Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]

Author Topic: Reaction cards  (Read 976 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dwhit

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Reaction cards
« on: October 03, 2018, 09:47:45 pm »
0

We need a reaction card that cares about being revealed (as by a bandit or a scrying pool) another good one would be reacting to gaining coppers, gain coffers instead (similar to trader)
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7298
  • Respect: +8117
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2018, 02:20:40 pm »
+1

We need a reaction card that cares about being revealed (as by a bandit or a scrying pool) another good one would be reacting to gaining coppers, gain coffers instead (similar to trader)

I remember discussing this a while ago; can't find the thread though. One issue is the rules ambiguity about when a card is revealed. Is it only when a specific instruction told you to reveal cards? Or is it any time a card becomes publicly visible? When you discard cards, you cause the top card of your discard pile to be revealed, for example.
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

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1389
  • Respect: +981
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2018, 09:12:04 pm »
0

The Goko/Making Fun online Dominion had a "reveal window" that showed you what cards were being revealed to other players. That could work.

Something like giving Coffers, Villagers or VP would cause the fewest issues with resolution orders
Logged

Holunder9

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
  • Respect: +297
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2018, 03:07:03 am »
0

We need a reaction card that cares about being revealed (as by a bandit or a scrying pool) another good one would be reacting to gaining coppers, gain coffers instead (similar to trader)
The problem with on-reveal triggers is that the number of cards revealed varies wildly. Diggers like Golem can reveal a huge number of cards.
About the second idea, Mountebank is the only Copper junker, or Swindler once the Curses are out, so this shouldn't be broken. Beggar would become pretty good but that's a two card combo you could live with. The only real issue I see is that this Reaction allows you to convert each Buy into Coffers.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4749
  • Respect: +5088
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2018, 01:40:56 pm »
0

We need a reaction card that cares about being revealed (as by a bandit or a scrying pool) another good one would be reacting to gaining coppers, gain coffers instead (similar to trader)
The problem with on-reveal triggers is that the number of cards revealed varies wildly. Diggers like Golem can reveal a huge number of cards.
They also discard a huge number of cards and we still have Tunnel.

The problem I see with "reveal" is that it's an overloaded term. Sure, some cards tell you to reveal stuff, but in the actual sense of the word, any card in the trash or supply is revealed, and card in your hand when you just randomly decide to show it (no rule ever tells you that cards in your hand should stay secret), any card that accidentally falls out of your hand... And so on.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1160
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +890
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2018, 08:54:17 pm »
0

We need a reaction card that cares about being revealed (as by a bandit or a scrying pool) another good one would be reacting to gaining coppers, gain coffers instead (similar to trader)
The problem with on-reveal triggers is that the number of cards revealed varies wildly. Diggers like Golem can reveal a huge number of cards.
They also discard a huge number of cards and we still have Tunnel.

The problem I see with "reveal" is that it's an overloaded term. Sure, some cards tell you to reveal stuff, but in the actual sense of the word, any card in the trash or supply is revealed, and card in your hand when you just randomly decide to show it (no rule ever tells you that cards in your hand should stay secret), any card that accidentally falls out of your hand... And so on.
I don't see any problem with having 'reveal' as a reaction trigger. The top of supply piles or cards that accidentally fall out of your hand are not 'revealed' for the same reason that Messenger doesn't discard your deck.
(I have a reaction card in Resurgence that uses 'reveal' as a trigger.)

Neirai the Forgiven

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 289
  • Respect: +113
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2018, 03:56:49 pm »
0

I've tried to do this a few (>7) times in Antiquities, always to redesign it into something else because it's just too edge-casey. Don't let that stop you, though.

My issue is that it then because either 1) a reaction to attack cards but only a few of them, if it only triggers when someone else tells you to reveal a card.
2) a reaction that triggers on your own turn, which is sort of a "choose one" thing.

The real issue, though, is that if you make it "explicitly when you reveal a card" then it doesn't trigger on "Look at" which is a problem, because now you either have to say "trigger on reveal or look at" but then the player has to reveal it to trigger it? Messy.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1160
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +890
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2018, 06:13:28 pm »
0

"Look at" does not trigger an on-reveal reaction. I don't see that as a problem.

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +98
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2018, 09:35:49 am »
0

FYI, the Renaissance rulebook is on the RioGrande website now. Spoiler alert!

Patron
$4
Action-Reaction
+1 Villager
+ $2
-
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word "reveal"), +1 Coffers.

