Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Dominion: Greed (0.90a)  (Read 28816 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fragasnap

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 259
  • Respect: +381
    • View Profile
Dominion: Greed (0.90a)
« on: March 21, 2015, 08:14:40 am »
+3

Dominion: Greed is a fan expansion that has been in the making since the release of Dominion: Guilds in 2013 between myself and Lamestar, a friend of mine.
This expansion for Dominion consists of 21 Kingdom cards, with more pending testing. The set has two mechanical themes: Cards which harm the user (providing negative effects) and "in games using this" effects.

Someday I might be clever enough to write something cute, humorous, and perhaps vaguely depressing (considering its themes) about the set. Until then, this faux-meta commentary on how awful this introduction is will have to suffice. Lampshades intensify.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 02:20:25 am by Fragasnap »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 259
  • Respect: +381
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (0.90a)
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2015, 08:14:50 am »
+6

Tabletop Simulator template:
Code: [Select]
http://i.imgur.com/MBVhcXF.jpg
Card Archive:

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
Architect
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Action. Reveal your hand. The player to your left chooses one revealed card that doesn't cost $5. Trash it and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.
In games using this, Copper costs $1 more.


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.
When scoring, +1VP for each Victory card in your deck.


Quote
Missionary
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Card. You may trash a card from your hand. +Actions equal to its cost in coins.
In games using this, the first time you trash a Silver each turn, you may gain an Action costing exactly $5, putting it into your hand.


Quote
Blacksmith
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $3
Reveal any number of Treasures from your hand and discard them. +2 Cards per card discarded.
When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Copper instead, putting it into your hand.


Quote
Inquisitor
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
Choose one: Discard a card and each other player gains a Curse; or trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
In games using this, the first time you gain a Victory card on each of your turns, put it on top of your deck.


Quote
Leper Village
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1. Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card.
In games using this, at the end of each of your Clean-Up phases except the first, +1 Card.


Quote
Street
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. -1 Buy to a minimum of 0 Buys. Cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0.
In games using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.


Quote
Countess
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. At the start of Clean-Up, if you did not buy any cards this turn, gain a Duchy.
In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more.


Quote
Fletcher
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain up to 2 non-Victory cards, each costing up to $3. If you gain 2 cards, gain an Estate.
In games using this, Attack cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.


Quote
Patrol
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Actions, +$1. You may trash a card from your hand costing $3 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
Prospector
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. Trash a card from your hand. If you have no Treasures in your hand, you may reveal it and gain a Gold.
In games using this, when you gain a Gold, each other player may gain a Prospector, putting it into their hand.


Quote
Slave Trade
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +2 Actions. Gain a Copper, putting it into your hand. Each other player gains a Copper.
In games using this, at the start of your Clean-Up, you may trash a Copper from your hand for every 2 differently named cards you have in play (rounded down).


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
Alehouse
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may discard 4 cards. If you do, +3 Actions.


Quote
Arcanum
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Reveal your hand. If you reveal any Curses, trash one, gain a Copper, and +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Curse and +4 Cards.
In games using this, when you trash a Curse, return it to the Supply.


Quote
Frontier
Types: Victory
Cost: $5
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, they put one Frontier from the Supply into the trash.


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.


Quote
Idol
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $5
$2. When you play this, each other player gains a Curse.
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP for each Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck instead.


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.


Quote
Marquis
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+2 Cards, +$2. Each other player draws a card. Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, each other player discards a card to a minimum of 3 cards in hand.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 02:22:01 am by Fragasnap »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 259
  • Respect: +381
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2015, 08:15:18 am »
+4

Quote
Street
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. -1 Buy to a minimum of 0 Buys. Cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0.
In game using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
Quote
Fletcher
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain up to 2 cards that aren't Victory cards, each costing up to $3. If you gain 2 cards, gain an Estate.
In game using this, Attacks cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

These first two cards are rather situational.

