Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Dominion: Revolution  (Read 1927 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

spiralstaircase

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
  • Respect: +254
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2017, 09:42:38 am »
+2

Innovator, Action, 5$
+1 Action
+2$
Lose any amount of $. Gain a card costing at most the amount you lost to your hand.

Without support from other +Action +Money cards, one copy of this card gains you a card costing up to $2, which seems *really* weak for a $5.  Multiple copies let you gain a bigger card, but at the cost of also copper-stuffing yourself.  I think at least it needs "You may".
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6179
  • Respect: +6670
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2017, 09:56:07 am »
+3

I'm not getting why you would ever buy Banner. It does nothing for you at all on play, compared to Embargo's $2. And then, while Embargo can hurt or shut down an opponent's strategy if it's different from yours, Banner only affects the first time they purchase the card, and even then instead of giving them a Curse, it gives them a one-shot terminal.

Or you could put it on the pile you want to buy to make it only cost $4 instead of $5 or something, maybe that was the intent? Although then it's just a terminal Copper. I'm not sure when you would ever actually want to spent the money and action space to get one.
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

Aquila

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
  • Respect: +16
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2017, 10:10:57 am »
0

Here's a more boring version that doesn't need a Village in the kingdom to work (which would be my main critizism of the "spend several actions" mechanic, and one of the reasons my Road always comes with a Village):

Innovator, Action, 5$
+1 Action
+2$
Lose any amount of $. Gain a card costing at most the amount you lost to your hand.

Obvious comparisons are Minion and Royal Seal. Royal Seal can use its effect later in your turn and can't be drawn dead, but it's topdecking is quite a bit weaker, lacking both the implicit +1 Card and the implicit +1 Buy.
This is coming back to how it first was, though without the Treasure playing. I hadn't considered that was why it was too good, so I will give this a go. Thanks.

I have looked at Town and Road, and they are good. Champion as you say is the main snag, so my only real question with them is, is a Town-Page opening broken?

Just saw your last post, agree with 'you may'.

About Multi cards, I am against the subtype. You don't need a new type for each mechanic, intrigue didn't come with "choosing" type cards. You say it's for simplicity but it doesn't make things simpler. Even if you want to keep the type, I'd change it.
So what are your thoughts on the Gathering type? I find the text on the cards to be self-explanatory, but I suppose it's easier for players to see 'gathering' and think 'we put VP tokens on this pile then'. This is what led me to do the Multi type. It's easier for newer players to read 'Multi' and think 'this is a card we can use more than 1 action on' than read the text. I can also save card space by not having to write common rules about applying -1 action on each card.

But, having said all of this, what you say next is interesting:
Regarding the multi cards, I think you should have -1 Action tokens. Whenever you would have to spend an action (other than playing a card), if you have no actions you may take a -1 Action token. These are basically the same as debt. You can't take more -1 Action tokens if you have some and you have to play them off with Actions.
Make this turn strong with actions to sacrifice the next? I think you can implement this mechanic in a Reserve:

Quote
Textile Mill
Do these in either order: +3 cards; look at the top 5 cards of your deck, discard any number, then put the rest back with any number from your hand in any order.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
At any time during your Action Phases, you may discard this from your Tavern mat for -1 action.
If this works it can save using tokens at all.

@Gendo: I've only just got to playtest banner, I'll reply later if it doesn't work. Your thoughts are fair; I guess ultimately the card came from groping with the idea of putting cards on different Supply piles. This was kind of a final possibility before fully concluding the idea doesn't work at all.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2017, 04:05:17 pm by Aquila »
Logged

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3681
  • Respect: +3925
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2017, 11:27:12 am »
0

Here's a more boring version that doesn't need a Village in the kingdom to work (which would be my main critizism of the "spend several actions" mechanic, and one of the reasons my Road always comes with a Village):

Innovator, Action, 5$
+1 Action
+2$
Lose any amount of $. Gain a card costing at most the amount you lost to your hand.

