Print

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

[geeday]

Certain cards don't go in the supply, they all say explicitly: "(This is not in the supply)." Many of these cards cost 0, some cost more, all of them have an * next to their cost (in the physical version) indicating that, while this is their "cost," you cannot actually buy them by paying this cost. My question is how would you price them if you were going to make them available on the "open" market?

Here's the list of cards along with their stated cost:

• Spoils - 0
• Madman - 0
• Mercenary - 0
• Bag of Gold - 0
• Diadem - 0
• Followers - 0
• Princess - 0
• Treasure Hunter - 3
• Warrior - 4
• Hero - 5
• Champion - 6
• Soldier - 3
• Fugitive - 4
• Disciple - 5
• Teacher - 6
• Will-o'-Wisp - 0
• Imp - 2
• Ghost - 4
• Wish - 0
• Bat - 2

[traces Around]

This probably belongs in variants.

Anyways, first it should be noted that not all of these could actually work as supply cards since you can't separate then from their supply aspect - most notably Bat, where if you can get a Vampire from it, it may as well cost $5. I'll make a nice list here of the ones I think actually would work as supply piles.

Spoils: 3
Bag of Gold: 5
Followers: 4
Trusty Steed: 6
Treasure Hunter: 4
Hero: 5
Soldier: 3
Fugitive: 5 but can't cost that so doesn't work
Disciple (with a no self-gaining clause, else doesn't work): 6 and would be the single best card in Dominion by a fair amount
Imp: 3
Ghost: 5

[LastFootnote]

I think you’re really undervaluing Ghost.

Followers at $4 would lead to awful, sloggy games. Oh man, they’d be so bad. Even at $5 it would make games terrible, but $4 is just nuts.

[faust]

Imp should cost $4, otherwise an Imp/X opening is trivially better than Silver/X.

Hero I think as is can't be priced. It's too good with Platinum and some kingdom Treasures. It has already been explored how to make it a kingdom card and the result is Tragic Hero.

[Holunder9]

I excluded the ones which I consider to be broken as Kingdom cards:

Spoils - 3
Bag of Gold - 5
Diadem - 6
Princess - 7
Treasure Hunter - 2
Warrior - 3
Hero - 5
Soldier - 3
Fugitive - 4/5 so undoable
Will-o'-Wisp - 2 is too cheap due to self-synergies, 3 seems too expensive
Imp - 4/5 so undoable
Ghost - 6/7
Bat - 4

[ipofanes]

I'd play Fugitive at €4; it's to Lab what Oasis is to Peddler. At €4, I would in many cases prefer it to Secret Passage but the cases where Secret Passage is better (rig Chariot Races, assemble Treasure Maps, make educated guesses with Wishing Well, line up Ruins with Death Cart or Provinces with Tournaments) are much more numerous than cases where I'd prefer Fugitive to Lab.

[Holunder9]

I'd play Fugitive at €4

Fugitive was an old old card, from the 2nd expansion before it split into Seaside and Hinterlands, that didn't exist previously because it was too strong at $4.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13082.0

the cases where Secret Passage is better  are much more numerous than cases where I'd prefer Fugitive to Lab.

I disagee. Secret Passage is a unique card but its strength highly board-dependent whereas Fugitive is useful in nearly every deck. Even if you are totally thin you want a handsize-maintaining sifter to make things match.
I also don't think that your Oasis-Peddler = Fugitive-Lab maths works for numerous reasons with one being that the jump from 3 to 4 is far smaller than the jump from 4 to 5. It seems strange that Forum, a double Fugitive, is balanced at $5 while Fugitive would be a $4.5 but again, price/power comparisons are anything but straightforward in Dominion.

[ipofanes]

It seems strange that Forum, a double Fugitive, is balanced at $5 while Fugitive would be a $4.5 but again, price/power comparisons are anything but straightforward in Dominion.

One could place Fugitive at $5 and give it a small bonus, like for instance a +Buy as an on-buy effect.

[Commodore Chuckles]

He used Euros, so maybe he did mean $4.5.

[Jimmmmm]

It seems strange that Forum, a double Fugitive, is balanced at $5 while Fugitive would be a $4.5 but again, price/power comparisons are anything but straightforward in Dominion.