It's a real card now.
Logged
Is anyone here also on the Chess.com Variants forum? This is the same FEF.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7298
  • Respect: +8117
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2018, 11:34:40 am »
+3

We need a reaction card that cares about being revealed (as by a bandit or a scrying pool) another good one would be reacting to gaining coppers, gain coffers instead (similar to trader)

I remember discussing this a while ago; can't find the thread though. One issue is the rules ambiguity about when a card is revealed. Is it only when a specific instruction told you to reveal cards? Or is it any time a card becomes publicly visible? When you discard cards, you cause the top card of your discard pile to be revealed, for example.

Dammit, Donald.

 
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

Neirai the Forgiven

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 289
  • Respect: +113
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2018, 12:57:28 pm »
0

Logged

Holunder9

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
  • Respect: +297
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2018, 01:12:33 pm »
0

Patron is clearly worded but it is in my opinion a bad idea as it does not allow intuitive application.
As GendoIkari has pointed out, cards get revealed lots of ways without the word "reveal" being printed on a Kingdom card.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4749
  • Respect: +5088
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2018, 06:46:09 pm »
+1

I agree. The fact that Donald does something doesn't magically make it great. Patron is "okay", but you have to ask yourself whether you want okay cards to create weird rules questions. Donald has occasionally expressed regret over Trader's "would", and I feel this isn't much better. I'm glad however that this is as "bad" as it gets with Renaissance.

Oh wait, Capitalism...

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1389
  • Respect: +981
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2018, 06:58:33 pm »
0

I have very mixed feelings about when ideas that are almost uniformly considered too game breaking for fan cards end up in official cards. I'm glad I get to experience "return to your action phase" and "when you reveal", but it's annoying keeping to rules like "no Silver with a bonus for $4", and explaining them to new fan card designers, when they actually were never rules in the first place.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2018, 06:59:35 pm by NoMoreFun »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7011
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9698
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2018, 08:09:01 pm »
+1

No Silver+ for $4 was totally a Donald X. rule, and maybe still will be in the future. Man, who knows. For the record, itís a rule Iíve disagreed with for years. Iím glad itís finally been broken.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1389
  • Respect: +981
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2018, 08:42:52 pm »
0

As long as the cards are interesting and not just "Silver with + buy" taking up a whole card slot.

In my revised Alchemy idea I was careful to avoid having events costing $P give +$2, but I'm ok with it now.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7298
  • Respect: +8117
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2018, 08:57:56 pm »
+1

I agree. The fact that Donald does something doesn't magically make it great. Patron is "okay", but you have to ask yourself whether you want okay cards to create weird rules questions.

I always felt the same way about Crown and Villa. Not sure their novelty is worth it.
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

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7298
  • Respect: +8117
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2018, 08:59:49 pm »
+1

No Silver+ for $4 was totally a Donald X. rule, and maybe still will be in the future. Man, who knows. For the record, itís a rule Iíve disagreed with for years. Iím glad itís finally been broken.

It has? Are you talking about Patron, or is there a Treasure that I missed in the set?

*Edit* Just saw the question in the interview thread. And I definitely don't think that Patron is Silver+ for . The CSM vs Ducat thread listed a huge number of way that a Treasure and an Action card are different. Most of those apply just as well to Silver vs Patron.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2018, 09:01:54 pm by GendoIkari »
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

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1160
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +890
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2018, 12:52:52 am »
+3

I agree. The fact that Donald does something doesn't magically make it great. Patron is "okay", but you have to ask yourself whether you want okay cards to create weird rules questions.

I always felt the same way about Crown and Villa. Not sure their novelty is worth it.
boo
I strongly disagree.

faust

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2239
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +3139
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2018, 02:04:42 am »
+2

I agree. The fact that Donald does something doesn't magically make it great. Patron is "okay", but you have to ask yourself whether you want okay cards to create weird rules questions.

I always felt the same way about Crown and Villa. Not sure their novelty is worth it.
boo
I strongly disagree.
That's the thing, some people like simplicity, some people like wackiness. It's good that Donald caters to both.
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.

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +98
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2018, 08:37:41 am »
0

No Silver+ for $4 was totally a Donald X. rule, and maybe still will be in the future. Man, who knows. For the record, itís a rule Iíve disagreed with for years. Iím glad itís finally been broken.
With Captilalism, now there are lots of Silver+ for $2, $3, or $4.
Logged
Is anyone here also on the Chess.com Variants forum? This is the same FEF.

