Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Illusionist (Reserve card)  (Read 13998 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
  • Respect: +1757
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2015, 11:06:53 pm »
+1

I don't really think it is as bad as you feel it is.

I think that defining the answers to the questions is something that isn't that complicated, and can be done by the creator of a Curse type fan card in the same way Donald would if he made an official one.

I think the most logical ruling would be to say all cards that refer to Curses refer to the type and not the specific card (so all cards that give them out behave the same).  The rest of the questions could be handled in just about any way in my opinion.  Either replace the default Curses, or add them on top.  You probably need to have a number of them divisible by 1 less than the number of players so they get passed out evenly, but play testing can probably figure that type of question out.

If you do decide to have two types of Curses in the game, clarifying is a good idea, but "gain a X" is well defined with in the game.  If a card says you gain a Curse, then I think the player doing the gaining would choose. I guess there is a lack of precedent for making your opponent gain something with multiple options, but there is clear precedent for choosing from a set of options for the active player.  (Specifying would be an exception.  Workshop doesn't say Gain a card costing up to $4 that you choose.)

Just my 2 cents.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2015, 11:22:27 pm »
0

Swindler is a precedent that specifies who chooses.  Other attack cards specify for other things too, like Oracle. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that it can't be done.  I'm saying that there are a significant number of hurdles.

Also, didn't Donald say somewhere that he would never make another Curse-type card because of the confusion that would arise?
Logged

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
  • Respect: +1757
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2015, 11:31:49 pm »
+2

It is a precedent for specifying who chooses, but (in my opinion?) it is specifying because it is going against the default of the player gaining the card choosing.

Certainly.  I am just saying that I think the hurdles are less significant.

It's very possible he did.  It definitely doesn't feel like it fits well in Dominion, but don't think fan cards always have to fit inside the mold. There was also a time when $7 cards were seen as outside the realm of Dominion.  I think it would be pretty easy to define the rules for how a Curse type card would work. I think the real challenge would be coming up with a Curse type card that is any good.



I meant to mention in my last post that throwing off the balance of Cursing cards doesn't really seem like an issue at all to me.  Isn't throwing off the balance of other cards kind of what the most interesting Dominion cards do?  Do strong trashers not throw off the balance of Cursing cards already?

GreyICE

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2015, 12:07:48 am »
0

Edit - was off topic.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 01:19:18 am by GreyICE »
Logged

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1691
  • Respect: +1162
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2015, 12:13:00 am »
+1

Swindler is a precedent that specifies who chooses.  Other attack cards specify for other things too, like Oracle. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that it can't be done.  I'm saying that there are a significant number of hurdles.

Also, didn't Donald say somewhere that he would never make another Curse-type card because of the confusion that would arise?
Someone has been reading the Secret Histories again, hasn't he?

The real easy option is that you could make a new "Curse" and just use those instead of the -1VP "Curse" that came with the game. Now nothing changes. (This would not allow multiple piles of Curses though.)
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1795
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #30 on: April 09, 2015, 12:47:11 am »
+1

Why are we talking about new curse cards?
I'd like to figure a way for my Illusionist idea to work, please take the tangent elsewhere.

GreyICE

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2015, 12:57:15 am »
+1

Sorry  :-[

I'd just borrow the inheritance wording, and hybrid it with the Coin of the Realm a little. 

"Whenever you could play an action, you may call this and name Action, Victory, Treasure or Curse.  Until end of turn, any time a card references the named card type, you may choose any other card type.  That card type is considered the named card type for the resolution of the action."

Solves the "how can you play money" but is a bit technical.  If you were okay with change:

"Whenever you could play an action, you may call this.  While this is in play, any time a card you play names Action, Treasure or Victory, you may treat it as if it said any or all of Action, Treasure, and Victory.  This may allow you to play actions during your buy phase.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 01:05:06 am by GreyICE »
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1795
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #32 on: April 09, 2015, 01:11:11 am »
0

I'd just borrow the inheritance wording, and hybrid it with the Coin of the Realm a little. 

"Whenever you could play an action, you may call this and name a card type.  Each card of that type gains the type of your choice"
I don't think that solves the problem of being able to play actions in the buy phase.