One could place Fugitive at $5 and give it a small bonus, like for instance a +Buy as an on-buy effect.

It could cost 9 debt (or $5 + 4d etc) and you gain another copy when you buy one.

[Screwyioux]

Princess - 7

Princess is an interesting because it would be BONKERS if a full ten of them existed. Still really good if you could only buy one, but probably fine at $6? Maybe even a strong $5?

If there's a full supply pile of them, though, then yeah $7, maybe even higher.

[GendoIkari]

I don't think this belongs in variants; as far as I can tell the question isn't about literally playing a game with a house rule that you can buy these cards like they were in the supply. It's more of a though experiment that is questioning the relative strength of all these cards; and how much stronger a card is allowed to be based on how hard it is to gain one.

[GendoIkari]

For travelers, are we keeping the Exchange clause in the supply version? Because if so, that makes Disciple and Hero extra crazy, because it's only 1 play away from Teacher or Champion.

[Screwyioux]

Agree with Tracer and Gendo, I can't think of a way that Disciple wouldn't be opaf.

[Dingan]

I could see Champion as an Event that would be similar to Donate - would be debt only so both players could open it (or buy on T2, T3, etc.), and it drastically changes the entire flow of the game.

[Asper]

Fugitive for a debt cost, like <6>, doesn't seem so bad?

Edit: Or how about 2$ and a Potion?

[crj]

I could see Champion as an Event that would be similar to Donate - would be debt only so both players could open it (or buy on T2, T3, etc.), and it drastically changes the entire flow of the game.

Unlike Donate, where timing is relatively critical, it could possibly be more like a Landmark: a permanent game-altering effect which affects all players equally from the outset.

Obviously, anyone who was interested could try that out by playing a game where everyone begins with a Champion in play. I'm guessing it would suck, but I might be bored enough, in the company of other sufficiently bored people, some day. (-8

[faust]

Fugitive for a debt cost, like <6>, doesn't seem so bad?

Edit: Or how about 2$ and a Potion?

I don't think Fugitive passes the "I would get a Potion for this" test.

[aku_chi]

Fugitive (without exchange) at $4 would be fine.  Yeah, it's a strong opener and a generically good buy, but so is Ironmonger.  I don't see Ironmonger receive tons of hate.

A $4 Followers is clearly a bad idea.  In games without Curse trashing (fully 1/3rd of games), it would be a mandatory open and a good buy the next two $4+ hands.  Even in games where you can trash Curses, it would be an oppressive opener - if not a must-open.  At $5, Followers occasionally gives a big advantage to a 5/2 opening, and just empties piles too fast when it's good.  Followers could be an acceptable $6 card, I think.  You'd still buy it in an engine if it's the only handsize attack, or if you can handle the Estate better than your opponent can handle the Curse.

[crj]

Agreed. Followers is better than Witch any time you're prepared to gain an Estate in exchange for Militia-ing the other players. But you'd choose Goons over Followers, so it needn't cost more than $6.

[Donald X.]

At this point there's Secret Passage, so Fugitive would have to be a different card (and that card is Secret Passage) or have a weird cost (like it does).

Dark Ages tried "Gain an Estate, each other player gains a Curse" at $3, back when there was no Cornucopia. It's bad times.

[Chappy7]

I think Spoils at 3 is too good.  I'd buy that in over silver pretty much always.  Spike to 5 almost guaranteed in the opening and then it kindly removes itself from your deck.  Either way it would be a really interesting kingdom card. 

[crj]

Maybe the right cost for Spoils is 5 debt?

Even if it wasn't right, it would certainly be interesting!

[markusin]

Fugitive for a debt cost, like <6>, doesn't seem so bad?

Edit: Or how about 2$ and a Potion?

Or like, $4 and 1 Debt? I know a card having a 1 Debt cost looks a bit weird, but mixing coin cost with Debt exists with Fortune.

[ackmondual]

I'd also add a clause that you're not allowed to buy these cards until at least after someone's performed their 2nd shuffle.  That should simulate the work put in to get the corresponding Supply card, and then that to Gain the non-Supply card.

[Jfrisch]

ignoring all exchange abilities.