Street costs you your possibly precious resource of +Buys.  You can use it as the draw of your engine, but you have to have some way to get your Buys back, because it is entirely possible to leave yourself with no buys remaining at the end of your turn.  Maybe you don't need +Buys anyway...  Even if the board has no support for Street though, now you have 2 Buys every turn. Would a 3/2/2 opening be good here? Maybe that engine is looking a little better since you can definitely get that Province with another engine component...

Fletcher is a deceptively powerful Workshop variant.  With a couple of the right cards, you can quickly build up an engine and setup to pile-out the game afterwards.  Even without those, gaining 2 Silvers and an Estate might not always be a bad option. With Fletcher in the Kingdom, you can expect Attacks to come out hard and fast: Any $5 Attack is suddenly within reach of any opening and $4 Attacks can be gained rapidly by Fletcher itself.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 01:31:28 am by Fragasnap »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6823
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9338
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2015, 12:33:15 am »
+6

Sorry it took a while to respond to this. I've been busy at work (which is where I usually do my card critiques).

I think "in games using this" is a fine avenue to explore. It might be nice if those Kingdom cards had a new type and a bright color, just to remind you that they're always doing something just by being in the Kingdom.

Back in the day, I was thinking of making a set with penalty cards as the main theme; when you buy one of these cards, you gain a bad card, and then most of the cards would care about the bad card. There are a lot of reasons I haven't pursued it, but one is that penalties are generally unpopular. It's fine to have a few cards with penalties, but these days I'm leery of it being a major theme for a set.

When you do make cards with penalties, I think it's important that the card has a big effect so that it still looks worth buying. Street and Fletcher aren't wowing me in that regard. Street reduces costs, but it reduces your buys; the exact opposite effect that you want with a cost reducer. The +2 Cards just isn't making up for that. If the concept of the card is –Buy (and starting your turns with an additional buy), then I think you're better off choosing a bonus that isn't diametrically opposed to the penalty. I like Street's "in games using this" clause. I don't think it needs to be paired with –Buy to make it interesting, but obviously if you want –Buy, that's the rule to pair it with.

I like Fletcher's rule as well, but again the action effect seems lackluster. Yes it's nice with Attack cards that normally cost $4. But even with that, it seems like gaining 2 cards each costing up to $3 is a fine $4 card even without the penalty of gaining an Estate. Maybe I'm underestimating it, but it seems weak. I'd rather see it be more straightforward. Like, "Gain 2 differently named cards each costing up to $4. Gain a Curse."
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6823
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9338
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2015, 11:12:27 am »
+5

Oh, one other thing I meant to say: I'm looking forward to seeing more cards from Dominion: Greed.
Logged

ConMan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1251
  • Respect: +1466
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2015, 01:08:48 am »
+2

Sorry it took a while to respond to this. I've been busy at work (which is where I usually do my card critiques).

I think "in games using this" is a fine avenue to explore. It might be nice if those Kingdom cards had a new type and a bright color, just to remind you that they're always doing something just by being in the Kingdom.
I agree in general, although I'd suggest that it can be difficult if you don't have anything to remind you of those effects if the Supply pile is empty. For example:

Baker - gives you the coin token at the start, so you don't have to remember it later
Duchess - if they're not available, you don't have to remember that you can gain one with a Duchy
Embargo - leaves tokens out

Some of the effects here, especially ones where specific types of cards have altered costs, will probably need a token or something to mark them. This is actually one space where it makes a lot more sense to do online, since on Goko the cards with altered cost would have a visual representation (the cost written in red rather than black).
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6786
  • Respect: +7608
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2015, 10:29:29 am »
+2

Young Witch doesn't give any reminder about which card is the Bain.
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

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1702
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +1894
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2015, 10:48:42 am »
+2

Have you considered using a "while this is in play" or "while this is (publicly) visible" clause instead of "while this is in the game"? As well as not possibly making players remember the modifications if the piles run out, it would give more tactical decisions. Another option is to include a card with each pile of relevant kingdom cards that simply states the rule.

