Print

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

[AdrianHealey]

After the resounding success of the seaside 2nd expansion idea, let's discuss all of them. Next up, the slightly less popular expansion Alchemy.

To clarify: if you say 'I'd keep scrying pool, but replace the attack!', well that basically counts as replacing scrying pool. Any change that's not purely cosmetic or clarification on the words, counts as a change.

I'd probably change Transmute (a buffed version might be nice), scrying pool (go to hell, you evil spawn), famiiar (missed the $3/P? You're dead), philosopher's stone (do you like counting?) and possession. So yeah, not much to like here, I guess. But I still do like potion, though!

I guess potion works better if it leads to (strong) cards that are good when you already have other cards, like golem. (Or doesn't autoloose ou the game when you fail to align potion and money.) Again, looking at you familiar.

[Beyond Awesome]

Out of all the expansions, Alchemy really needs the most work. However, I think it near impossible we ever see an updated Alchemy for the simple reason that Donald X. states a lot of people hate/dislike this expansion, and if you go on BGG for instance, well that seems to hold true.

With that said:

Transmute is a useless card. It needs to be replaced with something else.

P Stone doesn't really work as a Potion card. It would be good though without a potion cost.

Herbalist is pretty boring. The top deck almost never comes in handy, although, I guess you can use it in this expansion, but we already have Peasant, so I would consider replacing it with some other +Buy card.

Pool should have the attack removed.

Alchemist and Familiar should cost 2P. 3P is just too swingy of a price point.

And, well, Possession is the most hated card ever. It needs to go.

Man, that's actually quite a lot of changes there..

[markusin]

For Alchemy, it makes more sense to single out the cards worth keeping (e.g. Vineyard, Apprentice, University) and adapt them to 2nd-3rd editions of some other sets. Alchemy has enough problematic cards that "2nd Edition Alchemy" would basically be a new expansion with a few recycled cards (the good ones that weren't removed).

[Chris is me]

Obviously just take the part of Scrying Pool that inspects opponent decks off. That's easy. Rename the card if needed, whatever.

Transmute should be totally different. On buy +Buy to make its Potion only cost actually meaningful. I wouldn't mind if it was nonterminal either. I'm sure there are some big consequences to this I'm not seeing, but if you gain tons of them then you should be able to play them, I think. It's possible there is just no salvaging the card concept and replacing it is the best move.

Just get rid of Possession. It's nice and all what it does, but it's not worth the rules headache and the weird way other things have to be worded for it to work.

P Stone would be kinda neat unchanged but with +Buy. I don't think a slog card that costs Potion is fundamentally bad.

Herbalist is vanilla but I think it should be left as is. The Potion topdecking is useful within the set theme, and cheap +Buy is so scarce anyway. Maybe buff it to +$2 (yes, for $2).

Alchemist should remain 3P, Familiar should be 2P though.

Golem and Uni are great as is. Vineyard is perfect, and I think costing P is essential to the card working so well and being balanced.

[mail-mi]

Here's an idea: what if Possession was an event, costing 6P with a once per turn clause?

[Beyond Awesome]

Here's an idea: what if Possession was an event, costing 6P with a once per turn clause?

I don't know. I've read a lot of threads on BGG and elsewhere about people who hate, hate, hate Possession for the fact someone takes over their turn. An Event would make it likely not as hated, but I think it would a card a lot of casual players would despise.

[AdrianHealey]

The problem with posession: the guy gets to spend all your cointokens, replace your tokens, fuck up your duration cards, etc. It's so luck dependent (I had a ph-stone slog response to posessions, guy manaaged to disproportionately amount of times posesses me right when I had them in my hand, etc.)

I mean, if it had a 'both player gain the cards bought' clause or whatever, it may even be acceptable. But as is, it degenerates the game.

[Beyond Awesome]

The problem with posession: the guy gets to spend all your cointokens, replace your tokens, fuck up your duration cards, etc. It's so luck dependent (I had a ph-stone slog response to posessions, guy manaaged to disproportionately amount of times posesses me right when I had them in my hand, etc.)

I mean, if it had a 'both player gain the cards bought' clause or whatever, it may even be acceptable. But as is, it degenerates the game.

This.

There are simply times where one player gets Possession at the right times and takes over the other players deck at the right time, and you end up with a very lopsided game. Those are just some of the problems with Possession.

[werothegreat]

You guys realize this turns into a power creep thing, right?  That there will always be a "weakest" card?  If you prune and change too much, eventually that card will be Goons, and we'll all be in fetal positions

[ThetaSigma12]

You guys realize this turns into a power creep thing, right?  That there will always be a "weakest" card?  If you prune and change too much, eventually that card will be Goons, and we'll all be in fetal positions

Well, the trick is to narrow the gap. If you have a range of 1 power to 10 power, it's better to change it to 2 to 8 power range.

Also, it's not always about making the game more balanced, sometimes cards can be balanced and still unfun.

[tripwire]

Regarding Possession, I know some people who love the card. For example, my wife is excited every time she sees it and goes for it no matter what. The one thing I wish was the case was that you couldn't stack possessions. That quickly turns from something potentially fun into something ugly.

I think the wow factor and the new gameplay it creates are reasons why it should stick around despite the number of people who hate how violating it can be.