Spoils at 3 is fine. Gold is worth than +1 card +1 action +2 coins and Mining village for the one shot affect is rarely considered OP.
Soldier at 3 is probably reasonable. It's a nice payload if you make it work but spamming them is hard because they're terminal and a single soldier is pretty weak.
Fugitive at 4 is clearly fine. Strong, sure, but way weaker than lab or forum.
Disciple, as mentioned, is crazy. I think it works at 7 where you have to work very hard to get two disciples and thus disciple disciples. 6 would probably be OP.

Treasure hunter I'd guess 4? I don't think opening two of them would be great to allow.
Warrior is probably also 4, they stack well but it takes work to stack them. But you can't have them too cheap because you don't want mass stacking them to be easy with other components.
Hero at 6 is fine, it combos nice with platinum but even with that it's not game destroying.
Champion wants a debt cost so as to not have the "first person who hit's it gets a giant advantage problem". 12 debt is probably enough for it to work in the game but even so it will end up being bought almost every game.

Bag of gold is balanced at 4.
Followers is incredibly strong. It probably works at 5 or 6 but would lead to more oppressive games at 5 so 6 might be better.
Trusty steed is pretty clearly a solid 6. Though it's boring because it self combos really well.
Princess can't exist in unlimited copies.
Diadem can maybe exist in a way similar to fortune. 5/5 debt seems maybe reasonable.

[markusin]

Another thing you can do with the prizes is make them a pile of uniques in a random order to deal with the problem of multiple Princesses, or make them a split pile with a set order like Castles and maybe have two copies of each.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Spoils - might be okay, I think I'd be more inclined to say . Someone compared it to mining village's one-shot ability, but spoils is a treasure for more and it doesn't run out like Mining Village would (if it were used often for the one-shot ability) since it's returned to the supply.
Madman - Most people said this would be broken as a supply pile, but seeing as it's a one-shot, I think it might be okay. maybe ?
Mercenary - Also might be okay at , but better how it is.
Bag of Gold -
Diadem - would need mods to work by itself (at least a cap)
Followers - ugly in any form
Princess - doesn't work on its own as-is, but I use a modded version at . I like the idea of making it the bottom of a split pile, but then we're even more in fan-card territory.
Treasure Hunter -
Warrior - . On it's own, obviously it wouldn't be a traveler, so I guess it would look at a card per Warrior in play?
Hero -
Champion - broken
Soldier -
Fugitive - would need an in-between cost. maybe +2.
Disciple - I agree with traces Around: (with a no self-gaining clause), or maybe
Teacher - The token events are the normal supply version of this.
Will-o'-Wisp - would need modding
Imp - same as Fugitive
Ghost - ?  Still haven't played with it much.
Bat - On its own, it would just be a Night card with "Trash up to two cards." so probably .

[Screwyioux]

At this point there's Secret Passage, so Fugitive would have to be a different card (and that card is Secret Passage) or have a weird cost (like it does).

Dark Ages tried "Gain an Estate, each other player gains a Curse" at $3, back when there was no Cornucopia. It's bad times.

Just curious, why was this bad times? Was it actually strong, or just unfun? My guess is the latter but I'd like to know!

[ipofanes]

Ghost - ?  Still haven't played with it much.

Would be quite aptly placed. I'd rate Golem quite a bit better as playing two random actions is kind of self-stabilising, and this should be justifiably adressed by the difference between and . Other things to consider are the difference to Throne Room variants (always hits something, neglecting the case of "all your actions are in your starting hand", but randomly hit) and to play-and-gainers like Disciple and Procession (which require target being in hand).

[faust]

Ghost - ?  Still haven't played with it much.

Would be quite aptly placed. I'd rate Golem quite a bit better as playing two random actions is kind of self-stabilising, and this should be justifiably adressed by the difference between and . Other things to consider are the difference to Throne Room variants (always hits something, neglecting the case of "all your actions are in your starting hand", but randomly hit) and to play-and-gainers like Disciple and Procession (which require target being in hand).

Ghost is easily better than Golem:
- it can never be terminal
- if you draw your deck, you can pick the action you want to double
- Golem does not give you an extra play, it just gives sifting and a Village effect.

Ghost would still be fine (albeit strong) at $6, but that just illustrates that Golem is pretty weak.

