Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Card Idea: Wanderer  (Read 15481 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Card Idea: Wanderer
« on: March 27, 2015, 04:39:37 pm »
+2

Quote
Wanderer: Action, $3
+4 Cards. The player to your right gains this card.

Just the simplest possible version of a card that moves from player to player. Originally I was going to have it passed to the player on your right, but that's giving them a bonus card in hand, which I think is a bit much to swallow.

Opinions?
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2015, 05:06:27 pm »
+2

Quote
Wanderer: Action, $3
+4 Cards. The player to your right gains this card.

Just the simplest possible version of a card that moves from player to player. Originally I was going to have it passed to the player on your right, but that's giving them a bonus card in hand, which I think is a bit much to swallow.

Opinions?

Is there a specific reason why it goes right? I feel this even further increases the problem of certain players profiting more from it than others, which i allready critizised with Flip5ide's Diplomat. I mean, all official cards that only affect a certain player (Tribute, Possession) are relatively neutral in effect, or at least for the most decks. Gaining a one-time Hunting Grounds is pretty big, and i don't like the fact that, especially if you play it later in the game, one other player may gain five of them, and be able to play them for a mega turn, while a third player might not even see them before the game ends.

Anyhow, it's more about the central passing effect than Diplomat, which i think is a good thing. I'm just not really convinced of the concept in general, i guess.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2015, 06:01:27 pm »
+1

Is there a specific reason why it goes right? I feel this even further increases the problem of certain players profiting more from it than others, which i allready critizised with Flip5ide's Diplomat. I mean, all official cards that only affect a certain player (Tribute, Possession) are relatively neutral in effect, or at least for the most decks. Gaining a one-time Hunting Grounds is pretty big, and i don't like the fact that, especially if you play it later in the game, one other player may gain five of them, and be able to play them for a mega turn, while a third player might not even see them before the game ends.

The reason is to slow down its travel. In e.g. a 4-player game, if you play a Wanderer, it's going to be at least three turns before you see it again. If the player to your left gains it, it's you might have it on your next turn. I guess in a 2-player game you might see it on each turn anyway.

Maybe it's a dud concept, but it seems like it could be fun. Perhaps it needs a bonus for the player who actually bought it.
Logged

crlundy

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Shuffle iT Username: crlundy
  • Respect: +323
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2015, 06:13:23 pm »
+4

In general, I think these concepts always sound interesting. :) I think a when-buy bonus would be good so that the person who actually goes out on a limb to buy it gets something the other freeloaders don't.
Logged

theblankman

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +383
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2015, 08:51:58 pm »
+1

The reason is to slow down its travel. In e.g. a 4-player game, if you play a Wanderer, it's going to be at least three turns before you see it again. If the player to your left gains it, it's you might have it on your next turn. I guess in a 2-player game you might see it on each turn anyway.

Quote
Wanderer: Action, $3
+4 Cards. The player to your right gains this card.

Normal gain, as in goes to the discard pile of the player to your right?  Unless you're all cycling through your decks pretty quickly, the receiving player won't play it again right away and it won't move super-fast, so I think player to the left might be okay.  Nothing wrong with the right though. 

Being terminal, there's the chance it could get "stuck" in the deck of a player who maybe already has a bunch of other terminals they'd rather play?  Maybe make it a super-Lab (+3 cards, +1 action) instead of a super-Smithy, so that it fits into almost any deck? 

It could also spur politics of the form, "I'm not playing it because the player to my right is winning and I don't want to give it to him."  I guess you could force the movement with something like:
Quote
Action - Duration
+4 Cards
At the start of the player to your right's turn, that player gains and plays this card.
But that version definitely needs an on-buy bonus because the buyer is the only one who ever has to play it terminally or have it in their deck. 
« Last Edit: March 27, 2015, 08:54:34 pm by theblankman »
Logged
it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2015, 09:26:20 pm »
+2

I'd actually prefer it to be a card that doesn't work great in every deck. I feel like it'll have more meaningful player interaction that way. You got passed this card, better make sure you can use it to your advantage!

Politics are a potential issue, but I think it's worth testing as-is (or rather, with an on-buy bonus that I have yet to determine). Sometimes things that might cause politics end up not doing so.
Logged

theblankman

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +383
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2015, 10:08:24 pm »
+1

I'd actually prefer it to be a card that doesn't work great in every deck. I feel like it'll have more meaningful player interaction that way. You got passed this card, better make sure you can use it to your advantage!
Fair point, if it's terminal then even if you don't plan to buy it you have to think about it as potential "junk" much like you have to consider that your opponent can give you a Silver if Embassy exists.