Commodore Chuckles

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 516
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +785
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2018, 09:16:08 am »
0

I agree. The fact that Donald does something doesn't magically make it great. Patron is "okay", but you have to ask yourself whether you want okay cards to create weird rules questions.

I always felt the same way about Crown and Villa. Not sure their novelty is worth it.
boo
I strongly disagree.
That's the thing, some people like simplicity, some people like wackiness. It's good that Donald caters to both.

I disagree about Villa, but agree about Crown. Being able to play Treasures twice isn't worth the rules headaches, especially since there's already Counterfeit.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4749
  • Respect: +5088
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2018, 09:35:34 am »
0

I agree. The fact that Donald does something doesn't magically make it great. Patron is "okay", but you have to ask yourself whether you want okay cards to create weird rules questions.

I always felt the same way about Crown and Villa. Not sure their novelty is worth it.
boo
I strongly disagree.
I on the other hand strongly agree. Both Villa and Crown are pretty meh for the rules questions they introduced. Same for Caravan Guard being played outside of your turn, by the way. Also, I could live just fine without Storyteller or Black Market playing Treasures in your action phase. If, in Storyteller's case, this had meant removing the card (or pushing it to Empires to instead take debt), so be it.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4749
  • Respect: +5088
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2018, 09:36:43 am »
0

I agree. The fact that Donald does something doesn't magically make it great. Patron is "okay", but you have to ask yourself whether you want okay cards to create weird rules questions.

I always felt the same way about Crown and Villa. Not sure their novelty is worth it.
boo
I strongly disagree.
That's the thing, some people like simplicity, some people like wackiness. It's good that Donald caters to both.

Crown isn't wacky, is it? It's really just another take on Throne Room, and we already had Counterfeit. I understand the argument for Villa, though.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7298
  • Respect: +8117
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2018, 10:47:25 am »
0

I agree. The fact that Donald does something doesn't magically make it great. Patron is "okay", but you have to ask yourself whether you want okay cards to create weird rules questions.

I always felt the same way about Crown and Villa. Not sure their novelty is worth it.
boo
I strongly disagree.
That's the thing, some people like simplicity, some people like wackiness. It's good that Donald caters to both.

Crown isn't wacky, is it? It's really just another take on Throne Room, and we already had Counterfeit. I understand the argument for Villa, though.

It's the action-treasure part that's wacky. So many people wondering things like if it counts as an action card if you played it in your buy phase, or if it counts as a treasure card if you played it in your action phase.
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

ben_king

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 171
  • Shuffle iT Username: ben.king
  • formerly grsbmd
  • Respect: +570
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2018, 10:50:15 am »
+1

Patron is clearly worded but it is in my opinion a bad idea as it does not allow intuitive application.
As GendoIkari has pointed out, cards get revealed lots of ways without the word "reveal" being printed on a Kingdom card.

Personally I don't feel like this is really a problem.  People seem to understand "gain" well enough.  There are lots of times where you "get something desired, especially as a result of one's effort," but it doesn't count as gaining for Dominion purposes.  "Using the word 'reveal'" just clarifies that it's talking about revealing as a Dominion concept, not the general English concept of revealing.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1389
  • Respect: +981
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2018, 10:51:54 am »
+2

Caravan Guard is the most egregious example. The mechanic is fine IMO, but the difference being a delayed $1 or an immediate $1 isn't enough to be meaningful; it essentially bridges the $3-$4 gap. Secret Cave would have been perfect for the mechanic to block Militia style attacks, and it is the kind of card you'd want in slogs. Better yet, a card that's terminal during your turn but non terminal in response to an attack (and removing the awkward "+1 Action has no effect outside your turn" clause).
Logged

chipperMDW

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 250
  • Respect: +534
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2018, 11:01:57 am »
+1

The thing I find odd about Patron is that it doesn't really behave like a reaction. Other reactions are basically triggered abilities that trigger while the card is in a hidden zone and give you the option of somehow proving that the card is there in order to cause some effect. Patron triggers while the card is publicly visible, and there's no choice about whether to get the effect. It would have worked just as well if it hadn't been blue at all.

Not that Reaction really has any rules meaning anyway.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7298
  • Respect: +8117
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2018, 11:18:41 am »
0

The thing I find odd about Patron is that it doesn't really behave like a reaction. Other reactions are basically triggered abilities that trigger while the card is in a hidden zone and give you the option of somehow proving that the card is there in order to cause some effect. Patron triggers while the card is publicly visible, and there's no choice about whether to get the effect. It would have worked just as well if it hadn't been blue at all.

