspeer

I'll try to clarify what I mean on some of these.

Curses:
Yes the Curse confusion is there, but I think the rule that only Curses can give out Kingdom Curses is perfectly fine.  It doesn't have to be printed on each of the cards for players to figure this out, just like how Duration cards are said to be played above your normal play area and then shifted down on the next turn for the Clean-up phase.  However you are right that making them a different type might balance things out, but I like sticking to a pre-existing card type with them.

Cards like Fortune Teller still apply, since you aren't gaining a Curse, but any card like Witch or Jester that allows players to gain a Curse can only gain a basic Curse card.  Cards that allow you to gain Kingdom cards are exempt from this, like Ambassador can very well give someone a Kingdom Curse.

If it's intentional that you can't take a Pride when someone else plays Witch, then it should definitely be called something besides "Curse".

You don't want to use a pre-existing word when you're trying to make it mean something different, and when you still want the original word too.

Quote
As for infinite Curses I'll probably fix that.  I just want to get across that when these are in play, there are a lot of Curses available.  I'd have to figure out a solid amount with playtesting with time, but for now think of "infinite" as merely being a pile of all the Curses you own.

As for how the game ends in that scenario I thought I'd make it clear.  Whoever has the highest VP wins.  Negative VP exists in a game with Curse cards in the Kingdom.

No, that's how you count the score when the game ends. I was asking how the game ends when players can't rub two coppers together often enough to empty three piles, especially if Curse isn't supposed to become an empty pile.

Quote
Greed:
Actually one of my main inspiration is a card in the recent Hinterlands set called Noble Brigand!  You can't say a card like that in Dominion doesn't exist.  But you are right, it probably should just be a basic Curse card like Pride.  Maybe when you buy it, you play it immediately allowing it to be countered by Moat or another card.  I want to be able to have a really strong Treasure-grabbing card that attacks an opponent directly, emulating the feeling of being greedy.  Having it to be Action-Attack-Curse would be rather broken, so I think limiting it's effect as being a one time thing is really a must.

You should look at Noble Brigand again. It attacks everyone, instead of taking a card of your choice from a player of your choice. Noble Brigand is not a political card.

Quote
About them working in other games:
Well yeah, that's kind of the idea.  You either play with the Seven Sin cards, or you don't.  The thing about these Curses is that you're meant to play older cards in different ways.  One that comes to mind is Jester in which you have to be careful because using him may benefit other players in a Curse centric game, while it could benefit you greatly by giving yourself a free Curse (basic or Kingdom),

You just said above that only Curses can give you Kingdom Curses, so your description of Jester is inconsistent.

And... if all 7 Sin cards are always in the kingdom, that means there's only 3 other cards? If you're throwing out both the nearly boundless variation of Kingdoms and the usual ways of getting VP, why did you make this an expansion to Dominion instead of some other game?

Sorry that I feel the need to be so critical. Playtesting is key, of course, but there are fundamental problems here that you don't even need to playtest to see. Spare your playtesters a bit of pain.
Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2011, 09:31:12 pm »
0

Tell me, what exactly is the problem with the pre-established rule that only Curse cards can give out Kingdom Curses?  You're going to have to explain this to me cause this avoids any actual problems with the Dominion cards with one simple rule.  There's no reason to make a new card type if you can avoid all problems by adding a rule for the cards in question.

As for your question, sorry for the confusion, but the solution to that is simply deck management.  That's what this concept is mainly about.  There's cards like Gluttony that allow you to set aside cards from your hand, and then there's cards like Chapel which let you trash cards that are cluttering up your deck.  Limiting the amount of Curses to 30-40 would be fine too, it's just something that needs to really be figured out in playtesting.

On Noble Brigand: That doesn't mean that it isn't an attack that activates when you buy.  Technically it isn't a real attack as you aren't actually playing it when you purchase it, and like you said Noble Brigand targets all players, but I don't see how it's so different in concept.  Greed doesn't have to be an attack card, I admit, but I don't think it's effect is very out there or too political for Dominion.  Not to mention that it would be broken if it attacked everyone.

On Jester: I worded that wrong.  What I meant is that you could benefit from gaining a basic Curse, which you can do perfectly fine with Jester.

Also you wouldn't need all seven to play a Curse game.  I think it's highly probable that one can stick with four or five and have a solid five or six Kingdom cards from other sets, which bring more than enough variety.
Logged

Tydude

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2011, 10:31:37 pm »
0

Here's a better question, why not simply make a new card type? It's not that you have any rules problem that would require a new card type, but remember that you always want to avoid player problems, like confusion. And these cards are really, really confusing. Plus, you can avoid the awkward wording of, "The Curse card gained cannot have a cost of 0", and "Everyone gains a Curse that isn't a Kingdom card". It's needlessly complex and should definitely be changed.

On Greed, as Donald X. says, you can do whatever you want with your fan expansions. But you're never going to see a targeted attack in Dominion, and I personally won't ever play with fan made targeted attacks. Also it should not be an attack for the same reason Ill-Gotten-Gains isn't an attack. And, actually, it's more broken as a targeted attack than if it simply attacked everyone. As a targeted attack, you're screwing one player over and everybody else is fine, while as a normal attack you hurt everyone equally. It's more power to the person who plays it, but now everyone has the same chance at it. Also, you can't guarantee there will be treasure cards in the trash, and if there are they're most likely going to be Copper so usually that's completely pointless. Also, you can't see other people's discard piles normally so you would need to add some sort of text in there like Counting House, but with opponents.
Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2011, 11:54:09 pm »
0

Making them a "Sin" type would probably actually benefit the cards to be honest, but I dunno.  Making a new type of card solely for seven cards might be pushing it, when a part of my idea is that this expansion could be extended to complimentary cards that are also Curses and cards that supplement them.  There's also the fact that the cards don't really have a special aspect or way to play them to defines them as being different from other Kingdom cards, they're just regular Kingdom cards that benefit from having Curses in your deck in some form or another.  I also think it'd be odd to have negative Victory points without them being Curses, which are pretty much a special type of Victory card already.
Logged

rspeer

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +877
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2011, 02:49:49 am »
0

bmtrocks, you should read the Fan Card Creation Guide.
Logged

Diving Pikachu

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
  • ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2011, 03:14:34 am »
+1

This card would probably go as quickly as Gardens does at the beginning of the game.

Um... How many Gardens games have you actually played? Gardens rushes are tricky to pull off, even with a perfectly enabling board. And if you can't rush them, you most likely will be getting them in the mid- to late-game, but even then, they'd only be worth buying in slow games with little-to-no trashing.

Anyways, this expansion that you're building is so fundamentally different from actual dominion play that modeling the strategies that these cards would engender is like guessing the trajectory of a rocket made out of pykrete covered in spirals of cheese, attached to a helium-filled blow-up doll.

My advice at this point is to actually play with these cards to see if they add anything to the game. And to remember that even potion-costing cards can potentially stand their own in usefulness and relevance in a board where they're the only Alchemy card there.
Logged

Octo

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 206
  • Respect: +38
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2011, 04:41:50 am »
0

The ability of each card to stand alone amongst the other cards in Dominion is an important factor. What happens when you have the level of interdependence that these cards do is that some cards become essential (eg Pride) to make any of them worthwhile and secondly clear, prescribed strategies arise and not in a good way - the cards begin to rely on each other, rather than interact with each other. Take Envy - it relies on there being other curse cards around to match the prices up, otherwise it's completely useless as you can't get any at all (10 is minimum if only Envy is on the board, and no VPs cost 10). If the price doesn't have to be exact then, well 2xEnvy = Province which is a net gain of 0VP. Yay. Even the fact that Alchemy cards rely on Potion kind of bugs me a little bit, but as it goes in the basic supply and essentially just money it not so bad. As an exercise, I think it would be good to imagine each card as the only one of your new cards on the table, the rest are any other random cards as normal, and then see how it would fare.

