Print

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

[Elyv]

Well, here's a recent one of mine. I don't know if I really played well, but

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110728-100913-46622301.html

Your play was reasonable, but your opponent's play did not impress.

[Fangz]

What was his main fault? Overburdening himself with lighthouses and so falling behind in the gold race?

[Elyv]

What was his main fault? Overburdening himself with lighthouses and so falling behind in the gold race?

1) He didn't open with any cards that give coins. In my opinion, your opening has to be very powerful(something like Chapel/Treasure Map or Ambassador/Ambassador) to avoid opening with some sort of silver. Smugglers does not count.(This may be personal taste, but I don't like smugglers at all; for example, if you'd bought a silver instead, you could've gotten a gold on turn 3)
2) spending 4 on a NV on turn 5 when he only had 2 terminals in his deck(if he'd bought a silver instead of that smuggler he could've gotten a gold on both turns 4 and 5!)
3)Spending 7 on a ghost ship on turn 14 against the 4 lighthouse deck.
4)Not particularly relevant, but the turn 20 bazaar buy should definitely have been a duchy.

About lighthouses vs silvers, I'm not sure; I know that without attacks, lighthouse is worse, but I don't know by how much, so I don't feel confident in saying that I know how many to get against your ghost ships there. That said, I would've skipped the lighthouse buys entirely and bought silvers.

Other than your opening*, I think you played well. The only clear mistake I can see is buying a festival over a bazaar, since you can't do anything interesting with the buy, and a card is definitely better than $1, especially on a village. Oh actually, you probably should've bought a province on turn 12 and a gold on turn 13, missed that the first time through.

*I would open either hag/silver or hag/lighthouse here.

[Fangz]

I dunno, I liked the smugglers buy, since I figured I could possibly gain a silver or a sea hag for free out of it. For the turn 12 gold buy, well, I figured the game was only half way done, and I felt treasure-wise I was ahead so I should cement my lead with more gold, and with the festival, I was uncomfortable going into the endgame without any +buys at all.

[papaHav]

Jester is a ridiculous kingmaker in 4 player games.
and Scout is stupidly useless.

[Jimmmmm]

Seeing as this thread has been resurrected...

I'd put Feast at $3, and Mine and Fishing Village at $4. And I'd make Highway work better with TR/KC.

[NoMoreFun]

Transmute: When you gain this, +1 Buy

It gives it a much lower opportunity cost, makes the treasure trashing option slightly more desirable, and it's probably the only way to have that when gain effect on a card without being broken.

[Davio]

Fortune Teller: When this is in the setup, replace it with another card

The Victory part is a bit silly when you're putting back Great Halls.
I mean, the card is already pretty bad, especially in the beginning: Here, let me play a Chancellor for you, all you have to do is put an Estate back. Late game, it can be very bad for your opponent if his deck is shuffled too often, but do you really want to spend an early buy on a card that might only be good later? I mean, by the time it's good, it's less useful as your opponent's deck is pretty green by that point anyway. This means it cycles him less.

So the original idea of Fortune Teller is to punish your opponent by giving him an Estate (or Curse) on his deck?
Okay, how about?

New FT
+$2
Each other player gains an Estate, putting it on top of his deck.

That's both punishment and reward, what a great modification!

[brokoli]

Fortune Teller: When this is in the setup, replace it with another card

The Victory part is a bit silly when you're putting back Great Halls.
I mean, the card is already pretty bad, especially in the beginning: Here, let me play a Chancellor for you, all you have to do is put an Estate back. Late game, it can be very bad for your opponent if his deck is shuffled too often, but do you really want to spend an early buy on a card that might only be good later? I mean, by the time it's good, it's less useful as your opponent's deck is pretty green by that point anyway. This means it cycles him less.

So the original idea of Fortune Teller is to punish your opponent by giving him an Estate (or Curse) on his deck?
Okay, how about?

New FT
+$2
Each other player gains an Estate, putting it on top of his deck.

That's both punishment and reward, what a great modification!

Don't touch fortune teller ! It's one of my fav attacks.
And also the most underrated card of the game. It really don't need changes.

[brokoli]

Now, I'd like to see changes on :

- Transmute (add +1$)
- Counting house (add +1buy)
- Pirate ship (arrange it, depending on the number of players)
- Thief (if a copper is trashed, you get a bonus)
- Saboteur (even if it's clearly an underrated card, I think a little +1$ would be nice)
- Possession (not TR/KCable)
- Navigator (I don't know how)
- Tournament (remove the +action and replace it with +$1)
- Goons (at $7)
- Familiar (at $4)
- Feast at +action

Things I definitely don't want to change :

- Fortune teller, fortune teller, fortune teller
- The possession-ambassador interaction
- Chapel
- Ambassador (overrated)
- Harvest
- Hunting party
- Loan

Also, I really like the chancecutter idea.

[DStu]

- Saboteur (even if it's clearly an underrated card, I think a little +1$ would be nice)

I don't think that it is good idea to get Saboteur to a point where on an "average" game it is not a bad buy.  It has it's places, but it is good that this places are not more common.

- Navigator (I don't know how)

change pic?

- Goons (at $7)

I don't know if that is a good idea. Goons is strong, but at $7 it will not get weaker, but more random. Get an early lucky  $7, and it's really hard for your opponent to get to $7 themselves. With 3card hands.  It's hard enough with $6, but being the first to $7 will be more descisive than being the first to $6 already is.

