Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13  All

Author Topic: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities  (Read 46747 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #150 on: July 17, 2018, 10:42:32 am »
+1

Am I right to believe that after playing Profiteer, I can gain the entire Border Village pile at once?

I *knew* there was a reason I originally restricted it to cards in your hand and deck. Back it goes!

Hum. If I prefer to do Watchtower's on-gain reaction before Border Village's effect, can I still check the card's cost? Considering this never lead to issues in the past, I guess I can?
However, this is already a three-card combo and not soooooooo immensely oppressive that it breaks the game, so don't worry about that.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #151 on: July 18, 2018, 07:55:10 am »
+2

Fun fact, to be consistent with official cards, the period should be outside if the sentence is not the last sentence on the card, but inside if it is -- see Events cards, or Not In Supply cards.

You put a period inside parentheses only if the entire sentence is in parenthesis. (Ferry, Plan, Seaway, Training, Inheritance, Pathfinding and Lost Arts as well as this sentence do this.)
If only a part of the sentence is in parentheses, you put the period after it (as is the case for Save, Pilgrimage, all those "or reveals they can't" cards and this section of the sentence).
Logged

Neirai the Forgiven

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 337
  • Respect: +134
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #152 on: July 18, 2018, 02:45:40 pm »
0

Gamepiece update:

There's a reason I made you discard a card with Gamepiece, it's to keep the power level down vs. Venture's.

So a more accurate ruling would be:
Quote
Gamepiece Treasure - Reaction - $3
$1
Look at the top card of your deck. Put it into your hand, discard it, or put it back. If you put it in your hand, discard a card.
-
When you discard this on your turn other than during Clean-up, reveal it for + $1.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #153 on: July 19, 2018, 04:34:41 am »
+1

Gamepiece update:

There's a reason I made you discard a card with Gamepiece, it's to keep the power level down vs. Venture's.

So a more accurate ruling would be:
Quote
Gamepiece Treasure - Reaction - $3
$1
Look at the top card of your deck. Put it into your hand, discard it, or put it back. If you put it in your hand, discard a card.
-
When you discard this on your turn other than during Clean-up, reveal it for + $1.

This can be shortened to:

Quote
Gamepiece Treasure - Reaction - $3
$1
Look at the top card of your deck. You may put it in your hand. If you do, discard a card.
-
When you discard this on your turn other than during Clean-up, reveal it for + $1.

Looked-at cards, like revealed cards, always go back to where they were (see Perl Diver). Putting it in your hand allows you both to keep it for another card or discard the looked-at card itself.

You might consider to just state "during your Action or Buy phase" instead of "your turn other than during cleanup". Technically, the +1$ only does things during your own turn, anyway, and you can't use it after the buy phase anyhow (given how no Night card cares about the coins you have left). But, eh, I guess that's preference.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 04:40:41 am by Asper »
Logged

Neirai the Forgiven

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 337
  • Respect: +134
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #154 on: July 19, 2018, 09:48:18 am »
0

Gamepiece update:

There's a reason I made you discard a card with Gamepiece, it's to keep the power level down vs. Venture's.

So a more accurate ruling would be:
Quote
Gamepiece Treasure - Reaction - $3
$1
Look at the top card of your deck. Put it into your hand, discard it, or put it back. If you put it in your hand, discard a card.
-
When you discard this on your turn other than during Clean-up, reveal it for + $1.

This can be shortened to:

Quote
Gamepiece Treasure - Reaction - $3
$1
Look at the top card of your deck. You may put it in your hand. If you do, discard a card.
-
When you discard this on your turn other than during Clean-up, reveal it for + $1.

Looked-at cards, like revealed cards, always go back to where they were (see Perl Diver). Putting it in your hand allows you both to keep it for another card or discard the looked-at card itself.

You might consider to just state "during your Action or Buy phase" instead of "your turn other than during cleanup". Technically, the +1$ only does things during your own turn, anyway, and you can't use it after the buy phase anyhow (given how no Night card cares about the coins you have left). But, eh, I guess that's preference.

The pre-shortened and shortened version don't do the same thing; also there's a long precedent of "Look at" rules explicitly stating that you can put the card back, Using "may" works as an equivalent, but printing it with a choice, people may get confused between whether they must choose clause B if they didn't choose clause A:

Quote
Look at the top card of your deck. You may put it into your hand or discard it. If you put it into your hand, discard a card.
Arguably I could shorten it by saying:
Quote
Look at the top card of your deck. Put it into your hand and discard a card, discard it, or put it back.
but that's also super confusing to read.
Quote
Look at the top card of your deck. Put it into your hand and discard a card, put it back, or discard it.
is an option but as far as I know, official cards always list the options in the "put into hand, discard, put back" order.
Edit: actually, there's a good argument that "put it ..." always comes last, so I could do something like:
Quote
Discard it, put it back, or put it into your hand and discard a card.