Also, the curse pile - not everyone has base and intrigue. 30 curses might be the most you can go. Personally, I find that - as well as mandating 4/5 sin cards minimum in a game - too much of a departure from the basic rules for my tastes and would just stick with the regular numbers. Working within the constricted rules set is what makes this kind of thing interesting.

Regarding a new card type for only seven cards - there's only eight duration cards. So it's not that bad.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 04:52:23 am by Octo »
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2011, 08:28:11 am »
0

Intereesting concept. To join the choir:

I also would say that, to get the expension interesting, each card for it's own should have some kind of value, also if it's the only one on the board. Of course not on every board, and there should also be synergies between them, but you might want to buy Horn of Plenty without having Fairgrounds or Menangerie on the board.

Second, the infinite pile: I totally don't see why these cards should in principle not work with 10 Curses in 2player. Unless you really want to enforce games where your deck is filled with curses, which I don't think will be fun more than 2 games. Say Pride: Don't know if it's balanced, but this card alone adds a lot variation to the game. Even if you just eat your average 5 Curses, a Pride is a cheaper Duchy, which is totally fine for a game with curser. Maybe the Pride is a reason to avoid cursers at all, but that has to be playtested I think.  Eating 10 Curses is no fun usually, even if the nets you vps in the end.
Even in a game with lots of +Buy but without cursers, there might be a way to go Curse/Pride, espescially if you have some chance of finishing on piles. So probably, in some games without Cursers and without other Sins, the limited Cursepile will help this card.

Envy on it's own of course always can gain Duchies, but I don't think it's worth it. So if there is some other mechanism to let it gain Provinces (which might be too powerfull on the other hand), or maybe double Duchies, again, might add something to the game. I actually like gaining 2 Duchies with it, I think.

Greed's attack somehow seems to strong. For only $3, choose what cards to gain... Opponent bought his first Gold last turn (and hasn't reshuffled), -> buy Greed.


Also, there are (I think also in the guide) some problems listed with balancing strong actions by negative VPs, mainly the problem of buying them early, using them to get a strong deck and trashing them before the end.  This should be considered carefully, probably one can also add some delay by (also just thinking loudly at the moment) gaining (usual) Curses when trashing Sins. To keep the amount of negative VP constant, or gaining half as many Curses as negative VPs are on the Sin, or whatever...
Logged

Octo

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 206
  • Respect: +38
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2011, 08:38:55 am »
0

Envy can't gain duchies on its own (if I understand the current rules right). You have to gain no fewer than two cards, neither of which can be a $0 value curse. So that means 2xEnvy, which is value 10. Even if you could gain a duchy for one Envy, that's a net gain of 0VP again. So yeah, not worth it, better to just buy a duchy in the first place and save yourself the bother of trying to trash all the junk.

Also, I think you misread Pride - at 5 curses it's not a cheaper duchy, it's a far cheaper colony. It's worth 2VP for every curse, and you  must include the Pride itself, because it's a curse too. so -2 + 6*2 = 10. For $4. Still, your point stands - it doesn't need an unlimited curse pile to make it interesting, it manages that fine with a regular pile.

Just to add to your comment about trashing, DStu - yeah, trashing the bad bits is a problem. I think it's also exacerbated by the fact that these cards have good value too. You're, say, remaking two Envies into two duchies in one go, giving you a 12VP swing. Eesh. One of the things about curses is there's bugger all to convert them into. HOWEVER, these would be absolutely fiendish with swindler on the board!!
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2011, 08:48:52 am »
0

Envy can't gain duchies on its own (if I understand the current rules right).
Yeah, I didn't read it correctly, but I modified it anyway... Say you would gain 2 Duchies+1Envy, that might be interesting.
Pride also some mistake, but again, I think it might work if it's about a Duchy for $4, given the setting some less or some more...
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +2017
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2011, 08:53:47 am »
0

I think the whole "these only work if there are multiples from this set" only really matters in an Iso-like situation where you're mixing a bunch of different sets. I think it's perfectly legitimate to come up with an expansion that is designed to be mixed with only one other at a time, especially since that is how Donald tends to playtest. These cards will clearly never be on Iso, and if they are played in the way that they are designed to be played, I see no problem.

OTOH, obviously these cards still need a lot of work. Envy is confusing, Wrath is super-uber-mega-ultra way too powerful whether or not you can get an advantage from the Curse type, Gluttony seems to be just a terrible, terrible Island, and most of the others I can't really comment on because I don't have a feel for how the Curse interactions would play.

Anyway, keep working at it! :)
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2011, 08:58:22 am »
0

I think the whole "these only work if there are multiples from this set" only really matters in an Iso-like situation where you're mixing a bunch of different sets. I think it's perfectly legitimate to come up with an expansion that is designed to be mixed with only one other at a time, especially since that is how Donald tends to playtest. These cards will clearly never be on Iso, and if they are played in the way that they are designed to be played, I see no problem.

I think "only work when you have multiples" is a problem. Especially if some cards depend on one other key card. So you should at least consider and try to give them a meaning on their own. If then one is left which is a little bit weak without some support, so be it, but you greatly limit the variations if you assume to have 3-4 cards of a 7-card set in each kingdom you play with this expension.

And if you really want to have 7 in each kingdom, there's not much variaton left. End it's also the question if the other 3 cards can really influence the kingdom enough, when you have 7 synergizing cards, which promote a completely different playstyle.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2011, 12:05:14 pm »
0

I think OP misunderstands the principles of good game design so thoroughly that this just isn't even salvageable, and it'd take too long to explain why.
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +2017
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2011, 06:52:19 pm »
0

I think the whole "these only work if there are multiples from this set" only really matters in an Iso-like situation where you're mixing a bunch of different sets. I think it's perfectly legitimate to come up with an expansion that is designed to be mixed with only one other at a time, especially since that is how Donald tends to playtest. These cards will clearly never be on Iso, and if they are played in the way that they are designed to be played, I see no problem.

I think "only work when you have multiples" is a problem. Especially if some cards depend on one other key card. So you should at least consider and try to give them a meaning on their own. If then one is left which is a little bit weak without some support, so be it, but you greatly limit the variations if you assume to have 3-4 cards of a 7-card set in each kingdom you play with this expension.

And if you really want to have 7 in each kingdom, there's not much variaton left. End it's also the question if the other 3 cards can really influence the kingdom enough, when you have 7 synergizing cards, which promote a completely different playstyle.

Well clearly one card relying on the presence of another Kingdom card is a problem, and clearly needing all seven there is a problem, and, you know, maybe requiring 3-4 per game limits replayability somewhat, but if you have cards such as these, you're not going to be using them every game. I don't think it's that much worse than the suggested option of having at least 3 Alchemy cards if any. It would probably be different if these were official cards, but being a "variant" I think it's okay to wander a little bit away from the whole "any 10 cards work" thing, if that's what the designer wants to do.

I think OP misunderstands the principles of good game design so thoroughly that this just isn't even salvageable, and it'd take too long to explain why.

That's helpful.
Logged

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1323
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1379
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2011, 06:55:44 pm »
0

Envy would be good for gaining Vineyard, yesno?
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2011, 07:20:42 pm »
0


I think OP misunderstands the principles of good game design so thoroughly that this just isn't even salvageable, and it'd take too long to explain why.

