Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dingan]

Code: [Select]

Imperial Household
$6
Action
Choose 2 Actions in your hand.  Play them each twice, in any order.
Not exactly sure on the wording, but it's intended to do something like:
I choose action cards A and B.  I can play them A-A-B-B, A-B-A-B, or A-B-B-A.  If I only have 1 other action card in my hand, it would be just like a Throne Room.  That is, if I only have A in my hand, then play A and draw a different action B, I can't play the B twice because it wasn't in my hand at the time of playing Imperial Household.

I think this card is interesting because it's sort of like Throne Room'ing a Throne Room, but actually allows additional mechanics due to the A-B-A-B and A-B-B-A possibilities.  Some synergies off the top of my head:

• Storeroom - Library - Storeroom - Library (or substitute Counting House, Scrying Pool, etc. for Library)
• Fortune Teller - Jester - Fortune Teller - Jester
• Scavenger - cantrip - Scavenger - cantrip

Also, I think it would introduce the need for some sort of transient "in-play" area.  So like if you played Imperial Household on A and B, and A were a Throne Room, you couldn't Throne the B -- because B wouldn't be in your hand.  But it would also not be in-play yet (it would go in-play once you play it).  EDIT: I guess Golem sort of already does this.

Thoughts?

[eHalcyon]

I think the idea is neat, but the tracking difficulty will kill it.

[GeneralRamos]

The easiest point to reduce the tracking difficulty would be to limit it to AABB. I think it is still strong enough without giving the option of alternating play. In that case it's essentially just. Double throne room where you must designate the two cards from the outset. Setting aside could be used to prevent accidentally playing the second chosen card.

[GendoIkari]

The easiest point to reduce the tracking difficulty would be to limit it to AABB. I think it is still strong enough without giving the option of alternating play. In that case it's essentially just. Double throne room where you must designate the two cards from the outset. Setting aside could be used to prevent accidentally playing the second chosen card.

I agree that for overall tracking and simplicity it should be limited to AABB. But the best way to do that is simply:

Do this twice: You may chose an action card from your hand. Play it twice.

This will be stronger in that you don't have to choose the 2 cards from the beginning. But probably not stronger than the version in the OP because of no ABAB option.

[Marcory]

Probably for accountability's sake you need to have 'Reveal two Actions from your hand. Play one of them twice, then play the other twice.'  (or a similar version if you want to allow ABAB or ABBA).


Otherwise, if you play a draw card first, there's no way to prove that the second card you play is one that was originally in your hand.

[GendoIkari]

Alternate wording:

Imperial Household
$6
Action
Pretend that you just played a Golem and it found 2 Throne Rooms. Do that.

[AdrianHealey]

Alternate wording:

Imperial Household
$6
Action
Pretend that you just played a Golem and it found 2 Throne Rooms. Do that.

I approve this message.

[Kirian]

Alternate wording:

Imperial Household
$6
Action
Pretend that you just played a Golem and it found 2 Throne Rooms. Do that.

Though this doesn't allow for ABBA or ABAB.

[tristan]

The problem of AABB is that it might be too weak. It is slightly weaker than double Throne Room as you gotta have both cards in your hand when you play Imperial Household. TR-TR-Smithy, drawing 6 cards and then throning an Action card among those you just drew, is no longer possible.
This is why I think that the original version is better. I also do not see why it should be significantly more difficult to track than ordinary TR or KC (here you also gotta keep count of all the actions and buys from throned cards).

[spiralstaircase]

Set aside up to two cards from your hand. Play the set aside cards in any order until you have played each card twice.

[faust]

Set aside 2 Action cards from your hand. Do this 4 times:
Choose 1:
- play one of the set aside cards. Put the card you played on your tavern mat.
- play an Action card from your tavern mat.

Discard all set aside cards.

This has some minuses (cannot throne Feast) and some plusses (can play Reserve cards from the tavern mat). Tracking should be easier.

[eHalcyon]

The problem of AABB is that it might be too weak. It is slightly weaker than double Throne Room as you gotta have both cards in your hand when you play Imperial Household. TR-TR-Smithy, drawing 6 cards and then throning an Action card among those you just drew, is no longer possible.
This is why I think that the original version is better. I also do not see why it should be significantly more difficult to track than ordinary TR or KC (here you also gotta keep count of all the actions and buys from throned cards).

Most AABB-only variants proposed here are not weaker than double TR because they don't require you to set aside both cards at the start.

It's significantly harder to track because not only are you playing 4 more things (double regular TR and 33% more than KC), you also have to remember whether each action card was played once or twice or not at all.  That's going to get super messy especially as you nest.  The tree expands much more quickly than with even KC with more to remember at each branch.

faust's suggestion with the Reserve mat helps tracking a lot.  It still has higher branching factor than KC, but at least the order doesn't have to be remembered as much.