Not that Reaction really has any rules meaning anyway.

Woah, didn't notice that it isn't optional; that's interesting. There's probably some edge case where you don't want the Coffer. At the very least it would need to involve Possession; Storyteller; and one of the now-many ways of playing Storyteller in your buy phase.
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

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4749
  • Respect: +5088
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2018, 11:35:41 am »
+1

I agree. The fact that Donald does something doesn't magically make it great. Patron is "okay", but you have to ask yourself whether you want okay cards to create weird rules questions.

I always felt the same way about Crown and Villa. Not sure their novelty is worth it.
boo
I strongly disagree.
That's the thing, some people like simplicity, some people like wackiness. It's good that Donald caters to both.

Crown isn't wacky, is it? It's really just another take on Throne Room, and we already had Counterfeit. I understand the argument for Villa, though.

It's the action-treasure part that's wacky. So many people wondering things like if it counts as an action card if you played it in your buy phase, or if it counts as a treasure card if you played it in your action phase.

I agree to that. I meant that it doesn't give us anything cool and new to do. Villa also does something not-so-great with its returning mechanism, but at least it does something more interesting.

Holunder9

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
  • Respect: +297
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2018, 11:38:44 am »
0

No Silver+ for $4 was totally a Donald X. rule, and maybe still will be in the future. Man, who knows. For the record, itís a rule Iíve disagreed with for years. Iím glad itís finally been broken.

It has? Are you talking about Patron, or is there a Treasure that I missed in the set?

*Edit* Just saw the question in the interview thread. And I definitely don't think that Patron is Silver+ for . The CSM vs Ducat thread listed a huge number of way that a Treasure and an Action card are different. Most of those apply just as well to Silver vs Patron.
I totally agree; Patron isn't a Treasure so it isn't a Silver+.

But where the folks who interpret it as Silver+ are coming from is probably the notion that +1 Action +2 Coins is on average better than Silver and Patron is better than +1 Action +2 Coins so Patron can be interpreted as (Action-)Silver+ for $4.

I don't think that the no Silver+ for $4 design rule ever made much sense. For example Royal Seal could easily be a $4 without the pile being emptied in many games. What it did probably achieve though is that all the $5 Silver+ that have been done over the years are more interesting cards than all those hypothetical $4 Silver+.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1389
  • Respect: +981
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2018, 11:50:48 am »
0

Crown seems like the benign teaser for all the "play Actions during your Buy Phase" insanity of Capitalism/Innovation/Scepter.
Logged

Holunder9

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
  • Respect: +297
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2018, 12:11:06 pm »
0

Patron is clearly worded but it is in my opinion a bad idea as it does not allow intuitive application.
As GendoIkari has pointed out, cards get revealed lots of ways without the word "reveal" being printed on a Kingdom card.

Personally I don't feel like this is really a problem.  People seem to understand "gain" well enough.  There are lots of times where you "get something desired, especially as a result of one's effort," but it doesn't count as gaining for Dominion purposes.  "Using the word 'reveal'" just clarifies that it's talking about revealing as a Dominion concept, not the general English concept of revealing.
Others have pointed out that this will not work in translations as "reveal" probably did not get translated consistently. That's a big one.

About gain, it is crystal clear. The general rule is that when you buy a card, you gain it and gainers explicitly mention that you gain.

About reveal, while it is explicitly written in the rulebook I have always interpreted that a card that lands in the trash to be revealed or that the top card gets revealed when several cards land in the discard pile.
You could claim that this is my fault but if you take a look at this thread nobody was aware of the reveal stuff from the rulebook, I just had to look it up.
Now if Dominion fans who are familiar with a lot of trivia and funky rule issues are not aware of such nuances the target group of this expansion, casual players, will surely also run into similar issues.