That's helpful.

Eh.  It's kind of like when someone with a terrible, innate singing voice auditions for American Idol, and the judges tell them to give up singing altogether.  It is useful to recognize when something needs tweaking and when the issue is the quality of the producer in general.

In this case, there is much more hope, as OP can learn more about game design to improve the things he drafts.  My post should be taken as encouragement to go read some of Donald's blog or rspeer's comments.

It was kind of harsh though.
Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2011, 08:36:16 pm »
0

Wow I come back and didn't expect such a large amount of discussion surrounding this concept.  I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this discussion, negative or positive, discussion is about growth and that's what I'm looking for.

One thing I want to make clear is that a lot of the numbers on the cards are kind of arbitrary.  They're ideas, rather than how I want the card to be defined by.  When talking about a card like Pride, don't think of it as a card that gives you 2 VP for every Curse, just as a card that has the potential to be a card that gives you 2 VP for every Curse.  I've done so many variations of these cards, like turning Pride into a Curse version of Vineyard (amongst other things), that the numbers on them don't really hold a special meaning at the moment.  It's all very much in concept, which is basically combining the theme of the seven deadly sins with the idea that Curses can benefit you/allow you to win the game.  For the sins, this is the base concept of each:

Pride - a card that gives you Victory Points for the amount of Curses in your deck
Envy - a card that gains Curses, while gaining a Victory Point
Greed - a card that gives you an easy way to gain Treasure (such as taking them from your opponents)
Wrath - a card that gives everyone a Curse
Gluttony - a card that allows you to put aside all of your Curses, so they don't clutter up your deck.
Lust - a card that turns Curses into Treasure

You could really toy around with even the concepts for these.

I don't see what's so fundamentally wrong in game design about gaining benefits from having Curse cards.  I've read the sticky (twice in fact) which has helped me a lot in creating cards.  I've read Donald X.'s posts on BGG about game design and the secret histories of Dominion, and I've read rspeer's comments (which didn't really contribute anything).  That doesn't change my opinion on designing cards that give you benefits from Curses.  There isn't anything non-Dominion-like about it.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 08:38:59 pm by bmtrocks »
Logged

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1323
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1379
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2011, 08:54:28 pm »
0

I think I like the combo Highway-Highway-Highway-Highway-Highway-Envy. :D
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

Tydude

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2011, 09:46:57 pm »
0

I think it's an interesting idea, but the basic rules of it need some work. I would make a new card type and get rid of the infinite curses, then we'll talk.
Logged

Diving Pikachu

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
  • ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2011, 10:34:48 pm »
0

Pride - a card that gives you Victory Points for the amount of Curses in your deck

Gardens already delves somewhat into that territory, and it is a much more versatile card. It does not depend so heavily on specific cards; it just needs a source of buys or gains. Pride requires you to fundamentally change Dominion into something unrecognizable, with unlimited curses and added constraints upon the board. It would be a different story if Pride counted cards that cost 0. Perhaps you could make Pride actually cost 0, but come with curses and coppers upon gaining it? If it counted any 0-costing card, including itself, it would definitely be more self-sufficient and able to be played on non-7 Sins boards.

Quote
Envy - a card that gains Curses, while gaining a Victory Point

This card is so dependent on your other cards dominating the board that it does not interest me nor invite further analysis. It's like an appendix to a book I'll never read, or merchandise from a show I'll never watch.

Quote
Greed - a card that gives you an easy way to gain Treasure (such as taking them from your opponents)

This attack should affect each other player equally. Even Possession at least lets the victim play a proper full turn for himself, afterwards. And the presence of this card on the board would just incentive coin-generating actions or copper strategies that would thus make this card less desirable and thus never bought.

Quote
Wrath - a card that gives everyone a Curse

Even the flawed cursers--Young Witch and Sea Hag--are $4. And they're terminal actions, to boot. Please don't tell me you don't see what's wrong with cursing villages at the exact same cost of a Silver...

... But in case you don't see it, the obvious optimal opening would be Wrath/Wrath, and it will cause the game to degenerate into a horribly boring slog where players pray to the Gods of the Shuffle and Random Number Generators to come out of this buttslap fest the victor. Add trashers into the mix and you got yourself an even more egregious exercise in futility.

Quote
Gluttony - a card that allows you to put aside all of your Curses, so they don't clutter up your deck.

A card that requires Pride and/or Lust to even be glanced at. And those cards require your other cards to even be worth it.

Quote
Lust - a card that turns Curses into Treasure

Salvageable, but only if it counts everything that's neither an action or treasure. Victory cards are many degrees of magnitude more relevant to the game than Curses.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 10:38:10 pm by Diving Pikachu »
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #30 on: November 29, 2011, 01:58:26 am »
0

The gardens example is the most useful one.  These cards all do novel things that you can do without putting them into a box and saying "these cards are allowed to hang out with eachother".  Making Dominion organic and flexible is important.  If you deliberately include things with strong synergy with eachother, pretty much all anyone will do is play your cards the way you set them up to be played.  Hypathetically you could find a balance point, but heavy synergy tends to put things in boxes very quickly.  There's enough synergy that you find in games just from mechanics dovetailing together, like when you figure out Horse Traders is good with Duke.  They're more gratifying to judge and interact with than canned interactions included by the designer saying "X goes with Y, and if X goes with Y you get a bonus".  Which is what all these cards are meant to do.  They are all very interdependent.  Hypathetically you might could find a way to get all seven of them used, but it would probably be nigh impossible to balance it out.

If you want to mess with curses, make Kingdom cards that care about the ten curses the game comes with.  If two of them flip up at the same time, cool, you can see how well they work and how worth it they are, like Silk Road with varying amounts of Kingdom VP support. 


At the very best, you'll create an alternate form of Dominion where Provinces, Duchies, and Estates will be replaced with various curse strategies.  It probably would be quite difficult to balance.  Then once it's balanced, you'll have accomplished very little you couldn't have done with a Gardens style card.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #31 on: November 29, 2011, 04:29:18 am »
0

Pride - a card that gives you Victory Points for the amount of Curses in your deck
Gardens already delves somewhat into that territory, and it is a much more versatile card. It does not depend so heavily on specific cards; it just needs a source of buys or gains. Pride requires you to fundamentally change Dominion into something unrecognizable, with unlimited curses and added constraints upon the board. It would be a different story if Pride counted cards that cost 0. Perhaps you could make Pride actually cost 0, but come with curses and coppers upon gaining it? If it counted any 0-costing card, including itself, it would definitely be more self-sufficient and able to be played on non-7 Sins boards.
There are some differences to Gardens, also to Vineyards. For first, there are many games where you don't have to buy Curses. And if you want to, they only cost $0, which is much easier than loading up with Actions or 10 cards or VP (for Silk Road).
And as I mentioned, I don't think you want or need infinite or also only more Curses than normal to make Pride usefull, it's just a question of the numbers. Giving you 2VP for the five Curses you already have is (as I was corrected) about Colony for $4, I'll be glad to take that. I would also take a Duchy for $4, if I hadn't the choice. If you now have 20 Curses in your deck, it will only get insane.
Logged

rspeer

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +877
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #32 on: November 29, 2011, 07:06:12 am »
0

Wow I come back and didn't expect such a large amount of discussion surrounding this concept.  I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this discussion, negative or positive, discussion is about growth and that's what I'm looking for.

