Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Crown Jewels  (Read 3885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Crown Jewels
« on: July 28, 2014, 03:19:08 pm »
+1

The premise is that there are 12 Crown Jewels.  Like Knights, they form a single pile. In a 2 player game, 8 are chosen at random to play with.  Each one is a Treasure-Victory-Gem (Gem is a new type, like Knight), which functions as a Copper but is worth a Duchy if a certain condition is met.  The condition varies from gem to gem.  Each has a cost of $4, but can be gained for free when you purchase a non-Victory costing at least $5 so that you have an incentive to gain the gem early on before you know for sure whether you'll be able to meet the condition.  In other words:

Quote
Basic Template
Gemstone
$4 Treasure-Victory-Gem

$1

Worth 3 VP if... [condition]
---
In games using this, when you buy a non-Victory costing at least $5, you main gain a Gem.

Here are my ideas, based on this list of birthstones.  Generally I erred towards making the conditions easy to meet, since you don't want to be diverting too much attention towards just a few VP.  I'm aware that Bloodstone is impossible to activate on some boards, but it is doable on many, and may be worth gaining as Trash-for-Benefit fodder in others.

Garnet
$4 Treasure-Victory-Gem
$1
Worth 3 VP if you have at least 30 cards in your deck.
---
In games using this, when you buy a non-Victory costing at least $5, you main gain a Gem.

Amethyst
$4 Treasure-Victory-Gem
$1
Worth 3 VP if you have at most 30 cards in your deck.
---
In games using this, when you buy a non-Victory costing at least $5, you main gain a Gem.

Bloodstone
$4 Treasure-Victory-Gem
$1
Worth 3 VP if you have at least two Attack cards in your deck.
---
In games using this, when you buy a non-Victory costing at least $5, you main gain a Gem.

Diamond
$4 Treasure-Victory-Gem
$1
Worth 3 VP if you have at least three Action cards costing $5 or more in your deck.
---
In games using this, when you buy a non-Victory costing at least $5, you main gain a Gem.

Emerald
$4 Treasure-Victory-Gem
$1
Worth 3 VP if you have an Estate, Duchy, and Province in your deck.
---
In games using this, when you buy a non-Victory costing at least $5, you main gain a Gem.

Moonstone
$4 Treasure-Victory-Gem
$1
Worth 3 VP if you have at least one Curse in your deck.
---
In games using this, when you buy a non-Victory costing at least $5, you main gain a Gem.

Ruby
$4 Treasure-Victory-Gem
$1
Worth 3 VP if you have at least 5 Action cards in your deck.
---
In games using this, when you buy a non-Victory costing at least $5, you main gain a Gem.

Peridot
$4 Treasure-Victory-Gem
$1
Worth 3 VP if you have no Duchies in your deck.
---
In games using this, when you buy a non-Victory costing at least $5, you main gain a Gem.

Sapphire
$4 Treasure-Victory-Gem
$1
Worth 3 VP if you at most two Attack cards in your deck.
---
In games using this, when you buy a non-Victory costing at least $5, you main gain a Gem.

Opal
$4 Treasure-Victory-Gem
$1
Worth 3 VP if you have at most 5 Action cards in your deck.
---
In games using this, when you buy a non-Victory costing at least $5, you main gain a Gem.

Topaz
$4 Treasure-Victory-Gem
$1
Worth 3 VP if you have at least 3 Gems in your deck.
---
In games using this, when you buy a non-Victory costing at least $5, you main gain a Gem.

Turquoise
$4 Treasure-Victory-Gem
$1
Worth 3 VP if you have at most 3 Gems in your deck.
---
In games using this, when you buy a non-Victory costing at least $5, you main gain a Gem.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 03:22:09 pm by SirPeebles »
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Jewels
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2014, 03:34:31 pm »
+1

Very cool. I like the concept, but I have several suggestions.

This card does have 3 different kinds of timing, and should have 2 dividing lines. I know Harem doesn't, but it should. I do not love the "In games using this" clause here anyway. I think players are already incentivized to grab these early so that they know which ones they have. If I build my deck around satisfying Garnet and then somebody else buys it, leaving Amethyst on top, I have only myself to blame.

I suggest making the cards bigger in every way. Bump the cost up to $5. Raise the Treasure value to +$2. Up the VP up to 4 or 5 and make the goals harder to reach. Make them matter more.

I would make the goals a little more interesting, too. Maybe not all of them need to be more or less than a specific threshold. What about, "Worth X VP if you have more Actions than Treasures in your deck"?
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Jewels
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2014, 03:42:14 pm »
+1

Other goal ideas:

• Worth X VP if you have more Attack (or other type) cards than any other player.
• Worth X VP if you have exactly X Treasure (or other type) cards.
• Worth X VP if at least 3 Supply piles are empty.
• Worth X VP if your deck has fewer cards than any other player.
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Jewels
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2014, 03:48:34 pm »
+1

One issue I'm trying to avoid is having a gem on top which is difficult to achieve, and so no one bothers to buy it.  After all, it may not be feasible and then you might reveal an easy one for your opponent to snatch up.  I guess the idea is that you don't build your deck around gaining Garnet, but rather if you happen to pick up Garnet during the game then there's a nice little bonus if you can bulk up your deck a bit.  I wouldn't want to build towards Garnet for the start only to find that my opponent buys it or it's at the bottom of the pile (or not even in this 2 player game's stack of 8).