On the other hand, I totally agree with you about "Action and Buy phase". It looks better on the card, too, which is something I'm always going for.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 09:51:43 am by Neirai the Forgiven »
Logged

Neirai the Forgiven

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 337
  • Respect: +134
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #155 on: July 19, 2018, 10:10:03 am »
0

More straightforward (but complex nonetheless) Stronghold:

Quote
Stronghold - $5 or $7 - Action
Put your deck into your discard pile. Look through your discard pile, trash a card from it, and put a card from it into your hand.
-
When you buy this for $7, play it as an Attack from the Supply. It's that card until it leaves play. You may choose to be unaffected by it.

Imagine that you have a moat that you used to react to yourself playing an attack. It would block the beneficial part of the attack while still hitting everyone else in the face.

The problem with playing an attack action in the buy phase is, you draw 3 cards. Great. What now. Giving you a Buy and pushing yourself back into the Action phase was a way of saying, you can use those cards so no big deal. But then it felt awkward; what if the attack I play gives me a Buy, then I have two. Maybe I draw a lot of actions, do I get +1 Action, too? Also, you're buying Stronghold late, when you have $7 and maybe are already buying provinces. You probably don't want to gain a Silver with Bureaucrat, either. But you still would love to wreck your opponent's plan by putting a Victory card into his next turn. So I was toying around with ways of making Stronghold's payoff ability do "just the attack part of an attack" but that gets messy, especially with conditional attacks like Replace.

So my solution is to put a big may() clause around the parts of the attack that you have to do. Don't want to draw the cards? you don't have to. Of course, if you want to, go for it.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #156 on: July 19, 2018, 10:55:07 am »
+1

In which case would my wording not do the same thing?

You look at the card.
A) You decide to put it in your hand. You discard another card. Check.
B) You decide to put it in your hand. You discard the card itself. This is the identical outcome to discarding it from the top of your deck. Check.
C) You decide to not put it in your hand. By default, all cards that you look at are returned to where they came from if not explicitly moved. The card goes back on top. Check.

Look-at and reveal wordings state that you may return a card to where it was only if that is absolutely necessary. It's not necessary in any context where the card will go back to where it was anyways, such as with Reactions, Legionary's Gold, or Chariot Race. For cases where it may not stay there, it still is only specified if there isn't a simple binary decision between the card staying or the card going somewhere else. For instance, all of Ironmonger, Pearl Diver, Duchess, Jack-of-All-Trades, Magpie, Patrician and Wishing Well do NOT specify that the card is returned to the deck if it is not moved somewhere else.
It IS specified if the card is an attack (such as Scrying Pool), as the attacker's ability to choose where the card goes is meant to be underlined. It also is specified if the decision is non-binary, such as with Lookout or Doctor, or re-ordering cards like Cartographer.

Gamepiece is neither of those card types.
Logged

Neirai the Forgiven

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 337
  • Respect: +134
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #157 on: July 19, 2018, 11:14:43 am »
+1

Haha, you're absolutely right. I missed the logical leap that you could always discard the card you just put in your hand, therefore the rules are equivalent.
Funny thing is it's not like I want you to have to discard a different card.

You've convinced me, I'll make both changes. And the card is cleaner, which is always a good thing.

Obviously I'll have to specify in the rules that the card you discard can be one that was in your hand before or the one you just put there, but that's standard across all official discard card rules.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 11:34:02 am by Neirai the Forgiven »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #158 on: July 19, 2018, 02:21:18 pm »
+1

Sorry for coming around the corner with this just now, but revealing the card for a coin should be optional. As players will want to reveal them anyhow, making it mandatory adds nothing, gameplay-wise. However, when discarding multiple cards at once, you run into the same accountability problem 1st edition's Throne Room's had.
Logged

Neirai the Forgiven

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 337
  • Respect: +134
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #159 on: July 19, 2018, 03:11:05 pm »
0

You are right. I am honestly unsure why anyone would pass up the $1 (except I think there's a possible threat of a Landmark for precision golding) but it would save on rules fights if someone doesn't.
Thanks, Asper!
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #160 on: July 20, 2018, 02:45:55 am »
+1

You can thank me by checking out my post on that parenthesis thing. Trust me, I wouldn't make that up. It's easy to confirm the rules I lined out both from comparing them with official Dominion cards and looking it up online.

