Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller  (Read 18494 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

market squire

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • Respect: +201
    • View Profile
Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« on: March 07, 2016, 12:26:26 pm »
+12

Hi there!
I haven't been that much active here the last months, but I've appreciated some of the ideas here.
So now I'd like to share another traveller concept. This traveller shall feel like making a race. Once the player has got the final upgrade, the game ends. (Inspired by the "Alternate win conditions" thread, although I prefer an alternative game end condition.)


Quote
Marco Polo (Action-Traveller) Cost:
You may put this on top of your deck. If you do, +.

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Board a Ship.

Quote
Board a Ship (Action-Duration-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action
If you end your Action phase with at least 1 unused Action, play this again at the start of your next turn.

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Visiting Bagdad.

Quote
Visiting Bagdad (Action-Traveller) Cost:
Gain a Gold. Pay an Action. If you don't, put this into your hand.

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for On the Silk Road.

Quote
On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Quote
Visit the Khan (Action-Victory) Cost:
The game ends after this turn.

Worth 10 if you played this.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2016, 12:42:36 pm »
0

Chapel everything. Game ends in 5-7 turns.

Where's the fun in that?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2016, 12:53:58 pm »
+7

Chapel everything. Game ends in 5-7 turns.

Where's the fun in that?

You don't think it would be fun to have that sometimes?  It would be tough to do anyway, even with good shuffle luck.  You need to get 5 card plays in so you would need to play it every turn after the opening.  That makes it 7 turns minimum if you draw the traveller on t3 and somehow also get to reshuffle immediately, which doesn't happen even if you Chapel.  Since they are terminals, you may have terminal collision.  So with a regular Traveller you might get to the end on t8 maybe...

But you clearly didn't read these cards.  It's highly unlikely that you could end so quickly with these exchange conditions.  The last one is especially tough.  It's not just a matter of playing them quickly!



I like the overall concept but I think the wording could use improvement.  I'm not sure if the Duration works as intended (and I'm not 100% sure what is intended). "Pay an Action" is ambiguous in meaning.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2016, 01:01:34 pm »
0

Either way; no, I don't think this particular concept will be fun, for similar reasons I kind of hate Tournament or a torturer/village pin. Winner takes all/'when ahead, it's way easier to get even more ahead'.

Visiting Bagdad is easy to change when there is any kind of village (or throne roomed cantrip). But if that's not possible; it's a dud.

Discarding 'on the silk road' is harder, but is pretty similar to what tournement needs; which I don't like. This is even more so.

But no, I don't like things with a high amount of randomness, and this feels as something that belongs into that category.
Logged

market squire

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • Respect: +201
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2016, 01:04:00 pm »
+1

I'm not sure if the Duration works as intended (and I'm not 100% sure what is intended). "Pay an Action" is ambiguous in meaning.

"Board a Ship" is intended to work like a Princed Ruined Village (which is Princed until once you use up all Actions in your turn).

Fist I wanted to have some parenthetical text for "Pay an Action" but anything sounded blurry somehow. Maybe "Pay an Action (like -1 Action)" or "Pay an Action (like when playing an Action card)"?

Visiting Bagdad is easy to change when there is any kind of village (or throne roomed cantrip). But if that's not possible; it's a dud.
You could always board a second ship!

But no, I don't like things with a high amount of randomness, and this feels as something that belongs into that category.
I did not test it. Just an idea. If it turns out to be too random, we could always lower the points for visiting the Khan.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 01:07:04 pm by market squire »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2016, 01:10:23 pm »
+2

Either way; no, I don't think this particular concept will be fun, for similar reasons I kind of hate Tournament or a torturer/village pin. Winner takes all/'when ahead, it's way easier to get even more ahead'.

Visiting Bagdad is easy to change when there is any kind of village (or throne roomed cantrip). But if that's not possible; it's a dud.

Discarding 'on the silk road' is harder, but is pretty similar to what tournement needs; which I don't like. This is even more so.

