Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6  All

Author Topic: Dominion: Avarice (1.1b)  (Read 53111 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ChocophileBenj

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 504
  • Respect: +575
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #100 on: June 26, 2015, 05:59:57 am »
+1

What if next cards are released with "You must buy a X if possible" ? What if it conflicts ?

(assume there's another card X that costs $2 and grants you $3 and forces you to buy ; you play a village -> Usurer ($4) -> StoryTeller ($0) -> X ($3) : you'd have to buy an Usurer and a X for $3)

EDIT :
I suggest that :
"At the start of your buy phase, gain an Usurer" or "before you buy anything, spend 1 buy and $2. If you do, gain an Usurer", but it's pretty tough wording in fact...

By the way I don't see the difference between this and Woodcutter except that you've 1 more buy and it's complicated while Woodcutter is terrible, but simple ! (at least you can buy it for only $2 if you have $6 and several buys)
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 06:04:34 am by ChocophileBenj »
Logged
Chocolate is like victory points in Dominion. Both taste good but they'll hurt you if you eat too much of it instead of something else in your early days.

Mr Anderson

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 233
  • Respect: +191
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #101 on: June 26, 2015, 06:10:39 am »
+1

A reasonable solution would be that you choose the order of cards you have to buy until you bought every card you have to buy or you can't buy such a card due to the lack of money or buys first, after that you can buy cards as usual.
So in your example you could either decide to buy Usurer first and would fail to buy the other card for 3$, or you decide the other card first and you would fail to buy Usurer.
Logged

Haddock

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 725
  • Shuffle iT Username: Haddock
  • Doc Cod
  • Respect: +558
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #102 on: June 26, 2015, 06:29:36 am »
+1

What if next cards are released with "You must buy a X if possible" ? What if it conflicts ?

(assume there's another card X that costs $2 and grants you $3 and forces you to buy ; you play a village -> Usurer ($4) -> StoryTeller ($0) -> X ($3) : you'd have to buy an Usurer and a X for $3)

EDIT :
I suggest that :
"At the start of your buy phase, gain an Usurer" or "before you buy anything, spend 1 buy and $2. If you do, gain an Usurer", but it's pretty tough wording in fact...

By the way I don't see the difference between this and Woodcutter except that you've 1 more buy and it's complicated while Woodcutter is terrible, but simple ! (at least you can buy it for only $2 if you have $6 and several buys)
The wording is very tough, especially when, as Co0kieL0rd notes, we're not 100% on the intended behaviour.  I'm not convinced by any wording so far, particularly in the possible case of conflict, as you point out.  How about this:

"At the end of your buy phase this turn, if you did not buy an Usurer, return all bought cards to the supply."
That's with Co0kieL0rd's interpretation of not allowing 5s if you collect exactly 5.

With my interpretation:
"If you have $6 at any point during your buy phase this turn, then at the end of your buy phase, if you did not buy an Usurer this turn, return all bought cards to the supply."

It's messy, but the only way I can think of to resolve both the conflict issue and the "Oh but I've spent all of my money, totally can't buy an Usurer" issue.

In the case of conflict, if you can't afford to buy both then you're screwed.  But as far as I can see that's your own bloody fault.
Logged
The best reason to lynch Haddock is the meltdown we get to witness on the wagon runup. I mean, we should totally wagon him every day just for the lulz.

M Town Wins-Losses (6-2, 75%): 71, 72, 76, 81, 83, 87 - 79, 82.  M Scum Wins-Losses (2-1, 67%): 80, 101 - 70.
RMM Town Wins-Losses (3-1, 75%): 42, 47, 49 - 31.  RMM Scum Wins-Losses (3-3, 50%): 33, 37, 43 - 29, 32, 35.
Modded: M75, M84, RMM38.     Mislynched (M-RMM): None - 42.     Correctly lynched (M-RMM): 101 - 33, 33, 35.       MVPs: RMM37, M87

Haddock

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 725
  • Shuffle iT Username: Haddock
  • Doc Cod
  • Respect: +558
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #103 on: June 26, 2015, 06:32:35 am »
+1

A reasonable solution would be that you choose the order of cards you have to buy until you bought every card you have to buy or you can't buy such a card due to the lack of money or buys first, after that you can buy cards as usual.
So in your example you could either decide to buy Usurer first and would fail to buy the other card for 3$, or you decide the other card first and you would fail to buy Usurer.
I agree that this is the best thing, but I don't see a way of getting it on the card.  If we had a separate rulebook to resolve the issue it would be great, but ideally we want everything on the card.
Sadly putting "The first card you buy this turn must be X" on any card is really in conflict with the ideal philosophy, which is, as you say, "just buy all the cards that you're forced to buy before you buy anything else."
Logged
The best reason to lynch Haddock is the meltdown we get to witness on the wagon runup. I mean, we should totally wagon him every day just for the lulz.