[Accatitippi]

I'd love an Alchemy remake. I've said it before, but I think Alchemy's lack of popularity was due to how bad/wacky/slow/redundant its cards were, rather than due to the Potion gimmick itself.
Like most people here, I'd keep unchanged Uni, Vineyard, Apothecary, and Apprentice.
Transmute and philstone need some serious fix.
Possession, do we really need it.
Herbalist could also be replaced by something more interesting.
Familiar definitely needs a price review. Alchemist and Golem too, maybe.
Pool should lose the inspection part.

Yet, I don't think these changes would make Alchemy satisfying enough. Alchemy also suffers from having many cards filling the same role (Alchemist, Pool, Apprentice and Golem), so I'd take away a few. Moving Alchemist's bonus to another card could make sense. Or combining it with noninspecting Scrying Pool. Golem is also a weakish link, I wouldn't be too sad to see it go for variety's sake. Apprentice and Pool are clearly the memorable two in there.Then fill up the blanks with card-shaped things that make their Potion cost interesting, and that appeal to a variety of decks.
From the single-customer point of view this would probably be a good purchase, but the larger picture might be a bit bleak for RGG and Donald - Alchemy has such a bad name that many people would be wary to buy Alchemy II.

[Accatitippi]

You guys realize this turns into a power creep thing, right?  That there will always be a "weakest" card?  If you prune and change too much, eventually that card will be Goons, and we'll all be in fetal positions

It's not about power lever for me, it's about fun.
Useless cards are not as fun as very useful cards, so there's that. But Alchemy sorta sucks so I think it would be worth the power creep.
Also, nerfing the unfun part of Pool is probably something almost everybody here would agree upon. And thats's a nerf!

[Beyond Awesome]

Yah, nerfing Pool is not power creep. Also, recosting Familiar is actually the opposite of power creep since it actually makes the game more balanced.

[Chris is me]

Yah, nerfing Pool is not power creep. Also, recosting Familiar is actually the opposite of power creep since it actually makes the game more balanced.

It's not really even about making Pool worse, it's about it not slowing the game down nearly as much.

[drsteelhammer]

Why has Possession as many votes as Herbalist, you heathens.

[Witherweaver]

You could make Potions consumable.  So like when you play a Potion to buy a Potion-cost card, the Potion is Trashed.  Also maybe reduce the cost to something more reasonable like $2.  Makes sense; I mean you have to drink the potion.

[ThetaSigma12]

You could make Potions consumable.  So like when you play a Potion to buy a Potion-cost card, the Potion is Trashed.  Also maybe reduce the cost to something more reasonable like $2.  Makes sense; I mean you have to drink the potion.

It should also be renamed gunpowder.

[Witherweaver]

You could make Potions consumable.  So like when you play a Potion to buy a Potion-cost card, the Potion is Trashed.  Also maybe reduce the cost to something more reasonable like $2.  Makes sense; I mean you have to drink the potion.

It should also be renamed gunpowder.

I dunno, man, you'd have to retheme the entire set.

[ThetaSigma12]

You could make Potions consumable.  So like when you play a Potion to buy a Potion-cost card, the Potion is Trashed.  Also maybe reduce the cost to something more reasonable like $2.  Makes sense; I mean you have to drink the potion.

It should also be renamed gunpowder.

I dunno, man, you'd have to retheme the entire set.

Replacement for Transmute:

Bomb 1G
Trash this and a card from your hand.

It's really good because it gets rid of itself in your deck, maybe it should cost an extra ?

[Accatitippi]

You could make Potions consumable.  So like when you play a Potion to buy a Potion-cost card, the Potion is Trashed.  Also maybe reduce the cost to something more reasonable like $2.  Makes sense; I mean you have to drink the potion.

You could probably give that on-buy effect to a couple of cards, and it would be cool.
For all cards, uh. Two buys and waiting a shuffle to get a card seems reeally slow and cumbersome.

[trivialknot]

I don't really like Alchemy and oppose revisiting it.  But if we must, I would rethink the whole concept.

I think the potion mechanic is most successful when it functions as a floodgate.  In most cases, you only draw it once per shuffle.  Alchemists are great in large quantities, but it takes four shuffles to get 4 Alchemists, and you could get a teacher in about as much time.

The problem is that you're sad when you draw your potion and fail to hit the price point you need.  Thus I propose that all potion-cost cards should cost potion + debt.

In theory, you could also design potion-cost cards that you only want 1-2 copies of.  These cards must be strong to offset the cost of buying a whole potion just for that.  The problem is then that there's too much synergy between different potion-cost cards, as you could use the same potion to buy different cards at different points in the game.  So either the card is too weak on its own (looking at you, Transmute), or too strong with other potion cards.  Maybe these cards should trash the potion on buy.

Herbalist seems specifically designed to open up the floodgates further, but doesn't work too well with only basic treasure.  Even if it collides with gold, Herbalist only nets you $4, at the cost of 2 draw and 1 action.  I think it should be a cantrip, or +2 Cards.

[Limetime]

The problem is that you're sad when you  fail to hit the price point you need.  Thus I propose that all cards should cost debt.

FYP

[McGarnacle]

I actually really like Philosopher's Stone. Yes, it can be weak, but with + Buy it can be good. Plus its cool. Dropping the deck inspection on SP would work. Other than that, buff Transmute and maybe make Possession an Event as was suggested.