Maybe this is just due to me being a programmer, but I find it logically forcing: If you only want to incapsulate part of a sentence, that happens inside the sentence. If you want to encapsulate an entire sentence, put all of its parts in that encapsulation. In general, removing the part in parentheses must not create grammar mistakes (which using it like this does.) Oops, where did the period go?*

*Insert pregnancy joke here.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #161 on: July 21, 2018, 10:50:36 am »
+1

About that line on Profiteer, it should be "While this is in play". Then it should also stay below the line. Probably I would consider dropping the effect entirely, though. For instance, if I trash a card with Bishop, do I get VP for the altered cost? Official rulings on e.g. Transmute/Inheritence imply no.

For a similar reason, I think both Stronghold and Shipwreck should just use a "When you buy this, you may pay 2, to do X." wording. The additional interaction with e.g. trash for benefit doesn't add anything new that on-gain/on-buy or on-trash effects didn't already add, but opens up a huge can of worms, rules-wise.
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +1003
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #162 on: July 21, 2018, 11:29:23 am »
+2

About that line on Profiteer, it should be "While this is in play". Then it should also stay below the line. Probably I would consider dropping the effect entirely, though. For instance, if I trash a card with Bishop, do I get VP for the altered cost? Official rulings on e.g. Transmute/Inheritence imply no.

For a similar reason, I think both Stronghold and Shipwreck should just use a "When you buy this, you may pay 2, to do X." wording. The additional interaction with e.g. trash for benefit doesn't add anything new that on-gain/on-buy or on-trash effects didn't already add, but opens up a huge can of worms, rules-wise.

I second all of this, the rules issues don't seem worth the trouble.

Stronghold and Shipwreck could just be overpay. "When you buy this you may overpay for it. If you overpaid by $2 do X."

Also obligatory why is Riches randomly so broken comment.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #163 on: July 21, 2018, 04:23:22 pm »
+1

Yeah, I went with a non-overpay wording because Donald once mentioned he wanted overpay to scale with the amount paid, but that's neither a real rule nor would it really confuse people to have cards that do it differently. No need to introduce another almost equivalent rule. Overpay in the way Gazbag lined out seems like the way to go.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #164 on: July 21, 2018, 05:08:05 pm »
+1

Random question about Moundbuilder Village:

I assume it's intended that you have to put a Province into your hand if you have any, right? So, is this intended as a nerf? Because it is pretty bad to have to put a Province into your hand instead of, let's say, a Lab, if you have not gone through your entire pile; however, if you draw your deck, you can discard the cards in play and from your hand in any order, basically allowing you to use it on ANY card (that doesn't cost less than Moundbuilder Village). For instance, if you draw your deck, you can always discard Moundbuilder Village first, making it function as an ongoing +1 Action for the rest of the game.

My problem is what a weird, hidden way this is to get there. It seems like you need to know all too many rules, and basically like you're tricking the card.

So, my suggestion would be to make it a free choice which card to put into your hand, or whether to put one into your hand at all. If you want to avoid Moundbuilder Village to become "+1 Action at the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game", you could only allow cards costing more than it. Like:

Quote
When you discard this from play, look through your discard pile. You may reveal a card costing less more than this from it and put it into your hand after you draw your new hand.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 06:24:33 am by Asper »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #165 on: July 22, 2018, 08:32:18 am »
+1

How many cards exist that are shuffled into supply piles? Just two, right? Boulder Trap and Discovery. I realize I'm nagging about yet another of the original concepts of this expansion here, but sadly I think the issues with these are twofold.

One is the fact that it's again an immense number of rules, that I admit I haven't fully understood even after reading your rules sheet, and all of that again for a very small number of cards that actually use those rules. I mean, only a single card has the trap type, because even those two cards don't work the same.

The other is the fact that I simply don't see the cards making the game more fun. It's random bonuses or negative effects that hit you, which is what makes Boons and Hexes such sub-par mechanics in my book. Here it's even worse, because at least with Boons and Hexes you know that one is supposed to help you and the other to harm you (although of course it's not too well implemented for some of them, e.g. Locusts). Here you just randomly receive a dead card with - 3 VP. Sure, in some games you can trash it, but in those where you can't your economy and score just took a decisive hit.