- Familiar (at $4)

$4 or $4P. @$4P: See Goons, and replace 3card hand with Curse-filled hand, and $7 with $4P. @$4 is too cheap for this card.

[petrie911]

Fortune Teller should simply say "...reveals cards from the top of his deck until he reveals a card that isn't an Action or Treasure..."  Then it properly works like a mini-Rabble.  I suppose that makes its interaction with Saboteur a little less fun, but I'm pretty sure that combo is terrible anyways.

Actually, an interesting way to do it would be to let you name a type, then each player digs until he finds a card of that type and puts it on top.  Gives it a nice interaction with cursers.

[Drab Emordnilap]

I think it's an intentional design decision that nothing in all of Dominion requires you to name a type.

[LastFootnote]

I think it's an intentional design decision that nothing in all of Dominion requires you to name a type.

I believe you are wrong.

- There was a card, +$2, name a type, dig for it, put it on your deck. It cost $3. You can almost always name a type that isn't in your deck if you want, so it's "strictly better" than Chancellor. This really bothers some people (Anthony Rubbo being one of them). It had to be worse in some way and I didn't want it to be worse.

[Powerman]

Remove the $1 bonus from tournament so people don't just buy lots of them and luck into an 8.  Maybe:

+1 Action
Each player may reveal a Province from his hand.
If you do, discard it and gain a Prize (from the Prize pile) or a Duchy, putting it on top of your deck.
If no-one else does, +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy.

So it becomes a Worker's village with upside + downside.

[DStu]

Remove the $1 bonus from tournament so people don't just buy lots of them and luck into an 8.  Maybe:

I think I like this goal, but a Village that you can't rely on is not something that is very usefull.  Like trying to build engines with Tribute...

[NoMoreFun]

Goons: "When you have a Goons in play, when you buy a card, +1VP"
King's Court: "You may reveal an action other than a King's Court. Play it 3 times.
Wharf: "+1 Buy, Now and at the start of your next turn: +2 cards"
Possession: This can't cause a player to take more than two consecutive turns
Fool's Gold: Make the first one worth 0
Cultist: Each other player gains a Ruins in hand.

[Davio]

The problem with Possession is that you are not playing your own turn.
You are playing your opponent's turn, but you make decisions and gain the cards he would gain.

So if you play TR-Possession with your modification, this means your opponent won't get his regular turn after you play 2 turns for him.

If my thinking is correct, playing an Outpost on a Possession turn sets your opponent up for a 3-card hand after which he doesn't get a regular turn. But the rules in Alchemy are too foggy for me, can anyone confirm this?

[DStu]

The problem with Possession is that you are not playing your own turn.
You are playing your opponent's turn, but you make decisions and gain the cards he would gain.

So if you play TR-Possession with your modification, this means your opponent won't get his regular turn after you play 2 turns for him.

Depending on how you formulate it, Possession would not work at all, because the first play of Possession is what would cause your opponent to take 2 turns.

[Synthesizer]

I think Pirate Ship is fine in 2p games (it's weak, but not completely useless, and if it were really strong we would be complaining that militia would be weak but it is annoying in 3p or 4p. For Ambassador, you are going to need a game plan for what to do once the ambassador(s) gradually start to lose their usefulness. For witch or any other curser as well, you need to figure out how to bank on your winning position, or how to respond to your losing position. But for Pirate Ship the endgameplan is built right into the card. I don't mind that you "have to buy" a card, but I don't think it is nice that the game sort of auto-plays after the purchase of the card.

As for thief, it would be nice if you could put some value in your hand. e.g. "you may put one of the trashed treasures in your hand." Although that might be too strong. Maybe put only the lowest cost stolen treasure in your hand.

Adventurer is so much fun to play, but so weak, that I would like a buff on that. At $5, I think it will be overpowered on a lot of boards, so definitely a buff. Any buff will probably do, +1 action would probably make it very strong (not necessarily a good thing); I'd prefer either +1 buy, or "pick 2 from 3 revealed treasures" which would make it useful much more often, in a support-card role. I like the pick-2-from-3 idea best.

[jonts26]

Goons: "When you have a Goons in play, when you buy a card, +1VP"
King's Court: "You may reveal an action other than a King's Court. Play it 3 times.
Wharf: "+1 Buy, Now and at the start of your next turn: +2 cards"

I guess you're mostly being true to your username with these suggestions.

[popsofctown]

There's kind of two different ways  to think about the question, depending on whether it means we could go back in time and make the changes, or whether the changes would occur now, after people are already used to many cards the way they are.  Some changes that are appropriate if you could go back in time just aren't worth it now that people are used to cards being the way that they are. 

Some changes don't require you to go back in time for them to improve the game though.  Familiar at 2p is such an improvement to Dominion that it would be worth shaking things.

[One Armed Man]

Ooooo... What would happen if Familiar cost 2P and gained the text "When you gain this, trash a Curse from the Supply."?

[popsofctown]

What is the idea behind that clause?

[One Armed Man]

It helps players who don't go for potions by limiting the number of curses able to be sent out. It lets players who fall behind on curses buy familiars late to reduce the number of curses they might get. It makes games with Familiar stall less than they currently do, because without trashers, at most 4 curses are in each player's deck (2player), 6 (3 player) or 7 (4 player). Just an idea. In games with multiple Cursers, I don't forsee the exact consequences, but I think it makes Familiar less attractive.