Obvious comparisons are Minion and Royal Seal. Royal Seal can use its effect later in your turn and can't be drawn dead, but it's topdecking is quite a bit weaker, lacking both the implicit +1 Card and the implicit +1 Buy.
This is coming back to how it first was, though withou the Treasure playing. I hadn't considered that was why it was too good, so I will give this a go. Thanks.

I have looked at Town and Road, and they are good. Champion as you say is the main snag, so my only real question with them is, is a Town-Page opening broken?

First of all, I see no good reason to open with Town in this case. Except maybe that you don't mind losing Town to Warrior as much, and Road can't be trashed. For a moment after writing this I thought that costing Road at 3$ might solve the issue, but either you'll just get it after you have Champion out, or a player might try to drain the pile before you get one, at which point you also get one, and Warrior does what it does best, namely ruin the game by trashing your key cards. If I'm at that, I'll admit that I hate Warrior with passion, so Road/Champion never shows up for me as I have come to veto the Page line.

Champion is part of a card that, in my opinion, is a terrible play experience either way. Call it apologetic, but I can't help but feel this makes the problem less dire. However, not everybody sees it that way. So, if you DO like the Page line, does Road ruin the game? I don't think so. First of all, all Road does is draw your deck. But drawing your deck isn't exactly something only Road can do. True, you can draw a deck of any size with a single Road. But how many times do you have to spend 4$ to make it halfway likely to draw one regularly? It's a super strong combo - but Champion is super strong regardless of Road, and as Road does NOTHING but draw, perhaps you can get something better instead? As I said, drawing your deck isn't exactly impossible without Road, so maybe I can have all of this with a deck that's better in the meantime, possibly gets me to Champion faster? Even if Road WAS a must-buy in Page games, just like with Chapel, there's still plenty of wrong decisions to make besides this one. Road/Champion is not Rebuild. I hope this sheds some light on my view on this.

The only thing that irks me is that, technically, Road allows for infinite turns. To fix this, I could add a condition to the wording: +2 Cards. If you drew any cards this way, put this in your hand."

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6179
  • Respect: +6670
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2017, 11:30:59 am »
+1

Wanderers feel like they should be events. I like the idea of a rotating event pile, though. But making them events follows naturally from the rules that exist, instead of thinking of them as a new type of card that "can't be gained or trashed".
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

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3681
  • Respect: +3925
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2017, 12:43:20 pm »
0

Innovator, Action, 5$
+1 Action
+2$
Lose any amount of $. Gain a card costing at most the amount you lost to your hand.

Without support from other +Action +Money cards, one copy of this card gains you a card costing up to $2, which seems *really* weak for a $5.  Multiple copies let you gain a bigger card, but at the cost of also copper-stuffing yourself.  I think at least it needs "You may".

It certainly should be "you may". An alternative would be a version that takes debt:

+1 Action
+2$
(If you have no <dept>,) you may gain a non-victory card costing up to 8$ to your hand. Take <1> per $ the card costs.

Aquila

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
  • Respect: +16
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2017, 03:58:31 pm »
0

Wanderers feel like they should be events. I like the idea of a rotating event pile, though. But making them events follows naturally from the rules that exist, instead of thinking of them as a new type of card that "can't be gained or trashed".
Yes, I do agree with this, because the Wanderers are a bit too swingy as they are. Making them rotate so each player can access them during a full round of turns is fairer. The current cards would need a revamp, and, well, what would they do that current events don't? Or would they still be bought? Could they be things to use actions on, or could they be passive effects? I have these ideas going around at the moment.
Logged

faust

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1539
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +1926
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #32 on: May 29, 2017, 05:06:17 am »
+2

So what are your thoughts on the Gathering type? I find the text on the cards to be self-explanatory, but I suppose it's easier for players to see 'gathering' and think 'we put VP tokens on this pile then'. This is what led me to do the Multi type.
The Gathering type exists only so that Defiled Shrine can refer to these cards. Unless you need to refer to such cards specifically, there is no need for an extra type.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

ThetaSigma12

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1166
  • Respect: +848
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #33 on: May 29, 2017, 08:38:43 am »
0