[Doom_Shark]

I think the easiest version to do, since it would not take as much tracking but still allow for the original intended effect, would be very similar to the original text posted:

Reveal two Action cards in your hand. Play them each twice, in any order.

Granted, this does allow for some unintended repercussions, such as: Remodel as "a" and smithy as "b" in order abba. Remodel would trash smithy for gold, then both smithies get you a total of 6 cards, then remodel something you just drew. Things like that would warrant a cost of at least 7 though, and you could limit the branching a bit with a clause like: "the revealed actions cannot be Imperial Household"

Just my thoughts on the matter

[tristan]

It's significantly harder to track because not only are you playing 4 more things (double regular TR and 33% more than KC), you also have to remember whether each action card was played once or twice or not at all.  That's going to get super messy especially as you nest.  The tree expands much more quickly than with even KC with more to remember at each branch.

I still fail to see how this is more messy than keeping track of all the extra actions and buys you get from throned cards (you often need a countring help). You can just use a token to signify whether an Action card has already been played which is significantly easier than counting actions/buys.

Furthermore I think that Double Throne Room is boring as it is just two Throne Rooms in one card and too weak for 6. The mixed order makes Imperial Household a decent 6$ card and above all it makes it interesting to play with.

[Gveoniz]

Imperial Household
+4 action
reveal two action card from your hand, gain a copy for each of them, and put one of your return tokens on each piles you gained from.

Return tokens (colored for each player):
When your play a card from a pile with your return token(s), return it to the supply and remove one return token from the pile.

[eHalcyon]

It's significantly harder to track because not only are you playing 4 more things (double regular TR and 33% more than KC), you also have to remember whether each action card was played once or twice or not at all.  That's going to get super messy especially as you nest.  The tree expands much more quickly than with even KC with more to remember at each branch.

I still fail to see how this is more messy than keeping track of all the extra actions and buys you get from throned cards (you often need a countring help). You can just use a token to signify whether an Action card has already been played which is significantly easier than counting actions/buys.

Furthermore I think that Double Throne Room is boring as it is just two Throne Rooms in one card and too weak for 6. The mixed order makes Imperial Household a decent 6$ card and above all it makes it interesting to play with.

I don't know how much more clearly I can explain it.  This has all the tracking you need to do with TR/KC and more, since you have more card plays.  TR plays 2.  KC plays 3.  This plays 4.  The higher branching factor means it already has more to track.  Note that the fixed order variant has this problem too, but it avoids the next problem (and also doesn't require you to set aside a second card that may not actually be played until dozens of choices and card plays later).

The second problem: each single play of this card requires you to remember data for TWO revealed cards.  With TR (KC), there are 3 (4) possibilities when you continue resolution:

- no card has been chosen and played yet
- a chosen card has been played once
- the chosen card has been played twice (done for TR)
- the chosen card has been played thrice (not for TR, done for KC)

But the OP's Imperial Household, you have

- no cards have been revealed yet
- card A played once
- card B played once
- card A played twice
- card B played twice
- card A and B played (AB or BA, though the order doesn't really matter)
- card A played twice, B once (AAB, ABA or BAA, but again, order doesn't matter)
- card B played twice, A once (ABB, BAB or BBA...)
- card A and B played twice each (6 orders that don't really matter, done)

That's 8 scenarios.  There is significantly more to keep track.  A single play of TR/KC/IH is not too hard to track, and the increase from one to each isn't much.  But the branching factor means that KC chains are a lot tougher than TR chains, and it also means that IH chains would be a lot tougher than KC.

These are just plain numbers now.  4 is bigger than 3 is bigger than 2, and 8 is bigger than 4.  If you still don't understand, I don't think I can help you here.

(Edit: I thought of a point that may help understand the chains.  Remember, the effect of nesting these cards has quadratic growth.  TR-TR is 4, KC-KC is 9, IH-IH is 16.  It just explodes as you continue.) 

I think the easiest version to do, since it would not take as much tracking but still allow for the original intended effect, would be very similar to the original text posted:

Reveal two Action cards in your hand. Play them each twice, in any order.

Granted, this does allow for some unintended repercussions, such as: Remodel as "a" and smithy as "b" in order abba. Remodel would trash smithy for gold, then both smithies get you a total of 6 cards, then remodel something you just drew. Things like that would warrant a cost of at least 7 though, and you could limit the branching a bit with a clause like: "the revealed actions cannot be Imperial Household"

Just my thoughts on the matter

The only difference here is that you said "reveal", whereas Dingan's said "choose".  That doesn't really help, since we're all already assuming that the chosen cards are revealed.  Moreover, the revealed action cards would have to be set aside somewhere anyway, so you should not be able to Remodel the chosen Smithy.  Otherwise, the tracking gets even more ridiculous.  Keeping them in hand would also cause accountability problems.