I actually like Alchemy. Yes, some of the cards are a pain, but its a high-skill expansion, just like Cornucopia.

[McGarnacle]

You guys realize this turns into a power creep thing, right?  That there will always be a "weakest" card?  If you prune and change too much, eventually that card will be Goons, and we'll all be in fetal positions

I totally agree with this. I think we are already experiencing power creep in the 2 latest expansions, this would just make it worse.

[AdrianHealey]

Powercreem =\=
Cards that have a place depending on what's else on the board. Some cards never have a place.

[Accatitippi]

But power creep isn't really a thing in Dominion. At least, it's very different than in CCGs.
Only a tiny fraction of the cards is available each game, and as soon as each single card is fun and viable a proportionate number of games compared to how fun it is, then the push for power creep fizzles.

In CCGs, the need of having a shifting metagame in a game environment where most of the (newer) cards are available means that the pubblisher needs to always provide cards that can beat the former best strategies, because otherwise the game gets stale.

[Donald X.]

But power creep isn't really a thing in Dominion. At least, it's very different than in CCGs.
Only a tiny fraction of the cards is available each game, and as soon as each single card is fun and viable a proportionate number of games compared to how fun it is, then the push for power creep fizzles.

In CCGs, the need of having a shifting metagame in a game environment where most of the (newer) cards are available means that the pubblisher needs to always provide cards that can beat the former best strategies, because otherwise the game gets stale.

Yes.

In a CCG there's a push towards power creep (that the designers have to fight somehow). The main ways Magic fights it are by rotating cards out of Standard constantly, and by shifting which strategies get the best cards. Without a solution, you have the problem of, the new sets don't look good enough; you can address that by making them more powerful, but in the long run that burns you. And if you didn't have power creep you'd have people not caring about the new sets; you really need some solution like the rotating format.

In Dominion there's no push towards power creep. It doesn't accomplish anything. It's sad to have a village you never play if another village is out, a Smithy you never play when there's another Smithy out. Something will always be at the bottom there though, and power creep just doesn't fix it, it doesn't do anything of use. The new cards need to be different and fun, and beyond that they want to be as well-balanced relative to other cards as possible. They don't want to be too weak, except compared to the strongest cards; I don't mind if a card-drawer is worse than Wharf or a trasher is worse than Chapel. And they don't want to be too strong either.

Dominion and Intrigue are losing duds because that's mostly what they had for me to fix. It amounts to average card quality going up slightly, but the duds were real outliers. If everything were close enough to balanced, I would not feel like "replace the 6 worst cards" was a good move. Certainly if we pick the 6 worst cards in the second edition of Dominion, I don't feel like I should replace those, even though 6 are the 6 worst. They just aren't outliers like Scout etc.

Now there is complexity creep (in both games). You run out of simple things to do. That's a big issue for Dominion.

[Aleimon Thimble]

If there were some serious power creep going on, that would mean that Chapel, Witch, Village, Militia, Smithy and Throne Room would no longer be viable. This is clearly not the case, those cards are still highly valuable in your deck today, even if you're mostly playing with Adventures and Empires cards otherwise.

[Beyond Awesome]

So if a card like Rebuild was in base Dominion I'm guessing you would be open to replacing it. It's not much about replacing duds as it is balancing things out, correct?

[madeofghosts]

I'd just ditch Potion altogether tbf.

Someone on here suggested an alternate Potion-based cost for Province, that might be good too.

[Donald X.]

So if a card like Rebuild was in base Dominion I'm guessing you would be open to replacing it. It's not much about replacing duds as it is balancing things out, correct?

Well the goal overall was, how should I put this, "to increase the number of decks to build, the number of things to do, while keeping things simple." In the case of Dominion and Intrigue that meant replacing duds; that ends up giving you more decks to build and more things to do. There is also the tangential goal of just fixing any other problems I could find, e.g. Spy is too slow.

Strong cards can reduce the number of things to do, by dominating games, especially by dominating games while shutting out other cards. If I were making Dark Ages 2nd Edition I would replace Rebuild, sure; it does that (for experienced players). That case is helped by relative popularity; it's trickier to replace very popular strong cards, e.g. Wharf. In the case of Chapel, it does shut out many other trashers, but still seemed worth keeping. It leaves you with a lot of game.

[Witherweaver]

Someone on here suggested an alternate Potion-based cost for Province, that might be good too.

I think that's called Vineyards.

[werothegreat]

So if a card like Rebuild was in base Dominion I'm guessing you would be open to replacing it. It's not much about replacing duds as it is balancing things out, correct?

Well the goal overall was, how should I put this, "to increase the number of decks to build, the number of things to do, while keeping things simple." In the case of Dominion and Intrigue that meant replacing duds; that ends up giving you more decks to build and more things to do. There is also the tangential goal of just fixing any other problems I could find, e.g. Spy is too slow.

Strong cards can reduce the number of things to do, by dominating games, especially by dominating games while shutting out other cards. If I were making Dark Ages 2nd Edition I would replace Rebuild, sure; it does that (for experienced players). That case is helped by relative popularity; it's trickier to replace very popular strong cards, e.g. Wharf. In the case of Chapel, it does shut out many other trashers, but still seemed worth keeping. It leaves you with a lot of game.

I'm just glad Bridge was spared the nerfhammer.