M Town Wins-Losses (6-2, 75%): 71, 72, 76, 81, 83, 87 - 79, 82.  M Scum Wins-Losses (2-1, 67%): 80, 101 - 70.
RMM Town Wins-Losses (3-1, 75%): 42, 47, 49 - 31.  RMM Scum Wins-Losses (3-3, 50%): 33, 37, 43 - 29, 32, 35.
Modded: M75, M84, RMM38.     Mislynched (M-RMM): None - 42.     Correctly lynched (M-RMM): 101 - 33, 33, 35.       MVPs: RMM37, M87

ChocophileBenj

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 504
  • Respect: +575
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #104 on: June 26, 2015, 07:46:21 am »
+1

It's funny about Leper village because I thought to a similar card costing $4 : +2 actions, +$1, same attack. (the +buy is missing and it costs $1 more, no "in games using this" effect) ; but it may end up boring with taking slots.
At least it's an inedit concept yet : an attack village.
Logged
Chocolate is like victory points in Dominion. Both taste good but they'll hurt you if you eat too much of it instead of something else in your early days.

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 743
  • Respect: +862
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #105 on: June 26, 2015, 07:58:52 am »
+1

"At the end of your buy phase this turn, if you did not buy an Usurer, return all bought cards to the supply."
That's with Co0kieL0rd's interpretation of not allowing 5s if you collect exactly 5.

With my interpretation:
"If you have $6 at any point during your buy phase this turn, then at the end of your buy phase, if you did not buy an Usurer this turn, return all bought cards to the supply."

These wordings cause problems with cards that put bought or gained cards somewhere else than the discard pile: Nomad Camp, Watchtower, Royal Seal and, most of all, Inn. Even if it wasn't for these cards, the phrases you suggested are awkward as hell. To be fair, Usurer is awkward per se.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 08:18:48 am by Co0kieL0rd »
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

Haddock

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 725
  • Shuffle iT Username: Haddock
  • Doc Cod
  • Respect: +558
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #106 on: June 26, 2015, 09:14:24 am »
+1

"At the end of your buy phase this turn, if you did not buy an Usurer, return all bought cards to the supply."
That's with Co0kieL0rd's interpretation of not allowing 5s if you collect exactly 5.

With my interpretation:
"If you have $6 at any point during your buy phase this turn, then at the end of your buy phase, if you did not buy an Usurer this turn, return all bought cards to the supply."

These wordings cause problems with cards that put bought or gained cards somewhere else than the discard pile: Nomad Camp, Watchtower, Royal Seal and, most of all, Inn. Even if it wasn't for these cards, the phrases you suggested are awkward as hell. To be fair, Usurer is awkward per se.

Inn is particularly terrible, I didn't think of it.  I think the rest could be managed, but I agree those are nasty interactions.

How about:
"Immediately after you have finished playing Treasures in this turn's buy phase, you must buy a Usurer if possible."

Then any conflict is resolved automatically by the standard rule, "whenever two things happen to you at once, you decide the order".  With this wording you have trouble if you've played two of them in one turn - you shouldn't have to buy 2 Usurers if you've played 2.  So maybe add a "once per turn".
Logged
The best reason to lynch Haddock is the meltdown we get to witness on the wagon runup. I mean, we should totally wagon him every day just for the lulz.

M Town Wins-Losses (6-2, 75%): 71, 72, 76, 81, 83, 87 - 79, 82.  M Scum Wins-Losses (2-1, 67%): 80, 101 - 70.
RMM Town Wins-Losses (3-1, 75%): 42, 47, 49 - 31.  RMM Scum Wins-Losses (3-3, 50%): 33, 37, 43 - 29, 32, 35.
Modded: M75, M84, RMM38.     Mislynched (M-RMM): None - 42.     Correctly lynched (M-RMM): 101 - 33, 33, 35.       MVPs: RMM37, M87

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5336
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #107 on: June 26, 2015, 09:53:10 am »
+4

Fragasnap, could you help us understand what Usurer is about? Right now all i can make out is that the card creates a lot of complicated rules.