The tracking difficulties don't really have anything to do with that part of the card though.

Limiting the branching by not allowing nested IHs helps a little bit, but all you need to do is throw in TR or KC or Golem and it becomes crazy again. 

faust's Reserve-ish version still seems like the most elegant solution to me, though I just realized that it actually is a lot stronger than the original card.  You can actually mix up the order of chosen cards across multiple plays of it since they all dump to the Tavern, so it's still far from perfect.

Imperial Household
+4 action
reveal two action card from your hand, gain a copy for each of them, and put one of your return tokens on each piles you gained from.

Return tokens (colored for each player):
When your play a card from a pile with your return token(s), return it to the supply and remove one return token from the pile.

Interesting, but lots of unintended consequences.  This is stronger in that you can gain cards and never return them, gaining them also triggers various effects, and you can use the actions to play cards that aren't your chosen cards.  It's weaker in that you may not even get a chance to play the chosen cards twice because the gained cards don't go in your hand, but maybe that's just an oversight.

Regardless, if you're going to use tokens, you can just use them as memory aids without getting into gain shenanigans.  Set aside your two action cards with tokens on them.  When you play a card the first time, leave the token on it to remember that it still has another play left.  Remove the token when you play it the second time.

You'd need a bag full of tokens to really make this work.




I just thought of another tracking problem that all of these variants share.  If you chain multiple IHs together (even if they are broken up with TR/KC/Golem), you're going to accumulate multiple set aside cards waiting to be played for the first time.  Now you have to track which set aside card is connected to which IH in the chain.  I guess a solution is to set them aside face down on top of the IH that is going to play it?  Ehh.

[tristan]

Just because there are more permutations with Imperial Household than with Throne Room or King's Court doesn't imply that it is so much more difficult to track. As I already pointed out, you can easily keep track of which card you throned via tokens.

The only actual difficulty of throning is remembering actions, buys and coins (because you immediately execute whatever else a card does immediately). I use a Chinese abacus for the instances in which this becomes a practical problem.

Again, if you get rid of the key feature of Imperial Household, that you can switch between the two cards, it becomes a boring Double Throne Room. The folks who have difficulties with keeping track do not have to use the card if it too complex for them. Definitely a better option than dumbing the card down.

[eHalcyon]

Just because there are more permutations with Imperial Household than with Throne Room or King's Court doesn't imply that it is so much more difficult to track. As I already pointed out, you can easily keep track of which card you throned via tokens.

The only actual difficulty of throning is remembering actions, buys and coins (because you immediately execute whatever else a card does immediately). I use a Chinese abacus for the instances in which this becomes a practical problem.

Again, if you get rid of the key feature of Imperial Household, that you can switch between the two cards, it becomes a boring Double Throne Room. The folks who have difficulties with keeping track do not have to use the card if it too complex for them. Definitely a better option than dumbing the card down.

The bottom line is that it is objectively more to track.  With branching factor of 4, it's a lot more even before considering that there are double the states during resolution.  Whether you think it's too much or not, that's up to you.  Many of us feel that this would be too much.  Saying "you can use tokens" or "use an abacus" or "write it down" isn't a solution.  The fact that you pretty much have to do that is the problem.

Is the card less interesting if you can't switch between cards?  Sure, but sometimes the interest isn't enough to warrant the added complexity.  That's card design.  A double-TR as a single card is already pretty interesting and would factor into strategies in a very different way (it would be tougher to set up, but a lot more efficient to buy and with far more potential).  If it's not interesting enough, then that's an argument for exploring different solutions (like the Tavern mat idea) or dropping the idea entirely.

"People don't have to use it" is a poor argument too.  It's saying, "others may find this problematic, but I don't care about them."

[tristan]

The bottom line is that it is objectively more to track.  With branching factor of 4, it's a lot more even before considering that there are double the states during resolution.  Whether you think it's too much or not, that's up to you.

Stop the "I am objective, you are subjective" nonsense.

I already pointed out that the possible permutations have little to do with the tracking difficulty. In actual games the most tricky thing of TR is to keep in mind the actions, buys and coins because anything else a card does is something you do immediately.

Saying "you can use tokens" or "use an abacus" or "write it down" isn't a solution.  The fact that you pretty much have to do that is the problem.

I already do that with TR and its variants. So I guess that by your logic Throne Room must be too complex for Dominion. 

[eHalcyon]

The bottom line is that it is objectively more to track.  With branching factor of 4, it's a lot more even before considering that there are double the states during resolution.  Whether you think it's too much or not, that's up to you.

Stop the "I am objective, you are subjective" nonsense.