It just seems like a whole lot of complexity for very little fun to me 😕

Another thing: I think Snake Charmer should lose the entire attack portion. Early on it's likely to give your opponents a huge boost, but again whether it helps or hurts the other players is pretty random. Such trash-from-hand attacks come up here so often, and this is maybe a tad better than most of them, but still weird.

Is there a reason Stoneworks doesn't just do "When you gain this, +1VP per card you gained this turn"? As long as you can decide the order of the cards you gain yourself, it's absolutely identical, yet much simpler.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 08:33:43 am by Asper »
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +1003
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #166 on: July 22, 2018, 09:25:49 am »
+1

An idea for making Boulder Trap/Discovery less random would be to have them effect everyone. So Boulder Trap could be something like:
"When this is uncovered, each player gains a Curse." and the Boulder Trap card itself is just something that you shuffle into a pile as a marker. Discovery could gain a Gold, you could do a few of them really. There would still be the mystery of when/where the trap is but now it isn't just screwing one person up.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #167 on: July 23, 2018, 08:41:23 am »
+1

So, I have been complaining so much about elemental aspects of this expansion, I gigured it was time to give a bit of praise for a change - before I start sounding too much like a grumpy old man who hates everything:

I like how Agora is now a mix of Money enabler and engine component. I wonder if it would be better being able to discard just any card (possibly still only giving the bonus for Silver) to combo with itself. But perhaps the card as it is on Imgur is nicer, as it's less obvious.

Aquifier feels like it could screw you over a bit, so I'm curious whether it actually is worth 4$. Maybe it needs a steeper base bonus? Apart from that, it's a neat idea.

I wonder whether Archeologist is really worth 7$. It only cycles two more cards than Hunting Grounds, but also draws one less. Catacombs is another obvious comparison. Unlike either of those, it also does nothing when trashed for benefit. I also assume that usually you'll discard the two cards you don't put in your hand, either way, so maybe this could be a 6$? I like how straightforward it is.

I like Collector's friendly interaction, and how it subtly sets up its main effect. This effect is annoying in multiples, so putting it on a terminal is the right thing to do.

Encroach reminds me of something I tried to do back in the day, with a card called Vizier. It did the opposite, though, discarding a Victory card to gain a Treasure card costing up to 1$ more. Maybe I should revive that. I like how Encroach has a fixed draw, to make the card a bit more interesting.

New Gamepiece seems like a cute mini-Venture.

Inspector first had me worry that you would sometimes discard good cards to spite your opponents, but then find they didn't have such cards in hand. Then I realized that, as the cards go onto their deck, you usually want to discard junk to this, either way. With that in mind, It's actually a clever concept. I like it!

I like Pharaoh's theme, but isn't it too late usually when you get it? I assume that if you get a really early spike (as e.g. Coppersmith or Death Cart provide), then it's brilliant, but apart from that it seems like it'd be a bit late to the party. I'm not usually a fan of split piles, but maybe you could have this be one, with the first half being something similar to Death Cart / Mining Village? You don't need 10 Pharaohs, either way.

I already talked about the under-the-line effect of Profiteer and why I'd remove it, but the effect you get on play is actually not a bad idea at all :)
The parentheses, though  :P

Profitee... Erm, Inspect... erm... Pro-spector. Ah, yes. That's my Vizier, except that I think my version topdecked it. I killed it a while ago, because it made getting Provinces early incredibly good, but perhaps I should have just lost the top-decking, like this one. It also costed 3$, by the way. The fact that you have those 3 cards with such similar names really confuses me, though. I'll add that I'm not a native English speaker, but also two of the guys start with P and wear identical hats... They actually look like the same guy with a sliiightly different beard. But I already mentioned that. Anyhow, looks not too bad.

I think Shipwreck is nice, but I suggest you just make it a 3$ and always give that on-gain bonus.

I kind of like Stoneworks, but isn't it a bit too good at preserving the VP from Victory cards?
Logged

Neirai the Forgiven

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 337
  • Respect: +134
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #168 on: July 23, 2018, 12:36:32 pm »
0

Lots of things to comment on.

I of course announced variable costs, now I'm thinking of getting rid of them, go figure. This happens.
Where to start? I'm just going to spam thoughts and we'll see where it goes.

Let's start with (). I'm making those changes internally, haven't rendered them yet.