One thing I want to make clear is that a lot of the numbers on the cards are kind of arbitrary.  They're ideas, rather than how I want the card to be defined by.  When talking about a card like Pride, don't think of it as a card that gives you 2 VP for every Curse, just as a card that has the potential to be a card that gives you 2 VP for every Curse.  I've done so many variations of these cards, like turning Pride into a Curse version of Vineyard (amongst other things), that the numbers on them don't really hold a special meaning at the moment.  It's all very much in concept, which is basically combining the theme of the seven deadly sins with the idea that Curses can benefit you/allow you to win the game.  For the sins, this is the base concept of each:

Pride - a card that gives you Victory Points for the amount of Curses in your deck
Envy - a card that gains Curses, while gaining a Victory Point
Greed - a card that gives you an easy way to gain Treasure (such as taking them from your opponents)
Wrath - a card that gives everyone a Curse
Gluttony - a card that allows you to put aside all of your Curses, so they don't clutter up your deck.
Lust - a card that turns Curses into Treasure

You could really toy around with even the concepts for these.

I don't see what's so fundamentally wrong in game design about gaining benefits from having Curse cards.  I've read the sticky (twice in fact) which has helped me a lot in creating cards.  I've read Donald X.'s posts on BGG about game design and the secret histories of Dominion, and I've read rspeer's comments (which didn't really contribute anything).  That doesn't change my opinion on designing cards that give you benefits from Curses.  There isn't anything non-Dominion-like about it.

If you've read the card creation guide and Donald X's posts... did you decide they were dead wrong and you wanted to prove it with an expansion that does the opposite of everything in them?

But then, you weren't even familiar with the distinction between targeted and non-targeted attacks, and you weren't very interested in having it explained to you by anyone either.

You posted here because you wanted feedback on something, right? You don't seem very interested in hearing criticism, whether it's constructive (my earlier posts and many others) or not (like, say, this post). You just keep arguing back that your expansion is a great idea and that everyone else is wrong.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 07:23:13 am by rspeer »
Logged

WrathOfGlod

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
  • Respect: +23
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2011, 07:20:18 am »
0

I agree with popsofctown that this expansion is unsalvagable but the concept of an expansion built on the 7 deadly sins is an intriguing one
For thematic appropriateness I think cards should have the following characteristics

Wrath- A powerful attack which does significant damage but also hurts yourself
Proposal: Wrath- $5 Every player gains 2 curses. Discard your hand
Analysis: This card feels like a reverse-tactician (unsure if its balanced but not obviously game-breaking)

Gluttony- A short term benefit with a long term (next turn) cost
Proposal- Sloth-$4 +2 cards +2 actions draw one less card in your cleanup phase
Analysis- Reverse caravan (first play is marginal damage later plays become more severe, excellent soft counter to militia etc.)

Envy- A card which damages you deck long term in order to hurt other players
Proposal- Envy $(4-5)? Trash a card from your hand all other players either trash a card costing at least as much as the trashed card or reveal a hand with no such cards.
Analysis-Crap as an early game trasher (Bishop w/o the vps or dollars) but late game can be extremely powerful especially if you have cards which have outlived their value (Wrath, Sea hag, etc.) Also combos well but not outstandingly with TR/KC

Greed- Quick Money at the expense of the future
Proposal- Greed-$5 Trash this card: Choose one either gain a gold or gain a card worth $4 and a card worth $3
Analysis- The second option doesn't really fit thematically (I guess you break down a decent card for parts?) However the first option alone is too strong for $4 and too weak for $5

Lust- A desire for others cards so much that you are willing to hurt yourself for the chance at it:
Proposal- Lust-$(no clue about the price feels very variant): +1 card +1 action: All other players draw a card. For each player name a card costing up to $6: They reveal the top card of the deck, if that card is the card you named you gain the card from their deck otherwise they discard the card.
Analysis- This card avoids being overpowered in the same way that wishing well avoids being overpowered (it is really hard to know the second card from the top). Has the potential to be political (which is bad) but stopping you from stealing provinces (which limits the effect). A possible fix might be to name 1 card and check against all players but that lowers the strategic impact of the card. (I like cards which care about what others are doing).

continued....
Logged

WrathOfGlod

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
  • Respect: +23
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2011, 07:33:18 am »
0

Sloth- A card which slows down your game tempo, saving energy for the long game.
Proposal: Sloth-$4: +1 card +1 action +1VP discard a card
Analysis: This card has the potential to be extremely messy and possibly overpowered however the card is weak except for the infinite VP-sprawl that it feels ok (without enablers you are limited to +5 VP (similar to Bishop-Gold-Silver-Silver-Province).

Pride- A card which relies on confidence to control the game state
Proposal: Pride-$4 Action-Duration: Choose a card type (Action,Victory,Treasure).+1 buy +1 treasure, While this card is in play cards of this type cost 1 less and cards of other types cost 1 more.
Analysis:
This card is designed to attempt to lock out certain strategies: If your opponent is going for actions then you can use this to pick up cheap golds and lock him out of the good actions.
Also useful for endgame- PPR shenanigans (draw 8 treasure and use this card to push up the cost of provinces).
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +2017
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2011, 07:44:09 am »
0

Pride- A card which relies on confidence to control the game state
Proposal: Pride-$4 Action-Duration: Choose a card type (Action,Victory,Treasure).+1 buy +1 treasure, While this card is in play cards of this type cost 1 less and cards of other types cost 1 more.

There is nothing keeping this card out at the end of your turn. If you want it to stay until next turn, it must do something next turn, since Duration cards are discarded at the end of the last turn that they do something.
Also, if a bunch of these are in play, it's going to be extremely difficult to keep track of which cards have gone up or down and by how much, especially IRL. With Bridge and Highway it's much easier because they all do the same thing and they're all right in front of you. But if you need to check the play areas of two or three other people, it's going to get real confusing, real fast, especially since there's no way to record which cards have increased the cost of which types.
Logged

WrathOfGlod

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
  • Respect: +23
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2011, 08:26:19 am »
0

Pride- A card which relies on confidence to control the game state
Proposal: Pride-$4 Action-Duration: Choose a card type (Action,Victory,Treasure).+1 buy +1 treasure, While this card is in play cards of this type cost 1 less and cards of other types cost 1 more.

There is nothing keeping this card out at the end of your turn. If you want it to stay until next turn, it must do something next turn, since Duration cards are discarded at the end of the last turn that they do something.
Also, if a bunch of these are in play, it's going to be extremely difficult to keep track of which cards have gone up or down and by how much, especially IRL. With Bridge and Highway it's much easier because they all do the same thing and they're all right in front of you. But if you need to check the play areas of two or three other people, it's going to get real confusing, real fast, especially since there's no way to record which cards have increased the cost of which types.

That is a problem IRL- To fix the first problem I think you can give it +1 buy on the next turn without it being overpowered.
(Especially because the +buy on the second turn is less useful)
For the second problem you could add circles at the bottom of the card and put a marker on the type being reduced.
Logged

WrathOfGlod

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
  • Respect: +23
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #37 on: November 29, 2011, 08:53:33 am »
0

Quote
Lust- A desire for others cards so much that you are willing to hurt yourself for the chance at it:
Proposal- Lust-$(no clue about the price feels very variant): +1 card +1 action: All other players draw a card. For each player name a card costing up to $6: They reveal the top card of the deck, if that card is the card you named you gain the card from their deck otherwise they discard the card.
Analysis- This card avoids being overpowered in the same way that wishing well avoids being overpowered (it is really hard to know the second card from the top). Has the potential to be political (which is bad) but stopping you from stealing provinces (which limits the effect). A possible fix might be to name 1 card and check against all players but that lowers the strategic impact of the card. (I like cards which care about what others are doing).
This card feels a bit too spammable unless it is costed at 6 or 7 (which I think is too late to be interesting)
Possibly it could be switched to a one time card and instead of naming a card you name a card type
Lust-$4 Trash this card: All other players draw a card. For each player name a card type: They reveal the top card of the deck, if that card is of the type you named and costs less than $6 they trash the card and you gain it from the trash otherwise they discard the card.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 09:17:29 am by WrathOfGlod »
Logged

rspeer

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +877
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #38 on: November 29, 2011, 08:07:25 pm »
0

I got a sin-inspired card idea for gaining cards from other people's decks, too. But I think it fits the name Envy better than Lust:

Envy - $5
+2 Cards
Each opponent reveals his hand. Choose a card from each hand. That opponent may choose to discard that card. If not, you gain a copy of the card.