But no, I don't like things with a high amount of randomness, and this feels as something that belongs into that category.

I meant that it is sometimes fun to end the game unusually early. Those types of games are commonly remembered fondly and posted in the Greatest Moments threads.

But it's clear that this card doesn't end the game quickly.  It's random and tough to pull off if you just play BM but this is clearly a card that you get in an engine where you have a lot of control over all the different conditions.  It becomes a tool to threaten ending the game on your own terms and put pressure on the opponent.  In that context, it doesn't seem highly random to me at all.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2016, 01:24:33 pm »
0

Tournament is already pretty random. First one to hit that Province often wins.
This is even more random. Two guys play equally well but one is just lucky enough to hit the +10VP game ender and quasi-certain winner a bit earlier.
Logged

market squire

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • Respect: +201
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2016, 02:28:23 pm »
+1

Maybe the Khan should only give 5 ? Or just no VP at all?
This would make it much trickier for the leading player.
Note that if you don't manage to exchange On the Silk Road, you will get a pretty good boost for your current turn.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2016, 02:34:30 pm »
0

Maybe the Khan should only give 5 ? Or just no VP at all?
This would make it much trickier for the leading player.
Note that if you don't manage to exchange On the Silk Road, you will get a pretty good boost for your current turn.
Khan costs 10 so 5VPs could very well be too few. You cannot balance this card. Either it provides too few or too much VPs. The game ending trigger is its crux.
Logged

market squire

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • Respect: +201
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2016, 02:46:15 pm »
+1

Maybe the Khan should only give 5 ? Or just no VP at all?
This would make it much trickier for the leading player.
Note that if you don't manage to exchange On the Silk Road, you will get a pretty good boost for your current turn.
Khan costs 10 so 5VPs could very well be too few. You cannot balance this card. Either it provides too few or too much VPs. The game ending trigger is its crux.
Sorry, I don't see your point. Please explain why the game ending trigger makes it unbalancable. I think it is a nice effect to try out.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2016, 02:56:36 pm »
+1

5VP or even 0VP sounds fine.  The power of the card is that it allows you to end the game when you want and the VP value (if any) just improves the margin in which you can play it to win.  Testing should focus on making it non-trivial to gain the final card while keeping it a viable strategy in  some games, say 10-30%.  It can be rarer if the rest of the cards in the line also do interesting things.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2016, 03:02:22 pm »
0

I'd be ok with it, if it felt less random and every step towards it has it's own didficulties.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2016, 03:12:21 pm »
+2

I'd be ok with it, if it felt less random and every step towards it has it's own didficulties.

But every step does have its own unique condition...

It really doesn't seem so random to me.  I think Black Market would be a better comparison, in that it seems random but is one of the highest skill cards in the game.  I think the key to playing this card will be building up a solid engine, in which case the progression will be far more controlled than random.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2016, 03:24:30 pm »
0

Maybe the Khan should only give 5 ? Or just no VP at all?
This would make it much trickier for the leading player.
Note that if you don't manage to exchange On the Silk Road, you will get a pretty good boost for your current turn.
Khan costs 10 so 5VPs could very well be too few. You cannot balance this card. Either it provides too few or too much VPs. The game ending trigger is its crux.
Sorry, I don't see your point. Please explain why the game ending trigger makes it unbalancable. I think it is a nice effect to try out.
Already explained it via Tournament: the card is too random.
In ordinary Dominion you gotta work toward an ending and the other players can react to that as they see a 3-pile ending or Province ending coming. This is not at least why Dominion is not, as some folks claim, a multiplayer solitaire Euro.

Your new end game condition would get rid of that and introduce too much randomness into the game. Just think about your Swindler and Tournament games to understand my point.

Furthermore Adrian made the point that this is just autoplay, you buy one or two Marco Polos and that's it. If you really wanna make such a random card at least make the Exchange conditional upon something.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 03:26:08 pm by tristan »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2016, 04:50:26 pm »
+3

Already explained it via Tournament: the card is too random.
In ordinary Dominion you gotta work toward an ending and the other players can react to that as they see a 3-pile ending or Province ending coming. This is not at least why Dominion is not, as some folks claim, a multiplayer solitaire Euro.