You also see this problem on the card itself. If reveal were such a clear concept, if you could assume that everybody reads the rulebook literally, the card wouldn't need: (using the word "reveal").
Logged

ben_king

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 171
  • Shuffle iT Username: ben.king
  • formerly grsbmd
  • Respect: +570
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2018, 01:53:34 pm »
+1

The card doesn't actually even need "using the word 'reveal.'"  Early versions didn't have it -- it was just added for clarity.
Logged

Holunder9

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
  • Respect: +297
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2018, 03:21:48 pm »
+1

The card doesn't actually even need "using the word 'reveal.'"  Early versions didn't have it -- it was just added for clarity.
Again, if you assume a perfect world in which everybody has memorized parts of the rulebook which have hitherto been irrelevant and if you assume that every translation has interpreted reveal as a keyword and translated it consistently, in such a perfect world this would indeed not be necessary.
In the real world this is not the case. This card will be unplayable in foreign versions (unless they totally overhaul their previous translations) and even hardcore Dominion gamers would have played this card wrong without this clarification.

This is why the card is a bad design. It is fairly simple and mundane but opens a can of worms. Possession is complicated rule-wise but at least rewards you for that mess with something novel and interesting.

If you wanna do simple, do simple in all respects.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1160
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +890
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2018, 07:10:31 pm »
0

I don't see why "reveal" is any more complicated than "gain". Some people get confused that getting a card by someone passing it to you with Masquerade doesn't count as gaining. I don't even know if getting a card by "exchanging" counts as gaining it.

As far as other languages are concerned, if "reveal" hasn't been translated consistantly, that is completely the fault of the translators, not Donald.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 07:34:37 pm by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7298
  • Respect: +8117
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2018, 07:19:40 pm »
+1

I don't see why "reveal" is any more complicated than "gain". Some people get confused that getting a card by someone passing it to you with masquerade doesn't count as gaining. I don't even know if getting a card by "exchanging" counts as gaining it.

As far as other languages are concerned, if "reveal" hasn't been translated consistantly, that is completely the fault of the translators, not Donald.

I think the issue is that people say and think things like "the top card of your discard pile is always revealed". Heck, it might even say that in the rulebook somewhere. I guess it's because "reveal" has never felt like as much of a keyword as it has just the normal English language way of saying "show this card to everyone". In other words, we never would have expected Moat to function differently if it said "When another player plays an attack card, you can show this card from your hand"... but now, for the first time, there is a difference between "revealing" a card and that card just becoming public knowledge.

True, people do ask the rules questions about if such and such counts as gaining (it doesn't. Not unless it was specifically a "gain", or an automatic gain as a result of a buy. Not exchanging, not passing, not setting aside). But "gain" has always seemed to me more like a specific keyword. Something more concrete then "add this card to your deck, via your discard pile".
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

Holunder9

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
  • Respect: +297
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2018, 07:43:39 pm »
0

Let's keep in mind that this very discussion between the folks who know what reveal means and the folks who had a more fuzzy understanding of it before the publication of Patron is not representative as it is a discussion among Dominion fans.
The average Dominion player has an even more confused understanding of reveal than those among us who were confused.

I usually don't like to diss a card so much but Patron is simply a horrible design.
I am a big fan of complex and crazy cards that justify the emergence of some rule issues, they are natural and justified in such instances. But when you do a very simply card that is a mess rule-wise something went wrong.
Logged

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +98
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2018, 08:05:50 pm »
0

I don't consider myself to be even close to an 'expert' dominion player, but to be honest I wasn't confused by this card at all. Maybe that comes from spending so much time wording fan cards the right way. In this set as a whole, there are several places where they used wordings that just seemed weird to me, Capitalism for instance, but none of them really seemed that confusing.
Logged
Is anyone here also on the Chess.com Variants forum? This is the same FEF.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1160
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +890
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2018, 10:53:17 pm »
0

Let's keep in mind that this very discussion between the folks who know what reveal means and the folks who had a more fuzzy understanding of it before the publication of Patron is not representative as it is a discussion among Dominion fans.
The average Dominion player has an even more confused understanding of reveal than those among us who were confused.

But when you do a very simply card that is a mess rule-wise something went wrong.
There is no mess rules wise. And really, I doubt very many people will be confused by this card, especially considering it says on the card that the word "reveal" has to be used to trigger it.

Holunder9

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
  • Respect: +297
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2018, 08:00:34 am »
0

Let's keep in mind that this very discussion between the folks who know what reveal means and the folks who had a more fuzzy understanding of it before the publication of Patron is not representative as it is a discussion among Dominion fans.
The average Dominion player has an even more confused understanding of reveal than those among us who were confused.