It's kind of a Jester with more chance of getting you a good card, but putting the decision of whether you get it on the other end. And there's no need for an exception for Provinces and Colonies: if you name a victory card, your opponent will probably be perfectly okay with discarding it.

If the card you covet is Platinum or Grand Market, though, that's when it's a really tough decision for your opponent.

I gave it +2 cards to be a slightly-weaker dual to Jester's +2 coins, and also to create the potential for chaining it with a village. (Do you let an Envy-chaining opponent gain multiple copies of your favorite card, or do you keep discarding? Hmm...)

Is this too strong? Should it not have +cards at all, making it a kind of powered-up attacking version of Smugglers?
Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #39 on: November 29, 2011, 09:24:20 pm »
0

If you've read the card creation guide and Donald X's posts... did you decide they were dead wrong and you wanted to prove it with an expansion that does the opposite of everything in them?
Cards that gain benefits from having Curses in your deck does not go against anything stated by Donald X or the card creation guide whatsoever.  Everything else is just ideas, not definite.  The Sin cards in question don't even need to be Curse cards for this to work, nor is it necessary to tune the rules to have infinite Curses (10 or 30 Curses is just fine, the cards just need to be balanced right).

But then, you weren't even familiar with the distinction between targeted and non-targeted attacks, and you weren't very interested in having it explained to you by anyone either.
This is an utterly idiotic assumption here as I never suggested I wasn't familiar with the distinction of really simple mechanics..  It doesn't take much to tell the difference between those two types of attacks.  I simply made it targeted and activated on buy because otherwise it's pretty broken.  I didn't really design the card to be playable with other cards, just a card that adapts the feeling of greed in Dominion.  Greed, as in the one I posted in the OP, is a card that will let you directly steal from a player, but becomes deadweight in your deck.  If it was a traditional Attack card that attacks everyone, it becomes essentially the most broken card in the game.

You posted here because you wanted feedback on something, right? You don't seem very interested in hearing criticism, whether it's constructive (my earlier posts and many others) or not (like, say, this post). You just keep arguing back that your expansion is a great idea and that everyone else is wrong.
The thing is that you still haven't given a clear set of reasoning why the expansion is a bad idea.  The cards are definitely a bad idea in every way possible, but the expansion concept has nothing to do with any design decisions that go against traditional Dominion play whatsoever.  Secondly I'm perfect fine with criticism.  Surfing Pikachu, which I'll respond to eventually, provided well thought out reasoning against all of my cards rather than just saying, "This won't work."  If you can't provide that type of critique, then you only have yourself to blame for that
Logged

olneyce

  • 2011 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 245
  • Respect: +210
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #40 on: November 29, 2011, 09:28:51 pm »
0

The thing is that you still haven't given a clear set of reasoning why the expansion is a bad idea.  The cards are definitely a bad idea in every way possible, but the expansion concept has nothing to do with any design decisions that go against traditional Dominion play whatsoever. 
Huh?

Maybe this would have been better if you had started out by saying: "I am 100% sure that my specific card designs are not going to be right.  Think of them as ideas to bounce around, rather than anything I'm committed to."  And then, when people identified really obvious problems, you could have said "oh, man.  I didn't think about that.  Yeah, this won't work.  But is the idea behind the card any good, or should I scrap the whole thing?"

And, you could take some incredibly reasonable advice about not calling them 'Curses' in stride.
Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #41 on: November 29, 2011, 09:34:43 pm »
0

Huh?

Maybe this would have been better if you had started out by saying: "I am 100% sure that my specific card designs are not going to be right.  Think of them as ideas to bounce around, rather than anything I'm committed to."  And then, when people identified really obvious problems, you could have said "oh, man.  I didn't think about that.  Yeah, this won't work.  But is the idea behind the card any good, or should I scrap the whole thing?"

And, you could take some incredibly reasonable advice about not calling them 'Curses' in stride.
I've already established this, and I've already recognized the problem of the rule confusion and infinite Curses many times already.  Me not going back and making changes immediately =/= me ignoring people.  I'm highly considering right now turning all of these cards into non-Curse cards, that happen to give you negative VP, and tuning the rules (I just don't have much time at the moment).  That was actually my initial idea for some of the cards like Wrath which the original template was that it was a normal Action-Attack, and Pride was a normal Victory card.
Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #42 on: November 29, 2011, 10:08:25 pm »
0

To reiterate my point this was my initial idea for Pride and Wrath (the later I even made when most of the Sins were Curse cards):



Though to be honest I don't think it's appropriate giving either negative VP values, which is why I switched to Curses.  However I do agree that Curse cards are best when they're still in the bounds of being utilized by Witch and others.  I still think the idea of Kingdom Curses is a fantastic idea, with or without the complication rule, but they'd have to be in the realms of being actual Curse cards rather than what these cards try to accomplish.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 10:12:43 pm by bmtrocks »
Logged

Tydude

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #43 on: November 29, 2011, 10:17:43 pm »
0

Is Wrath supposed to make the person who played it gain a Curse also? Because currently it does do that.
Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #44 on: November 29, 2011, 10:56:01 pm »
0

Is Wrath supposed to make the person who played it gain a Curse also? Because currently it does do that.
Yeah pretty much, it's only really useful in games centered around Pride tbh.  I'll just have to fix it with time.  Diving Pikachu makes a solid argument against it so it's one of the cards that'll probably end up getting axed.  I'm currently planning to do something like this:

- Change all the cards to non-Curse cards, but keep Kingdom Curses in mind (I'm thinking about making a complimentary set to give variety to the kind of Curses can give out that aren't just -1VP).
- Keep Pride the way it is, with some alterations that'll balance it out overtime.
- Axe Greed (the card), and rename Lust to "Greed."  This version of Greed will gain Treasure for all Victory and Curse cards in your hand.  Lust can be changed to a card, which someone mentioned, that invokes the feeling that you're lusting after opponent's cards.  Maybe a heavily altered version of the previous Greed.
- Axe Wrath, but keep the concept in mind.
- Axe Envy (too proprietary on the sins being Curses)
- Axe Gluttony (too proprietary on lots of Curses)
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 12:12:24 am by bmtrocks »
Logged

Diving Pikachu

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
  • ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #45 on: November 30, 2011, 12:09:40 am »
0

Sounds like you're on the right track. As a writer, when something that I've worked on fails, I find myself either scrapping the whole thing altogether (if it's bad enough), or abandoning an idea or detail that I had previously thought to be fundamental to the work. I guess making Dominion fan cards also involves moments where you have to kill your own babies. But don't regret having made up bad cards and putting them out there for us to critique, since you hopefully still gained something out of this experience.

- Axe Greed (the card), and rename Lust to "Greed."  This version of Greed will gain Treasure for all Victory and Curse cards in your hand.