Your new end game condition would get rid of that and introduce too much randomness into the game. Just think about your Swindler and Tournament games to understand my point.

Furthermore Adrian made the point that this is just autoplay, you buy one or two Marco Polos and that's it. If you really wanna make such a random card at least make the Exchange conditional upon something.

You can see the end coming with this one too -- there are 5 steps involved.  You know when another player gains Visit the Khan, so you know the game could end any time next shuffle.

If you look at the conditions, it is very much not autoplay.  I just don't see how you could think that.  The first card is worse than Ruins if you want to exchange it.  The second one requires that you have a terminal action.  The third requires that you have a village (or another Board a Ship).  The fourth requires that you have a significant amount of VP and the means to draw it.  None of those things just happen automatically.  If you do nothing but get a couple of Marco Polos, you're going to lose badly because each card along the chain is pretty niche.  How are you going to win?  Even with 10VP from the last card, that's easy to overcome by the non-Marco opponent who just buys two Provinces in all that time, because you have all these niche cards in your deck while they've actually been building something functional.

Also, complaints about the randomness of Swindler and Tournament are really overblown, and this would be less swingy by far.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 04:52:25 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2016, 05:44:30 pm »
0

Also, complaints about the randomness of Swindler and Tournament are really overblown, and this would be less swingy by far.
Sure.  ::) Once somebody hits a 5 early in the game with the Swindler the game is basically over. Just had a game yesterday with some friends and despite not playing better than guy A I won because my Swindler took out two if his essential cards. Then I won the Alchemist split and it was all over.
Same with Tournament, it is just too much scissors effect.

This very card would be even worse in this respect. Which is fine if you want Dominion to be more random. But it clearly isn't  you wanna limit the randomness to limited to the mere draw luck.
Logged

liopoil

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2587
  • Respect: +2479
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #16 on: March 07, 2016, 06:03:30 pm »
+4

You need to discard more than in victory cards. That's a duchy and 3 estates, meanwhile your opponent just needs to get to 17 points (2 provinces, duchy, 3 estates is 18). I think this card has a lot of potential to be fun and not even particularly swingy. I think it should be even a little bit harder to exchange some of the earlier ones though, and they also seem a bit too strong.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 06:05:27 pm by liopoil »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #17 on: March 07, 2016, 06:05:34 pm »
+1

Also, complaints about the randomness of Swindler and Tournament are really overblown, and this would be less swingy by far.
Sure.  ::) Once somebody hits a 5 early in the game with the Swindler the game is basically over. Just had a game yesterday with some friends and despite not playing better than guy A I won because my Swindler took out two if his essential cards. Then I won the Alchemist split and it was all over.
Same with Tournament, it is just too much scissors effect.

This very card would be even worse in this respect. Which is fine if you want Dominion to be more random. But it clearly isn't  you wanna limit the randomness to limited to the mere draw luck.

One game isn't evidence of anything.  I agree that Swindler and Tournament can be swingy, but it's still not as bad as some people think.

I see no evidence for how this is worse.  What randomness do you see?  I mean, what is the plan?  I've already explained what I think the path to victory is, and it's not straightforward at all.  This line overall looks weak to me, but it's interesting because it rewards players who can utilize the niche effects of each traveller in the chain.  If you make it to the end, you get major end game control, but you are probably totally behind in terms of deck quality.

Like I said near the start, I can see this being swingy if you just play it in a Big Money deck, but that's a losing strategy.  It'll be best in an engine that wants the control, and in that context the exchange conditions are controlled, not random.