I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6823
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9338
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2015, 12:07:28 pm »
+2

Some of the effects here, especially ones where specific types of cards have altered costs, will probably need a token or something to mark them. This is actually one space where it makes a lot more sense to do online, since on Goko the cards with altered cost would have a visual representation (the cost written in red rather than black).

I think the best thing would be to have a reminder card you put sideways under the pile. That reminder card could have the bright colored border and you'd always see it on the sides of the pile. Then it could have just the rule text so that it would be visible if the pile ran out.

Young Witch doesn't give any reminder about which card is the Bain.

Actually, the Cornucopia rules say to use Young Witch's randomizer to mark the Bane pile.

I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.

You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2015, 12:19:30 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 259
  • Respect: +381
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2015, 07:46:42 am »
0

I think "in games using this" is a fine avenue to explore. It might be nice if those Kingdom cards had a new type and a bright color, just to remind you that they're always doing something just by being in the Kingdom.
A type would just be silly, but I did consider giving each "in games using this" effect a chartreuse background as a reminder. I was ultimately leery of doing so for its inconsistency with Duchess.

Quote
Street
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. -1 Buy to a minimum of 0 Buys. Cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0.
In game using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
Street reduces costs, but it reduces your buys; the exact opposite effect that you want with a cost reducer. The +2 Cards just isn't making up for that. If the concept of the card is –Buy (and starting your turns with an additional buy), then I think you're better off choosing a bonus that isn't diametrically opposed to the penalty. I like Street's "in games using this" clause. I don't think it needs to be paired with –Buy to make it interesting, but obviously if you want –Buy, that's the rule to pair it with.
A -Buy is not necessary to make a "2 Buys per turn" card interesting, but it makes the 2 Buys significantly easier to remember. Having a "+Buy in games using this" slapped on to any card that combos with +Buys (or is totally irrelevant) would make the "in games using this" harder to remember since there are already a lot of cards that combo with +Buys (or do not care at all). As you stated though, giving out a -Buy nearly requires +Buy be present as well, and this "in games using this" effect is a good work around.

Under the assumption that a -Buy could be compelling, why give it an opposed benefit? The answer is because -Buy will be one of two things: Either directly opposed to its benefit (since Dominion is all about buying cards) or else a total wash. Putting a -Buy onto an Expand, Chapel, or Workshop would hardly even matter because you would be substituting your Buys for that effect and you do not have to care. The effect simply has to be something opposed to the -Buy for the -Buy to matter.

To that end, Street manages to be a simple cost reducer that functions quite differently than either Bridge or Highway: Bridge needs +Actions and +Cards for a big turn, Highway needs +Buys for a big turn, while Street needs +Actions and +Buys for a big turn. Because of the relative rarity of gratuitous +Buys, Street's better uses are often not seen in mega-turns unlike its peers. In the presence of +Actions and a Workshop-type, Street is surprisingly fast since, unlike Highway, Street increases your hand size as you play, making it less likely to stall out as the deck's size increases (and you're likely gaining some sort of splitter with it to power your draw engine), but when you can get a large number of +Buys, you might be able to get a multi-Province turn with 2-4 Streets played. More interestingly, the first does not necessarily imply the second.

There are certainly a good number of boards in which Street itself is not useful, but that simply allows its "in games using this" effect to take center stage instead. Because of the quite large effect that has on the game, it is fine if Street itself is rather niche.

Quote
Fletcher
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain up to 2 cards that aren't Victory cards, each costing up to $3. If you gain 2 cards, gain an Estate.
In game using this, Attacks cost $1 less, but not less than $0.
Street reduces costs, but it I like Fletcher's rule as well, but again the action effect seems lackluster. Yes it's nice with Attack cards that normally cost $4. But even with that, it seems like gaining 2 cards each costing up to $3 is a fine $4 card even without the penalty of gaining an Estate. Maybe I'm underestimating it, but it seems weak. I'd rather see it be more straightforward. Like, "Gain 2 differently named cards each costing up to $4. Gain a Curse."
I did describe Fletcher as a deceptively powerful Workshop variant. To understand why, look no further than Stonemason. Stonemason is strong in its ability to multiply buying power for Actions, but is especially notable for how rapidly it can pile out a game--even in 2-player. Considering that, Fletcher is quite comparable to Stonemason in its ability to force a 3-pile ending.