To make clear what i'm asking of you, when i looked at Caravan Guard's Reaction, for example, i first didn't get it. But when Donald explained the concept, it all became clear: It's a cheap Peddler that produces coins only in your next turn - unless you get attacked, where it becomes a normal Peddler.

I'm sadly failing to get a similar "point" in Usurer. Obviously it has a new mechanic ("a card that forces you to buy it"), but that on its own isn't really exciting to me.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +699
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #108 on: June 26, 2015, 09:36:49 pm »
0

Fragasnap, could you help us understand what Usurer is about? Right now all i can make out is that the card creates a lot of complicated rules.

To make clear what i'm asking of you, when i looked at Caravan Guard's Reaction, for example, i first didn't get it. But when Donald explained the concept, it all became clear: It's a cheap Peddler that produces coins only in your next turn - unless you get attacked, where it becomes a normal Peddler.

I'm sadly failing to get a similar "point" in Usurer. Obviously it has a new mechanic ("a card that forces you to buy it"), but that on its own isn't really exciting to me.
Mechanically: After playing a Usurer and going into your Buy phase, you must buy a Usurer if you produce $6 or more and the can spend the rest of your coins and buys however you please. If you fail to produce $6 (by holding back Treasures or if you spent most or all of your coins with a Storyteller or Black Market), you can buy whatever you want. If you lost all your buys by playing Streets, you can't buy anything, so you obviously cannot re-buy Usurer.
Is "When you would buy your first card this turn, if you can buy a Usurer, you must" clearer? This wording creates problems if there is ever another card that forces a buy, but there aren't any other cards that do that, so I don't have to worry about that right now. With this wording, if you play Usurer then Black Market you can buy a card from the Black Market to avoid having to re-buy your Usurer since the Black Market-buy would be the first card you bought that turn and you can't buy a Usurer from the Supply while playing Black Market, but I can live with that change.

Functionally: Usurer is a strange alternative to Gold that does not cost all your coins (useful in the event that you have multiple buys) and is super powerful in multiples. One Usurer on its own is effectively +2 Buys, +$2 (unless you have no money otherwise) which is not very strong, but in multiples each after the first is a one-shot +3 Buys, +$4 that only cost you $2 to buy. You'll have to re-buy it later, but that will be easy to do so long as you have some source of +Buys--which you likely will because you are forced to re-buy one Usurer immediately. It is also a strong source of +Buys, making it a combo with Greed's Street, and since it is cheap it combos with Greed's Fletcher.
Without any other support, Usurer is ultimately a source of +Buy that requires roundabout method of acquisition (either gratuitous coin or some other method of gaining).
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3485
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3830
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #109 on: June 26, 2015, 09:58:59 pm »
+2

Usurer in the Black Market seems pretty swingy.
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9539
  • Respect: +10574
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #110 on: June 26, 2015, 10:17:31 pm »
+2

Usurer in the Black Market seems pretty swingy.

This is something that should be carefully considered. Other cards that are swingy in the Black Market (Tournament, Goons) are so because they are simply strong cards in general, and it's just part of the swinginess of Black Market itself. But here, you have a card that actually functions differently if it came from the Black Market; and it's much stronger than normal, due to both the one-shot nature of it (which is no longer one-shot when bought from Black Market), and due to the fact that you aren't forced to buy more of them.

Other cards that don't work the same when they come from the Black Market are weaker, not stronger (Fool's Gold, Treasure Map, Page. Perhaps the exception being Knights, but then it's still only slightly stronger.
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

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11745
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (ī。ē ω ē。`)
  • Respect: +12746
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #111 on: June 26, 2015, 10:24:24 pm »
+3

Perhaps the exception being Knights, but then it's still only slightly stronger.

Another exception is Rats, which is very much stronger.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's CC-licensed albums for free

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9539
  • Respect: +10574
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #112 on: June 27, 2015, 10:11:40 am »
+1

Perhaps the exception being Knights, but then it's still only slightly stronger.

