Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  All

Author Topic: Dominion: Greed (1.0)  (Read 34613 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +546
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #50 on: May 12, 2015, 06:38:48 pm »
+1

Are you guys allergic to costs? This check is not complicated, does not create any rules ambiguity, improves the play patterns of the card, and makes play of the card simpler since it reduces decision making for the player of it as the player to his left has to only make one decision instead of X decisions (and is making decisions with full information which makes the choice easier). Allowing the Architect player to reveal X cards from hand makes Architect significantly stronger because with a little bit of hand-size increasing one can basically choose which card he trashes which is not the point of Architect. Architect is played because you want to Remodel something, anything, and it hardly matters what.

Well, it's new tech, so we are naturally weary. If it's not strictly necessary to get the card to do what you want, I would do without it. What would you say is the point of preventing 5$ cards from being remodeled?
In an earlier version, Architect was a cantrip with its Advisor\Remodel effect (it also did not have the "in games using this" which was added to make its play patterns more varied). Obviously the card was a bit frustrating when you draw something you don't want to trash, but it was actually fairly strong and very fast, so we removed the +1 Card.
Regardless, the problem came that it was almost always the right move to trash the other player's $5 cards. Those $5 cards do not often have good targets into which they can be remodeled-- while Architects can be speedy, they are not fast enough to get around players buying cards. If their $5 cards can be trashed and have no good targets as is normal, Architects become significantly weaker with each $5 card added to a player's deck. So the card rotted in uselessness.
This prohibition of targeting $5 cards allows the card to function as $5 cards are added to players' decks and maintains the speed in decision making of the card because the player to the left decides what is trashed with full information and the player of it only has to decide what he gains from there. Revealing 3 cards would require that the player of it decide which 3 cards he will reveal, then the left player has to play a dangerous guessing game because of the limited information presented to him, and then the player of it decides which card he gains.

5 words is quite a bit. It removes one "if", which makes the card easier to parse. It's not a huge deal, but it's there.
Technically, it removes a "may," not an "if." That "if" is stuck there. I can shorten it to "If there are no Treasures in your hand, you may reveal it and gain a Gold" which is the same number of words but a few characters shorter. It does have fewer clauses which might make it easier to parse.
Making the reveal mandatory means: the reveal is not an effect you are allowed to forget about (in a Treasure centric Kingdom, you can read Prospector once and then discard the "you may reveal your hand" bit); it makes the card less compatible with Contraband (or any other cards that encourage deck tracking other players); and it might force players to gain Gold when they don't want to (which is not really a problem and I'd tell players to deal with it if it weren't for the previous two points).

Gaining a 4$ card to hand is crazy strong. Making all other players gain a 4$ card to hand for free is a crazy strong penalty. Sure, maybe they won't want to, but it's still crazy. The card would have to be playtested a lot to see if it works or not. Maybe people will simply avoid buying Gold or Prospectors in games using the latter, whether that happens to be the right decision or not? It's sort of a game of chicken here. Hard to predict.
It's really just cute. In many cases you are adding +$1 to another player's turn as well as another terminal Action to their deck. Sometimes it lets players get +$2, but that might just lead them to buy a Gold which will return the favor of gaining a Prospector yourself.
Prospector is a tempo trasher, and players rarely turn down the first one made available to them in this way, but you can only get so far with tempo trashers. Prospector has not proven strong enough to disallow buying Gold. In most cases players are gaining an additional +$1 to their turn by tossing out a Copper. Sometimes players will gain a Prospector because they have nothing left to trash but the other Prospector that is already in their hand.

Prospector is a fairly common opening in my numerous tests of it in spite of players' ability to pick it up later when another player gains a Gold because early trashing is very valuable. If a player decided to skip a needed Prospector on the belief that another player would drop one onto him, it might behoove another player to not buy a Gold as early because of it, but that scenario has never occurred.