I might be missing something (liopoil just suggested that some of the early stages are too strong while I thought they were kind of weak), but saying "it's random" is not helpful at all.  There are 5 cards here with a lot going on at each stage; you need to be more specific!
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 06:07:00 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #18 on: March 07, 2016, 06:08:29 pm »
0

Also, complaints about the randomness of Swindler and Tournament are really overblown, and this would be less swingy by far.
Sure.  ::) Once somebody hits a 5 early in the game with the Swindler the game is basically over. Just had a game yesterday with some friends and despite not playing better than guy A I won because my Swindler took out two if his essential cards. Then I won the Alchemist split and it was all over.
Same with Tournament, it is just too much scissors effect.

This very card would be even worse in this respect. Which is fine if you want Dominion to be more random. But it clearly isn't  you wanna limit the randomness to limited to the mere draw luck.

One game isn't evidence of anything.  I agree that Swindler and Tournament can be swingy, but it's still not as bad as some people think.
I guess I could point out ample of examples and you would still deny that Swindler and Tournament are random cards. Whatever.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2016, 06:28:42 pm »
+3

One game isn't evidence of anything.  I agree that Swindler and Tournament can be swingy, but it's still not as bad as some people think.
I guess I could point out ample of examples and you would still deny that Swindler and Tournament are random cards. Whatever.

Bolded what you missed.  But that's irrelevant to this card anyway.  It isn't comparable. 

Just to elaborate on why I think the early cards are weak/niche and non-random:

Marco Polo literally does nothing if you want to exchange it.  Otherwise, it's a persistent terminal Silver -- not particularly impressive.  You can always exchange this one immediately, if you want.  Not random.

Board A Ship is Ruined Village when you first play it, then it's Walled Village until you actually use up the extra action and exchange it.  Walled Village is not super strong.  You exchange it when you draw and play a terminal action.  Since it stays in play until then, you can almost guarantee that it will be exchanged within 2 shuffles.  Not random.

Visiting Bagdad has potential to be powerful in that it can let you gain a lot of Gold if you have many +actions (or Champion - that could be a problematic interaction, actually).  Soothsayer and Governor also let you gain Gold though, and this is a lot harder to get.  You need some +actions to actually exchange it further.  If nothing else, you can achieve this with a second Board A Ship which stays in play until you pair it this card.  Not random.

On the Silk Road is always a Peddler if you want it to be.  Sometimes it can be a Stables variant where you discard some VP cards for big non-terminal draw.  That's pretty good, but not as good as other $5 Travellers.  To exchange it, you need $10 worth of VP cards.  That's not something you just stumble into.  You need to have gotten that VP to start, and you are unlikely to draw it together unless you've built your deck for that purpose, like in a strong engine.  If you do randomly achieve this condition, it'll still be late enough that it's not game-deciding.  Not random.

Visit the Khan is potentially worth 10VP.  That's the value of a Colony, which seems acceptable for such a difficult-to-get card.  It's not insurmountable either; it might not even be enough to overcome the lead that an opponent could have built by ignoring this line entirely.  If it's a problem, the VP could be reduced or removed.  The real power is end-game control, but this is something that every player will have seen coming from at least 5 shuffles away.  It's not secret when somebody exchanges a Traveller.  It's not a random surprise that pops up.  If you're playing against somebody using Marco Polo, you just need to maintain enough of a lead and conventionally end the game yourself -- certainly within the realm of possibility.  The goal of the Marco Polo player will be to find a good turn where you catch up and then end it immediately -- just like many engines that already come up in Dominion.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2016, 06:29:57 pm »
0

Marco Polo (Action-Traveller) Cost:
You may put this on top of your deck. If you do, +.

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Board a Ship.

Step 1: A dead action card with no advantages or an endless terminal silver. Which is not a particularly bad thing even, so even then you'd want a marco polo. Reasonale card in itself and interesting trade off.


Board a Ship (Action-Duration-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action
If you end your Action phase with at least 1 unused Action, play this again at the start of your next turn.

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Visiting Bagdad.

Step 2: If you *don't* have a second action card, you can't discard it. So unlike the previous one, this card *incentivizes* progressing your deck. If you use the +1 action, you can discard it and go on to the next step. I don't think this is good: if you want to make this card interesting, I would make it always that you would want to choose: either progress the traveller line *or* get an advantage.