So what are your thoughts on the Gathering type? I find the text on the cards to be self-explanatory, but I suppose it's easier for players to see 'gathering' and think 'we put VP tokens on this pile then'. This is what led me to do the Multi type.
The Gathering type exists only so that Defiled Shrine can refer to these cards. Unless you need to refer to such cards specifically, there is no need for an extra type.
Ditto. Cards should not have a type solely based on their on-play effect.
Logged
If you have a fan card you want to be created, just post about it here! I'd love to take a look at it.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6179
  • Respect: +6670
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #34 on: May 29, 2017, 08:53:06 am »
+1

So what are your thoughts on the Gathering type? I find the text on the cards to be self-explanatory, but I suppose it's easier for players to see 'gathering' and think 'we put VP tokens on this pile then'. This is what led me to do the Multi type.
The Gathering type exists only so that Defiled Shrine can refer to these cards. Unless you need to refer to such cards specifically, there is no need for an extra type.
Ditto. Cards should not have a type solely based on their on-play effect.

Reserve says hi. Though I'm on record as stating that reserve really shouldn't be a type. Or at the very least, Distant Lands shouldn't be one. The rest of them should have probably been reactions. But as it stands, reserve means nothing other than "has the on play effect of moving to your tavern mat in addition to other effects."
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

ThetaSigma12

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1166
  • Respect: +848
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #35 on: May 29, 2017, 04:18:31 pm »
0

So what are your thoughts on the Gathering type? I find the text on the cards to be self-explanatory, but I suppose it's easier for players to see 'gathering' and think 'we put VP tokens on this pile then'. This is what led me to do the Multi type.
The Gathering type exists only so that Defiled Shrine can refer to these cards. Unless you need to refer to such cards specifically, there is no need for an extra type.
Ditto. Cards should not have a type solely based on their on-play effect.

Reserve says hi. Though I'm on record as stating that reserve really shouldn't be a type. Or at the very least, Distant Lands shouldn't be one. The rest of them should have probably been reactions. But as it stands, reserve means nothing other than "has the on play effect of moving to your tavern mat in addition to other effects."
Yeah, Reserve type is a stretch. But I think we can all more or less agree that Multi should not be a type.
Logged
If you have a fan card you want to be created, just post about it here! I'd love to take a look at it.

Q

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2017, 12:48:58 pm »
+1

Great cards, especially the playtesting&updating and the Action token concept. It could be implemented via a one-shot non-Supply Reserve card but the token is simpler in practice.

About Advancing Village, I like the cap but think that it still so good that it might have to cost 4. Its main advantage over Coin of the Realm is that the later frequently stays on the Tavern mat when you shuffle wheras Advancing Village accumulates tokens. Because of that you might even open with it in some Kingdoms.

Incinerate does not need an extra buy. All the trashers that do have one, Forager, Trading Route and Salvager, are also (conditional) payload cards which can make use of the extra buy whereas a multitrasher rarely does. I like that Incinerate makes Cursers slightly weaker.

Locusts runs into scaling issues. Assuming that every player only buys one Locusts you can use it on average 5 times in a 2P game, 3.3 times in a 3P game and so on. So perhaps use 4x # players Locusts per pile in a game?
It is hard to judge though what x should be in the case of an 'on average x times and then self-destruct' cantrip trasher that costs 4.
I like how thematic the card is with the pile eating.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 01:04:16 pm by Q »
Logged

Aquila

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
  • Respect: +16
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #37 on: June 03, 2017, 08:09:56 am »
+1

About Advancing Village, I like the cap but think that it still so good that it might have to cost 4. Its main advantage over Coin of the Realm is that the later frequently stays on the Tavern mat when you shuffle wheras Advancing Village accumulates tokens. Because of that you might even open with it in some Kingdoms.
Agree with everything here. First I compared AV to Village, sometimes it looked worse when it gave no immediate actions, but in balance an action token is better than a +action. Then that it can give 2 of them makes it good in the games you can do so. Yes, it feels like it should cost more, and testing showed no problems with that.