I guess my concern with things is more logistical than anything else, and you can probably speak best to this having playtested these cards quite a bit: How do you find it is to manage all of the "In games using this" effects? A couple of people earlier posted suggestions about tokens or a new card color. I suppose that could be helpful but even so, with just nine of the cards you've revealed so far, if I'm playing with all of them in the same Kingdom I have to remember:
Your assumption of the effects becoming second nature is accurate, but more than anything else the effects are easy to remember because of how drastically they change the strategy of the board and are thus so constantly considered. When you start out plotting out how to get to $9 per turn (Countess) or you ask every turn if you want to use your extra Buy (Street) or trash Coppers from your hand (Slave Trade), the effects get engrained quickly. Inquisitor is the trickiest one to remember because its effect only applies once players are gaining Victory cards, and to that end I recommend placing the Inquisitor randomizer onto the Province pile to remind players of its effect.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +546
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #51 on: May 14, 2015, 07:37:20 am »
+4

Quote
Scholar
Types: Action
Cost: $0
+1 Action. Draw until you have 4 cards in hand.
In games using this, directly after resolving an Action, if you haven't gained a Scholar this turn you may gain a Scholar. If you do, play it.
Quote
Marquis
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+2 Cards, +$2. Each other player draws a card. Discard any number of cards from your hand. For each card discarded, each other player discards a card to a minimum of 3 cards in hand.

Behold: The $0 Kingdom card and my co-creator's favorite Scholar (recently lifting some wording from Coin of the Realm and Royal Carriage).  In a normal hand, it is a Ruined Village.  If you can shrink your hand size, it might be a Laboratory, but let us be honest, that is not the big deal here.  The big deal is that 10 times during the game, once per turn, you may turn one of your Actions nonterminal at the price of adding a pretty bad card to your deck (and possibly draw some cards for it, depending). Scholar is a real game changer.

The most obvious comparison for Marquis is Margrave.  After playing a Margrave, the player will have 7 cards in hand, 2 Buys, and each other player will have the best 3 of 6 cards. To manage a similar Attack with Marquis, the player will remain with 3 Cards in hand and $2 to compensate for the mere 1 Buy he will have. Only looking that far, Marquis sounds pretty terrible.  But that is because you are comparing Marquis to Margrave: What you are paying for with Marquis is flexibility.  Marquis offers the choice of being totally friendly by discarding 0 or 1 cards, or a weak Attack by discarding 2, or the strong Attack when you can afford to discard 3 cards (and any other tricks you might want from discarding cards). Do remember that +2 Cards, +$2 is befittingly a $6 effect and it certainly feels that way.

EDIT: Update to make Ritter's limited discard more explicit. Updated Scholar to fix timing issue.
EDIT: Ritter renamed to Marquis, art updated to match.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 01:33:32 am by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7137
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9923
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #52 on: May 14, 2015, 10:56:10 am »
+3

Scholar is very cool. One of the only $0 cards that I think makes sense.

Ritter is also cool, albeit political. If everybody except the player to your right already has 3 cards in hand, you get to decide whether it's worth attacking him/her. Donald has rejected this kind of optional discard-based attack for this very reason.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8550
  • Respect: +9352
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #53 on: May 14, 2015, 07:23:38 pm »
+1

Ritter leads to an easy pin. Discard 6 cards; each other player discards their whole hand. Or is the "4 or more" evaluated after each discard?
« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 07:24:57 pm by GendoIkari »
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: 735
  • Respect: +856
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #54 on: May 15, 2015, 03:04:25 am »
+1

Ritter leads to an easy pin. Discard 6 cards; each other player discards their whole hand. Or is the "4 or more" evaluated after each discard?

It is. He says so in the end of his last post. Maybe it should be phrased
"Each other player draws a card. Discard any number of cards from your hand. For each card discarded, each other player discards a card, down to a minimum of 3 cards in hand."
It's not consistent with existent phrasings but it should lead to no misunderstandings.

I think Scholar is a very clever idea.
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

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +546
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #55 on: May 16, 2015, 09:23:43 am »
0

Scholar is very cool. One of the only $0 cards that I think makes sense.
I think Scholar is a very clever idea.
I feel vindicated.

Ritter is also cool, albeit political. If everybody except the player to your right already has 3 cards in hand, you get to decide whether it's worth attacking him/her. Donald has rejected this kind of optional discard-based attack for this very reason.
Actually, since each other player draws a card first, the only way a player would have 3 cards in hand is if he had fewer than 3 already. True enough that it hits the player to your right harder when multiple cards are discarded, but the discard remains an Attack on all players except in extenuating circumstances.