Another exception is Rats, which is very much stronger.

Good point, though it goes from being a usually very weak card to an ok card. I mean, it's just a Junk Dealer without the money. Good, but strictly worse than Junk Dealer. Userer in the Black Market is pretty crazy, almost always better than Gold.
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

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 743
  • Respect: +862
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #113 on: June 27, 2015, 12:33:07 pm »
+1

Actually, I wanted to wait until all your cards are posted but I feel like reviewing your cards now:

Arcanum
It's either a super-super Lab that curses you, or a Lab that turns a Curse into a Copper. Also, you don't always get to choose which one it is. It seems reasonable(?) but it's pretty hard to say for sure without having played with it, as is the case with most of your cards because they are so game-warping.

Architect
A non-terminal Remodel for $2! That seems almost brazen! An unskilled player will mostly get $3-costs out of it. But combined with strong or Copper trashing, Architect becomes really good. The "in-games-using-this" (IGUT) part makes a lot of sense here.

Blacksmith
I like this card, especially the reaction which is both a defense and a self-enhancer.

Countess
Will often be just a Moat so you actually don't want it often or early. The question is, when do you get it, if you get it all. It's probably best in slogs, although even there its vanilla bonus and Duchy-gaining seem to contradict each other.

Fletcher
Why attack cards? Why an Estate? It all seems weirdly welded together. Fletcher seems weak, it probably isn't though, but it's confusing and I don't know when I would ever want it. With good $4-attacks and a village in the kingdom?

Hideout
It just looks awful with so much text and I know the top part isn't that complicated if you think about it. It still seems more flexible than necessary. The part about trashing seems out of place and I dont like that you can put it anywhere in your deck when the top would be just fine. Otherwise it might take too long to resolve.

Historian
I made a similar card, Sentinel. Historian accomplishes almost the same thing but does so in a more elegant way. I particularly like Historian because it doesnít have an IGUT effect that makes my brain cringe tacked on.

Idol
In games where this is the only curser it can be an interesting and difficult decision how many of those you get. If there are other cursers, and thereís no trashing, you probably donít want Idol and you want as few Golds in your deck as possible. InterestingÖ

Informant
Seems fine and reasonably strong. I just dislike the fact that you play the Silver prior to trashing it. A lot of the time, people will forget they played an additional Silver. It would be simpler if it said ďTrash a Silver from your hand. If you do, +$2 and each other player etc.Ē
Inquisitor
The top part seems boring. The fact that its it provides strong trashing makes me wonder why I would ever choose the cursing option. The bottom part has nothing to do with it and just makes games slower and annoying. Whatís the deal?

Inventor
Inventor looks cool and strong in right kingdom, the kind where you would also buy an Outpost. It compares decently to Artificer which has worse gaining but no next-turn penalty.

Leper Village
This card is grotesque Ė its name, its artwork, and all it does. It seems so strong to me, the bottom part even more so than the top part. But I cannot accurately judge it because I donít like looking at or thinking about it. It might just be the picture, sorry.

Missionary
Wouldnít Missionary be just fine without the bottom part? At least make the gaining optional when you trash a Silver so you donít have to keep this clause in mind. Why canít the whole bottom part take place when you play Missionary? That would be even better. This way, itís just more to memorise, and a very unorthodox thing on top of that.

Patrol
I like the concept but I cannot judge its power without having played with it.

Prospector
I kinda like it. In this case, the IGUT mechanic is so minor itís okay and you donít have to memorise it.

Ritter
This reminds of my Juggler which also gives +2 Cards, +$2 and attacks other players while you get an according penalty. I like the idea. Why did you use the German word for knight as the cardís name? Doesnít this appear weird to non-Germans?

Scholar
I already talked about it. My favourite Greed card.

Slave Trade
Another card that would be fine without the IGUT part, although I can see the point of it being there. Otherwise, Slave Trade would be such a pain in the butt in games without trashers. The condition for Copper trashing seems a little arbitrary but I guess it proved balanced this way.

Street
I can easily see this being ignored in a Kingdom while players happily enjoy their extra buy. The cost reduction obviously becomes a deal with (non-terminal) +buy in the Kingdom but I doubt there will be any worthwhile combos with Street as it is such a weak card.

Tanner
I like the action. The IGUT mechanic is uncalled-for, a nuisance. Again, why?