Moundbuilder Village; the intent is that yes, it self-nerfs (unless you're playing with a select number of cards in which case it's great) once you get a Province. Someone convinced me that there was no hard in making it trigger whenever you discard it. Now I see there's a lot of harm. I'm going to go back to "at the end of your Clean-up (before drawing)". Some shenanigans are intended, of course, but not the kind where the card rewards Rules Lawyers to the point of being OP but everyone else can't use it.

Internally I've changed Profiteer to be much more simple, I realized I was overthinking it still. Now when it trashes a card you choose one, make the cards in that pile cost -$1 or make them cost +$1. Normally you'd never choose +$1 unless you have shenanigans to play with it. It still meets the profiteer's fantasy though.

I like the multicost in Shipwreck, but maybe changing it to an overpay or a "you can pay" would be good. Still, I could hit the same niche by making it trigger at a set time, like, if it's during the early turns. I have to think about it.

Stronghold is actually a bit OP at $5. I could make it cost $6 or $7 instead, and always trigger an attack; if I do that, though, then people might expect it to always come with an attack.

I didn't think about the effect of Prospector's name on non-native English speakers. I might rename it to something like Miner or Excavator, just to make it easier (Digger?)

The issue with Split piles is that while the art is a decent price, it's not cheap. I'll test Pharaoh below Pyramid, though. Pharaoh could arguably cost less there, too.

Shuffle into is a bigger conversation. In the case of Discovery it's a lot like a Gathering pile, except money instead of VPs. If I didn't have a self-imposed ban on using the Coffer mechanic, it *would* be Coffers.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2018, 12:37:46 pm by Neirai the Forgiven »
Logged

Neirai the Forgiven

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 337
  • Respect: +134
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #169 on: July 23, 2018, 02:40:20 pm »
0

More random thoughts:

Stoneworks once had the rule the way it was to make it better for gain-during-action phase, something I'm admittedly a bit too obsessed with. But in reality I think it makes much more sense the way you've written it, other than that it should not trigger for itself, for balance reasons. So, "When you gain this, +1VP for each other card you've gained this turn." If you buy more than one, the second one will key off the first, which is intended.

Boulder Trap hasn't had the refinement that other cards have, largely because people (in my playtesting group) either think it's really fun or wonder why anyone would ever make a card like that. I'm tempted to give it the Rocks rules for meme fun, also to make it a bit nicer to the player; it costs $4 and gives you a silver when you find it, plus a bit more if you can get rid of it. I'd appreciate any feedback I can get for how a card like this should work, besides just "git rid of it". It's going to be an optional card in either case, as it's in the Colony/Shelter type of thing. I agree right off the top that if you get Boulder trap in your first turn, it can be a very bad thing, and that there's no guarantee that trashing will be in the game at all, both of which are strong design flaws. Some defense against the dark arts help would be very appreciated.

Note that that paragraph sounds a lot more bitter than I actually am. The stubborn answer is, the set will ship with Boulder Trap as an optional rule and they're pretty raw cards. I'd love them to be more polished if I can. I should also assure Gazbag, I'm not ignoring you, I'm just thinking about it. Giving everyone curses is the same as just putting an empty card in everyone's deck, unless they can trash them. If they can't then they're almost in the same state as they are now, just all of them at the same time. It's sort of bad to make a card that's trash dependent if there's no way to trash.

Also Asper, the card is -1VP, not -3VP, although I could see it being very unfun if one person got three of them.

Fun fact: at one point, Boulder Trap had a terminal Action that let you give it to the person to your right. I switched that out for the trash-to-curse thing.


I like Snake Charmer's attack. When I've tested it it's always been a good addition to the game, even though -- or especially because -- it's a double-edged sword.
Logged

Neirai the Forgiven

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 337
  • Respect: +134
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #170 on: July 24, 2018, 10:28:10 am »
0

The issue I'm having with the multiple costs in games is that nobody wants to buy the low cost version, even if it's a really good idea. Go figure.

There's a psychological aspect to cards. Stronghold was popular at $5, but at $5 or $7, people ignore the $5 and hold out for the $7. It's weird.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 01:58:46 pm by Neirai the Forgiven »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #171 on: July 26, 2018, 03:19:29 am »
+1

The issue I'm having with the multiple costs in games is that nobody wants to buy the low cost version, even if it's a really good idea. Go figure.

There's a psychological aspect to cards. Stronghold was popular at $5, but at $5 or $7, people ignore the $5 and hold out for the $7. It's weird.

I'll gladly be accused of being a jerk, but are the players you're testing with... actually good at the game?