But when you do a very simply card that is a mess rule-wise something went wrong.
There is no mess rules wise. And really, I doubt very many people will be confused by this card, especially considering it says on the card that the word "reveal" has to be used to trigger it.
My point is that the very presence of "reveal" in quotation marks on this cards shows that reveal has never really been, as GendoIkari has pointed out, a keyword like gain. Sure, there are some lines in the rulebook but if they never matter in practice you forget about it.
I have never explained "reveal" to anybody I taught the game because it wasn't necessary whereas I have said numerous times that buy implies gain, that cards which are not in the Supply are ungainable and so on.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4749
  • Respect: +5088
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2018, 08:40:26 am »
0

I will repeat that I wouldn't go so far as to call Patron "horrible". It's just relatively unclean. Fan card designers have aimed to stay clear of such unclean designs, and for good reason. Donald X has the authority to just declare such things to work, and so he gets away with it, but I think it's not a good approach. Experiment is another case of a card that works just because it is said to work.

Personally, Capitalism offends me more than either of those, anyhow. Where does this go with the supposed"simple" design philosophy?

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +98
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2018, 08:51:43 am »
0

I will repeat that I wouldn't go so far as to call Patron "horrible". It's just relatively unclean. Fan card designers have aimed to stay clear of such unclean designs, and for good reason. Donald X has the authority to just declare such things to work, and so he gets away with it, but I think it's not a good approach. Experiment is another case of a card that works just because it is said to work.

Personally, Capitalism offends me more than either of those, anyhow. Where does this go with the supposed"simple" design philosophy?
I agree about Capitalism. In this set, I see a lot of pretty simple cards, reminding me a lot of Hinterlands actually, with all the when-gain, and I think that one also had a push towards simplicity because they thought it might be a stand-alone, anyway, then there's cards like Capitalism, Patron, Fleet, Experiment. I think the thought process went a little like, these cards say exactly what they mean on them, that's pretty simple. No, it's not. Capitalism says exactly what it means, so it's actually pretty clear, but that doesn't mean simple. Fleet is the same, it says exactly what it means, but it's not really simple and the wording is unlike any other Dominion card. As far as Experiment goes, with Port they fixed the problem by having it be on-Buy, here they went with a much weirder wording. I'm just not sure that they achieved the simplicity they were looking for.
That said, I do like just about all of the cards here, even Capitalism and Patron, and most of these I wouldn't even have a hard time introducing to less-experienced players, excepting Capitalism.
Logged
Is anyone here also on the Chess.com Variants forum? This is the same FEF.

ben_king

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 171
  • Shuffle iT Username: ben.king
  • formerly grsbmd
  • Respect: +570
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2018, 09:43:34 am »
+3

In the design of this set, a decision was made to try to use clear, concise wordings for cards, even if those deviated from the historical, somewhat procedural wordings that were used in the past.  All of this in the pursuit of simplicity, which of course has many dimensions (you should ask Donald X. about the different types of complexity sometime).

At this point in Dominion design, it's extremely difficult to create cards that will satisfy all the different criteria for having a card be "simple," while still having it be fun to play.  So you're always going to have to cut corners somewhere.  You can have a card simple in some dimensions, e.g. the wording of Capital is simple and unambiguous, but complex in other dimensions, such as making you pay attention to a keyword that you've never had to before, or causing rules questions.  Some other types of complexity, such as difficulty to implement online or difficulty to translate, are not even considered in the design process.

Everyone of course has their own opinions on which types of complexity are more odious, but complexity is unavoidable at this point.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4749
  • Respect: +5088
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2018, 09:58:41 am »
0

I think there are three dimensions to "simplicity":

  • General concept
  • Strategy
  • Rules implications

I feel a lot of people throw the first and second together, but this is a mistake. For instance, think of Chapel, which has a trivial concept, but leads to interesting strategies, whereas Rebuild has a more complex concept that leads to incredibly dull games. Usually we want our concepts to both be relatively simple to grasp and interesting to play.

The third dimension is due to the fact that not every simple concept automatically makes for simple rules. Caravan Guard has a decently easy to understand concept, being a now-or-then Peddler depending on whether you were attacked. Problem is, it doesn't play interesting. The second problem is, while the concept may be simple, the rules of the card aren't. Caravan Guard sucks.

For Capitalism, I actually think that buffing any Action cards that provide coin is fine as a concept. It's just the way this has been implemented that has really outlandish rules implications.