Visiting Bagdad (Action-Traveller) Cost:
Gain a Gold. Pay an Action. If you don't, put this into your hand.

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for On the Silk Road.

Here we have a choice again: either make sure you have an action in 'reserve' (village or whatever) or progress.

Note that both here and the previous card really increases the effect of shuffle luck. (Depending on your hand there is a choice or there isn't a choice.) But I guess that's not that unusual.

On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Here is the biggest random factor. Not only is the randomizer effect bigger than with typical Tournement (which I find absolutely dreadful, even if I win the race), this is just the Province race to the luxe.

Also: that makes it a 'similar' path. You still need to buy province and all; it just a bigger boost to what buying provinces increases. When ahead, it's easier to stay ahead. Again: I don't think that's a good mechanism.

It's like a game we had with 4 players, and the first player to start won because she was the first one to get a hand of 5 (or 6, I don't remember) with coins; everyone after her always had to remove 2 cards, causing a serious delay. That's an effect I don't like.

Visit the Khan (Action-Victory) Cost:
The game ends after this turn.

Worth 10 if you played this.
[/quote]

Because of the 'you need victory cards anyway', this is almost always a 'whoever plays this first, wins'. So I'm ok with keeping it at +10 VP, but then it has to be an alternative to provinces (which it's not really at this point). If you want to keep it, I'd make it (1) that it feels less swingy and, more importantly, is an alternative to provinces, rather than build on top of it.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2016, 06:54:01 pm »
0

Marco Polo (Action-Traveller) Cost:
You may put this on top of your deck. If you do, +.

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Board a Ship.

Step 1: A dead action card with no advantages or an endless terminal silver. Which is not a particularly bad thing even, so even then you'd want a marco polo. Reasonale card in itself and interesting trade off.

Terminal silver is really bad, actually...

Board a Ship (Action-Duration-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action
If you end your Action phase with at least 1 unused Action, play this again at the start of your next turn.

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Visiting Bagdad.

Step 2: If you *don't* have a second action card, you can't discard it. So unlike the previous one, this card *incentivizes* progressing your deck. If you use the +1 action, you can discard it and go on to the next step. I don't think this is good: if you want to make this card interesting, I would make it always that you would want to choose: either progress the traveller line *or* get an advantage.

That choice between "progress" and "advantage" is the choice in step 3.  As it is, the situation here is either you move on with a minor advantage or you wait a little bit and then move on.  It's Walled Village.

Visiting Bagdad (Action-Traveller) Cost:
Gain a Gold. Pay an Action. If you don't, put this into your hand.

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for On the Silk Road.

Here we have a choice again: either make sure you have an action in 'reserve' (village or whatever) or progress.

Note that both here and the previous card really increases the effect of shuffle luck. (Depending on your hand there is a choice or there isn't a choice.) But I guess that's not that unusual.

So the choice here is what you said would be good in Step 2.  You either get an advantage (use that extra action you have) or you move on with the Traveller.

Shuffle luck is actually low.  Step 2 just waits until it happens.  This one can be accomplished with the card from Step 2 which, again, waits until it happens.  You don't need to draw multiple cards together because they'll stick around until success.

On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Here is the biggest random factor. Not only is the randomizer effect bigger than with typical Tournement (which I find absolutely dreadful, even if I win the race), this is just the Province race to the luxe.

Also: that makes it a 'similar' path. You still need to buy province and all; it just a bigger boost to what buying provinces increases. When ahead, it's easier to stay ahead. Again: I don't think that's a good mechanism.

But by buying into this chain, you'll be slower to Provinces unless you've had a good plan all along.  Also, if you actually think about the effects, they aren't that amazing.

0-2 = Peddler.  You don't have to discard for this so it's always available.

3-10 = Double Lab.  That sounds amazing until you remember that you had to discard cards for it.  You draw 3 cards, but you're also discarding at least 2 cards!  This makes it barely better than Cellar.  Possibly worse, actually, since you can't discard Copper to it.