Incinerate does not need an extra buy. All the trashers that do have one, Forager, Trading Route and Salvager, are also (conditional) payload cards which can make use of the extra buy whereas a multitrasher rarely does. I like that Incinerate makes Cursers slightly weaker.
Take the +buy off and it looks weak compared to Chapel. It isn't there to try making it a later payload card, trying to get the $1 often wouldn't be a good idea. It's there so players can simply buy a Curse if they want to try accelerating their trashing, especially for the games with no cursing Attack, and if not it gives reason to choose it over Chapel in such a game, something for it to do after the deck is trimmed. It was +action and gain a Curse on buy at first, but a) this set didn't need an extra non-terminal and b) who wants to be forced to get junk with their trasher?

Locusts runs into scaling issues. Assuming that every player only buys one Locusts you can use it on average 5 times in a 2P game, 3.3 times in a 3P game and so on. So perhaps use 4x # players Locusts per pile in a game?
It is hard to judge though what x should be in the case of an 'on average x times and then self-destruct' cantrip trasher that costs 4.
I like how thematic the card is with the pile eating.
Too many Locusts I feared would empty the piles too fast, but that was during the first version when they gained and trashed on play rather than end of turn. They may be slow enough now to merit several. They could always be a 12 card pile like Port though, so everyone can get an even share of them in any size of game.


And I'll put this one out as well - I hope thanks to Theta's post above I have revived Potteries. Playtesting at present seems to show as much:
Quote
Dairy - Action Reserve, $5 cost.
+2 cards
+1 buy
+ $2

At the start of your Buy Phase, put this on your Tavern mat.
-
At any time during your Action Phases, you may discard this from your Tavern mat and -1 action.
I put Textile Mill in this format, but it's a really tight squeeze on cardspace. This feels similar to Wine Merchant but plays differently enough. For the issue of theme, I renamed it Dairy, you send the produce to your tavern.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2017, 05:08:02 pm by Aquila »
Logged

ThetaSigma12

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1166
  • Respect: +848
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2017, 03:02:33 pm »
0

Incinerate does not need an extra buy. All the trashers that do have one, Forager, Trading Route and Salvager, are also (conditional) payload cards which can make use of the extra buy whereas a multitrasher rarely does. I like that Incinerate makes Cursers slightly weaker.
Take the +buy off and it looks weak compared to Chapel.
[/quote]
Doesn't everything look weak compared to Chapel?
Logged
If you have a fan card you want to be created, just post about it here! I'd love to take a look at it.

Q

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #39 on: June 03, 2017, 06:01:42 pm »
+1

I doubt that Incinerate makes you want to buy Curses. It is a net extra trashed card plus a Coin at the cost of having to draw an additional, dead card and match it with Incinerate.
Note that the net extra card that you can trash if you trashed a Curse is only something you opt to do if you have Incinerate and 4 junk cards in your hand and this no earlier than after the 2nd shuffle. You rarely have lot of nonterminal draw at this point to increase your handsize so you are more likely to draw Incinerate with only 2 or 3 junk cards.

This is why Incinerate is probably more of a hedge against Cursers than a card that incentives you to buy Curses.
Logged

Aquila

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
  • Respect: +16
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #40 on: July 04, 2017, 12:28:56 pm »
0

I'm not getting why you would ever buy Banner. It does nothing for you at all on play, compared to Embargo's $2. And then, while Embargo can hurt or shut down an opponent's strategy if it's different from yours, Banner only affects the first time they purchase the card, and even then instead of giving them a Curse, it gives them a one-shot terminal.

Or you could put it on the pile you want to buy to make it only cost $4 instead of $5 or something, maybe that was the intent? Although then it's just a terminal Copper. I'm not sure when you would ever actually want to spent the money and action space to get one.

I'm going to take out the problematic Banner. Seeing that it's a variant on a principle that has come up more than once on this forum, that of putting a supply card onto a different pile, I thought it good to write my thoughts against it for any fan card creators who come to the same idea. With the introduction of split piles I anticipate this being more likely.
Banner was this:
Quote
Banner - Action Victory, $4 cost.
Return this to the supply. Move a Banner onto a different Supply pile that doesn't have a Victory on top. Cards on that pile cannot be gained or bought before it is.
-
When you buy this, gain the card under it.
-
1VP
It wouldn't just change 5-costs into 4, but any cost; Platinum, and even Fortune and the other Debt-cost cards could all be bought for $4, with the intention that the player would get a junk card with it for balance. With hindsight, Banner isn't really a junk card. You can use an action to remove it from your deck and put it on a pile irrelevant to the game, even if that's Curse, and you can then run the risk of giving the same power to your opponents.