Maybe [Ritter] should be phrased
"Each other player draws a card. Discard any number of cards from your hand. For each card discarded, each other player discards a card, down to a minimum of 3 cards in hand."
It's not consistent with existent phrasings but it should lead to no misunderstandings.
I think I will use "... For each card discarded, each other player discards a card to a minimum of 3 cards in hand" unless someone has a better one. Thank you.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +546
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #56 on: May 17, 2015, 08:14:29 pm »
0

Quote
Patrol
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Actions, +$2. You may trash a card costing $2 or more from your hand. If you do, name a card. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a copy of the named card. Put it into your hand and discard the rest.
Quote
Historian
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Draw until you have 6 cards in hand. You may set aside up to 2 cards drawn this way as you draw them. Trash the set aside cards after you finish drawing.

We are taking a break from "in games using this effects" today. Do not fear, there are more coming.

Patrol is a Festival that comes with an expensive tutor effect instead of a +Buy. At the start of the game you have those lovely Estates in your deck to toss out for whatever you most need, but after that it is only a worse Festival unless you can throw out a valuable card for it.

Historian on the other hand as a "draw until you have X cards in hand" card references Library. Also like Library which helps players get around otherwise useless cards, Historian helps players get around those cards a little more permanently. Make no mistake, Historian is a super fast trasher that feels terrible to use as you set those otherwise extremely useful Coppers aside for trashing and draw those currently useless Actions.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 01:33:40 am by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

Flip5ide

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Highest Rank/Rating: 58/5600
  • Respect: +135
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #57 on: May 20, 2015, 10:16:56 pm »
+1

Idol's under-script is super confusing.
How so? It replaces the VP worth of Curse (which is normally -1VP) with something else.


Here's how I would write it.

Original:
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP for each Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck instead of -1VP.

New:
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP for every Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck.
Logged
"If at first you don't succeed, find out if the loser gets anything." - William Lyon Phelps

DLloyd09

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #58 on: May 20, 2015, 11:19:39 pm »
+2

Yet again, I'm very intrigued by the cards that are in this set.

I almost wonder though, if Patrol shouldn't possibly cost $6 (at least). It seems OP at $5 to me when comparing that trash-for-digging ability to the +1 Buy of Festival.

Most of the time, you probably have something you can trash with it at all phases of the game to activate its digging power. Early on, it's Estates, sure. In the midgame you can probably chuck a Silver or a now-less-useful $2 or $3, and near the end you can trash excess $4s and $5s or even Duchies, to get whatever it is you need to get you to $8 (or even $11). You can either dig for a Gold or Platinum, that second Treasure Map, another Fool's Gold, that crucial discard attack, or exactly the action you need to accelerate your engine, and with +2 Actions it could really be a powerhouse. As far as I know, it's the only card that let's you dig for exactly the card you want, right?

Anyway, I could be full of it, but I'm definitely feeling like that's really strong. Have you experimented with it at other price points?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2015, 12:40:45 am by DLloyd09 »
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1305
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +1005
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #59 on: May 21, 2015, 12:11:56 am »
+1

My +1 means that I agree with DLloyd. Although, if you make Patrol say "You may trash a card costing $3 or more" instead of $2 or more, that would probably be enough to make it fine at $5 cost.

I like Historian. It seems like a good idea, and probably stronger than it looks especially when there are junkers in the kingdom.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2015, 12:13:38 am by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +546
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #60 on: May 21, 2015, 07:09:18 am »
+4

New:
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP for every Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck.
This was Idol's original wording, but more than one player has believed that the effect was adding to the value of Curses instead of replacing it. It seemed to me to be totally clear, but evidently it wasn't, so we are using the explicit version.