War Flag
A brutal attack but it costs $7 so that may just be reasonable. Itís the kind of attack Margrave wants to be but canít due to its cost. I donít mind the IGUT mechanic here that much but it might as well not be there.

Winery
Very cool idea. If you want it, you have to build your strategy around it early-on and then live with your decision for the rest of the game. Interesting interaction with Grave Robber and Rogue!
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

Lamestar

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #114 on: June 27, 2015, 07:23:59 pm »
0


Countess
Will often be just a Moat so you actually don't want it often or early. The question is, when do you get it, if you get it all. It's probably best in slogs, although even there its vanilla bonus and Duchy-gaining seem to contradict each other.

Inquisitor
The top part seems boring. The fact that its it provides strong trashing makes me wonder why I would ever choose the cursing option. The bottom part has nothing to do with it and just makes games slower and annoying. Whatís the deal?

Missionary
Wouldnít Missionary be just fine without the bottom part? At least make the gaining optional when you trash a Silver so you donít have to keep this clause in mind. Why canít the whole bottom part take place when you play Missionary? That would be even better. This way, itís just more to memorise, and a very unorthodox thing on top of that.

Slave Trade
Another card that would be fine without the IGUT part, although I can see the point of it being there. Otherwise, Slave Trade would be such a pain in the butt in games without trashers. The condition for Copper trashing seems a little arbitrary but I guess it proved balanced this way.

Street
I can easily see this being ignored in a Kingdom while players happily enjoy their extra buy. The cost reduction obviously becomes a deal with (non-terminal) +buy in the Kingdom but I doubt there will be any worthwhile combos with Street as it is such a weak card.


Countess: you usually want to get it at some point since Victory cards are so expensive. The +2 cards just seemed to be the vanilla effect that made the most sense to use as giving coins or actions could easily lead to having better options than gaining a Duchy.

Inquisitor: You can get it early to trash and use it later to discard Provinces/Duchies to hand out curses. The bottom effect gives you something to discard with your Inquisitors, but it is pretty much just tacked on.

Missionary: It definitely needs the bonus for trashing Silver. Trashing for actions is usually weak without a bonus. The effect could be just attached to the card instead of being a game effect but then it would't really fit into the rest of the set! Sure it's harder to remember to do, but that argument could be on a significant number of the cards in the set.

Slave Trade: A village that junks you when you play it is pretty bad even if it junks everyone else too. We tried attaching the copper trashing to the card without the game effect, but then everyone HAS to get Slave Trade.

Street: I agree it's weak and is pretty much there just for the plus buy.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2015, 07:31:42 pm by Lamestar »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +699
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #115 on: June 28, 2015, 10:31:44 am »
0

Usurer in the Black Market seems pretty swingy.

This is something that should be carefully considered. Other cards that are swingy in the Black Market (Tournament, Goons) are so because they are simply strong cards in general, and it's just part of the swinginess of Black Market itself. But here, you have a card that actually functions differently if it came from the Black Market; and it's much stronger than normal, due to both the one-shot nature of it (which is no longer one-shot when bought from Black Market), and due to the fact that you aren't forced to buy more of them.

Other cards that don't work the same when they come from the Black Market are weaker, not stronger (Fool's Gold, Treasure Map, Page. Perhaps the exception being Knights, but then it's still only slightly stronger.
I can make a rewording of it to trash it and then return it to the Supply (and hey, it doesn't even add a line of text!), but is it worth that complexity to fix its interaction with what is likely the most luck-based card in Dominion anyway?

Notably, Tanner (and to a lesser extent, Idol) is also stronger out of the Black Market, assuming the ruling that an "in games using this" in the Black Market does not affect the Kingdom holds true (which it does for now).

Countess: you usually want to get it at some point since Victory cards are so expensive. The +2 cards just seemed to be the vanilla effect that made the most sense to use as giving coins or actions could easily lead to having better options than gaining a Duchy.
Keeping in theme with Count, Countess gives you options: Keep going with your turn or discard your hand for a Duchy. The +2 Cards vanilla benefit also makes it easier to stack Countesses than any other benefit would. You can definitely gain more than one Duchy at once by playing multiple Countesses.