Do you mean that it will gain you a Treasure card(s) based on how many Victory or Curse cards in your hand? Because if it still uses the old idea of generating Coins, that is something completely different.
Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #46 on: November 30, 2011, 12:30:38 am »
0

Do you mean that it will gain you a Treasure card(s) based on how many Victory or Curse cards in your hand? Because if it still uses the old idea of generating Coins, that is something completely different.
Bleh I worded it wrong.  Here view the revision I made for yourself:

Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #47 on: November 30, 2011, 01:59:46 am »
0

Coming up with some ideas for Curses.  I'm currently working on the second revision of this concept, so don't take this as complimentary cards that go with OP, even though they're Curse cards, they're meant to be Curse cards that can be gained through other cards like Witch, etc..  Gone are the infinite Curses, all Curse games are either 10 or 30 Curses now.  Gone are the special rules for Kingdom Curses.

Don't think the Seven Sins theme is gone, I'm just thinking of cards that could be in the same set concept that share the theme of benefits from Curses, and balancing it out with Curses that are just pure nasty in non-Pride games.

The only other rule for this format is that when a Curse card is in the Kingdom, when a card says you "gain" a Curse that is played by another player, that player gets to choose what Curse card you get, unless specified otherwise.



The first one is a concept for Sloth.  Actually once I think about it the theme of the card doesn't really fit the sin of Sloth, and this card is very much in-concept rather than grounded in being a definitive, so it's very subject to change into a completely different card.  The original idea was for this to be called "Demon" so I'll probably end up making this card that and save Sloth for another type of card to keep theme consistency.



These two go hand-in-hand basically.  Some of the wording feels off, but I'll work on it with time considering there isn't really any Dominion cards quite like these.  Aside from the confusing wording, Familiar is a very basic Curse.  Priest, on the other hand, is made to combat it and any other card that allows you to gain a Curse.  Priest is based off Moat but with a more specific effect, and especially hurts Familiar (as does Watchtower).



This card actually goes pretty well with "Wrath" which I'm still tuning (concept is the same, it being a Village isn't), and ridiculous for Pride games, and a deck clutter for every other game.  It's simple, but works.
Logged

rspeer

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +877
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #48 on: November 30, 2011, 04:38:27 am »
0

Quote
If a reaction card is played when a player gains this card from an attack...

I've thought about it for an unreasonably long time, and concluded that the situation you have described never happens. I thought for a moment it was when anyone in the game reveals a Watchtower, Horse Traders, or Secret Chamber, or when an uninvolved third player reveals a Moat... but none of those cards get played.

If you change "play" to "reveal", then in 2P games it amplifies the power of a reaction card without you even having to buy/gain it, and in 3+ games it has some weird ass political effect that you clearly didn't intend. What did you actually mean?

Quote
...put this card in the attacker's discard pile instead.

This sounds like you're trying to make a card that turns an attack back on the attacker (although I'm really not clear on what it does). You have read the guides so you know well why Dominion has no such cards: it's either too weak to be worth gaining, or it's strong enough that it makes it undesirable to buy any Attacks in the kingdom, or it's "balanced" perfectly in the middle where you don't want to gain that card or attack cards.

If I understand your current rules, it's a curse because you can gain it from someone playing Witch. Then here's how the equilibrium works:
  • Any rational player would gain a curse named Familiar (not to be confused with the Alchemy card named Familiar...?) in preference to a curse named Curse.
  • So cards like Witch now give out 0VP curses with some sort of benefit, instead of -1VP curses. The benefit might even (in some hard to define way) cause the card to clutter your deck instead of your opponent's.
  • Therefore, Witch does not have its intended effect anymore. So nobody ever buys Witch, or Sea Hag, or the other Familiar, or...

But enough of that. You've read the Secret Histories so you already know this.


When do the two effects of Sloth (the one that's a Lab on the start of the turn) happen? If they're both on the start of the turn, then (as you know) the line you put between them is incorrect. It's also unclear what order they stack in when you have two of them, and what order they stack with Duration cards. It probably triggers the "player chooses the order of simultaneous events" rule, which is hella confusing here.

Also, it refers to the order of the discard pile, which (as you know) is not a possible mechanic of Dominion. To use it, you'd have to deliberately order your discards. Every turn. Possibly multiple times per turn. Just in case a Sloth comes up in your next hand.

And... you seem to have made it cost $0. As a trashing Lab, it's got to be worth at least $7. As a trashing Lab that multiplies itself... it's probably so strong that it's uncostable. And it's somehow a Curse...?


Greed is an improvement over Lust. But you have it at the same cost as a Silver, and I think it can't beat Silver in any reasonable situation.

It only gets you more than $2 in really, really terrible hands. You basically can't buy provinces with it because it has anti-synergy with other money. If you get a card-drawing engine going, you might be able to turn it into a lame version of Bank, with all the drawbacks of Bank and less money.

We can make something of this card. Here's a drastic suggestion that might swing it the other way: put a buy and a coin on the card itself.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #49 on: November 30, 2011, 05:03:04 am »
0

If I understand your current rules, it's a curse because you can gain it from someone playing Witch. Then here's how the equilibrium works:
  • Any rational player would gain a curse named Familiar (not to be confused with the Alchemy card named Familiar...?) in preference to a curse named Curse.
  • So cards like Witch now give out 0VP curses with some sort of benefit, instead of -1VP curses. The benefit might even (in some hard to define way) cause the card to clutter your deck instead of your opponent's.
  • Therefore, Witch does not have its intended effect anymore. So nobody ever buys Witch, or Sea Hag, or the other Familiar, or...

I understood it that way that the attacker choses which 'Curse' the vitctim will get. So every reasonable player would chose Curse over 'Familiar', as long as there are Curses left. Only after they are gone, you might chose 'Familiar', giving your Witch additional power after Curses have run out.

I think that, if I understood this correctly, this card is not that kind of "reflection" that is to powerfull. The question if it's to weak. If there are no Cursers, it's a dead card. OK, that might be unlikely in this expension, but unless the Curses run out, why should I let someone gain this? Even if the Curses have run out, but there is the potential that my attack might be countered by a reaction, why should I choose 'Familiar' over the empty Curses, risking to give me an untrashable junkcard.

BTW: Priest and 'Familiar' is a little bit confusing. 'Familiar' says it can not be trashed, Priest say I should trash it. And I understood your comment in the way that it should really also trash 'Familiar'. And I don't see how Priest combats 'Familiar' more than say every other reaction. Because 'Familiar' itself allows you to give a 'Familiar' to the attacker, when you react somehow. Priest trashes (or whatever, at least does not give it to the opponent) the 'Familiar' and gives a copy to the attacker. So that's (maybe despite having one less 'Familiar' in the supply) exactly the same effect.
Logged

rspeer

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +877
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #50 on: November 30, 2011, 05:31:07 am »
0

You know, I forgot about the untrashable part. I overstated things slightly. If the recipient gets to choose which Curse card to gain, they might not gain a Familiar-Curse because they can't trash it.

So if there are trashers, there might be an actual decision to make there. But then, still: you don't want to have Familiar-Curses, and you don't want to play attacks that might give you a Familiar-Curse or three instead of giving your opponents Curses, so basically the card never enters play.
Logged

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1323
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1379
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #51 on: November 30, 2011, 11:46:25 am »
0

A question: what happens when a card that "cannot be trashed" interacts with a mandatory trasher?
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #52 on: November 30, 2011, 12:12:05 pm »
0

A question: what happens when a card that "cannot be trashed" interacts with a mandatory trasher?

