Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Village of Smithies  (Read 12428 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #25 on: March 05, 2015, 12:22:02 pm »
+3

I'm not sure whether it's worth having all those BoM issues. The card could behave really similar without that, for example  like this:

+1 action
+$1
You may discard an action card. If you do:+3 cards; If you don't: +1 action

You're able to play the same card multiple times if you allready drew your deck, but hey, who needs +3 cards after drawing his deck. It's different for some card interactions like Scheme, Conspirator etc, too, but i think those are not worth it.

Edit: Oops, sorry, meant to write this this morning and posted now without reading the other posts. Sorry for posting what pacovf basically allready said. I do think a "you may" is better, though.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 12:31:18 pm by Asper »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #26 on: March 05, 2015, 02:59:22 pm »
+1



Just a mockup for fun. I'm not planning on testing it soon, since Enterprise is full-up on villages already.

Using the full-sized image and having the forum shrink it down makes it look much nicer! I'm going to do that from now on.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2015, 03:13:10 pm »
+1

BoM still transforms before having its effect replaced by Factory, right?

Yes, I think that's how it should work. It's how I'd rule it.

I'm not sure whether it's worth having all those BoM issues. The card could behave really similar without that, for example  like this:

+1 action
+$1
You may discard an action card. If you do:+3 cards; If you don't: +1 action

You're able to play the same card multiple times if you allready drew your deck, but hey, who needs +3 cards after drawing his deck. It's different for some card interactions like Scheme, Conspirator etc, too, but i think those are not worth it.

Edit: Oops, sorry, meant to write this this morning and posted now without reading the other posts. Sorry for posting what pacovf basically allready said. I do think a "you may" is better, though.

I think my latest version removes a lot of the confusion while keeping the exotic premise of "play a card as another card".
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2015, 03:23:43 pm »
+5



Just a mockup for fun. I'm not planning on testing it soon, since Enterprise is full-up on villages already.

Using the full-sized image and having the forum shrink it down makes it look much nicer! I'm going to do that from now on.

I don't really like it. For one thing, it makes me think "well why did I bother playing it if I don't get the effects of the card? I could have just discarded it instead." Of course I'm aware of the cases where it matters, but that's still one of my first thoughts. Then, I'm also bothered by the use of the phrase "on-play ability". That's not a defined in-game term. Sure it's pretty much basic English; but basic English isn't always good enough; and can cause rules confusions, especially with things like Durations and Scheme.

Oh, and also it's weird with cards like Highway and Goons. You get the +3 cards, but you also get the "while this is in play" effects, which is different from your original design.
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

chipperMDW

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 367
  • Respect: +813
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2015, 07:56:49 pm »
+4

Instead of playing an action card without it doing anything, isn't it simpler to put an action card into the play area without playing it?

Perhaps:

+1 Action
+$1
You may put an action card from your hand into play. If you did, +3 Cards. Otherwise, +1 Action.

Maybe a (parenthetical) "without playing it" if you want to further clarify.

That's basically the same as the "set aside" version (ignoring Peddler, etc.), but it doesn't need the extra wording about when to discard it.
Logged

faust

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #30 on: March 06, 2015, 07:21:58 am »
+2

Instead of playing an action card without it doing anything, isn't it simpler to put an action card into the play area without playing it?

Perhaps:

+1 Action
+$1
You may put an action card from your hand into play. If you did, +3 Cards. Otherwise, +1 Action.

Maybe a (parenthetical) "without playing it" if you want to further clarify.

That's basically the same as the "set aside" version (ignoring Peddler, etc.), but it doesn't need the extra wording about when to discard it.

This has a Conspirator issue though. Conspirator count "actions you played this turn". If you put a card into play, you haven't played it. But it's hard to keep track of that. (It might still be okay since Conspirator only needs to count to 3, but it feels kinda awkward).

Also, welcome to the forums! Have you checked out, you know...
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3499
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3838
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #31 on: March 06, 2015, 07:49:46 am »
0

Also, welcome to the forums! Have you checked out, you know...

(Pssst, you can't do that! I don't think s/he's been warned yet...!)


...the out of context thread?

Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #32 on: March 06, 2015, 11:00:13 am »
0

Instead of playing an action card without it doing anything, isn't it simpler to put an action card into the play area without playing it?

Perhaps:

+1 Action
+$1
You may put an action card from your hand into play. If you did, +3 Cards. Otherwise, +1 Action.

Maybe a (parenthetical) "without playing it" if you want to further clarify.

That's basically the same as the "set aside" version (ignoring Peddler, etc.), but it doesn't need the extra wording about when to discard it.