In a game with Fletcher and $2 or $3 cards that are desirable in multiples, not only can those cards pile out fast, but the Estate pile can be drained simultaneously. Monitoring the Supply piles is incredibly important in Fletcher games, since a player who is ahead can possibly pick up two or three Fletchers and start emptying $3 piles 3 cards at a time while gaining Estates to try to maintain their lead (which is what makes Estates a more compelling gain than any other junk). Sometimes though, there are no $2 or $3 cards you want in multiples, in which case you would only buy Fletcher as a Workshop- if at all and can use it to pick up an Estate in absence of +Buy by taking Silvers.

Fletcher has been nerfed more than any other card in Greed. In its inception, it could be used to gain copies of itself and had no qualifier put on what types it gained. Piling out on Fletcher\Estate\Anything was so fast that basically nothing else was possible. Because of those games, I am hesitant to change Fletcher to anything that can easily gain copies of itself (even if it is gaining Curses to do so) since the games will be more likely to boil down to incredibly dull Workshop rushes.

Have you considered using a "while this is in play" or "while this is (publicly) visible" clause instead of "while this is in the game"? As well as not possibly making players remember the modifications if the piles run out, it would give more tactical decisions. Another option is to include a card with each pile of relevant kingdom cards that simply states the rule.
I did not consider this limitation because of Young Witch's similarly untraceable effects. I usually have randomizers sitting on the table when I am playing games, and even when they are not, the "in games using this" effects of the majority of cards are such a major strategic consideration to the game state that players very, very rarely forget them.
It would honestly be harder to remember the "in games using this" effects if they changed in the middle of the game.

I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.
You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.
To do otherwise would be ridiculous, especially since, by the strictest rule, the deck for Black Market has one of every Kingdom card that is not already in the Supply, which means every "in games using this" effect would apply in every Kingdom with Black Market in it.
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1702
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +1894
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2015, 08:55:49 am »
+1

Have you considered using a "while this is in play" or "while this is (publicly) visible" clause instead of "while this is in the game"? As well as not possibly making players remember the modifications if the piles run out, it would give more tactical decisions. Another option is to include a card with each pile of relevant kingdom cards that simply states the rule.
I did not consider this limitation because of Young Witch's similarly untraceable effects. I usually have randomizers sitting on the table when I am playing games, and even when they are not, the "in games using this" effects of the majority of cards are such a major strategic consideration to the game state that players very, very rarely forget them.

The difference is that the Bane only comes into play when a Young Witch is played, and it has it right there on the card that others can reveal a Bane, all you need to do is remember what the Bane is and even then it's a card that the players chose to add. That's a lot different from remembering that you have an extra Buy every turn etc.

Quote
It would honestly be harder to remember the "in games using this" effects if they changed in the middle of the game.

Maybe, maybe not. It was just a suggestion.

I think at the end of the day, I (and probably others) would be likely to quite often forget that I had an extra buy etc, just like I often forget to buy Peddlers when I can. I guess as the designer you can either be okay with that and put the onus on players to remember, or try to give as much help as is reasonable.
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1702
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +1894
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2015, 08:59:02 am »
+1

I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.

You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.

I think that would be really counter-intuitive to be able to 'use' (buy, draw, play etc) a card which has an "In games using this" clause that doesn't trigger.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6823
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9338
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2015, 09:19:54 am »
+1

I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.

You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.

I think that would be really counter-intuitive to be able to 'use' (buy, draw, play etc) a card which has an "In games using this" clause that doesn't trigger.