Besides this, you could use it aggressively to try denying piles to your opponents, like those that cost cheaper or those that depend on being bought like Mint. This denies the pile to yourself too, which you may not always want to work around.
I'd like to use a card mocked up on these forums as a reference to what would happen with a card that makes large on this denying effect, being of less benefit to the buyer's deck:


Both Rabbits and Banner have in-built ways to still allow gaining cards from the piles they sit on. With a card that doesn't, a game with it and no extra buys would see any chosen pile completely denied, taken out the game. No player will want to use a precious buy and turn on that card just to open up the cards underneath, as it will not progress the deck's payload.

Rabbits' impact on a game will vary depending on the presence of other sources of +buy. If there are no others, the only way to gain a card from a pile it sits on, and avoid the total denial problem, is by playing another Rabbits. This boils down to two outcomes: either there are few Rabbits out because few are bought, and a player is likely denied a key card to their strategy because they don't have a Rabbits on a turn they can afford it; or there are many out because many are bought, and that leads seamlessly to my conclusion. And if there are other buys, Rabbits become more like attempts at junking the opponent, but that eventually come right back at you.

My conclusion with all such cards that move onto other piles is this: they may add extra variety to games, but, with the greatest respect to kru5h and his Rabbits, I do not personally feel they are a welcome addition. They take away from all the central strategy elements of the game and instead make it more a mindless process of 'buy whatever's available and see what happens'.

And from there I find it's impossible to balance Banner. No cost is fair yet effective, for if it's too low it's too powerful at letting players buy whatever they want, if it's too high you can totally eliminate more piles, and if it's in the middle like at $4, as Gendo said it has little point.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2017, 05:31:01 pm by Aquila »
Logged

Holger

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 389
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #41 on: July 05, 2017, 06:17:33 am »
0

Innovator, Action, 5$
+1 Action
+2$
Lose any amount of $. Gain a card costing at most the amount you lost to your hand.

Without support from other +Action +Money cards, one copy of this card gains you a card costing up to $2, which seems *really* weak for a $5.  Multiple copies let you gain a bigger card, but at the cost of also copper-stuffing yourself.  I think at least it needs "You may".

It certainly should be "you may". An alternative would be a version that takes debt:

+1 Action
+2$
(If you have no <dept>,) you may gain a non-victory card costing up to 8$ to your hand. Take <1> per $ the card costs.

This version is far too strong; it's better than a Grand Market and a Capital (minus 1 buy) put together on one card.
Logged

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3681
  • Respect: +3925
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2017, 09:21:47 am »
0

Innovator, Action, 5$
+1 Action
+2$
Lose any amount of $. Gain a card costing at most the amount you lost to your hand.

Without support from other +Action +Money cards, one copy of this card gains you a card costing up to $2, which seems *really* weak for a $5.  Multiple copies let you gain a bigger card, but at the cost of also copper-stuffing yourself.  I think at least it needs "You may".

It certainly should be "you may". An alternative would be a version that takes debt:

+1 Action
+2$
(If you have no <dept>,) you may gain a non-victory card costing up to 8$ to your hand. Take <1> per $ the card costs.

This version is far too strong; it's better than a Grand Market and a Capital (minus 1 buy) put together on one card.

I admit that the +2$ together with the gaining to hand are too much and one should be dropped.

Aquila

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
  • Respect: +16
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #43 on: July 11, 2017, 12:38:47 pm »
0

I'm finding it hard to decide which Innovator variant is better at the moment, the one I have on the OP with Treasure play and needing 2 actions, or Asper's variant not involving debt at $4 cost. Neither show themselves imbalanced, but the former is certainly hard to work out when throned.