This has a Conspirator issue though. Conspirator count "actions you played this turn". If you put a card into play, you haven't played it. But it's hard to keep track of that. (It might still be okay since Conspirator only needs to count to 3, but it feels kinda awkward).

I'm not so concerned about the Conspirator issue. I'm more worried about rules confusion. "Put a card into play" still leaves open the question, "So do I get its effects or what?" I think you still have to specifically state that you don't do its normal abilities.

I don't really like it. For one thing, it makes me think "well why did I bother playing it if I don't get the effects of the card? I could have just discarded it instead." Of course I'm aware of the cases where it matters, but that's still one of my first thoughts. Then, I'm also bothered by the use of the phrase "on-play ability". That's not a defined in-game term. Sure it's pretty much basic English; but basic English isn't always good enough; and can cause rules confusions, especially with things like Durations and Scheme.

Oh, and also it's weird with cards like Highway and Goons. You get the +3 cards, but you also get the "while this is in play" effects, which is different from your original design.

I think it's good to use existing Dominion terms when they're available. For this particular case, no appropriate term yet exists, so the important thing is that the effect is clear.

Yes, the Highway/Goons/Haggler/etc. thing was not a part of my original card, but I like it. I think it creates some cool interactions.

Anyway, sorry you don't like the card. Seems like opinions about it are quite divided. As I said, it was just something I thought up and I'm not planning on testing it in the near future.
Logged

iguanaiguana

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 600
  • Shuffle iT Username: iguana iguana
  • Respect: +1044
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #33 on: March 06, 2015, 03:12:35 pm »
+1

doesn't this card make smithy look pretty bad in any kingdom where they both appear? Seems like that at least should be considered in terms of how it is worded...
Logged
Point iguana. Not that points really matter with a result, but still.
Igu is town or trying the hardest he ever has as scum.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #34 on: March 06, 2015, 03:45:18 pm »
+1

doesn't this card make smithy look pretty bad in any kingdom where they both appear? Seems like that at least should be considered in terms of how it is worded...

I don't think it does.  This card requires you to have another action card to play as well, requiring more setup (gaining another action card) and being less reliable (requiring both cards to collide).
Logged

iguanaiguana

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 600
  • Shuffle iT Username: iguana iguana
  • Respect: +1044
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #35 on: March 06, 2015, 03:56:10 pm »
+1

Still, it seems like with this at 2, the dominant strategy would often be to ignore smithy and other card draw in favor of either gaining a lot of these and or trashing down quickly so that they chain. cultist does something similar at 5, although You could argue that the attack is what makes it expensive. I like how it gives you a choice between playing potentially strong terminals or giving them up to continue drawing. i guess it seems odd to me that a 2 cost card could be the centerpiece of an engine like laboratory. So maybe it needs a higher price? As is, smithy would mainly be better on boards without trashing or gaining, which means basically only in its boring big money role.
Logged
Point iguana. Not that points really matter with a result, but still.
Igu is town or trying the hardest he ever has as scum.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #36 on: March 06, 2015, 04:31:36 pm »
0

The most recent iteration posted (Lodge, with the image) has it at $3.  It seems like a reasonable place to start testing.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #37 on: March 07, 2015, 07:14:31 am »
+2

If it was my card, i'd make it a Village+ for $4:

Boring Old Village, $4
+1 card
+1 action
You may discard an action card. If you do: +3 cards. If you don't: +1 action

Probably it looks a bit boring now, but i think that's mostly because there's no gimmicky features to distract you anymore. Those don't offer any real advantage in my opinion.
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3499
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3838
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #38 on: March 07, 2015, 07:24:00 am »
0

The "gimmick" of playing the card without playing it (or setting it aside or whatever) is an important part of why this can cost less than $5, IMHO.
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #39 on: March 07, 2015, 07:48:51 am »
+4

The "gimmick" of playing the card without playing it (or setting it aside or whatever) is an important part of why this can cost less than $5, IMHO.

I do agree it's rather cheap, and possibly too cheap. Still, i think that should be solved over price or Vanilla bonuses, not over gimmicks. Any discard for benefit is essentially "play X as Y" (where Y is often Copper), and i don't think solving this another way offers any real advantage. Secret Chamber, Oasis, Vault - none sets aside any cards, simply because it's more trouble than that's worth. If i were to post another suggestion, i might make it +2 cards on discard instead.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #40 on: March 07, 2015, 12:46:51 pm »
0

Why are you phrasing it that way instead of as a "choose one"?
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #41 on: March 07, 2015, 01:36:17 pm »
+4

Why are you phrasing it that way instead of as a "choose one"?