Anyway, I could be full of it, but I'm definitely feeling like that's really strong. Have you experimented with it at other price points?
While there is a lot that might be worth chucking to dig for a Gold or exactly what you need, but whatever you trash likely had a value of at least +$2, so your macro gain is much more limited than it sounds. Usually you would dig because it is something that will produce at least +$4 of value. If Patrol proves too strong the best nerf would be to increase that cost requirement for triggering the dig to be trashing cards costing $3 or more as LibraryAdventurer suggests, but it has not proven to be problematic in current testing. I will keep an eye on this.

Quote
Frontier
Types: Victory
Cost: $5
Worth 5VP.
In games using this, at the end of each turn taken by the last player in turn order that is not an extra turn, trash a Frontier from the Supply.
Quote
War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $7
$3. When you play this, you may discard a Treasure. If you do, each other player discards down to 2 cards in hand and then draws a card.
In games using this, when you buy a card costing $5 or more, trash a card you have in play.

Frontier is somewhat comparable to Distant Lands in that it is a valuable Victory card at $5 that must be bought before the game ends. Unlike Distant Lands though, Frontier must be bought at the very start of the game because it will be gone by turn 8 (in 2-player, 12 in multiplayer) and does not remove itself from your deck. It is worth a lot of Victory points, but is it worth the opportunity cost? If so, how many can you buy? Also remember that every Frontier that is purchased is one fewer turns they will be available.
Note that one Frontier is trashed from the Supply every full round of turns.

War Flag follows the common design of $7 cards by being a super huge version of an existing card. This time, it is Militia. To really understand War Flag, one must consider its "in games using this." The effect gives players a surprisingly unstable deck construction: as cards are added to the deck, old cards are constantly removed, affording a unique evaluation to cards with reduced effectiveness as the game drags on as well as any fast trashing that is available because often players begin by throwing out their Coppers.
This fact is important because War Flag has a brutal Attack attached to it. Oftentimes though the Attack will not come out because the Copper is sufficient to reach a key price point, or in extreme cases, the Copper is necessary because the player needs something to trash when he buys a $5+ card this turn. Further, even when hit by the Attack, players usually have higher overall value to the cards in their deck (games with Cursers notwithstanding), meaning they are more likely to draw decent cards.

EDIT: War Flag's "in games using this" text updated to "When you buy a card..." from "When you gain a card..." in congruence with the written version.
EDIT: Winery renamed to Frontier
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 01:33:50 am by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Respect: +856
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #61 on: May 21, 2015, 08:21:39 am »
+2

The concept of Winery is genius! What a cool idea! No, really, I like it a lot. It's simple but game changing and very intriguing. It might have balancing issues, though, since how many Wineries one player can get, if they gain as many as possible, will be very dependent on shuffle luck. That's a little problematic, I'd say. Have you considered making the trashing of Wineries from the Supply conditional on something that players can influence (e. g. it only happens after each turn by the last player if no Victory cards have been bought during the last round)? I bet there will be people saying how confusing the "in games using this" part is but if one just thinks for a moment there should be no misunderstanding, even with Outpost and Mission. Although... how exactly does this interact with Possession? :P

War Flag is brutal but cool. It's more expensive than Gold but will only net you $3 if you forfeit the attack. But you won't do that because it's so brutal so it seems balanced. I can easily see players being frustrated by it, though. What were your experiences? The game changing mechanic is interesting and offers a lot of possibilities but also raises opportunity cost which seems like a fine balance.
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

Archetype

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 985
  • Suffers from Fancy Play Syndrom
  • Respect: +685
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #62 on: May 21, 2015, 07:29:41 pm »
+2

Winery is so, so cool.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1305
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +1005
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #63 on: May 24, 2015, 01:49:55 am »
+2

I plan to print a few of these out to play with them also. My favorites (just from looking at them) are Scholar, Historian, Blacksmith, and Winery.

I have a couple suggestions:
Quote
Countess
Cost $4  Action
+2 Cards. At the start of Clean-Up, if you did not buy any cards this turn, gain a Victory card costing up to $6.
-
In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more.
Now it doesn't hurt $4 cost alt-VP cards as much. Also, the bottom half has a neat side effect that hasn't been mentioned: it makes trash for benefit on estates better. Remodeling estates into $5 cards will be really nice.