[sudgy]

I feel like I'm one of the few people who think Possession is actually a good card and should stay even if Alchemy got redone.  I wouldn't oppose making it only able to do one turn, but other than that I feel like it fits in an interesting design space.

[Accatitippi]

I feel like I'm one of the few people who think Possession is actually a good card and should stay even if Alchemy got redone.  I wouldn't oppose making it only able to do one turn, but other than that I feel like it fits in an interesting design space.

I actually like Possession when it doesn't get too crazy, so I think I'd probably love a one-turn Possession.
The question is: is it worth all the rule pain?
I don't have a good answer to that.

I think I might start houseruling a "If the last turn wasn't theirs, ..." at the start of Possession and see how I like it.

[NoMoreFun]

I'd add enough cards to make it a big box including events.



Events costing $P that give a +buy essentially turn potion into an (interesting) treasure costing $4, so they're very palatable and easy to design.

I would also replace Transmute, Philosophers Stone, Possession and Familiar

[Kirian]

I feel like I'm one of the few people who think Possession is actually a good card and should stay even if Alchemy got redone.  I wouldn't oppose making it only able to do one turn, but other than that I feel like it fits in an interesting design space.

I don't mind playing with Possession.  I mind playing with Possession in person.

[sudgy]

I feel like I'm one of the few people who think Possession is actually a good card and should stay even if Alchemy got redone.  I wouldn't oppose making it only able to do one turn, but other than that I feel like it fits in an interesting design space.

I actually like Possession when it doesn't get too crazy, so I think I'd probably love a one-turn Possession.
The question is: is it worth all the rule pain?
I don't have a good answer to that.

I think I might start houseruling a "If the last turn wasn't theirs, ..." at the start of Possession and see how I like it.

The thing is, we already have the rule pain.  We can't talk about replacing Possession now because it already exists, and all future cards will need to deal with it.  With a Dominion time machine, yeah, we can talk about how confusing the card is and whether we should keep it.  Otherwise, though, the rules confusions are here to stay.

[NoMoreFun]

I feel like I'm one of the few people who think Possession is actually a good card and should stay even if Alchemy got redone.  I wouldn't oppose making it only able to do one turn, but other than that I feel like it fits in an interesting design space.

Minion spoils set ups, Smugglers piggybacks off another players good turn. Lots of boards prevent crazy megaturns, though it's more "can't" than "shouldn't". I do like how it's still a risk you can take, and you have ample time to prepare  for it since your opponent has to pick up a potion at some point.

Still, there's probably a way to achieve what Possession achieves in a simpler and less annoying card.

[NoMoreFun]

You guys realize this turns into a power creep thing, right?  That there will always be a "weakest" card?  If you prune and change too much, eventually that card will be Goons, and we'll all be in fetal positions

I'd change Goons just by getting rid of the attack. The attack is superfluous; there's a design principle (discussed in the secret histories for Oracle regarding the dropping of its when gain) that the attack portion of an attack shouldn't be a side effect,  otherwise attacks are part of the game without anyone really wanting them to be there.

Ironically I think Oracle itself also suffers from that; the attack is too weak to be the point of the card but it really drags on when you use Oracle as an engine component.

[AdrianHealey]

Well, if orcle looses the attack; it could very well just be m 'reveal two cards m. Put them in your hand or discard them and draw tw cards.'

Which could work.

[McGarnacle]

Well, if orcle looses the attack; it could very well just be m 'reveal two cards m. Put them in your hand or discard them and draw tw cards.'

Which could work.

It would be too much like Catacombs.

[Awaclus]

You guys realize this turns into a power creep thing, right?  That there will always be a "weakest" card?  If you prune and change too much, eventually that card will be Goons, and we'll all be in fetal positions

I'd rather play kingdoms with 10 cards that are more powerful than Goons than 10 cards that are less powerful than Silver.

[McGarnacle]

You guys realize this turns into a power creep thing, right?  That there will always be a "weakest" card?  If you prune and change too much, eventually that card will be Goons, and we'll all be in fetal positions

I'd rather play kingdoms with 10 cards that are more powerful than Goons than 10 cards that are less powerful than Silver.

Apart from Transmute, which Alchemy cards are worse then Silver?

[LastFootnote]

Transmute is better than Silver. It's just not worth buying an otherwise dead Potion in order to get one Transmute. (Possible exception: Bonfire)

[NoMoreFun]

Transmute is better than Silver. It's just not worth buying an otherwise dead Potion in order to get one Transmute. (Possible exception: Bonfire)

"Gain a Gold" doesn't seem that strong any more and you only get 3 from your starting estates. Turning your no longer useful actions into Duchies is good but Remodel would do that just fine in most cases. Turning Coppers into Duchies with 2 plays can't be done by Remodel, but I'm not sure that's particularly useful.

My guess is it would probably be a decent $4 but not always better than Silver (and not just in the pedantic "strictly better" sense).

One other fix could have been "When you gain this, if it's your turn, +$1 and +1 buy" so it has a lower opportunity cost and trashing Treasure (to gain Transmute) isn't as bad.

Transmute is an elegant concept, just too weak.

[Jack Rudd]

Transmute's main problem is the Treasure -> Action step. Because there's no generic Action on every board, it has to go Copper -> Transmute, and you don't want large quantities of Transmutes.