At this point in Dominion design, it's extremely difficult to create cards that will satisfy all the different criteria for having a card be "simple," while still having it be fun to play.
Pardon me, but that's balderdash.

ben_king

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 171
  • Shuffle iT Username: ben.king
  • formerly grsbmd
  • Respect: +570
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #45 on: November 07, 2018, 10:11:25 am »
0

I remember when I asked Donald X. about it, he had at least 10 dimensions of complexity/simplicity that he considers (some of which would fall under your three), but I expect it's the additional things that Donald X. is trying to optimize that makes it near impossible to satisfy all the types of simplicity.

But seriously, you should ask him about it.  The statement that you quoted from me is something I've seen him say many times.
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +745
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #46 on: November 07, 2018, 10:45:14 am »
+1

The only thing that's bothering me is those 2 Durations that seem like they don't really have to be there. I appreciate that they both involve setting cards aside for next turn to make it easier to remember to keep them out, but having a couple of random Durations hanging around seems like a bit of a vestige from the "complexity creep" of the more recent expansions.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4749
  • Respect: +5088
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #47 on: November 07, 2018, 11:24:34 am »
0

But seriously, you should ask him about it.  The statement that you quoted from me is something I've seen him say many times.

I have made it my hobby to do simple cards, and I feel I have done a good job illustrating that that's still quite possible, as has been for the last few years. When Nocturne was the hypercomplex mess that it was, I offered my help. I tried to steer him towards simpler designs before, with Adventures and Empires. What it got me was being considered to be antagonizing him, and lots of folks jumping at his defense without thinking twice. I have no interest being in that spot again.

So no, I won't ask him.

Holunder9

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
  • Respect: +297
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #48 on: November 07, 2018, 03:48:37 pm »
0

There is rule complexity. Cards like Possession and Patron suck in this respect.

There is card complexity. Something like a Traveller line, a split pile or a card which does several things like Scrying Pool can be considered as relatively complex in this regard. Just take the amount of text on a card as rough benchmark for it. I love this form of complexity and am probably in the minority.
I think that fan cards should be more complex than official cards as they can and should combine stuff from expansions. For example Night cards and Coffers/Villagers are just a natural match.

There is emergent complexity. It is kinda like with chess, you have a bunch of simple movement rules yet a complex game with immeasurable depth emerges out of it. In Domnion you have simple cards that, in combination, lead to something sublime. I think we all agree that we love this aspect of the game. Cards which increase emergent complexity are often cards with high combo potential.

What I am against is a card that has high rule complexity (or ambiguity) yet low card complexity as the former is only justified by the latter.
It is a akin to playing a heavy Euro that has not been "trimmed" well. If you do complex, keep it as simple as possible understanding-wise.


When Nocturne was the hypercomplex mess that it was, I offered my help. I tried to steer him towards simpler designs before, with Adventures and Empires. What it got me was being considered to be antagonizing him, and lots of folks jumping at his defense without thinking twice. I have no interest being in that spot again.

So no, I won't ask him.
As I love expansions with high card complexity like Adventures (engines!) and Empires (alternative ways to green!) I am on the opposite side of the spectrum (although I would argue that your Events, Seasons and Spellcaster cards as well as the new Fame concept are not necessarily on the hypersimple side of the spectrum).
But I personally like my games auteur style and don't think that fans can or should try to influence designers (too much). Renaissance might be too simple for my taste but it is DXV's baby and there has to be something for all tastes. As long as something isn't bad, broken (I like Dark Ages but it seems to be the least/worst tested expansion) or counterintuitive like Patron I am ultimately fine with it.

It is interesting that you mention Nocturne. I think this expansion is an example of a lot of new stuff that doesn't really lead to something new. Stuff like Events, Travellers and Landmarks really widened the game whereas all the Nocturne stuff didn't. I don't know, perhaps it is the random nature of the Boons/Hexes that make the game more random, perhaps it is the Heirlooms speeding the game up to much which leads to more money Kingdoms. No idea. All I know is that despite the numerous new mechanics there wasn't anything as innovative / game-shattering as in the previous two expansions.
If I use my stupid categories I could say that there is more extra rule complexity that doesn lead to more emergent complexity (like e.g. Landmarks totally changing how you evaluate greening).
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 04:03:04 pm by Holunder9 »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4749
  • Respect: +5088
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2018, 08:10:44 am »
0

I think you inconsistently throw together conceptual (or what you call "card") complexity with both rules complexity or emergent (strategical) complexity.