My other suggestion:
Quote
Street
Cost: $3  Action
+2 Cards. Discard a card. Cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0. If this is not the first time you played a street this turn, -1 Buy (to a minimum of 0).
-
In game using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
This should make it not turn people off so much. If they hate to lose their second buy, they can be careful not to play more than one street in a turn (or buy only one). Added discard a card in the suggestion, because otherwise playing just one in a turn would be too strong for a $3 cost.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2015, 01:54:05 am by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +546
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #64 on: May 24, 2015, 08:58:47 am »
+2

The concept of Winery is genius! What a cool idea! No, really, I like it a lot. It's simple but game changing and very intriguing. It might have balancing issues, though, since how many Wineries one player can get, if they gain as many as possible, will be very dependent on shuffle luck. That's a little problematic, I'd say. Have you considered making the trashing of Wineries from the Supply conditional on something that players can influence (e. g. it only happens after each turn by the last player if no Victory cards have been bought during the last round)?
I do not like the amount of complexity added to tracking the effect when making it conditional. In 2 and 3 player, players realistically expect to split the Wineries into 3 for each player. If Wineries can be easily worked around, players tend to try to maximize their early economy so they can get 3 Wineries. In many cases one player ends up with one extra Winery in comparison to other players.

The way it seems, 6VP is too much of a no-brainer: You would probably always buy 1 or 2 extra Provinces for $5 early on in the game; but 4VP is not enough to make Winery a viable purchase except in ideal scenarios. 5VP is quite a bit, but not insurmountable. Though it is possible I am underestimating the not-immediately-obvious side-effect of Winery's "in games using this" of making the game easier to end on piles. I will leave it at 5VP, but continue to evaluate its effectiveness at both 5VP and 4VP in the post-game.

I bet there will be people saying how confusing the "in games using this" part is but if one just thinks for a moment there should be no misunderstanding, even with Outpost and Mission. Although... how exactly does this interact with Possession? :P
A Possession turn is still called an extra turn. "The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one..."

War Flag is brutal but cool. It's more expensive than Gold but will only net you $3 if you forfeit the attack. But you won't do that because it's so brutal so it seems balanced. I can easily see players being frustrated by it, though. What were your experiences? The game changing mechanic is interesting and offers a lot of possibilities but also raises opportunity cost which seems like a fine balance.
In my experience, the Attack is quite expensive to use. Players will usually only use the Attack when it will not stop them from buying what they want (whether or not that is proper play). The "in games using this" further incentivizes not using the Attack since players will be running low on Coppers and will often have to play the only Copper from their hand in order to trash it when they buy a $5+ card. By the end of the game, players are usually trashing Silvers and other $3 cards because they have run out of playable junk to trash.

I am watching for War Flag to appear in some games with Marauder or Cultist where its Attack will likely be easier to use and hurt more with the Ruins floating around in players' decks.

I have a couple suggestions:
Quote
Countess
Cost $4  Action
+2 Cards. At the start of Clean-Up, if you did not buy any cards this turn, gain a Victory card costing up to $6.
-
In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more.
Now it doesn't hurt $4 cost alt-VP cards as much. Also, the bottom half has a neat side effect that hasn't been mentioned: it makes trash for benefit on estates better. Remodeling estates into $5 cards will be really nice.
I really like this idea in theory, but I think that in practice this will make Countess too much of a rush card. I had one of my testers pose, "Why shouldn't I just gain Duchies every time I play Countess?" and the reason is because Countess cannot end the game that way. It will empty the Duchy pile which is good, but then what? You flounder until other players pass you by building up an economy to buy $9 Provinces. If Countess could gain other Victory cards, I think draining multiple Victory card piles into your deck would be far too effective.