Politics are a potential issue, but I think it's worth testing as-is (or rather, with an on-buy bonus that I have yet to determine). Sometimes things that might cause politics end up not doing so.
I think politics depend more on the group than the game itself, meaning the game only decides whether to admit the possibility of politics, and if politics exist then the players decide how far to go.  But that's just my experience.  For the on-buy I was thinking maybe money?  +1 buy, +X$?  If X > 2, you might have to explicitly stop someone from instantly draining the pile though.  Maybe on buy take X coin tokens?
« Last Edit: March 27, 2015, 10:10:48 pm by theblankman »
Logged
it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 743
  • Respect: +863
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2015, 07:32:23 am »
+1

I like the concept and I think it's reasonable to make Wanderer go to the player to your right. Because otherwise, in a multiplayer game where everyone is building an engine, the Wanderers could "accumulate" all in one player's deck if you pass them forward the same way you pass turns. Travelling backwards slows it down and that's fine.

I could even imagine an on-play effect that is more situational to increase the possibility that it feels more like junk to some players in some decks and situations. I can't come up with something good right now, though.

An on-buy bonus would be a nice incentive to be the first one to get them. I'm sure you can come up with something fitting.

Finally, I agree with LFN and theblankman that politics don't need to be an issue if the players don't see a card with that potential this way. On the other hand, a friend of mine manages to regard attack cards in multiplayer games as unilaterally directed against him which is usually because his deck is more vulnerable to attacks than others and he assumes everyone would exploit that. So it really depends on the people.
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

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2015, 10:26:25 pm »
+2

What if the Wanderer left behind a Silver when he left?  I don't know, that seems thematic to me.  Like Johnny Appleseed or something.

I have no actual gameplay justification here, just Johnny Appleseed.
Logged

Marcory

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 715
  • Respect: +1203
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2015, 01:09:36 am »
+1

But the Wanderer goes with nothing, nothing but the thought of you. He goes wandering.

Logged

theblankman

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +383
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2015, 05:30:29 am »
+1

What if the Wanderer left behind a Silver when he left?  I don't know, that seems thematic to me.  Like Johnny Appleseed or something.

I have no actual gameplay justification here, just Johnny Appleseed.

So you give yourself a curse whenever you play it? :p
Logged
it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2015, 05:22:24 pm »
+2

What if the Wanderer left behind a Silver when he left?  I don't know, that seems thematic to me.  Like Johnny Appleseed or something.

I have no actual gameplay justification here, just Johnny Appleseed.

So you give yourself a curse whenever you play it? :p
WanderingWinder is famous for buying Silvers, not curses :)
Logged

theblankman

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +383
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2015, 06:12:06 pm »
+1

WanderingWinder is famous for buying Silvers, not curses :)
Yeah, it's SheCantSayNo who's famous for calling Silver a curse.  But in most decks he's right.  You might buy a few early to help get the cards you really want, but in an engine Silver is a stop card, and in Big Money it's the consolation prize, when you can't afford Gold or (insert helper action here) or a green card if it's time to be buying those.  I'd say if you want to keep getting Silver late into the game, that's a specific-card edge case like Feodum or Jack.  So having a card like this leave Silver behind makes it significantly weaker, and it's already essentially a one-shot that you're not gonna regain for several turns.
Logged
it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2015, 06:19:06 pm »
+4

WanderingWinder is famous for buying Silvers, not curses :)
Yeah, it's SheCantSayNo who's famous for calling Silver a curse.  But in most decks he's right.  You might buy a few early to help get the cards you really want, but in an engine Silver is a stop card, and in Big Money it's the consolation prize, when you can't afford Gold or (insert helper action here) or a green card if it's time to be buying those.  I'd say if you want to keep getting Silver late into the game, that's a specific-card edge case like Feodum or Jack.  So having a card like this leave Silver behind makes it significantly weaker, and it's already essentially a one-shot that you're not gonna regain for several turns.

Silver is a good card in big money.
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 Creative Commons albums for free

theblankman

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +383
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2015, 02:04:57 am »
+1

It's a stepping stone, not a thing you want to be adding to your deck throughout most Big Money into Province games.  Big money tends to go something like: buy silver, buy gold, buy green cards; with your BM-aiding action in there somewhere depending on its cost.  The longer you have to keep buying Silver instead of gold, useful actions or VP, the worse things are going for you. 
Logged
it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2015, 02:54:51 am »
+1

It's a stepping stone, not a thing you want to be adding to your deck throughout most Big Money into Province games.  Big money tends to go something like: buy silver, buy gold, buy green cards; with your BM-aiding action in there somewhere depending on its cost.  The longer you have to keep buying Silver instead of gold, useful actions or VP, the worse things are going for you.

The key thing you are missing is that it's bad if you have to keep buying Silver, instead of buying other things.  But pops' idea is for the card to gain you a Silver for free.  You don't have to spend a buy on it.  If you are playing Big Money, getting the free silver is almost always a good thing for you (at least in Province games).