Fletcher
Why attack cards? Why an Estate? It all seems weirdly welded together. Fletcher seems weak, it probably isn't though, but it's confusing and I don't know when I would ever want it. With good $4-attacks and a village in the kingdom?
Attack cards were the most fun thing to reduce in cost since Actions make the game too engine friendly, Treasures make the game too Big Money centric, and Victory cards make the game end too quickly. By reducing the cost of Attack cards, the first card I thought would go from being pretty bad to actually pretty decent was Spy, so gaining Estates combos with that. Fletcher is otherwise pretty good in sloggy games and basically any alternative Victory strategy since it can gain Silvers so fast. It is also quite good in any instance when having an Estate in your deck is not the worst thing in the world (likely because of cards like Crossroads or Baron).

Hideout
It just looks awful with so much text and I know the top part isn't that complicated if you think about it. It still seems more flexible than necessary. The part about trashing seems out of place and I dont like that you can put it anywhere in your deck when the top would be just fine. Otherwise it might take too long to resolve.
The Reaction does not take long to resolve since the only consideration of where it goes in your deck is whether or not you will draw it this turn (and whether or not you want to). Now that you point it out though, the trashing can probably be removed. I put trashing onto it in fear of the rest being too weak, but the trashing has proven so weak (since it has to be from a hand of 4) as to practically be a non-option. I will remove that. It should clean up the text quite nicely.

Informant
Seems fine and reasonably strong. I just dislike the fact that you play the Silver prior to trashing it. A lot of the time, people will forget they played an additional Silver. It would be simpler if it said ďTrash a Silver from your hand. If you do, +$2 and each other player etc.Ē
It had this wording for a while, but the coin symbol made the already crowded text look even worse even though it had the exact same effect. I will probably only reinstate the coin symbol if the amount becomes different than $2.

Inquisitor: You can get it early to trash and use it later to discard Provinces/Duchies to hand out curses. The bottom effect gives you something to discard with your Inquisitors, but it is pretty much just tacked on.
The bottom is tacked on primarily to give Inquisitor ammunition to fire out Curses earlier. It slows down the game a hair and makes the timing of Inquisitor trickier.

Missionary: It definitely needs the bonus for trashing Silver. Trashing for actions is usually weak without a bonus. The effect could be just attached to the card instead of being a game effect but then it wouldn't really fit into the rest of the set! Sure it's harder to remember to do, but that argument could be on a significant number of the cards in the set.
We played around with a number of "trash for +Actions" effects, but without some incentive to trash a card with value, you pretty much never use it, so it definitely has to have some sort of benefit for trashing Silvers. Making the Silver trashing effect an "in games using this" both makes it fit better into Greed and also gives it fun considerations with Informant, War Flag, as well as other trash-for-benefits (as Silver is ordinarily a low priority target for trash-for-benefit). I will agree with co0kiel0rd that the "in games using this" can very easily be made optional, so it may as well be.

Ritter
...Why did you use the German word for knight as the cardís name? Doesnít this appear weird to non-Germans?
I am on the lookout for better names. It needs to bring to mind the military purpose of a Margrave while still not being too legislative in nature. How does "Marquis" sound?

Street: I agree it's weak and is pretty much there just for the plus buy.
I probably buy Street in about a third of games using it, but even when Street doesn't get its time to shine, it still changes the landscape of the game, so I do not believe there is much to complain about with it.

Tanner
I like the action. The IGUT mechanic is uncalled-for, a nuisance. Again, why?
Tanner's Action effect is stupidly powerful without something putting cards it cannot draw into your deck. Of two options (either an "in games using this" that puts junk into your deck or making its draw more finicky), I liked this one better.

War Flag
A brutal attack but it costs $7 so that may just be reasonable. Itís the kind of attack Margrave wants to be but canít due to its cost. I donít mind the IGUT mechanic here that much but it might as well not be there.
Donald X has talked about the Attack that is on War Flag and how incredibly powerful and unfun it is. The reason it is so miserable is partially because on a card costing $5 or less it is easy to play, but also because of the high variance of players' decks. Having the best 2 of 5 and 1 average is probably going to suck. War Flag costs $7 and requires the player of it to discard a Treasure, making the Attack harder to reach, but War Flag's "in games using this" is what subtly makes the card. The "In games using this" reduces decks' variance in the middle of the game since players are trashing their junk, so a random draw is probably not going to be nearly so bad as in a normal game, though certainly still bad. However, since players are trashing most of their Coppers to it, players will have a harder time using War Flag's powerful Attack since they might need that Copper to trash when they buy a $5+ card.
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 743
  • Respect: +862
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #116 on: June 29, 2015, 08:44:32 am »
+1