My other suggestion:
Quote
Street
Cost: $3  Action
+2 Cards. Discard a card. Cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0. If this is not the first time you played a street this turn, -1 Buy (to a minimum of 0).
-
In game using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
This should make it not turn people off so much. If they hate to lose their second buy, they can be careful not to play more than one street in a turn (or buy only one). Added discard a card in the suggestion, because otherwise playing just one in a turn would be too strong for a $3 cost.
Street already has a bunch of little parts to it (draw, buy loss, cost reduction, and "in games using this"), and adding another will make the card visually and (more importantly) mentally crowded. Making Street discard a card also means that Street would only maintain hand size when played, which would reduce the effectiveness of its combo with Workshop types.
Street already has less of a penalty when one buys only one of them. This modification only makes playing multiple Streets look even worse by comparison. Street is a high skill cap card because of how carefully that penalty needs to be evaluated and worked around, and to anyone not prepared to make that valuation, it gives an extra Buy every turn, so it not being bought is really not a problem.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +546
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #65 on: May 24, 2015, 10:42:44 pm »
0

Quote
Tanner
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Put the cards costing $2 or more into your hand and the rest on top of your deck in any order.
In games using this, after shuffling your deck, gain a Copper.
Quote
Inventor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1. Gain a card costing up to $4, setting it aside. When this leaves play, put the set aside card on top of your deck. Draw 3 cards (instead of 5) during this turn's Clean Up.

Tanner is a super powerful draw that cannot draw your $0 and $1 cards. It might be broken for $4, except that every time you shuffle you get a new $0 Copper for it to not be able to draw. There is little more frustrating than Processing a Tanner to look at 3 Coppers on top of your deck. Better come up with some way to deal that drag of an economy.

Inventor is a Peddler, an Armory, and the worst part of Outpost all rolled into one. This card now calls comparisons to Artificer, but of course Artificer's Armory-alike is expensive and optional. When you have an Inventor, he just has to invent! Maybe that 3 card hand won't be so bad, after all, you know what one of those cards is going to be. Or maybe you can get a couple Inventors working together to get more done...
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 01:35:01 am by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

GeeJo

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #66 on: May 26, 2015, 07:13:46 pm »
+3

There's a rather alarming interaction between Scholar and Trader. Since Trader replaces and nullifies any card gain for a gain of Silver instead, I believe that the following is possible:

  • Play an action
  • Try to gain a Scholar
  • Reveal a Trader from your hand
  • Gain a Silver instead
  • Try to gain a Scholar (check: have you gained a Scholar so far this turn? No.)
  • Reveal a Trader
  • Continue gaining Silvers until the entire pile is depleted


You don't have an "Immediately" or "Directly" before the "after resolving an action". There's a reason that Coin of the Realm and Royal Carriage include that word. As currently written, you can gain and play a Scholar at any point until the end of the turn, regardless of the phase, provided that you resolved an action earlier. So during the buy phase, you can play out your treasures, gain a Scholar, then play out some more treasures that you just drew off of it. Things are even weirder if you gain and play it during the Clean-up phase after cards have been discarded from play. Or maybe not - there really isn't anything in the rules covering cases like that.

Even fixing the "Directly after" thing, you can still gain and play a Scholar off-turn by reacting with a Caravan Guard, but that doesn't really do much outside of the corner case of someone playing a second attack after a discard attack.



Some thoughts on Winery:

  • It's going to be interesting working out the optimal way to interact with it when the board has Gravediggers or Rogues.
  • While it's not strictly necessary for just this card, if you're planning on having similar triggers on several cards, it might be worth defining the rule term "round" in an imaginary rulebook and using that for shorthand.
  • There's a potential definition issue in that the wording doesn't clarify whether the trashing is actually an action performed by the player in last turn order (potentially triggering their Market Squares). "Move a Winery from the Supply to the Trash" would sidestep the issue at the expense of wordiness. I'm not sure it's necessary to change it, but I thought it worth mentioning in case you ever want to knock up Rulebook-style descriptions of how these cards work.
  • "Frontier" might be a more fitting name for the card given its effects, but I suppose it's out of flavour with the Tanners and Blacksmiths of the set.

« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 08:51:04 pm by GeeJo »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8550
  • Respect: +9352
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #67 on: May 26, 2015, 08:46:27 pm »
+1


There's a rather alarming interaction between Scholar and Trader. Since Trader replaces and nullifies any card gain for a gain of Silver instead, I believe that the following is possible:

  • Play an action
  • Try to gain a Scholar
  • Reveal a Trader from your hand
  • Gain a Silver instead
  • Try to gain a Scholar (check: have you gained a Scholar so far this turn? No.)
  • Reveal a Trader
  • Continue gaining Silvers until the entire pile is depleted




This doesn't seem right to me. There's only 1 "gain a Scholar" instruction. You can only follow that instruction once. It's no different than Workshop's "gain a card costing up to $4" instruction. You don't get to keep trying to do it just because you didn't yet gain a Scholar.