That's why my preferred fix for it looks like this:

Jack's Transmute
Action - $4

Trash a card from your hand. If it is...
...an Action, gain a Victory card costing up to $5
...a Victory card, gain a Treasure costing up to $6
...a Treasure, gain an Action costing up to $4

[NoMoreFun]

In lieu of other threads (there have been Seaside and Alchemy threads)

Prosperity: Replace Loan, Talisman, Royal Seal, Expand, Goons (but give one of the replacement cards its below the line effect), maybe Counting House (it's great when the card works, but that's not often enough, and that wasn't enough to save Coppersmith), maybe Monument now Plunder exists (but it's probably fine). A good reason to replace the cards would be to open up slots for more VP token ideas.

Cornucopia: Probably fine, although if Navigator gets replaced then maybe Harvest could pick up the slack (Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. +$1 for each differently named card. Either discard them or put them all back)

Hinterlands: Replace Cache and Ill Gotten Gains with Events, and with Events now in the set they can fill in the Blanks. Replace Duchess, but give its below the line effect to a replacement card/event; one that can genuinely incentivise buying Duchies early in certain kingdoms instead of being a "sure why not". Replace Develop. Margrave and Oracle are ok but Margrave's attack is too strong for its vanilla effect to be Smithy with a bonus, and Oracle's attack is a bad combination of weak and annoying, so maybe those cards can be retooled.

Dark Ages: Replace Rebuild. Cultist would be worth a look as well as too overcentralising and not in an interesting or fun way (but it's probably fine). Vagrant is a "why not" card, and I think Donald X has gotten better at designing those sorts of cards (Ratcatcher and Patrician/Emporium), but it's not as bad as Pearl Diver. I'd prefer if Fortress had "When you gain or trash this, if it's your buy phase, put it on top of your deck, otherwise, put it in your hand" to make it useful in more games, or if Rats let you trash a hand of all Rats, but those would be controversial.

Guilds: Masterpiece could be an event. Events seem like they'd work really well with Coin Tokens and/or overpay. Rereleasing it with Masterpiece replaced with an Event and 17 new events would be a good replacement.

Adventures: One of the best things about the rereleases is the fact that blanks get filled in. Between now and the time for a rerelease, Donald X et al could come up with ideas for 6 more events, and maybe by then cards would look like they need to go (although as of now my only issue is Gear BM seems a bit too good)

[AdrianHealey]

Hey man, give me some time

[Awaclus]

You guys realize this turns into a power creep thing, right?  That there will always be a "weakest" card?  If you prune and change too much, eventually that card will be Goons, and we'll all be in fetal positions

I'd rather play kingdoms with 10 cards that are more powerful than Goons than 10 cards that are less powerful than Silver.

Apart from Transmute, which Alchemy cards are worse then Silver?

Philosopher's Stone.

Surprisingly enough, the cards I voted for in this poll were Transmute and Philosopher's Stone.

[McGarnacle]

You guys realize this turns into a power creep thing, right?  That there will always be a "weakest" card?  If you prune and change too much, eventually that card will be Goons, and we'll all be in fetal positions

I'd rather play kingdoms with 10 cards that are more powerful than Goons than 10 cards that are less powerful than Silver.

Apart from Transmute, which Alchemy cards are worse then Silver?

Philosopher's Stone.

Surprisingly enough, the cards I voted for in this poll were Transmute and Philosopher's Stone.

Okay, PS is often weak, but weaker than Silver??? With even a fairly slow gainer, its not hard to get 40 cards in your deck, which means you get a Province for each Philosopher's Stone. Feodum-enablers help PS a lot, but since you can gain any card, not just silvers, you can Stonemason, Trader and Masterpiece away to your hearts content.

I don't think PS is especially strong, but I do think it is underrated. I would rarely go for it if it is the only potion cost on the board, but if there are no more curses for Familiar and you have , you might as well.

[Awaclus]

Okay, PS is often weak, but weaker than Silver??? With even a fairly slow gainer, its not hard to get 40 cards in your deck, which means you get a Province for each Philosopher's Stone. Feodum-enablers help PS a lot, but since you can gain any card, not just silvers, you can Stonemason, Trader and Masterpiece away to your hearts content.

I don't think PS is especially strong, but I do think it is underrated. I would rarely go for it if it is the only potion cost on the board, but if there are no more curses for Familiar and you have , you might as well.

PStone is super weak. I buy Silver reasonably often, PStone almost never.

[gloures]

PStone, is a quite weak, but situationally useful card, worse than silver, but it´s a card that I´d be sad if it was gone, since it´s quite an interesting slog card... But one thing that comes to mind though is that when playing Dominion with the physical cards it´s probably pretty annoying all the card counting... (I have never played alchemy with physical cards...)

[tristan]

Scrying Pool would also be game-dominating without the attack part. So cast the overpowered card out together with the underpowered cards, Transmute.
One can debate about Philosopher Stone, a decent card that is rarely good and Herbalist which is boring but IMO OK as it supports playing with Treasure cards.

[Chris is me]

Scrying Pool would also be game-dominating without the attack part. So cast the overpowered card out together with the underpowered cards, Transmute.
One can debate about Philosopher Stone, a decent card that is rarely good and Herbalist which is boring but IMO OK as it supports playing with Treasure cards.