Still, I'm curious how others feel about this.  Maybe they would be nice enough as $5 Silver+'s which have some potential at paying off big with effort. Is it better for that to be quick, bite-sized VP cards or should they be bigger?
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Jewels
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2014, 03:53:13 pm »
0

One issue I'm trying to avoid is having a gem on top which is difficult to achieve, and so no one bothers to buy it.  After all, it may not be feasible and then you might reveal an easy one for your opponent to snatch up.  I guess the idea is that you don't build your deck around gaining Garnet, but rather if you happen to pick up Garnet during the game then there's a nice little bonus if you can bulk up your deck a bit.  I wouldn't want to build towards Garnet for the start only to find that my opponent buys it or it's at the bottom of the pile (or not even in this 2 player game's stack of 8).

I don't think your version fixes this issue, though. If there's a Gem on top that's difficult or impossible to achieve, I don't even want it for free because:

A. It's basically a Copper for me, which is usually bad.
B. It potentially opens up a better Gem for the next player.
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Jewels
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2014, 04:05:39 pm »
0

What if I make gaining the Gem mandatory when you buy an expensive card? 
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Jewels
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2014, 04:08:20 pm »
+1

What if I make gaining the Gem mandatory when you buy an expensive card?

When I was reading that back-and-forth, I had the thought of removing the "you may" and forcing the gain. But I didn't like it. When you don't want the Jewel, it's almost just like there's an automatic Embargo on certain cards. Embargo works because there's the strategic decision of what to Embargo. Take that decision away from the players, and you simply have something that slows down the game by junking decks.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Jewels
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2014, 04:09:34 pm »
0

I'm not so sure about making them bigger. Isn't that what's so frustrating about knights? your get sir michael, your op gets sir vander, you lose. not fun. I feel like there will be less frustration and more fun if they're not as dominant.


The "bad one on top" is a big problem though. I see one way to solve this, but that's with a lot of changes.

Quote
Action-Victory-Gem-4$
+3$. You may trash this. If you do, gain a gem.
--
worth 3 vp if... [condition]

There's probably a solution that's less different. I definitely don't like forced gains though.

And I agree with LFN that the conditions could be more interesting.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Jewels
« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2014, 04:12:32 pm »
0

What if I make gaining the Gem mandatory when you buy an expensive card?

In addition to the issue GendoIkari mentioned (which is an important point), it's pretty easy to forget a mandatory extra gain when it's not written on the card you're gaining.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Jewels
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2014, 04:17:39 pm »
+1

I'm not so sure about making them bigger. Isn't that what's so frustrating about knights? your get sir michael, your op gets sir vander, you lose. not fun. I feel like there will be less frustration and more fun if they're not as dominant.

I think asymmetrical effects are just the nature of the beast when making a stack of unique cards like this. You just won't be able to please players that hate this sort of asymmetry. Neutering the card for the players that won't like it anyway makes it suck for the players that otherwise would like it. Ideally, a card changes the game it's in, and that goes double for alt-VP cards.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Jewels
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2014, 04:32:01 pm »
0

I'm not so sure about making them bigger. Isn't that what's so frustrating about knights? your get sir michael, your op gets sir vander, you lose. not fun. I feel like there will be less frustration and more fun if they're not as dominant.

I think asymmetrical effects are just the nature of the beast when making a stack of unique cards like this. You just won't be able to please players that hate this sort of asymmetry. Neutering the card for the players that won't like it anyway makes it suck for the players that otherwise would like it. Ideally, a card changes the game it's in, and that goes double for alt-VP cards.

I don't know if asymmetry is directly proportional to hate/love like you're making it sound. I feel like, if a card matters less, there will be just as much love for the asymmetry, but much less hate. e.g, the problem I have with knights is not that they're different, it's that they're so vastly different. One knight gives me 2 VP, I'm probably not going to have it at the end of the game, so it provides no bonus at all. the other knight will gain me a gold, that equals a difference of one (albeit delayed) gold for these two cards, which both cost 5$. Here though, the worst that can happen is that my opponent gets a condition which is easier to meet. I can't see myself being nearly as upset about that.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Jewels
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2014, 04:37:06 pm »
0

I don't know if asymmetry is directly proportional to hate/love like you're making it sound. I feel like, if a card matters less, there will be just as much love for the asymmetry, but much less hate. e.g, the problem I have with knights is not that they're different, it's that they're so vastly different. One knight gives me 2 VP, I'm probably not going to have it at the end of the game, so it provides no bonus at all. the other knight will gain me a gold, that equals a difference of one (albeit delayed) gold for these two cards, which both cost 5$. Here though, the worst that can happen is that my opponent gets a condition which is easier to meet. I can't see myself being nearly as upset about that.

That's reasonable. But in that case, the goal is to make all the goals more or less comparable, not to make them all weak. I think any love for these cards will fade pretty fast if they turn out not to matter or if the goals are trivially easy to achieve. I'd rather have a more interesting cards that I purposefully go for rather than weak ones that may give me a few VP here and there.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.11 seconds with 20 queries.