I disagree!
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1702
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +1894
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2015, 09:22:37 am »
+2

I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.

You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.

I think that would be really counter-intuitive to be able to 'use' (buy, draw, play etc) a card which has an "In games using this" clause that doesn't trigger.

I disagree!

Do we disagree on what the word 'use' means?
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6823
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9338
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2015, 09:25:01 am »
+1

I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.

You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.

I think that would be really counter-intuitive to be able to 'use' (buy, draw, play etc) a card which has an "In games using this" clause that doesn't trigger.

I disagree!

Do we disagree on what the word 'use' means?

OK, perhaps these cards should instead say, "In games using this pile". That way it's different from Duchess AND doesn't have Black Market confusion.
Logged

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
  • Respect: +839
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2015, 09:44:52 am »
+5

I don't find Street compelling at all, or rather its on-play effects, to be exact. While I think that -1 Buy on-play combined with 2 Buys at the start of each turn is a fine idea, I cannot cotton up to "+2 Cards" as a vanilla bonus. You say it can be the draw part of your engine, but +2 Cards is so weak and -Buys is the exact opposite of what an engine usually wants.

I would much rather see it at $5 with +3 Cards, or at $4 with +$2 on top. The first would would still be a little vexing as your only source of draw in an engine but it would be a nice Big Money card. The latter could be a great payload of your engine, as it would be similar to a Gold with -1 Buy. Actually, playing only one of it would be quite strong. It might justify a cost of $5 as well.
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

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6823
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9338
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2015, 09:52:15 am »
+2

I did describe Fletcher as a deceptively powerful Workshop variant. To understand why, look no further than Stonemason. Stonemason is strong in its ability to multiply buying power for Actions, but is especially notable for how rapidly it can pile out a game--even in 2-player. Considering that, Fletcher is quite comparable to Stonemason in its ability to force a 3-pile ending.

In a game with Fletcher and $2 or $3 cards that are desirable in multiples, not only can those cards pile out fast, but the Estate pile can be drained simultaneously. Monitoring the Supply piles is incredibly important in Fletcher games, since a player who is ahead can possibly pick up two or three Fletchers and start emptying $3 piles 3 cards at a time while gaining Estates to try to maintain their lead (which is what makes Estates a more compelling gain than any other junk). Sometimes though, there are no $2 or $3 cards you want in multiples, in which case you would only buy Fletcher as a Workshop- if at all and can use it to pick up an Estate in absence of +Buy by taking Silvers.

Fletcher has been nerfed more than any other card in Greed. In its inception, it could be used to gain copies of itself and had no qualifier put on what types it gained. Piling out on Fletcher\Estate\Anything was so fast that basically nothing else was possible. Because of those games, I am hesitant to change Fletcher to anything that can easily gain copies of itself (even if it is gaining Curses to do so) since the games will be more likely to boil down to incredibly dull Workshop rushes.

If Fletcher runs out piles too fast, the obvious solution is to not have it gain Estates (or Curses). Just raise its cost and have it gain at most two cards.

What I'm getting from your post is that Fletcher's "deceptive power" comes from the ability to quickly end the game on piles. That's…not fun. Not for most players, anyway. It's fun to be able to build up your deck. When the entire point of a card is to cut the game short, that's no fun. When we were playtesting Adventures, cards were scrapped or changed specifically to avoid running out piles too fast.

I agree with Co0kieL0rd about Street. Personally I would abandon –1 Buy completely, but if you really want to keep it, the bonus needs to be bigger.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2015, 10:19:49 am by LastFootnote »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 259
  • Respect: +381
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2015, 12:19:17 pm »
+2

I don't find Street compelling at all, or rather its on-play effects, to be exact. While I think that -1 Buy on-play combined with 2 Buys at the start of each turn is a fine idea, I cannot cotton up to "+2 Cards" as a vanilla bonus. You say it can be the draw part of your engine, but +2 Cards is so weak and -Buys is the exact opposite of what an engine usually wants.