But one card I have plans to change is Expert. Look at the card and you might at first think 'that's nice, a really flexible card', like me. But, what does it actually add to a game? How does it impact a kingdom/board? Someone else's first impression of the card was 'boring' and now I see why - it's nearly always just a strictly better version of another card, nothing different.

So I thought about fusing it into Patent, so that it could become thematic:

Quote
Patent - Action, $6 cost.
Choose one: +1 card, +1 action, +1 buy or + $1 , then treat this as the card on your Patent mat.
-
When you first gain this, choose an Action card from the Supply costing up to $4 that is not on any other player's Patent mat. Put it on your Patent mat.
Functionally, it might play better at $7 cost allowing $5-costs on the mat. More usability, but maybe more problems with it.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 12:14:43 pm by Aquila »
Logged

Aquila

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
  • Respect: +16
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #44 on: July 16, 2017, 05:13:59 pm »
0

More updates which may be of interest:

Hawker interferes with Buy Phases following a different premise:
Quote
Hawker - $5 cost
Until your next turn, each other player may only buy 0 or 2 cards during their Buy Phases.
At the start of your next turn:
+1 buy
+ $2
The vanilla might be on the weak side for $5. Or it could be balanced like this for $4, a bit more playtesting needed yet. It does do more consistent damage though, unlike before.

Magnate and Advancing Village have had a swap around in how they gain action tokens:
Quote
Magnate - $5 cost
While this is in play: the first two times you gain a card, take an action token; when you spend an action token, instead of +1 action play an Action card from your hand twice.
Quote
Advancing Village - $3 cost
+1 card
+1 action

You may discard a card. If you do, take an action token.
Each can now be cheaper. +cards on Magnate-d tokens seems unnecessary by how it now plays out, but it may be that its gaining and playing tokens are to be separated so that you choose one or the other. It can collect quite a horde of them.
AV is kind of boring, and I may add some kind of on-trash ability to make it interesting; first that comes to mind is gain a card costing up to $4.

Blueprints is queer and doesn't add anything interesting to the game after all, returning Victories to the Supply. It's really narrow. And Incinerator doesn't seem to quite make sense, and it's likewise narrow. So I'll take those out and add this:
Quote
Blueprints - $3 cost
+1 buy
+ $1

Trash a card from your hand. + $1 per $2 it costs. If it isn't an Action or Treasure card, trash up to 2 more cards from your hand.

Revolters can give an action token on its second effect instead of +1 action, don't see why not. It should help the card more.

And I think I have a solution coming together for the Wanderers, but I'll leave that for later.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 12:09:01 pm by Aquila »
Logged

Holger

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 389
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Revolution
« Reply #45 on: July 17, 2017, 09:35:58 am »
0

Innovator, Action, 5$
+1 Action
+2$
Lose any amount of $. Gain a card costing at most the amount you lost to your hand.

Without support from other +Action +Money cards, one copy of this card gains you a card costing up to $2, which seems *really* weak for a $5.  Multiple copies let you gain a bigger card, but at the cost of also copper-stuffing yourself.  I think at least it needs "You may".

It certainly should be "you may". An alternative would be a version that takes debt:

+1 Action
+2$
(If you have no <dept>,) you may gain a non-victory card costing up to 8$ to your hand. Take <1> per $ the card costs.

This version is far too strong; it's better than a Grand Market and a Capital (minus 1 buy) put together on one card.

I admit that the +2$ together with the gaining to hand are too much and one should be dropped.

Even if you drop the "to hand", it's still close to strictly better than Grand Market.
If you only drop the +$2 instead, it's far better than Capital when used on non-Victory cards, but can't be used on Provinces, which might or might not be balanced.
Either way, the card seems too similar to an existing card to me; thus I'd rather stay closer to Asper's original card. What about adding a Storyteller-like clause to it?

Innovator, Action, 5$
+1 Action
+2$
You may play a Treasure from your hand. Pay any amount of $. You may gain a card to your hand costing at most the amount you paid.

This would be close to a non-terminal Armory even if you only play a Silver, and potentially far better with more virtual $.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 09:37:11 am by Holger »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All
 

Page created in 0.114 seconds with 22 queries.