As the universe tends to avoid paradoxa, I think there will just be some quantum interference thing that will pervent this from happening...
Logged

rspeer

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +877
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #53 on: November 30, 2011, 02:25:15 pm »
0

bmtrocks: Plague has no purpose on its own.

Please take into account people's reasonable advice that you shouldn't design cards that only work in set combos, especially when you admit that one of them is brokenly powerful. Your goal isn't to tell people what combos to make out of the cards, it's to design the cards so that interesting, balanced combos with lots of other cards emerge.

If you're designing cards that you recognize are broken, and whose interactions with the game of Dominion you have not thought through, you probably should not rush ahead and make the card art. That just gets you more invested in not fixing them.
Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #54 on: November 30, 2011, 08:06:54 pm »
0

I've thought about it for an unreasonably long time, and concluded that the situation you have described never happens. I thought for a moment it was when anyone in the game reveals a Watchtower, Horse Traders, or Secret Chamber, or when an uninvolved third player reveals a Moat... but none of those cards get played.

If you change "play" to "reveal", then in 2P games it amplifies the power of a reaction card without you even having to buy/gain it, and in 3+ games it has some weird ass political effect that you clearly didn't intend. What did you actually mean?

Yeah this is what I meant, it's an actual legit typo and I apologize for that.  Both Familiar and Priest went through some wording variations so I think I let that slipped by at some point for some reason, even though I could've swore I put reveal for the majority of the time spent tuning the card.

This sounds like you're trying to make a card that turns an attack back on the attacker (although I'm really not clear on what it does). You have read the guides so you know well why Dominion has no such cards: it's either too weak to be worth gaining, or it's strong enough that it makes it undesirable to buy any Attacks in the kingdom, or it's "balanced" perfectly in the middle where you don't want to gain that card or attack cards.

If I understand your current rules, it's a curse because you can gain it from someone playing Witch. Then here's how the equilibrium works:
  • Any rational player would gain a curse named Familiar (not to be confused with the Alchemy card named Familiar...?) in preference to a curse named Curse.
  • So cards like Witch now give out 0VP curses with some sort of benefit, instead of -1VP curses. The benefit might even (in some hard to define way) cause the card to clutter your deck instead of your opponent's.
  • Therefore, Witch does not have its intended effect anymore. So nobody ever buys Witch, or Sea Hag, or the other Familiar, or...

But enough of that. You've read the Secret Histories so you already know this.

I'm kind of confused what you're arguing against here, I don't think you get the rule revision.

Basically the rule revision is this, when Curse cards are in the Kingdom: Everytime a card says "gain a Curse" the person who has the card gets to choose what Curse is gained (unless stated otherwise).  So if I play Witch, Sea Hag, Familiar or any other Curse givers, I choose what Curse my opponent's gains, cause there are more Curse cards in play rather than one, there are choices essentially.  Someone who gains Plague, chooses their Curse because it's their's (which makes it's description rather redundant, I should fix that).

I apologize for the Familiar confusion, I think I'll re-title the card to "Witch's Familiar."  But to explain the purpose of the card, if people didn't get it: The "Curse" is that it's cluttering your deck and you can't do anything about it.  In games with Chapel and other trashing cards you can easily get rid of your Curses quite easily making -1VP Curses quite weak, but in a game like that a Witch's Familiar basically doesn't allow anyone to trash it.  It's a weak attack, but then again, so is a Curse in a lot of games, so I think it's appropriate to give variety to this, which was my intention with the card.

When do the two effects of Sloth (the one that's a Lab on the start of the turn) happen? If they're both on the start of the turn, then (as you know) the line you put between them is incorrect. It's also unclear what order they stack in when you have two of them, and what order they stack with Duration cards. It probably triggers the "player chooses the order of simultaneous events" rule, which is hella confusing here.

Sorry for the confusion there, I'll remove the line.  It doesn't have two effects, just one.  And also I meant beginning of your turn as "beginning of the Action phase" which I'll fix in the wording.  Basically no matter what, you have to play it at the beginning of your Action phase.  The card is meant to take up your regular Action for it's effect, and just happens to give you another Action to play.  If you have more than one Sloths in your hand you play them in sequence.

Also, it refers to the order of the discard pile, which (as you know) is not a possible mechanic of Dominion. To use it, you'd have to deliberately order your discards. Every turn. Possibly multiple times per turn. Just in case a Sloth comes up in your next hand.

And... you seem to have made it cost $0. As a trashing Lab, it's got to be worth at least $7. As a trashing Lab that multiplies itself... it's probably so strong that it's uncostable. And it's somehow a Curse...?

Eh I call BS on the discard pile thing.  No matter what, you DO choose what cards go where.  I think it's a perfectly fine strategy to combat Sloth.  Sure it's a mechanic that isn't required or anything, but it's not like Dominion goes against this anyway (and it would be ridiculous if it did).

As for the trashing Lab comment my idea for Sloth was that it was an end-game Curse.  By the end of the game when your entire deck is filled by useful cards, and all the Curses are either trashed or distributed amongst player's decks, I think it's fully appropriate to have this card as a late game Curse.  Of course one could use Sloth to their advantage too, but really that just depends at what point you're at in the game.  A Sloth could potentially kill off a Colony or Province quite easily, which could tip the game scale into another player's favor.  In two player games especially the problem with Curses is that they can run out too fast, and cards like Sea Hag become pretty useless.  A card like this could bring Curse attack cards more relevant late game.

Greed is an improvement over Lust. But you have it at the same cost as a Silver, and I think it can't beat Silver in any reasonable situation.

It only gets you more than $2 in really, really terrible hands. You basically can't buy provinces with it because it has anti-synergy with other money. If you get a card-drawing engine going, you might be able to turn it into a lame version of Bank, with all the drawbacks of Bank and less money.

We can make something of this card. Here's a drastic suggestion that might swing it the other way: put a buy and a coin on the card itself.

I completely disagree with this.  You are right that it isn't really meant to be a Silver (I should lower the price back down to 2), but another variation of Bank is kind of what I was looking for.  It's a smaller version of Bank, for a lower price, and involves gaining Treasure from Victory/Curse cards in your hand.  Of course a lot Dominion decks end up with lots of Treasure making Bank useful, but it's also probable that in games where trashing cards isn't an option, that decks become filled with Curses and Victory cards you simply cannot avoid.  A good strategy to use this card is use lots of cards with drawing power, and fill up your deck with Greed, Victory, and Curse cards.  Another good way to utilize this strategy is to use it in Gardens deck, and use both Greed and Bank.

Another variation of Greed to make it balanced better is to give it 1 for each non-Treasure card in your hand, making it an inverse version of Bank.

bmtrocks: Plague has no purpose on its own.

Please take into account people's reasonable advice that you shouldn't design cards that only work in set combos, especially when you admit that one of them is brokenly powerful. Your goal isn't to tell people what combos to make out of the cards, it's to design the cards so that interesting, balanced combos with lots of other cards emerge.

If you're designing cards that you recognize are broken, and whose interactions with the game of Dominion you have not thought through, you probably should not rush ahead and make the card art. That just gets you more invested in not fixing them.

I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about here, what card are you talking about?  I'm just saying that using Wrath (not the card I posted, since I scraped that), which isn't really as broken as you're suggesting outside of using Pride.  I just suggested that it would combo well with it cause you can gain two Curses, which benefits a Pride deck, without the -1VP.  Being able to buy it at your consent makes it ridiculously broken in this respect so there has to be a limit.