Trader DOES interact with Scholar in that it allows you to gain you multiple cards per turn, but only with multiple actions. You could gain a Silver instead for the first couple actions you play, then gain a Scholar for the last one.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 08:48:48 pm by GendoIkari »
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

GeeJo

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #68 on: May 26, 2015, 08:54:25 pm »
+1

Workshop/Ironworks/etc are different in that they only does their thing once. You can't replay them later in the turn. Scholar's effect isn't from playing it - it's just a rule that can be invoked as many times as needed, provided its conditions are met.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 08:58:40 pm by GeeJo »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8550
  • Respect: +9352
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #69 on: May 26, 2015, 08:57:33 pm »
+1

Workshop/Ironworks/etc are different in that it only does its thing once. You can't replay them later in the turn if they didn't work right. Scholar, as worded, you can.

Scholar does it thing at a specific time, after resolving an action. Each time you resolve an action, it does its thing once. What do you mean by "you can" [replay Scholar later in the turn]. If you want to "reply Scholar" (use Scholar's ability again), you need to play an action again.
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

GeeJo

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #70 on: May 26, 2015, 09:01:48 pm »
+1

No, playing an action sets up the condition "has resolved an action". Scholar as written can then be invoked at any point after that for the rest of the turn, provided another Scholar hasn't been gained. Which it hasn't, because Trader gains a Silver instead.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8550
  • Respect: +9352
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #71 on: May 26, 2015, 09:04:45 pm »
+2

No, playing an action sets up the condition "has resolved an action". Scholar as written can then be invoked at any point after that for the rest of the turn, provided another Scholar hasn't been gained. Which it hasn't, because Trader gains a Silver instead.

To be more clear, it should say "directly after resolving an action" like Royal Carriage and Coin of the Realm do. But I'm almost positive that that's the intent of the card. "After" means "right after". Otherwise, if it were like you say, ending your turn would mean nothing, you resolve an action on turn 4... At the start of turn 5, it is still "After you have resolved an action." In fact you could only play 1 action near the start of the game, and then gain a Scholar every turn for the rest of the game, because it's after you've played an action.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 09:05:59 pm by GendoIkari »
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

GeeJo

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #72 on: May 26, 2015, 09:08:48 pm »
+1

Hmm, but adding "Directly" doesn't fix the problem. You can call in multiple Coins of the Realm off of one action as far as I'm aware (if I'm wrong on that, then fair enough), so there's no reason you couldn't keep calling in Scholar until you actually gain one.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 09:10:06 pm by GeeJo »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8550
  • Respect: +9352
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #73 on: May 26, 2015, 09:12:23 pm »
+1

Hmm, but adding "Directly" doesn't fix the problem. You can call in multiple Coins of the Realm off of one action as far as I'm aware, so there's no reason you couldn't keep calling in Scholar until you actually gain one.

But you can't call the same Coin of the Realm more than once. You can only use each instance of "you may call this..." one time. In the same way you should only be able to use each instance of "gain a Scholar" once. And there's only 1 instance of "gain a Scholar" total (because that's how "in games using this" effects work.)

Coin and Carriage might not be the best example because even if that weren't true, you can't call the same card twice in a row. But just look at Duchess. It has pretty much identical wording. When something happens, you may gain a Duchess. But you may only gain 1.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 09:15:41 pm by GendoIkari »
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

GeeJo

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #74 on: May 26, 2015, 09:24:03 pm »
+1

I think my confusion here is that I'm too used to thinking in Magic the Gathering terminology. As currently worded, Scholar's second ability would be an "activated ability" with a condition, while it's intended to be a "triggered ability", which in that game typically would use the phrasing "when x, y" or "whenever x, y".

Still, "Gain a silver every time you play an action" is a pretty strong interaction with Trader.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  All
 

Page created in 0.167 seconds with 21 queries.