How about this:
Quote
Illusionist
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time a card considers the type of another card(s), you may call this to change the effective type of a card by adding a type or replacing the card's type. All copies of that card in your deck, hand, or discard pile use the chosen type until the initial card is resolved. (You may not use the curse type.)

I actually played with this card today. I had to explain what the card does of course (I printed it worded as it was in the OP), but the card works nicely once it's explained. I just need to come up with a wording that won't need additional explaination.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2015, 01:17:26 am »
+2

Why are we talking about new curse cards?
I'd like to figure a way for my Illusionist idea to work, please take the tangent elsewhere.

Spin-off thread here!

The conversation arose because your initial version of the card could add the Curse type to other cards.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 01:18:40 am by eHalcyon »
Logged

GreyICE

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2015, 01:18:44 am »
0

Yeah, I updated the wordings a bit. 

I think replacing "type" with "Action, Treasure, or Victory" works perfectly fine.  It doesn't really future-proof the card, but I think that's okay. 
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2015, 01:28:23 am »
0

How about this:
Quote
Illusionist
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time a card considers the type of another card(s), you may call this to change the effective type of a card by adding a type or replacing the card's type. All copies of that card in your deck, hand, or discard pile use the chosen type until the initial card is resolved. (You may not use the curse type.)

I actually played with this card today. I had to explain what the card does of course (I printed it worded as it was in the OP), but the card works nicely once it's explained. I just need to come up with a wording that won't need additional explaination.

I can use this to Mint Colonies, right?

And I can also use this to play Actions with Venture?  Or to play Victory and Treasure cards with Golem?

Instead of naming your deck, discard and hand, you could probably get the same meaning by saying "all of your copies".
Logged

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1691
  • Respect: +1162
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #36 on: April 09, 2015, 01:37:01 am »
0

What if you did it slightly differently and used the BoM wording?

Quote from: Band of Misfits
Play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose.
This is that card until it leaves play.

Quote from: Band of Illusionists
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time a card considers the type of another card, you may call this to change the card of your choice to an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose. It is that card until this card leaves play.

Yeah it's definitely weird language, but I think it fits (most of) what you are trying to do.

I also used plenty of "this is" and "it is" and "choice" and "choose" to get all the Blue Dogs barking at the wall.
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #37 on: April 09, 2015, 01:45:02 am »
0

What if you did it slightly differently and used the BoM wording?

Quote from: Band of Misfits
Play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose.
This is that card until it leaves play.

Quote from: Band of Illusionists
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time a card considers the type of another card, you may call this to change the card of your choice to an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose. It is that card until this card leaves play.

Yeah it's definitely weird language, but I think it fits (most of) what you are trying to do.

I also used plenty of "this is" and "it is" and "choice" and "choose" to get all the Blue Dogs barking at the wall.

That has unintended side effects that also cause accountability issues (unless you mean for BoI to transform all copies of a card to a specific Action card).  For example, I play Ironmonger which draws a card and then reveals the next card to consider its type.  Let's say I reveal a Province.  I could now call BoI to make that Province a King's Court.  Now my Province remains on top of my deck and I get +1 action from Ironmonger.  I play some cantrip and draw Province, which is still King's Court as long as BoI remains in play.  Now I can play my Province-as-KC, which would not have been possible with Illusionist.
Logged

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1691
  • Respect: +1162
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #38 on: April 09, 2015, 01:48:57 am »
0

Is that so bad? Should we set aside a card like Inheiritance so tracking is easier?
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #39 on: April 09, 2015, 01:52:30 am »
0

Is that so bad? Should we set aside a card like Inheiritance so tracking is easier?

Whether it's bad or not (and yes, I think it's pretty bad :P), it's a huge difference from the original.

Also note that this version only allows you to change cards into Action type, which is more limited than the original too.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1795
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #40 on: April 09, 2015, 01:59:35 am »
0

I can use this to Mint Colonies, right?

And I can also use this to play Actions with Venture?  Or to play Victory and Treasure cards with Golem?

Instead of naming your deck, discard and hand, you could probably get the same meaning by saying "all of your copies".