I'm also confused by your comment that Plague has no purpose of it's own.  Of course it has a purpose: You're gaining two Curse cards when you gain it.  The second Curse is of your choice, so it's not like you can play a Witch and give the opponent a Plague and a -1VP Curse.  You gain a Plague, then you gain another Curse that you choose.  I actually should fix the wording on the card cause one can gain as many Plagues as he wants if he just gains them over and over again, so I'll change that.
_______

I apologize for the confusion, I hope I clear some things up here, I'm going to work on the wording of all of these cards right now so they're a bit more clear.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 08:23:11 pm by bmtrocks »
Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #55 on: November 30, 2011, 08:52:21 pm »
0

And here are my wording revisions on these cards, and adjusting their effects also.





To review, Pride is still valid in this concept:



Everything else isn't.
Logged

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1323
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1379
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #56 on: November 30, 2011, 09:20:27 pm »
0

On the discard pile:

In a face-to-face game of Dominion, I usually perform my clean-up phase by picking up all the cards I've got to discard and plunking them in the discard pile without caring about the order. This is because the order of the cards in the discard pile doesn't matter for any published card so far.

If you put Sloth in the game, I will carefully order my discard pile at the end of each turn so a Copper or something equally useful ends up on top of it. This will make the game slower and less fun.
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

rspeer

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +877
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #57 on: November 30, 2011, 09:49:51 pm »
+2

Pride is still broken in very obvious ways that have already been stated.


Witch's Familiar: really? That was the correct interpretation except for the fact that the attacker chooses to give the Witch's Familiar? So you play a Witch, you attempt to give multiple opponents Witch's Familiars, one player plays a Horse Traders and every single WF bounces back to your discard pile.

Consider this in light of the fact that players are trying to win, not trying to trigger cool effects of your cards. The card will almost never enter play.


Quote
Eh I call BS on the discard pile thing.  No matter what, you DO choose what cards go where.  I think it's a perfectly fine strategy to combat Sloth.  Sure it's a mechanic that isn't required or anything, but it's not like Dominion goes against this anyway (and it would be ridiculous if it did).

Okay, see what I mean that you're taking everyone's experience about card design and shitting on it because you think you're better at it? You momentarily expressed some willingness to reconsider your cards in light of valid criticisms, but it's ringing false.

Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #58 on: November 30, 2011, 10:50:35 pm »
0

On the discard pile:

In a face-to-face game of Dominion, I usually perform my clean-up phase by picking up all the cards I've got to discard and plunking them in the discard pile without caring about the order. This is because the order of the cards in the discard pile doesn't matter for any published card so far.

If you put Sloth in the game, I will carefully order my discard pile at the end of each turn so a Copper or something equally useful ends up on top of it. This will make the game slower and less fun.
Eh not really there's nothing particularly slow about putting a Copper on top.  It's not like Sloth says trash the top 2/3 cards of your Discard pile you're basically putting one card on the top of a stack of cards in whatever order.  It's a different way to discard but won't slow down the game like you're implying.  I don't see what so different from that and putting the cards in your hand on the bottom of the cards you played before you place them in the discard pile.

Pride is still broken in very obvious ways that have already been stated.
Alright you're gonna have to tell me why it's broken, cause you simply haven't mustered up adequate reasoning against it so far.

Witch's Familiar: really? That was the correct interpretation except for the fact that the attacker chooses to give the Witch's Familiar? So you play a Witch, you attempt to give multiple opponents Witch's Familiars, one player plays a Horse Traders and every single WF bounces back to your discard pile.

Consider this in light of the fact that players are trying to win, not trying to trigger cool effects of your cards. The card will almost never enter play.
No that's not what I'm saying at all.  The Witch's Familiar that was supposed to go to the player who sets aside Horse Traders goes into the attacker's discard pile.  Everyone else gets a Witch's Familiar, unless they reveal a Reaction card.  I still need to fix the wording on it, but that is the intent.

The usability of such a Curse has the single purpose of cluttering a person's deck without any way of getting rid of it.  You can easily trash Curses, but this card stays in your deck for the entire game unless something like Island is used.

Okay, see what I mean that you're taking everyone's experience about card design and shitting on it because you think you're better at it? You momentarily expressed some willingness to reconsider your cards in light of valid criticisms, but it's ringing false.
I'm not shitting on experience with card design, it's just that there isn't any specific rules about discarding in Dominion.  It's perfectly valid to rearrange the cards before you discard them in Dominion.  It has nothing to do with going against the actual game design.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 10:54:22 pm by bmtrocks »
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #59 on: November 30, 2011, 11:06:37 pm »
0

Pride is still broken in very obvious ways that have already been stated.
Alright you're gonna have to tell me why it's broken, cause you simply haven't mustered up adequate reasoning against it so far.

Because Curses are easy to get, and Pride is relatively easy to get, and Pride gives you a very large number of victory points for having Curses. It only takes three turns to make each Pride give you as many points as a Province. Consider how long it would take to make each Gardens or Silk Road worth as much as a Province. That's how long it should take to make a $4 Victory card worth six points.

Okay, see what I mean that you're taking everyone's experience about card design and shitting on it because you think you're better at it? You momentarily expressed some willingness to reconsider your cards in light of valid criticisms, but it's ringing false.
I'm not shitting on experience with card design, it's just that there isn't any specific rules about discarding in Dominion.  It's perfectly valid to rearrange the cards before you discard them in Dominion.  It has nothing to do with going against the actual game design.

To be clear, the complaint is not that Sloth is inconsistent with the rules and structure of Dominion. The complaint is that it would not be fun to play a game using that card. I'm not convinced I agree; but be aware of what you're responding to.
Logged

bmtrocks

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #60 on: November 30, 2011, 11:20:46 pm »
0

Because Curses are easy to get, and Pride is relatively easy to get, and Pride gives you a very large number of victory points for having Curses. It only takes three turns to make each Pride give you as many points as a Province. Consider how long it would take to make each Gardens or Silk Road worth as much as a Province. That's how long it should take to make a $4 Victory card worth six points.
Oh this, this is fair enough.  Once you do the math you can get quite an easy amount of VP with multiple Prides in your deck.  Would a Curse variation of Silk Road or Vineyard work?  That's one of my other ideas on handling Pride.
Logged

Octo

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 206
  • Respect: +38
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #61 on: December 01, 2011, 06:20:04 am »
0

The discard pile thing: it's not just the top card of your discard pile you need to order. You need to order all of them in case your have multiple Sloths. The way I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) I need to order them in ascending order of value (to me) i.e. weakest on top going up to most valuable at the bottom. That would be boring to play with, and I can imagine Sloth getting vetoed regularly for that reason.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #62 on: December 01, 2011, 09:39:01 am »
0

Man, I was going to reply with some constructive criticism, but I have to agree with rspeer:  you are just not willing to listen to other people's feedback.  This isn't the first time, or even the second or third time, the practical ramifications of discard pile ordering has been discussed here (it's even been discussed in documentation you've claimed to have read), but if "I call BS" is your response, then I'm certainly not going to insist on a productive conversation.

Surprised nobody's mentioned this, but the latest version of Sloth has another similarly well-understood problem with the line "If this is in your hand, play it immediately...."  I'd explain why, but this is also covered in documentation you claim to have read, so I can only suppose you've "called BS" on that too.
Logged

Octo

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 206
  • Respect: +38
    • View Profile
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins - Mini-expansion concept
« Reply #63 on: December 01, 2011, 04:52:08 pm »
0

Ah, yes, a few of my random card ideas have been shot down in my head because of that one.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]
 

Page created in 0.108 seconds with 21 queries.