Because my wording has just two outcomes: You do or you don't. "Choose one" has three: Choose option one and discard, choose option one and don't discard, choose option two. "Choose one" adds an unneccessary layer of complexity and conditionalization, especially as case two is nonsense. If you leave out the "if you do" part, you can have two outcomes even with a "choose one", but you also suddenly got accountability issues and/or a card that is Lab+ whenever you have no action cards in hand.

Edit: I mean, it's not my card, it's just how i'd do it. I hope i'm not acting too bold here.

Edit 2: I wonder why i got 3 respect for my first post in this thread, while pubby, who wrote basically the same thing before me, got only one. I'm going to upvote another one of his posts now.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2015, 01:48:30 pm by Asper »
Logged

chipperMDW

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 367
  • Respect: +813
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #42 on: March 07, 2015, 01:56:24 pm »
+2

Why are you phrasing it that way instead of as a "choose one"?
You need an "if you do" to prevent you from getting the +3 Cards if you choose not to discard an action card. It's pretty awkward to put the "if you do" part in there if you also use the "choose one" phrasing. It'd have to be "Choose one: You may discard a card and, if you do, +3 Cards; or +1 Action."

The "You may ... If you do ... Otherwise" phrasing is also consistent with Baron and Explorer.
Logged

dghunter79

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 279
  • Respect: +319
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #43 on: March 09, 2015, 03:01:36 am »
+1

Quote
Danse Macabre
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may play an Action from your hand for none of its effects. If you do, +4 Cards and +1 Action.

When you buy this, trash it.

When you trash this, gain 2 cheaper cards of different costs.

I really hate cards with two lines. I also really hate "play an Action from your hand for none of its effects". I'd prefer "discard an Action". I like the idea of a card you cannot buy, and I even like the specific effect you get if you try to buy it. If I were to make such a card, I'd prefer something like, "When you buy this, instead of gaining it, gain two cheaper cards." Boom. One line. Then if you manage to gain it without buying it, it does something cool.

Neat. I executed this idea as above, and I think that's the easiest implementation to understand other than "Discard an Action."

Ha, nice! I remember that one. Man, my opinions have changed. I mean, I still don't like cards with two lines, but the "for none of its effects" doesn't seem so bad.

I was actually going to post this updated version:

Quote
Factory
Types: Action
Cost: $2 or $3
+1 Action. +$1. You may play an Action card from your hand. Instead of doing its on-play ability, you may draw 3 cards.

So the card played retains its name (for Horn of Plenty) and also any "while-in-play" effects it has. This also eliminates Throne Room/Throne Room/Factory/X issues that my original version had.

Thanks, I took your advice and lost the two lines.

For Factory, I think it's cleaner if the other actions loses both its "in-play" and "on-play" effects. Seems a little odd to separate the two.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2015, 03:02:37 am by dghunter79 »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #44 on: March 09, 2015, 02:15:42 pm »
+1

For Factory, I think it's cleaner if the other actions loses both its "in-play" and "on-play" effects. Seems a little odd to separate the two.

I think you could argue that it's cleaner in some ways and less clean in other ways. To me it seems way better to have the change be limited to on-play stuff because after that the card is in play. It's more tracking to remember that you don't get its while-in-play effects. Take another hypothetical card:

Quote
PlayItAgain
Types: Action
Cost: $?
Choose an Action card you have in play other than a PlayItAgain. Play that card again.

Say I use your version of Factory to play Haggler and get +3 Cards, but not the under-line part. Then later I play a PlayItAgain to replay the Haggler. I get +$2, but do I get the under-line bit? Well, yes I do. But it's still confusing, I think. While-in-play means while-in-play. Seems bad to override that.

Plus I think the combos with while-in-play cards are cool.
Logged

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 743
  • Respect: +863
    • View Profile
Re: Village of Smithies
« Reply #45 on: March 09, 2015, 05:24:44 pm »
0

This thread makes my head hurt :P The whole basic idea of Factory just screams confusion and "edge-cases" to me. It's a cool idea, don't get me wrong. I just think it causes more trouble than it's worth.

I just had this idea which is also probably not reasonable but it looks funny:

Quote
Broken Combo Enabler
Action
$2
You may play an Action card from your hand. If you do, replace its on-play ability with the on-play ability of any card in the Supply. If it has a while-in-play ability, replace that with the while-in-play ability of any card in the Supply.
Logged
Check out my fan cards!
Dominion: Seasons - a small set Asper and I made that revolves around a unique and original mechanic
Roots and Renewal - this set is about interacting with the Supply and manipulating your opening turns
Flash cards - trying out a new concept
Pages: 1 [2]  All
 

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 21 queries.