Ok then, I'll do this:
Quote
llusionist
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time an action card considers the type of another card(s), you may call this to change the effective type of a card by adding a type or replacing the card's type. All of your copies of that card use the chosen type until the initial card is resolved. (You may not use the curse type.)
That prevents playing an action with Venture. You can still Mint a Colony, but that's fine. I definitely want to prevent playing actions in the buy phase, but I won't change the card for one rare interaction that's a bit overpowered. Playing Victory and treasure cards with Golem/TR/KC is weird but not as confusing as actions in the buy phase or really overpowered like Minting a colony.

What if you did it slightly differently and used the BoM wording?

Quote from: Band of Illusionists
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time a card considers the type of another card, you may call this to change the card of your choice to an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose. It is that card until this card leaves play.

Yeah it's definitely weird language, but I think it fits (most of) what you are trying to do.
That's really not what I want at all. It ruins the Scout combo for one thing. I just want to change the card's type.


I also used plenty of "this is" and "it is" and "choice" and "choose" to get all the Blue Dogs barking at the wall.
That's sounds like a great way to make cards for the bad ideas thread...

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1691
  • Respect: +1162
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #41 on: April 09, 2015, 02:01:01 am »
0

Well obviously you can vary that function, but like mentioned before: What happens when an Action is played as a Treasure in the Buy phase? So limiting to Action cards seems like the right direction to go, with a twist to how it alters cards so they remain useful.
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."

GreyICE

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #42 on: April 09, 2015, 02:05:41 am »
+1

Is there anything wrong with playing an Action with Venture?  It's slightly weird, but it overall makes sense, as long as people understand you can't play actions during the buy phase unless instructed to by a card.  There's two cards right now that let you play treasures during the Action phase, so it's not unprecedented. 

The issue is more "all actions are cantrips by being played as treasure", not interactions with Venture.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #43 on: April 09, 2015, 02:40:07 am »
+2

How about:

Illusionist
$4 - Action-Reserve
+$2.
Put this on your Tavern mat.

When you play an Action, you may call this, to name a card and a card type.  All of your copies of that card have the chosen type until the Action is resolved.


Note that I am following the official comma usage. ;)

I think this simplifies it a lot.  It narrows the window of use to the Action phase and doesn't have any extra complications like having to forbid Curse type.  Is there a time when that matters now?  With the existing cards, I don't think so.

This wording does make certain combos weaker.  If you want to bring it back up, you could instead have the condition be "Any time while you are resolving an Action [you played]".  The "you played" is extraneous but can help limit potential confusion (e.g. "does it count as me resolving an Action when you play Noble Brigand and I have to reveal cards from my deck?").

Another issue to consider is that this Reserve card can actually be dead on many boards.  It's not really worse than Conspirator in that regard, but still.

Also, since it is now so limited, I think $4 is probably too expensive.



@GreyICE, if a Treasure allows me to play e.g. Village during my Buy phase, can I then play more action cards?  Village gave me +actions, after all.  The answer is no, but many people would find that unintuitive and confusing.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Illusionist (Reserve card)
« Reply #44 on: April 09, 2015, 10:08:12 am »
+2

I'm referring to card ideas that were greatly discouraged in the past, only to be implemented by Donald later. People (including me) said that there shouldn't be Duration Attacks, because their interaction with Moat was weird. People said there shouldn't be kingdom cards for $8, or $7 even, because those would compete with Province or close an important strategical gap. People said that gaining cards from the trash was a bad idea because it would make the game last forever... Or something.

Donald did those, and whenever something was unclear (plausible from the rules, but maybe confusing), he just said how it's done, and then nobody questioned it anymore. He didn't so much come up with new rules, just explain how certain things interact.

I can't speak for everybody else, but I have tried to be consistent in saying there there shouldn't be cards that attacked other players on your next turn. And I still believe this. Duration Attacks that attack players on the turn you play them and then have a non-attack effect on your next turn are fair game; no tracking issues there.

Swamp Hag and Haunted Woods are in between: they attack each other player on their next turn. This isn't as bad as attacking players on your next turn because usually the Moat or Lighthouse will still be around as a reminder. It's still a tracking issue, but way milder, and it worked out. There was a point during the creation of the set where Donald wanted a "big, slow Attack named Giant". It was then that I trotted out my usual spiel about how attacking on your next turn was bad tracking-wise. Donald agreed, but as it turned out he was planning on using the Journey token for the slowness anyway.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All
 

Page created in 1.074 seconds with 21 queries.