Scrying Pool is powerful but not unreasonable, and the limiting factor of only one gain per shuffle sufficiently restricts access to the card throughout the game. That's basically the point of the Potion cost. Potion cards SHOULD be more powerful than the average card, to incentivize buying a Potion in games where it is the only card present.

[Accatitippi]

The problem I have with Pstone is that if I'm sloggin' away, then I won't see the Potion before a longish while (and the Stone after a longer while), and when I'll see it there will be a very real possibility that I won't hit 3p and then I'll just feel sad.
Maybe if it cost 2p or less I'd feel more comfortable going for it.

[shark_bait]

The problem I have with Pstone is that if I'm sloggin' away, then I won't see the Potion before a longish while (and the Stone after a longer while), and when I'll see it there will be a very real possibility that I won't hit 3p and then I'll just feel sad.
Maybe if it cost 2p or less I'd feel more comfortable going for it.

Plan ahead.

In a Mountebank slog I once invested in my Potion on Turn 3/4. knowing that I absolutely needed the PS for any chance of getting Province.  As the game slogged on victory was assured as each PS became a guaranteed Province.

PS is certainly a niche card but it enables strategies and counters that are otherwise unattainable.  In my opinion, that gives it an extremely good reason to stay.  There are certainly buffs that could be had like $2P for easier accessibility and perhaps a +Buy to make it easier to use excess cash.  But suffice to say, it fills a role in dominion that currently no other card does making it a well designed card.

[Asper]

I'd replace Transmute.

I once opened Watchtower/Watchtower and then trashed Squires for Familiars extremely early. My bf went for PS and had 10 Curses very, very early. He then used those 10 Curses to bump his PS, bought a Colony, and we were even in points, with me having a lot of Cantrips and him having super-powered Treasures. Good times.

[tripwire]

The problem I have with Pstone is that if I'm sloggin' away, then I won't see the Potion before a longish while (and the Stone after a longer while), and when I'll see it there will be a very real possibility that I won't hit 3p and then I'll just feel sad.
Maybe if it cost 2p or less I'd feel more comfortable going for it.

Plan ahead.

In a Mountebank slog I once invested in my Potion on Turn 3/4. knowing that I absolutely needed the PS for any chance of getting Province.  As the game slogged on victory was assured as each PS became a guaranteed Province.

PS is certainly a niche card but it enables strategies and counters that are otherwise unattainable.  In my opinion, that gives it an extremely good reason to stay.  There are certainly buffs that could be had like $2P for easier accessibility and perhaps a +Buy to make it easier to use excess cash.  But suffice to say, it fills a role in dominion that currently no other card does making it a well designed card.

I agree, I love the card (despite potentially slow resolve times irl), but does P. Stone really benefit from having a potion cost, though? I feel it would be a niche card with or without the potion cost, so gating it off hurts it a lot more than other potion cards. I wonder how much better a P. Stone that only costs coins would be.

[LastFootnote]

Scrying Pool would also be game-dominating without the attack part. So cast the overpowered card out together with the underpowered cards, Transmute.

If you're saying that Scrying Pool would be dominating without affecting other players, but still with the Spy effect for your own deck: sure, maybe. Although I think people underestimate how much damage the attack does (when stacked, which it nearly always is). If you're saying that Scrying Pool would be dominating in its original form, with no Spy effect for anyone: that hasn't been my experience so far. Admittedly I've only used this version of Scrying Pool in one or two games so far, but it is much weaker.

[Asper]

The problem I have with Pstone is that if I'm sloggin' away, then I won't see the Potion before a longish while (and the Stone after a longer while), and when I'll see it there will be a very real possibility that I won't hit 3p and then I'll just feel sad.
Maybe if it cost 2p or less I'd feel more comfortable going for it.

Plan ahead.

In a Mountebank slog I once invested in my Potion on Turn 3/4. knowing that I absolutely needed the PS for any chance of getting Province.  As the game slogged on victory was assured as each PS became a guaranteed Province.

PS is certainly a niche card but it enables strategies and counters that are otherwise unattainable.  In my opinion, that gives it an extremely good reason to stay.  There are certainly buffs that could be had like $2P for easier accessibility and perhaps a +Buy to make it easier to use excess cash.  But suffice to say, it fills a role in dominion that currently no other card does making it a well designed card.

I agree, I love the card (despite potentially slow resolve times irl), but does P. Stone really benefit from having a potion cost, though? I feel it would be a niche card with or without the potion cost, so gating it off hurts it a lot more than other potion cards. I wonder how much better a P. Stone that only costs coins would be.

One thing this would do is that PS'd help you pick up more of itself - which, interestingly, would go with Alchemy's self-synergy theme. It'd have to cost $5, maybe even $6, but considering the self-synergy, i'm not even convinced this would be too much. It already costs "more" than $5, after all.

[shark_bait]

The problem I have with Pstone is that if I'm sloggin' away, then I won't see the Potion before a longish while (and the Stone after a longer while), and when I'll see it there will be a very real possibility that I won't hit 3p and then I'll just feel sad.
Maybe if it cost 2p or less I'd feel more comfortable going for it.

Plan ahead.

In a Mountebank slog I once invested in my Potion on Turn 3/4. knowing that I absolutely needed the PS for any chance of getting Province.  As the game slogged on victory was assured as each PS became a guaranteed Province.