It's not nonsense, you're just reading carelessly.  I never said that I am objective about this.  I said that it's objectively true that this card creates more information to track, and I provided the math to show it.  Whether you (or I) think it's too much more is subjective.  You don't think it's too much.  A lot of people disagree.  That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it's certainly something to consider while designing.

I already pointed out that the possible permutations have little to do with the tracking difficulty. In actual games the most tricky thing of TR is to keep in mind the actions, buys and coins because anything else a card does is something you do immediately.

That says nothing about this card.  The permutations are easy for TR and KC because there are fewer cases.  But again, even if you ignore all that, even if you only consider tracking the actions, buys and coins like you want, IH is still more difficult.

Saying "you can use tokens" or "use an abacus" or "write it down" isn't a solution.  The fact that you pretty much have to do that is the problem.

I already do that with TR and its variants. So I guess that by your logic Throne Room must be too complex for Dominion. 

You're making unfounded assumptions, but I'll play along.

TR only has a branching factor of 2.  It's actually pretty easy to track and chains typically don't produce huge trees.  Needing external tracking for it should be rare, if it ever comes up at all.

KC is only one more card play, but it's a huge step up.  External tracking may sometimes be important, and that is indeed a problem.  Players have complained about it before.  The question is whether the added complexity is worthwhile.  I think yes.  Others may disagree.

IH is a huge step up from KC, probably bigger than from TR to KC.  I've already provided the math above.  Again, the question is whether the complexity is worthwhile.  I think no.  Others may disagree (but from comments in this thread, most don't).  But the idea is still neat, which is why we've been discussing variants that simplify it a bit.

So no, by my logic, Throne Room is not too complex for Dominion.  You seem to be implying that just because you use tokens to track TR/KC that IH is fine since you can do the same.  By that logic, a mega-IH that said something like "choose 5 action cards and play each one 5 times" would also be OK.  But hopefully you can imagine how big a nightmare that would be for tracking.

IH is not that far gone.  But it's still (objectively) a big complexity increase over KC for (subjectively) not enough gain.

[tristan]

Saying "you can use tokens" or "use an abacus" or "write it down" isn't a solution.  The fact that you pretty much have to do that is the problem.

I already do that with TR and its variants. So I guess that by your logic Throne Room must be too complex for Dominion. 

You're making unfounded assumptions, but I'll play along.[/QUOTE]
You are the one who was assuming that you have to use tokens or a memory device like an abacus for Imperial Household. I am the one who pointed out that I already use an abacus for the rare instanced in which TR or KC becomes too complex without any devices or tokens. As you consider the forced usage of such devices a problem the conclusion is that TR and KC are also too complex (which is obviously utter nonsense).

By the way, it is hardly a coincidence that I am the one who is discussing the practical side of this (for the umptenth time, the only time KC or TR become tricky to track is when you get a shitload of buys, actions or virtual coins) whereas you are lost in maths that proves nothing (of course 4>3>2 but the possible permutations of Imperial Household have nothing to do with the tracking complexity).

[Davio]

I always put down the KC's and TR's in a tree to keep track of them.

KC-KC for instance starts 3 branches.

[enfynet]

So, it's not more difficult to track? Because even KC chains can be difficult to follow. This branches even more. Playing a single IH is the same as TR-TR.

[eHalcyon]

So tristan, are you arguing that KC is no tougher to track than TR? Because that's what it sounds like, and that's ridiculous. IH is a step up in the same way.  It will give you more buys, actions and coins to track than KC in the same way that KC gives more than TR.

You're misreading and misrepresenting what I wrote again, even though I specifically and explicitly clarified the point.  Is it intentional?  Either way, it's not useful to keep arguing in circles.  If you genuinely don't understand, feel free to ask.  Maybe I can draw a diagram (seriously).

[tristan]

If you genuinely don't understand, feel free to ask.

Get off your high horse, I do understand you perfectly clear. I just disagree with you that you a) HAVE to use tokens or an abacus with Impeial Household (some people can do complex throning in their heads) and that b) using devices that help you tracking throning implies a bad design (as I already do that with TR and KC).
Not my problem if your own arguments bite you in the tail.

About thow difficult Imperial Household is to track, of course it is slightly more complex than double Throne Room. Double Throne Room occurs often enough in the game so this doesn't constitute "too complex". We obviously disagree on whether a free playing order, as in the card design, is a significant increase of complexity vs. a fixed playing order. You think it is, I do not. You think that the number of permutations is a sign for tracking difficulty, I think that using tokens to indicate which card you already throned is a practical memory device which makes the actual increase of tracking difficulty very small.
Perhaps I missed some details but that is our argument. And despite your claims, your argument is not objective just because you use some (highly dubious) maths. Mine is neither, it is entirely pragmatic and subjective, it is based on how I do/would approach the problem practically.