I am happy with basically all of your replies, both when you came around to some suggestions and when you explained why things are how they are. I feel willing to play with more Greed cards now ;)

Quote
I am on the lookout for better names. It needs to bring to mind the military purpose of a Margrave while still not being too legislative in nature. How does "Marquis" sound?
French? I mean, it sounds as weird as Ritter but at least Marquis is found in the English disctionary^^
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

qazzquimby

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: +9
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #117 on: August 26, 2015, 12:26:26 pm »
+1

I came back months later and thought I saw a bunch of unfamiliar and exciting cards (names anyway), but upon searching through, I already have them all.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +699
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #118 on: September 06, 2015, 11:13:19 am »
+1

Apologies: I didn't want to bump for an update so small.

Updates:
  • Ritter has been renamed to Marquis.
  • Winery has been renamed to Frontier.
  • Hideout no longer has the ability to trash cards.
  • Usurer has been reworded, but its functionality is largely identical.
  • Informant is on the chopping block from the set. It has proven far too safe. It has been gained on almost every board. It gained Silver to use them as a gating mechanism to its Attack, but it has proven to be perfectly alright to gain Silvers exclusively. Its "In games using this" (a setup effect, really) will be maintained, but a new card will be made for it. Blockhouse has proven a particularly clumsy card, so it may be removed from the set. I will retract it until Informant's replacement is ready and tested. So for now, after Firar and Alehouse are posted, this is Greed.

Cards have seen more testing:
  • Arcanum works better in decks early than I anticipated. I don't think this is a problem.
  • Hideout is proving quite a bit stronger than my initial play tests suggested, even without the ability to trash. It may need to be made weaker still.
  • Patrol's trashing option is possibly too available in too many Kingdoms. Patrol may need to be given a weaker bonus (+2 Actions, +$1) or have its trashing made harder to fund (you may trash a card costing $3 or more).
  • Countess, Inventor, Marquis (previously Ritter), Prospector, and Scholar are still working. Nothing unique to report.

I guess I may as well post the last two stable cards:
Quote
Friar
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Trash a card from your hand. If it costs $4 or more, gain a Duchy and an Estate. Otherwise, gain 2 Estates.
In games using this, Victory cards are worth 1VP more.
Quote
Alehouse
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may discard 4 cards. If you do, +3 Actions.

The Estate split matters now: Friar makes a deck full of Victory cards more valuable than a deck with few quality Victory cards and affords a way to get more Estates. When do you even buy this in the game? I always buy it too early and choke on Estates or too late and have nothing to gain. I love it.

Alehouse is a nice and simple Smithy with a Village option by discarding a ton of stuff. You only get the +actions if you're dedicated since your hand goes -2 Cards. The "discard for +actions" has been proposed quite often, but the card has always felt boring since it gives only as many +actions as you need. Alehouse gets a stronger draw with a weaker discard in order to give that ability real bite in the construction of your deck.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 01:38:16 am by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #119 on: February 04, 2016, 07:58:13 pm »
+1

Q about Frontier, if you are still active?
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +699
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #120 on: February 05, 2016, 12:25:41 am »
0

Q about Frontier, if you are still active?
Absolutely.

I'll post some updates since you've revived the topic:
  • Blacksmith has seen little use in its Kingdoms. I will be monitoring its health.
  • Hideout's discard is conceptually fun, but has proven too strong. It requires reworking.
  • Missionary has been simplified to "once per turn" from "twice per turn"
  • Patrol is too strong since it gives +$2. It is tentatively being reduced to +$1 to draw more attention to its trashing ability. I'm worried it will be too weak at that point.
  • Sculptor hasn't been wowing me. It is dangerously close to being cut.
  • Usurer is too niche and has been pulled.
  • Architect, Countess, Fletcher, Frontier, Inquisitor, Inventor, Prospector, Scholar, Slave Trade, Tanner, and War Flag have all been performing well in recent testing.
Find updates in the main posts.
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #121 on: February 05, 2016, 09:08:36 am »
+1

So we played a 4 player game, so we had 12 Frontiers in supply. However: it felt like the first player has an advantage over the latter player, especially in the later rounds. I was third in line and was ultimately the only one buying frontiers (I had a card that has a similar mechanism like crossroads, so having green was incentivized). But we speculated that if others went that strategy, those higher up in the turn order were advantaged relative to those later in the turn order.