PS is certainly a niche card but it enables strategies and counters that are otherwise unattainable.  In my opinion, that gives it an extremely good reason to stay.  There are certainly buffs that could be had like $2P for easier accessibility and perhaps a +Buy to make it easier to use excess cash.  But suffice to say, it fills a role in dominion that currently no other card does making it a well designed card.

I agree, I love the card (despite potentially slow resolve times irl), but does P. Stone really benefit from having a potion cost, though? I feel it would be a niche card with or without the potion cost, so gating it off hurts it a lot more than other potion cards. I wonder how much better a P. Stone that only costs coins would be.

One thing this would do is that PS'd help you pick up more of itself - which, interestingly, would go with Alchemy's self-synergy theme. It'd have to cost $5, maybe even $6, but considering the self-synergy, i'm not even convinced this would be too much. It already costs "more" than $5, after all.

The problem is that it would really have to cost more than $6.  Perhaps the best comparison is Bank at $7 which is a Kingdom Treasure without an upper bound and is really the opposite of PS.  Bank is best is where you are drawing your entire deck thus maximizing Banks value.  Because it can be both better or worse than Gold depending on how it is played its at $7.  I don't think there are any complaints about Banks cost. 

The difference with PS is that it shines in decks where you don't/can't draw your deck.  In those situations your PS's gradually gain power as the game progresses.  The challenge is that for some of those games, the $7 price range is unattainable.  With $3P, you limit the access to PS but at the same time increase its accesability in sloggy games as $3P (equivalent of $5) is much much easier to attain than just a straight $7.  If it were a straight $5, it would be too overpowered/accessible in its current state. 

[Asper]

The problem I have with Pstone is that if I'm sloggin' away, then I won't see the Potion before a longish while (and the Stone after a longer while), and when I'll see it there will be a very real possibility that I won't hit 3p and then I'll just feel sad.
Maybe if it cost 2p or less I'd feel more comfortable going for it.

Plan ahead.

In a Mountebank slog I once invested in my Potion on Turn 3/4. knowing that I absolutely needed the PS for any chance of getting Province.  As the game slogged on victory was assured as each PS became a guaranteed Province.

PS is certainly a niche card but it enables strategies and counters that are otherwise unattainable.  In my opinion, that gives it an extremely good reason to stay.  There are certainly buffs that could be had like $2P for easier accessibility and perhaps a +Buy to make it easier to use excess cash.  But suffice to say, it fills a role in dominion that currently no other card does making it a well designed card.

I agree, I love the card (despite potentially slow resolve times irl), but does P. Stone really benefit from having a potion cost, though? I feel it would be a niche card with or without the potion cost, so gating it off hurts it a lot more than other potion cards. I wonder how much better a P. Stone that only costs coins would be.

One thing this would do is that PS'd help you pick up more of itself - which, interestingly, would go with Alchemy's self-synergy theme. It'd have to cost $5, maybe even $6, but considering the self-synergy, i'm not even convinced this would be too much. It already costs "more" than $5, after all.

The problem is that it would really have to cost more than $6.  Perhaps the best comparison is Bank at $7 which is a Kingdom Treasure without an upper bound and is really the opposite of PS.  Bank is best is where you are drawing your entire deck thus maximizing Banks value.  Because it can be both better or worse than Gold depending on how it is played its at $7.  I don't think there are any complaints about Banks cost. 

The difference with PS is that it shines in decks where you don't/can't draw your deck.  In those situations your PS's gradually gain power as the game progresses.  The challenge is that for some of those games, the $7 price range is unattainable.  With $3P, you limit the access to PS but at the same time increase its accesability in sloggy games as $3P (equivalent of $5) is much much easier to attain than just a straight $7.  If it were a straight $5, it would be too overpowered/accessible in its current state.

I think it's established that $3P is not about equal, but more than $5, as any Potion could have been a Silver, which would provide $2, but while Silver can be used for any card (including the $3 of $3P), Potion is restricted to a few chosen cards. Therefore, Potion adds an opportunity cost over Silver, and $3P are "more" than $5 in a sense of how hard it is to reach that cost.

Nonetheless, i wonder why PS shouldn't be able to cost $6. It might get better than Gold if your deck has more than 20 cards, but only if you are not going for draw or trashing. As both of those are relavant and strong strategies, i suppose a $6 Philosopher's Stone would pose some kind of oppositional strategy, but the fact it can't work together with some other good strategies means it's far from strictly better than Gold. Which, after all, isn't so much a problem for kingdom cards. Many players will buy a $5 kindgom card over Gold when having $6.

[polot38]

I voted for:

Possession: It is simply unfun to play with.

Philosophers Stone: It is too weak. I think that in my last 1000+ games, I've only bought it in one game, and I don't think such stats are atypical for Philosopher's stone.

Transmute: This card is okay except for the fact that it is rarely worth buying a potion just for it.

[drsteelhammer]

I like the idea of Pstone getting a little tweak since it's main problem definitely is that in those thick decks you aren't really able to pick up more Pstones.

I really like the idea of some self-synergy, so that Pstones can pick up more Pstones. For example with the wording: "If you have a Pstone in play, this costs $3", keeping the current cost otherwise. It would be a neat twist of the Potion mechanic, which fits really well into the philosophy of dominion themes

[Chris is me]

PStones could produce a Potion in addition to any other resources they produce. I think that would fix them.