For instance, you talk about liking "card" complexity as with Split piles, Travellers or cards that do several things or have lots of text. That's what I call conceptual complexity. Then you go around talking about Empires and its alternative ways to green. The most noteworthy way Empires affects greening is through Landmarks. Landmarks are one single card, with one single concept on them. No such thing as conceptual or "card" complexity. Not on Groundskeeper or Sacrifice, either. What has such complexity are split piles, and I doubt that most people would name it as their favourite mechanic of the set over debt, VP tokens or landmarks.

About my own cards supposedly being conceptually complex, you will find that what you named are categories, not individual cards. That's because I have gone the Duration/Reserve approach for all of my new mechanics, by doing them often enough to make learning the new rules pay off. You learn Edicts, Spellcasters or Seasons once, and after that you will find that the individual cards are very simple. Neither Sanitarium nor Snow Witch, nor Wizard are complex concepts. Not more than Haven is once somebody explained Duration cards to you, or Ratcatcher after you understood Reserves. And you'll find you didn't see me complaining about the Artifact mechanic, or about Reserves or Projects. You WILL see me complain about specific members of these groups, like Capitalism. Because Capitalism doesn't become simple once you understand Projects.

What's your opinion on Necromancer? By chance, I made a Necromancer before the official one, and both revive cards from the trash. Just that the official one has twice as many differently named cards coming with it and turns over cards to mark them as played. Is THAT your type of complexity?

trivialknot

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 637
  • Respect: +968
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #50 on: November 09, 2018, 11:19:50 am »
+1

Split piles were my favorite mechanic from Empires...

I don't really mind complexity, and I loved Nocturne.  But I feel it's quite different in the context of fan cards vs official cards.  When it comes to fan cards, there are just so many of them, mostly bad, so there's a sense of fatigue.  "Oh, it's another card with 8 lines of small-type font."  Even when I understand the card, it's hard enough to imagine what would happen in games that included it.  I don't want to work so hard just to understand a card that in all likelihood is terribroken anyway.

And like, I don't even play with any of these cards.  I look at fan cards for the entertainment value.  If a card is making itself difficult to understand, I don't need to understand it.

Fan cards often tend towards complexity, because they're more for the designer than for the players.  Obviously the designer already understands the whole concept of the card; they designed it, it seems pretty simple to them.  Many fan cards are also trying to draw a lot of attention to themselves, or they're trying to do all the things, or they're trying to do "theme".

The relative simplicity of Asper's cards compared to other fan cards is well appreciated.  But I would have difficulty comparing the complexity of Asper's cards to the official cards, because the context is so different.  I don't have the same expectations.
Logged

Holunder9

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
  • Respect: +297
    • View Profile
Re: Reaction cards
« Reply #51 on: November 09, 2018, 02:48:20 pm »
+1

What's your opinion on Necromancer? By chance, I made a Necromancer before the official one, and both revive cards from the trash. Just that the official one has twice as many differently named cards coming with it and turns over cards to mark them as played. Is THAT your type of complexity?
Nope, it isn't. I already mentioned in my last post that I dislike Nocturne overall (admittedly mainly because it is too moneyish for my taste and not because of the numerous new mechanics).

Your Necromancer is a cool variation on trashing attacks and I like it more than the Nocturne Necromancer.

I think that the official Necromancer is a typical Nocturne card, i.e. there is a lot of stuff to read but it rarely leads to interesting play. That's the kind of bad complexity nobody likes. Everybody likes simple cards that lead to emergent complexity.

So the crucial question is always, how much text-intensity or conceptually difficulty are you willing to accept if they lead to interesting play? That's also to some degree subjective. I think e.g. that Capital is a fairly easy card to understand: "buy it, now all Actions that generate Coins are Action-Treasures."

While I like complex card I disagree that something like Edicts, Seasons or Spellcasters is less complex than Travellers, split piles, Landmarks or Gathering cards. It is always just one new mechanic that you have to learn. The question is what happens when you throw stuff together.
An example would be something like tokens and Night cards. They work great together mechanically which is why I and other folks have experimented with such cards (it also covers a design space which official cards will never cover which is why an an adamant proponent of combining mechanics from different expansions, if it makes sense). But perhaps two mechanics on one card, with perhaps even a third thrown in, could be too complex for some people.

In the end it is mainly a playing group matter. If you play Dominion with kids and family you will naturally lean towards more simple cards whereas if you play it with experienced gamers you naturally lean towards more complex cards.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]
 

Page created in 0.161 seconds with 21 queries.