10+ = exchange, but no other bonus other than the +1 action.  You'll need to shuffle before you get any advantage out of that.

It's not at all like Tournament because, by this point, you'll have done a significant amount of deck building.

It's like a game we had with 4 players, and the first player to start won because she was the first one to get a hand of 5 (or 6, I don't remember) with coins; everyone after her always had to remove 2 cards, causing a serious delay. That's an effect I don't like.

What card was causing this?  Militia?  I don't see how it's related...

Visit the Khan (Action-Victory) Cost:
The game ends after this turn.

Worth 10 if you played this.

Because of the 'you need victory cards anyway', this is almost always a 'whoever plays this first, wins'. So I'm ok with keeping it at +10 VP, but then it has to be an alternative to provinces (which it's not really at this point). If you want to keep it, I'd make it (1) that it feels less swingy and, more importantly, is an alternative to provinces, rather than build on top of it.

That can be modified by lowering the VP value if necessary, but I think 10VP will often be too little to overcome somebody who just ignored this card from the start.

I'm really still not seeing the swinginess.  The more I think about it, the more it seems that every card was designed to mitigate swinginess.  For perspective, the possible swinginess in this card seems far, far less than the swinginess of having Chapel miss the second shuffle.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2016, 07:14:53 pm »
+1



Board A Ship is Ruined Village when you first play it, then it's Walled Village until you actually use up the extra action and exchange it.  Walled Village is not super strong.  You exchange it when you draw and play a terminal action.  Since it stays in play until then, you can almost guarantee that it will be exchanged within 2 shuffles.  Not random.

Well actually, you need to play 2 terminals on the same turn to exchange it, if you didn't have a terminal on the turn you first played it.
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: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2016, 07:17:54 pm »
0



Board A Ship is Ruined Village when you first play it, then it's Walled Village until you actually use up the extra action and exchange it.  Walled Village is not super strong.  You exchange it when you draw and play a terminal action.  Since it stays in play until then, you can almost guarantee that it will be exchanged within 2 shuffles.  Not random.

Well actually, you need to play 2 terminals on the same turn to exchange it, if you didn't have a terminal on the turn you first played it.

OK, fair point.  But playing two terminals isn't really that difficult, especially since you can use one to draw the other. :P
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2016, 07:20:30 pm »
0

Quote
A.
*Random bonus*
When there is an A on your tavern mat, discard this.  If you do: you may exchange this for a B.
Put this on your tavern mat.
------
*Random on call aspect + bonus*

Quote
B.
*Random bonus*
When there is an A or B on your tavern mat, discard this.  If you do: you may exchange this for a C.
Put this on your tavern mat.
------
*Random on call aspect + bonus*

Quote
C.
*Random bonus*
When there is an B or C on your tavern mat, discard this. If you do: you may exchange this for a D.
Put this on your tavern mat.
------
*Random on call aspect + bonus*

Quote
D.
*Random bonus*
When there is an C or D. on your tavern mat, discard this. If you do: the game ends at the end of your turn.
Put this on your tavern mat.
----
When D is on your tavern mat: + a big amount of VP.

I would probably think of something along this line, and this for all 4 steps.
(1) It synergizes with itself.
(2) It's a deliberate strategy.
(3) And you can find a VP system that makes it similar in strength to other ALT-VP's, rathern than having to use VP's itself.

Some of your ideas can be recycled, I am sure.

You can put 'big' conditions on removing them from your tavern mat in order to upgrade them further. Or you can let them sit on the tavern mat and then every time start from A again. Or you can try to use several A's from the beginning.

I'd make each bonus worth it to keep it away from the tavern mat, but still don't want to necessarily discard it.

So you want a B on your tavern mat, so you can play your C without having to put it on your tavern mat.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 07:27:42 pm by AdrianHealey »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All
 

Page created in 0.07 seconds with 21 queries.