PStone is fine, the problem is you have to know the slog is coming and invest really easy in playing it

[Aleimon Thimble]

Alchemy is probably the most difficult set to fix, there's a relatively high percentage of duds (also due to the small set size), it's fairly impopular in general. Making it a full size expansion would be fun in my opinion, but it's probably not worth it considering the low popularity of the set.

Glossing over the individual cards, the ones that are obviously fine are Apprentice, Vineyard, Apothecary, University, Alchemist and Golem. The community seems to agree, none of those cards have more than 5 votes. The other ones are all debatable.

Herbalist is very narrow and it doesn't fit in the set all that well. The only card it combos with is Philosopher's Stone; in most cases you don't actually want to topdeck treasure, which is the main problem of the card. I mean, topdecking Potion is sometimes useful, but it requires a lot of luck and it's not worth it unless you have a lot of leftover terminal space. It could just be changed so that you can topdeck any card, like a terminal Scheme that doesn't draw, but gives +Buy and coin instead. Or it could become something else entirely.

Transmute is one of the worst duds in the game, about as bad as Scout and Adventurer, who also got the axe. Definitely needs to go.

Scrying Pool is difficult. It can lead to excruciatingly long turns, but the spying effect is interesting enough that I think it should stay on the card. It's also very strong, bordering on OP, but I think it's interesting enough for its strength.

I'd say Familiar could stay, it's certainly swingy but it's the only chance to ever have a cantrip curser. Any non-Potion cost would make it OP. And there are other swingy cards, such as KC and Treasure Map and Tournament. I mean, sometimes you need to have a bit of luck, and if you can't accept that you should probably stop playing Dominion and play chess instead. (No offense to anyone intended)

Philosopher's Stone is also a tricky case. It's weak, hardly ever useful, but the concept is just so interesting and unique. I think it would be a shame if it were to leave, even though I would certainly understand it.

Possession should just go. The concept of punishing a deck that's too good is interesting, but Possession just gives people headaches and it's no fun to play with, especially IRL.

So I voted Herbalist, Transmute and Possession.

[jamfamsam]

Would limiting Possession to once per turn make it too weak?

[LastFootnote]

Would limiting Possession to once per turn make it too weak?

I doubt it, but it would make it even wordier.

[Donald X.]

Possession II: Action, $6P
For each card the player to your right gained in their most recent turn, gain a card that costs the same or less.

[Beyond Awesome]

Possession II: Action, $6P
For each card the player to your right gained in their most recent turn, gain a card that costs the same or less.

That actually sounds reasonable. It's a super Smugglers.

[Asper]

Possession II: Action, $6P
For each card the player to your right gained in their most recent turn, gain a card that costs the same or less.

Please, take it to the fan card subforum. 

[spiralstaircase]

Possession II: Action, $6P
For each card the player to your right gained in their most recent turn, gain a card that costs the same or less.

I like it, but the sequel to Possession has to be called "Possession II: Repossession".

[McGarnacle]

I like the idea of Pstone getting a little tweak since it's main problem definitely is that in those thick decks you aren't really able to pick up more Pstones.

I really like the idea of some self-synergy, so that Pstones can pick up more Pstones. For example with the wording: "If you have a Pstone in play, this costs $3", keeping the current cost otherwise. It would be a neat twist of the Potion mechanic, which fits really well into the philosophy of dominion themes

I like this. And theoretically, if you had a magical PS, you could use it to find more.

[ackmondual]

Scrying Pool really only works in digital games, or if vs. real people, in a non-real time game.  The extra time to the game can add up.
Ditto with P-Stone

Just get rid of Possession. It's nice and all what it does, but it's not worth the rules headache and the weird way other things have to be worded for it to work.

I've read up (at least within the first 50 posts) the hassles of the tokens and such.  Me, I would incorporate a once per turn policy (so no repossessing the same player multiple times in a row), and just make it that you ignore all tokens.  Debt doesn't affect you when playing as the possessor, but then, you don't get to use any player tokens either (from Adventures, you don't get VP tokens, can't use coin tokens).

Herbalist is vanilla but I think it should be left as is. The Potion topdecking is useful within the set theme, and cheap +Buy is so scarce anyway. Maybe buff it to +$2 (yes, for $2).

Hmm, I would've suggested making the "top-decking" ability a "set aside" one so that you get to keep the Treasure AND the 5 cards you normally draw for Cleanup phase.  However, effects that force you to discard down to x would muck with that.  If you don't get the card back until the start of your turn, that does sound like a Duration.  Not to mention straight up discarding x # of cards (like Torturer) would mess with this.

Golem and Uni are great as is. Vineyard is perfect, and I think costing P is essential to the card working so well and being balanced.

I thought University was too slow?  Other than that, nothing else wrong with it

[LastFootnote]

How is this thread not in the Variants forum?

[Asper]

How is this thread not in the Variants forum?

I guess it depends on whether you read this thread as "What would you change in Alchemy" (fan card thread) vs "What do you think Donald should change in Alchemy II" (general discussion). Even if you dismiss the speculatiive aspect of this thread (e.g. because you deem it unrealistic), it still has relatively little original content. Most of these are just obvious solutions to expressed complaints about the current cards.