I would much rather see it at $5 with +3 Cards, or at $4 with +$2 on top. The first would would still be a little vexing as your only source of draw in an engine but it would be a nice Big Money card. The latter could be a great payload of your engine, as it would be similar to a Gold with -1 Buy. Actually, playing only one of it would be quite strong. It might justify a cost of $5 as well.
Street's vanilla benefit cannot be considered separate its cost reduction. If you want to try to ignore its cost reduction, at least call Street +2 Cards, +$1 like it actually is when your only Action. As an opener, that effect is quite strong; sometimes better than a Silver (usually at least as good) and always leaves you closer to important early game reshuffles.

If you put Street at +3 Cards, it will be overwhelming as a singular action, likely a must-buy on any board if it cost less than $6 since that effect is nearly as good as Hunting Ground. With +$2 instead, it would only be a worse Bridge. As it is, Street is a niche card that manages to be a unique cost reducer that does not necessarily produce a megaturn when useful.

Starting each turn with 2 Buys is a mildly interesting effect, but having that slapped onto some random card makes its effect harder to remember. The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card. For a card that starts each turn with 2 Buys, there are three options: 1) A card that is cheap and good in multiples, 2) A card that combos with +Buy, or 3) A card that gives -Buys.
In the case of 1, we are making a card that simply encourages a boring 1-card deck construction (which we have in a more interesting way in Fool's Gold already). In the case of 2, most obvious effects have been taken by the likes of Talisman, Haggler, and Hoard, such that the card would likely have to become very semantically complex to function uniquely. I believe that 3 is the most simplistic and interesting of the 3 options, especially since it is the easiest way to make a -Buy card work (I mean, you could have a Workshop card where you swap your Buy for a gain of some sort, but then the -Buy is really just a wash).

A -Buy card in the event that you start each turn with 2 Buys needs to be something you want to play in multiples for the -Buy to really become a problem, and cost-reduction is a great spam-friendly effect. If you can get to your payload card that gives a +Buy, Streets can be played with impunity because you can never have fewer than 0 Buys. After playing 4 Streets (easier to do than 4 Bridges with those +Cards, easier to get than 4 Highways since it costs so much less), one +Buy will leave you with 1 Buy. If you can find a way to get multiple +Buys (Squire maybe?) while playing Street, you can possibly get to those 3 Province turns, but that will require a unique kind of effort.

Yes though, it is only +2 Cards, +$1 on a board with no +Actions (or with +Actions and without +Buys or a Workshop of some sort). Without something that enables it, it is of minimal use, but that support is so much more common than support for Rats. Even when that support is lacking, Street still has an effect on the board because of its "in games using this".

If Fletcher runs out piles too fast, the obvious solution is to not have it gain Estates (or Curses). Just raise its cost and have it gain at most two cards.

What I'm getting from your post is that Fletcher's "deceptive power" comes from the ability to quickly end the game on piles. That's…not fun. Not for most players, anyway. It's fun to be able to build up your deck. When the entire point of a card is to cut the game short, that's no fun. When we were playtesting Adventures, cards were scrapped or changed specifically to avoid running out piles too fast.
Fletcher's point is not to cut games short nor does it--what I said was that Fletcher can cut a game short. Apologies if I gave the sense otherwise.
Of course Fletcher can be used to force some games into premature endings because of other players not monitoring piles very well. I have seen that happen just as well in Kingdoms with Ironworks, where one player gains a lot of Ironworks and then starts blindly draining away other piles. Even in 2-player games with Stonemason 3-piling is something you should always be thinking about. Other players are an important factor to pile management and one that cannot be understated.

But not every board with the current Fletcher on it ends in a 3-pile nor does necessarily every board in which multiple players buy Fletcher end in a 3-pile. Fletcher is strongest when you need to watch piles, but it is not useless otherwise. There are plenty of boards where a Workshop- would be welcomed in absence of +Buys.
Back when Fletcher could gain copies of itself practically every Fletcher game ended rapidly on piles and that was no fun, but ever since Fletcher has been unable to gain more Fletchers that has not been a problem.