Not that you have to ignore feedback of subpar players (they deserve fun, too), but for balance questions it seems unhelpful.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 03:21:21 am by Asper »
Logged

Neirai the Forgiven

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 337
  • Respect: +134
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #172 on: July 26, 2018, 12:41:07 pm »
0

Jerk!

No really, I don't mind much and it's a valid question. You're also not going to like my answer, though.
My playgroup is not *that* good. In fact, they're probably bad-on-average. I'm probably the worst of the lot, to be honest. Some are stronger than others, but none are high level. It's why I'm here in the variants and fan cards forum; playtesting can only net me so much information. Theorycrafting and knowledge of high-level exploits are something my test group doesn't have. Your responses have been the lighthouse helping steer the ship away from the rocks.

That said, I am building the set for my test group. I can't understate that. I'm very unlikely to suddenly score a license from DXV and RGG, because I'm not the guy. So my end goal is to have something that my friends and I enjoy. That said, I also don't want to print cards that my playgroup likes now, but later realizes are basically unplayably bad. I'd rather not print physicals of 27 cards only to find out that in one year the set will only 'really be' 20 cards because 7 cards are garbage. Permanent garbage, since I'm unlikely to make second or third editions once I've printed it.

So where am I at at the moment?

I'm trying out Stronghold as always costing $7 and always playing itself as an attack; this brings in the question of "but what if there are no attacks"? Maybe it needs to add an attack pile at setup, but then that's crazy amounts of text.

I'm trying out the following for Shipwreck:

Quote
[Shipwreck - Action -$?
 +1 Buy
+ $1
If your discard pile is empty, gain a Gold and a Copper onto the bottom of your deck in any order. Otherwise, look through your discard pile. You may reveal a Treasure card from it and put it on the bottom of your deck.

The main issue I've had so far with Shipwreck is that if you don't have good Treasures in your deck, the card is probably worth $1. Then, if you *have* good Treasures in your deck but they're not in your discard pile, it's still worth $1. Or maybe $-1. On the other hand if you use it to gain a Gold and Copper, it's worth maybe $4 or $5 (see Cache or Skulk) but that also depends on which turn it is. Getting it for $4 with the multiple costs system, and then getting the Gold on turn 3 and then the Shipwreck on turn 4 so you get the Gold on turn 5 is pretty damn good. So if someone gets that lucky set of events but the other player(s) get an unlucky set of events, like only getting the Shipwreck when their discard pile is empty, it's pretty unbalanced.

This change may normalize the value more, but I have no idea what it should be priced at. It also may make it worse in practice, since now it might have just reversed what's lucky and what's not.


Boulder Trap, I'm trying this out but have no commitment to it yet:
Quote
Boulder Trap - Trap - $4
-1 VP
When you discard this, the player to your left gains it.
-
When you gain this from the Supply, gain a Silver onto your deck.

Hot potato? Maybe a better idea. Maybe horrid.

Oh yes, and then there's this guy,
Quote
Profiteer - Action - $3
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Trash a non-Victory card from the Supply. Choose one: cards with the same name cost $1 less this turn (but not less than $0); or cards with the same name cost $1 more this turn.

Still has a the hokey "make action gains better" idea, but in a way that makes much more sense to the player.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 12:44:00 pm by Neirai the Forgiven »
Logged

Kudasai

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
  • Respect: +289
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #173 on: July 26, 2018, 11:13:02 pm »
+1

at the moment?
I'm trying out Stronghold as always costing $7 and always playing itself as an attack; this brings in the question of "but what if there are no attacks"? Maybe it needs to add an attack pile at setup, but then that's crazy amounts of text.

You could make a new card type. One that when played with requires a random Attack Supply pile to be added. Sort of like Looter adding Ruins.

I'd suggest having cards that can hold their own without an Attack card. Stronghold probably does, but Tomb Raider is about 100% unusable without one (otherwise a cool card with a cool theme).

Anyways, just a thought if you wanna go this direction. A new type adds zero new text also!
Logged

Aquila

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 525
  • Respect: +764
    • View Profile
Re: (Art Reveals within!) Dominion: Antiquities
« Reply #174 on: July 27, 2018, 01:06:30 am »
+1

I'll swing this idea I had by. When I first saw Shipwreck here I felt gaining a Spoils to the bottom could fit well. It almost simulates delayed +$, and you can control how big that delay is, and it's thematic too. You would lose the discard theme you've got going on though.
Just for discussion, I don't expect you to go with it. You probably aren't including Spoils in this set.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13  All
 

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 21 queries.