[GendoIkari]

Ghost - ?  Still haven't played with it much.

Would be quite aptly placed. I'd rate Golem quite a bit better as playing two random actions is kind of self-stabilising, and this should be justifiably adressed by the difference between and . Other things to consider are the difference to Throne Room variants (always hits something, neglecting the case of "all your actions are in your starting hand", but randomly hit) and to play-and-gainers like Disciple and Procession (which require target being in hand).

Ghost is easily better than Golem:
- it can never be terminal
- if you draw your deck, you can pick the action you want to double
- Golem does not give you an extra play, it just gives sifting and a Village effect.

Ghost would still be fine (albeit strong) at $6, but that just illustrates that Golem is pretty weak.

In regards to point 2... if you draw your deck, Ghost is just as worthless as Golem, isn't it?

[Awaclus]

Ghost - ?  Still haven't played with it much.

Would be quite aptly placed. I'd rate Golem quite a bit better as playing two random actions is kind of self-stabilising, and this should be justifiably adressed by the difference between and . Other things to consider are the difference to Throne Room variants (always hits something, neglecting the case of "all your actions are in your starting hand", but randomly hit) and to play-and-gainers like Disciple and Procession (which require target being in hand).

Ghost is easily better than Golem:
- it can never be terminal
- if you draw your deck, you can pick the action you want to double
- Golem does not give you an extra play, it just gives sifting and a Village effect.

Ghost would still be fine (albeit strong) at $6, but that just illustrates that Golem is pretty weak.

In regards to point 2... if you draw your deck, Ghost is just as worthless as Golem, isn't it?

Ghost is a Night so it digs for whatever you bought.

[GendoIkari]

Ghost - ?  Still haven't played with it much.

Would be quite aptly placed. I'd rate Golem quite a bit better as playing two random actions is kind of self-stabilising, and this should be justifiably adressed by the difference between and . Other things to consider are the difference to Throne Room variants (always hits something, neglecting the case of "all your actions are in your starting hand", but randomly hit) and to play-and-gainers like Disciple and Procession (which require target being in hand).

Ghost is easily better than Golem:
- it can never be terminal
- if you draw your deck, you can pick the action you want to double
- Golem does not give you an extra play, it just gives sifting and a Village effect.

Ghost would still be fine (albeit strong) at $6, but that just illustrates that Golem is pretty weak.

In regards to point 2... if you draw your deck, Ghost is just as worthless as Golem, isn't it?

Ghost is a Night so it digs for whatever you bought.

Ah ok, I had interpreted "pick the action you want to double" as "anything that's in your deck", as opposed to "anything you choose to buy". The later has restrictions; you need to be able to afford the action you want to double; and sometimes you're buying Victory or Treasure.

[Holunder9]

Keeping in mind that both cards don't draw but dig for Actions I consider the following rough comparisons to be useful:

Ghost is like
+1 Card
+1 Action
Play an Action card from your hand twice.

Golem is like
+2 Cards
+2 Actions

So even if that throned card is a lousy Pearl Diver this makes Ghost similar to +2 Cards +3 Actions which indicates that it is mostly better than Golen.
Yet Golem has two distinctive advantages: it is digging for 2 Action cards instead of just 1 and it is not a Duration so in a (nearly) deck drawing engine you can play it twice as often.

Overall the cards have little in common except for the fact that they dig for Actions and are conditional villages.

[Donald X.]

Dark Ages tried "Gain an Estate, each other player gains a Curse" at $3, back when there was no Cornucopia. It's bad times.

Just curious, why was this bad times? Was it actually strong, or just unfun? My guess is the latter but I'd like to know!

I don't know how strong it was; maybe it was a must-buy, I'm not doing the work to find out. It makes the game be entirely about it; all of our decks are choking on dead cards. Whatever fun was there to be had is gone, replaced by this experience, every time.

[teamlyle]

Keep in mind that Ghost can only be played once every 2 turns if you're drawing your deck. I still think it's way better than Golem, though.

[Commodore Chuckles]

In my experience, absent the other differences between the cards, playing a random card twice is significantly worse than playing two random cards once. Golem has two tries to hit something useful, but there's not much you can do if Ghost hits the Herbalist you only bought for +buy.