The strength of Fletcher is deceptive not only because of its ability to pile out games, but also because there are more Kingdoms where 2 $3-card gains outweigh the cost of an Estate gain than you might think.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 259
  • Respect: +381
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2015, 12:19:36 pm »
+2

Quote
Arcanum
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Reveal your hand. If you reveal any Curses, trash one, gain a Copper, and +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Curse and +4 Cards.
In games using this, when you trash a Curse, return it to the Supply.
Quote
Idol
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $5
$2. Each other player gains a Curse.
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP for each Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck instead of -1VP.

Arcanum is the self-Curser you were waiting for. It is a Laboratory that turns your Curses into Coppers or gives you Curses to be a triple Laboratory. So how do you deal with those Curses and Coppers? How can you use those big hands when you get them?
To keep Arcanum from being a silly nonterminal +4 Cards, the Curse pile can keep being supplied. With a Curser about, all the players can constantly juggle the Curses between them with good trashing. Sea Hag might not be fast enough to ever empty the Curse pile!

Idol is obviously a strong card seeing as it is a nonterminal (well, a Treasure) Curser, but in games using Idol, your Curses are suddenly totally different. Now, your Curses hurt more the more big Treasures you add to your deck. Buying multiple Idols sounds nice to give out Curses super fast, but are you sure you'll be able to get rid of your Idols since they make your Curses even worse? Will you gain enough momentum from that Gold to make buying it worth the points from those Curses? Maybe you can get rid of all your Curses anyway. Maybe with two other players giving out Curses, you can win with your 0VP Curses...

Edit: Clarity fix for Idol.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 01:31:46 am by Fragasnap »
Logged

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
  • Respect: +839
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2015, 04:04:53 pm »
+2

Arcanum: A self-curser that returns curses to the Supply? Sounds familiar. I made a card using similar mechanics but it works totally different. I like that this idea is explored even more here. I can't assess the card balance-wise but I assume it has been tested sufficiently already. Seems fine to me and very interesting.

Idol: Another good idea to make curses more interesting. The obvious synergy here is trash-for-benefit. On a board without trashing, Idol becomes a monster and a must-buy, it probably feels like IGG but obviously plays vastly differently because getting too many Idols might backfire unto you. If you buy two Idols and give your opponent 6 curses while you only get 4 from their one Idol, you end up with -8 VP while they have -6 (not counting Golds which should probably be ignored on Idol-boards without trashers).

I have seen many bad card ideas doin' funny stuff with curses (including my own early ones). These OTOH are actually pretty good IMHO.

About Street, I guess you're right. I'm probably underestimating the card. I was aware of the cost reduction but just thought "you wouldn't want to play many Streets because you lose so many buys" disregarding the fact that buys cannot be below 0 and the buy gets deducted the time you play it, not for each Street in play. It's probably a well thought-through card.
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

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6786
  • Respect: +7608
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2015, 08:25:07 pm »
+3

I don't understand idol. Is the new curse vp meant to replace the normal -1? Or is it an additional -1vp? And it's still extremely strong... As a non terminal curser, you should just be buying them up. So what if having them makes curses worse for you? That only matters if your opponent is also cursing you. Which just means that you have to go for this card every time it's available. Who cares about the vp penalty; curses hurt way more by clogging your deck.

*Edit* I see you mention 0VP curses, so obviously it's not meant as an additional -1VP. I think the wording could be ambiguous though. One one hand "worth X" should simply set the value, like you want. But because it's negative, the minus sign can make it look like it's subtracting from the worth of curses.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 11:46:08 am 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

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9136
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #21 on: March 31, 2015, 09:52:10 pm »
+1

The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card.

What's the relationship between the passive effect and the on-play effect of Fletcher?  They seem unrelated to me.

Logged

AJD

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2856
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3549
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2015, 11:21:55 pm »
+1

The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card.