Edit: And in Big Money, Silver may be a consolation prize but it's not a bad one.  Awaclus is right that it is a fine card for BM.  It's just that BM strategies themselves are usually not so good.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 02:58:04 am by eHalcyon »
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2015, 02:58:55 am »
+1

It's a stepping stone, not a thing you want to be adding to your deck throughout most Big Money into Province games.  Big money tends to go something like: buy silver, buy gold, buy green cards; with your BM-aiding action in there somewhere depending on its cost.  The longer you have to keep buying Silver instead of gold, useful actions or VP, the worse things are going for you.

Well, yes, but it's not because it's a bad card, but because turns when you can't do anything but buy a Silver are bad turns.
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 Creative Commons albums for free

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2015, 02:32:29 pm »
+4

Silver is a good card.  If you have nothing but 5 silvers in your hand you can buy a Province and agnostic of the kingdom you can't do anything better than that.  Silver is bad when a Kingdom is even better than Silver.

Copper is a curse.
Logged

theblankman

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +383
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2015, 07:21:07 pm »
0

Most attacks make Silver not good enough.  Can't buy Province with a 3-card hand of Silvers, and you're far less likely to get 4 at once if your deck is junky.  You almost always need better cards than Silver to win.  Free Silver is a small bonus even if it's not outright junk.  When's the last time it stopped you from buying Embassy?  Wanderer dropping Silver is cute, but I think it makes the card weaker and its power level already seemed okay.
Logged
it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2015, 07:34:20 pm »
0

Most attacks make Silver not good enough.  Can't buy Province with a 3-card hand of Silvers, and you're far less likely to get 4 at once if your deck is junky.  You almost always need better cards than Silver to win.  Free Silver is a small bonus even if it's not outright junk.  When's the last time it stopped you from buying Embassy?  Wanderer dropping Silver is cute, but I think it makes the card weaker and its power level already seemed okay.

Why would you ever play big money when there's a hand size attack on the board anyway (edge cases exist, but they're rare and super annoying)?

The more Silvers you have, the more likely you are to get 4 at once even if your deck is junky. If you're playing Masterpiece/big money, you can hardly notice the effect your opponent's Witch has on your deck. A free Silver might not be a huge bonus, but it's not a marginal bonus either. It's certainly something I consider every time I buy Embassy, and sometimes I'm fine getting a Gold instead of the Embassy in order to not hand out the Silver.
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 Creative Commons albums for free

crlundy

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Shuffle iT Username: crlundy
  • Respect: +323
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2015, 07:37:50 pm »
0

Silver is average. Good, not great. I think that's what we're all sayin'.

EDIT: I guess I didn't say anything yet... So I'll just be the one to say this.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 07:49:56 pm by crlundy »
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2015, 07:42:06 pm »
0

Silver is average. Good, not great. I think that's what we're all sayin'.

That's not what I'm saying. It's awful in engines. But it's very good (usually the best card at its price point) in big money, and often in slogs and rushes as well.
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 Creative Commons albums for free

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2015, 09:04:12 pm »
+1

You generally can't play a Militia every turn unless you have one of those Kingdoms-better-than-Silver that I hear so much about.  So Silver will get you some Provinces.  Notably, Militia-Militia-Militia-Militia-Militia can't, though.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #23 on: March 30, 2015, 09:13:04 pm »
0

Having Wanderer gain a Silver on-play would be interesting. Probably it wouldn't do that and draw cards. Or maybe it could just gain a Gold. If I ever test it, I'll probably try the card draw first.

I am considering "Gain a Silver" as Wanderer's on-buy bonus, though probably it would have to cost $4 at that point.
Logged

theblankman

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +383
    • View Profile
Re: Card Idea: Wanderer
« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2015, 10:19:59 pm »
0

Why would you ever play big money when there's a hand size attack on the board anyway (edge cases exist, but they're rare and super annoying)?
Big money is the default.  It takes specific cards like alt VP to make a viable rush or slog, and specific effects to make a viable engine.  If those aren't on the board, you're playing big money, attacks or not. 

Having Wanderer gain a Silver on-play would be interesting. Probably it wouldn't do that and draw cards. Or maybe it could just gain a Gold. If I ever test it, I'll probably try the card draw first.

I am considering "Gain a Silver" as Wanderer's on-buy bonus, though probably it would have to cost $4 at that point.
I like draw over gaining a treasure, especially since the card passes between players who might be playing different strategies.  Gain a treasure is definitely bad for some decks; those players would likely end the wandering you're going for (trash him or just not play him).  Gain a silver on buy at $4 makes it a good opener for a lot of decks though.
Logged
it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.162 seconds with 21 queries.