We felt that the card needed a big of a modifier, i.e. 'when no cards is bought this turn, trash one' clause. So when someone buys a card, the stack is not itself decreased that turn any further. However, I'd even argue that you maybe need 8*2 (or 12*3/4) times the amount on the stack and that you trash one *every* playerturn (if none were bought). So everyone has the same chance of buying the same amount.

What is your experience?

Additionally: we also speculated that a clause being 'this doesn't count as an empty supply pile' might also be useful. Because this really decreased game length to an unsatisfactory short amount of time. Admittedly, you know this in advance, but it did slightly take the fun out of it, in our experience.

What say you?

(I mean, I know we can play the card however we like, but I was still wondering what your impressions are.)
« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 09:10:11 am by AdrianHealey »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +699
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #122 on: February 05, 2016, 06:03:53 pm »
+1

So we played a 4 player game, so we had 12 Frontiers in supply. However: it felt like the first player has an advantage over the latter player, especially in the later rounds. I was third in line and was ultimately the only one buying frontiers (I had a card that has a similar mechanism like crossroads, so having green was incentivized). But we speculated that if others went that strategy, those higher up in the turn order were advantaged relative to those later in the turn order.
Your assumptions are correct that the card favors players earlier in turn order in the instances where rushing the card is worthwhile, but my play experience has not shown this to be a significant problem to the card since it is so rare that players can afford to pick up more than 2 without crippling their decks. The possibility for wanting Frontiers becoming a problem will certainly be exacerbated in 4-player games. I might have to suggest that 4 be placed in the Supply per player.

How many games have you played in 4-player with Frontier? What was the split of Frontiers in those games? How many of those games did a player who purchased more Frontiers than at least one other player win the game?

Additionally: we also speculated that a clause being 'this doesn't count as an empty supply pile' might also be useful. Because this really decreased game length to an unsatisfactory short amount of time. Admittedly, you know this in advance, but it did slightly take the fun out of it, in our experience.
I find "unsatisfactorily short" to be an apt descriptor to 4-player games of Dominion in general. I would recommend variants to fix the problems of the basic rules of 4-player Dominion first, to make it more similar to 3-player games.

Thank you for your input!
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #123 on: February 06, 2016, 08:50:07 am »
+1

The issue with the 4 per player is that you now turned a card that lasts for 8 turns in one game and 16 in another. And this doesn't seriously solve the 'latter person' problem. The issue is in turn 8, the first player has a huge advantage, because he can or can not buy the last frontier. But buying one turn 8: probably better than at turn 7. (Delaying it as much as possible.)

I'd say: make it standard 16 frontiers and number them. Add a clause that Only the frontier with the turn number needs to be trashed so that if we buy two in turn 12 (for example), there is no frontier trashed in turn 12 and 13, because frontier 14 will be on top.

This way, you move the first player advantage to turn 16, at which point regular greening could have started by then.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +699
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #124 on: February 06, 2016, 09:58:44 am »
0

This way, you move the first player advantage to turn 16, at which point regular greening could have started by then.
Which defeats literally the entire purpose of the card. The bite of Frontier is that you have to buy it before you want it. It's a lot of points, but can your deck stomach buying a Frontier instead of any other better $5 card while they're still around? Players will go about winning without buying any Frontiers because it costs too much momentum to the players that did.
Making Frontiers stick around until players will very likely be greening actually makes the first-player advantage even worse because that player gets first chance to buy them in terms of greening momentum and we no longer have that awful opportunity cost that made them such a hard sell in the first place.

Have you experienced Frontier being the primary decider of games? Have you experienced that multiple times? If it is commonly the deciding factor in 4-player games, I will have to do something about it, but if this is a reaction to a single game, I am unconvinced. Bureaucrat is sometimes a game-ending Attack when you're fourth player in a 4-player game, but the turn order advantage doesn't keep Bureaucrat from being the best card in the game (or at least a passable card that is reasonably interesting, anyway).
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6  All
 

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 21 queries.