Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Could Inheritance have worked if it wasn't OPG?  (Read 396 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ackmondual

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
  • Respect: +111
    • View Profile
Could Inheritance have worked if it wasn't OPG?
« on: October 10, 2017, 04:39:49 am »
0

The designer diary mentions that it was always a 1-shot thing, even if not originally an event card....
Quote
Inheritance: Another one that was initially a one-shot Kingdom card. The big thing to muck with here was what exactly you could put the counter on. At one point Treasures worked; I tried letting it go on VP cards. VP cards were too automatic, and then it was simpler not to allow Treasures. There was also the question of when exactly the Estates were yours; some versions didn't work for when-buy abilities.

As you're allowed to assign the other player tokens (barring any restrictions like Seaway), would it have been that bad to remove the once per game clause from this?  I'm thinking if you do, then simply return the card set aside on the Inheritance token, and swap in the new card that you want to be the Inheritance
Logged
Village, +2 Actions.  Village, +3 Actions.  Village, +4 Actions.  Village, +5 Actions.  Village, +6 Actions.  Village, +7 Actions.  Workers Village, +2 Buys, +8 Actions.  End Action Phase.  No Treasures to play.  No buy

Commodore Chuckles

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Could Inheritance have worked if it wasn't OPG?
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2017, 09:32:27 am »
+1

The main thing is, why would you ever want to do it more than once? Unless what you're suggesting is like Prince, where when you play the Estate, you first play one card, then play another, in any order.
Logged

teamlyle

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Shuffle iT Username: La-Ya
  • Did you know that cashews come from a fruit?
  • Respect: +52
    • View Profile
Re: Could Inheritance have worked if it wasn't OPG?
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2017, 10:29:24 am »
0

You could possess another player and then buy Inheritance for them, assigning it to a bad card so they can't ever make their Estates what they want.
Logged
Please join Forum Survivor season 4!

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6584
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8623
    • View Profile
Re: Could Inheritance have worked if it wasn't OPG?
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2017, 11:24:53 am »
+8

Inheritance is once-per-game to prevent rules questions, not for balance reasons. I mean, if switching Inheritance targets had been this awesome thing we were constantly doing, then maybe it would have been worth the rules wackiness, but as it stands "once per game" is far simpler.

Like, say I inherit Lighthouse, then when I have a bunch of Estates in play I switch it to Dungeon. It creates questions. These questions have answers, but it's much simpler not to have the questions in the first place.
Logged

ackmondual

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
  • Respect: +111
    • View Profile
Re: Could Inheritance have worked if it wasn't OPG?
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2017, 10:38:17 pm »
0

Inheritance is once-per-game to prevent rules questions, not for balance reasons. I mean, if switching Inheritance targets had been this awesome thing we were constantly doing, then maybe it would have been worth the rules wackiness, but as it stands "once per game" is far simpler.

Like, say I inherit Lighthouse, then when I have a bunch of Estates in play I switch it to Dungeon. It creates questions. These questions have answers, but it's much simpler not to have the questions in the first place.

I'd discard those Estates from play, but I'm sure the full iceberg reveals a list of other scenarios that would need to be contended with.
Logged
Village, +2 Actions.  Village, +3 Actions.  Village, +4 Actions.  Village, +5 Actions.  Village, +6 Actions.  Village, +7 Actions.  Workers Village, +2 Buys, +8 Actions.  End Action Phase.  No Treasures to play.  No buy

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3164
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +1750
    • View Profile
Re: Could Inheritance have worked if it wasn't OPG?
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2017, 11:21:51 pm »
0

Inheritance is once-per-game to prevent rules questions, not for balance reasons. I mean, if switching Inheritance targets had been this awesome thing we were constantly doing, then maybe it would have been worth the rules wackiness, but as it stands "once per game" is far simpler.

Like, say I inherit Lighthouse, then when I have a bunch of Estates in play I switch it to Dungeon. It creates questions. These questions have answers, but it's much simpler not to have the questions in the first place.

I'd discard those Estates from play, but I'm sure the full iceberg reveals a list of other scenarios that would need to be contended with.

Uh, I wouldn't? Even if the second inherited card wasn't a duration, I'd think the Estates stay in play, for similar reasons as to why a Wharf played with Procession of trashed with Bonfire should give me card draw next turn.

So yeah, rules questions.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 20 queries.