What's the relationship between the passive effect and the on-play effect of Fletcher?  They seem unrelated to me.

It encourages gaining Attacks, because you can get $4 Attacks with it but not $4 non-Attacks.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9136
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2015, 11:36:04 pm »
+2

The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card.

What's the relationship between the passive effect and the on-play effect of Fletcher?  They seem unrelated to me.

It encourages gaining Attacks, because you can get $4 Attacks with it but not $4 non-Attacks.

That seems like a stretch.  The passive effect alone encourages gaining attacks; the on-play doesn't really factor into it IMO.  I'm probably less inclined to gain attacks with it because most attacks are terminal and Fletcher is terminal, and doing that is just asking for trouble.

Edit:

The $4 attack cards are:

Bureaucrat, Militia, Spy, Thief, Cutpurse, Pirate Ship, Sea Hag, Young Witch, Noble Brigand, Marauder, Sir Martin, Tax Man

Of these, the only one I can see spamming is Spy.  I guess I might also go Fletcher for Bureacrat in a Gardens game.  For the rest, if I want them, I would just buy one or two directly rather than gaining them with Fletcher.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2015, 01:39:37 am by eHalcyon »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 259
  • Respect: +381
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2015, 09:27:16 pm »
0

Arcanum: A self-curser that returns curses to the Supply? Sounds familiar. I made a card using similar mechanics but it works totally different. I like that this idea is explored even more here. I can't assess the card balance-wise but I assume it has been tested sufficiently already. Seems fine to me and very interesting.
Self-cursing is a very difficult thing to balance and Arcanum really is no different. The design trick is in how much or little Curses can hurt a deck in any given game: in some games with strong trashing or precise trashing the Curses don't matter; in others with no trashing Curses are the worst thing ever. To fix that, Arcanum non-optionally trashes Curses that it possibly has given you (since its trashing is clearly the weaker option of the two if you bought it in the first place). There are certainly boards where it does basically nothing (need good payloads or +Buys), but when you need to get some cards to collide, a nonterminal +4 Cards is hard to argue with, even with that penalty.
In games with Cursers, Arcanum can be quite powerful with a bit of luck as a Laboratory that is also giving you more ammunition as you dig for your Curser, but you have to deal with the incoming Coppers and the times you can't afford to gain an additional Curse when it misses.

As a non terminal curser, you should just be buying them up. So what if having them makes curses worse for you? That only matters if your opponent is also cursing you. Which just means that you have to go for this card every time it's available. Who cares about the vp penalty; curses hurt way more by clogging your deck.
To be fair, the majority of the time when one skips a Curser it is only because there is a better Curser available, especially in 2-player.
Winning a 2-player Curse split 3-7 for taking 2 Idols looks pretty nice, but a 4-6 split isn't enough, so filling yourself up with Idols is risky depending on the Kingdom. The question is more whether or not you can get rid of your Idols (or Curses) so that the Curses won't be compounded too much than whether or not Idol should be bought. In multiplayer, the dynamics of Idol are often much akin to three-player Witch\Moat games.

*Edit* I see you mention 0VP curses, so obviously it's not meant as an additional -1VP. I think the wording could be ambiguous though. One one hand "worth X" should simply set the value, like you want. But because it's negative, the minus sign can make it look like it's subtracting from the worth of curses.
I have had enough players initially parse it as -1VP more for each Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck, so I will make it unambiguous. Corrected above.

The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card.
What's the relationship between the passive effect and the on-play effect of Fletcher?  They seem unrelated to me.
The operating word is "try." Fletcher gains cards at a fixed price point and reduces the cost of certain cards which is at least a passive relationship. As you stated, Fletcher\Spy is an especially nice combo since it gives you Estates and a way to deal with them.
Granted, it is not a strong connection: Spy, Marauder, and two other cards from the set are probably the only $4 Attacks one would often gain using Fletcher.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  All
 

Page created in 0.206 seconds with 21 queries.