Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Considering Trader errata  (Read 3797 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5844
  • Respect: +23531
    • View Profile
Considering Trader errata
« on: May 05, 2020, 05:35:53 pm »
+24

For the next printing of Hinterlands - coming right up somehow - I am considering errata for Trader. Specifically:

Trader: Action - Reaction, $4
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Silver per $1 it costs.
----------
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand, to exchange the card for a Silver.

This is functionally different in cases you can think of. Mostly it's the same. It's way simpler.

Is there a problem with this?
Logged

[TP] Inferno

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 177
  • I have no +Buys :(
  • Respect: +160
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2020, 05:41:21 pm »
0

I don't have many experiences with Trader, but this looks like a much cleaner wording to me. It does remove the ability to Watchtower the Silvers and stuff, but I see it as a positive change.
Logged
Counting House is the best card in the game. Change my mind.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8904
  • Respect: +9688
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2020, 06:01:21 pm »
0

Maybe too strong with on-gain combos?

Is the reason for this to get rid of "would gain" as a timing window, and if so, would you also try to get rid of it on Possession?

Requires the Hinterlands rulebook to define "Exchange".
« Last Edit: May 05, 2020, 06:02:54 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

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5844
  • Respect: +23531
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2020, 06:27:05 pm »
+4

Maybe too strong with on-gain combos?

Is the reason for this to get rid of "would gain" as a timing window, and if so, would you also try to get rid of it on Possession?

Requires the Hinterlands rulebook to define "Exchange".
Feel free to consider power level, but I am super not worried there.

The reason is to get rid of "would gain" which is super crazy confusing. Alchemy is not being reprinted currently and I mean it's not at all relevant. If I can't fix Possession, oh well, one awful mess instead of two.

Yes I would have to explain "exchange" in the Hinterlands rulebook; that would take a small fraction of the space Trader takes now.
Logged

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2734
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3431
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2020, 08:37:41 pm »
+2

This fixes a lot of silly rules junk and dumb infinite's.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

pm me if you wanna do stuff for the blog

they/them

Titandrake

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2193
  • Respect: +2822
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2020, 01:02:55 pm »
+2

This fixes a lot of silly rules junk and dumb infinite's.

Trader + Forum + cost reduction still lets you empty the Silver pile, but doesn't keep going past that since Exchange requires at least 1 Silver to be in the supply.

You do get an infinite with Cavalry now. If you can reduce Cavalry's cost to $2, then you can gain Cavalry, exchange for Silver, get +2 Cards +1 Buy to draw the Silver, then repeat. Reducing to $1 gives you net money that should let you pile Cavalry + Estates afterwards.

I don't think that's a problem though.
Logged
I have a blog! It's called Sorta Insightful. Check it out?

crlundy

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Shuffle iT Username: crlundy
  • Respect: +320
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2020, 03:04:49 pm »
+5

I have hoped for this errata for a while, thanks for alerting me. It has no problems that I see, and has my full support. Plus future cards won't have to worry about breaking Livery-Trader, and people can't reveal Trader forever online.

My only suggestion would be to have the Reaction say "exchange that card for a Silver", to match Watchtower's phrasing.
Logged

ednever

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
  • Respect: +702
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2020, 08:00:26 pm »
0

+1 on this.

The "exchange" cards like Changeling are very fun. The game has changed so much that gaining silver is not great in any case. This gives the Trader a little power bump, and makes it cleaners and makes it more consistent with the later cards.

I feel like if this change were NOT made, I would still play it as a house rule IRL....

Ed
Logged

ConMan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1378
  • Respect: +1668
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2020, 08:59:14 pm »
+3

It feels like a pretty clean erratum to me, especially since 95% of the time it looks like it will work essentially the same, 4% of the time it makes some of the weird stuff less weird, and 1% of the time might enable something a little weirder but it doesn't look like it will be in any particularly game-breaking way.
Logged

mad4math

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
  • Shuffle iT Username: madd4math
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2020, 03:46:52 am »
+1

I am personally a fan of the silly 4+ card infinite combos, so I am a little sad to see this change. This also looks like the end of the blue dog rule, which is one of my favorite pieces of dominion rules trivia.

Otherwise it does look like it makes normal interactions cleaner and less weird.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8904
  • Respect: +9688
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2020, 10:55:39 am »
0

This also looks like the end of the blue dog rule, which is one of my favorite pieces of dominion rules trivia.

Blue dog lives on with Possession!
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

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1216
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1176
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2020, 11:10:07 am »
+1

Suggested fix for Possession:

"...any cards they gain are set aside; you gain them at the end of the turn"
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

Holger

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
  • Respect: +238
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2020, 11:22:33 am »
+1

This fixes a lot of silly rules junk and dumb infinite's.

Trader + Forum + cost reduction still lets you empty the Silver pile, but doesn't keep going past that since Exchange requires at least 1 Silver to be in the supply.

You do get an infinite with Cavalry now. If you can reduce Cavalry's cost to $2, then you can gain Cavalry, exchange for Silver, get +2 Cards +1 Buy to draw the Silver, then repeat. Reducing to $1 gives you net money that should let you pile Cavalry + Estates afterwards.

I don't think that's a problem though.

You don't get to do this infinitely often: New Trader's on-gain ability only works until the Silver pile is empty, it's the same as with Forum.
Draining the Silver pile in one turn is still very strong, but that's not a problem for a 3-card combo. (We already have a 2-card combo that drains the Gold pile, after all. ;) )
Logged

Holger

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
  • Respect: +238
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2020, 11:27:11 am »
0

Suggested fix for Possession:

"...any cards they gain are set aside; you gain them at the end of the turn"

Or simply: "...any cards they gain are put into your discard pile". You usually can't use your own deck during a Possession turn anyway, and there's now ample precedent for cards entering your deck without being gained.

(However, this would require an extra wording for Debt tokens...)
« Last Edit: May 07, 2020, 11:39:34 am by Holger »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8904
  • Respect: +9688
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2020, 12:02:14 pm »
+1

Any fixes to Possession that trigger on-gain would end up extra bad with things like Watchtower, because it would allow you to buy Curses and have them stay in your opponent's deck. Of course Possession is already bad in that same way with Masquerade or Ambassador, but that's a bit harder to pull off; and is limited to 1 bad interaction per copy of the card; while a single Watchtower could mean getting a bunch of Curses.
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

Holger

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
  • Respect: +238
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2020, 12:38:13 pm »
0

Any fixes to Possession that trigger on-gain would end up extra bad with things like Watchtower, because it would allow you to buy Curses and have them stay in your opponent's deck. Of course Possession is already bad in that same way with Masquerade or Ambassador, but that's a bit harder to pull off; and is limited to 1 bad interaction per copy of the card; while a single Watchtower could mean getting a bunch of Curses.

You could only get a "bunch of curses" this way if the possessed player has lots of extra gains/buys (for which the possessor could also get something useful for themself instead). And even putting several curses into the possessed player's deck doesn't seem worse to me than a 12 VP or even 18 VP swing that is possible with a single Masquerade or Ambassador.
Also, Watchtower is weak enough that you could just not use it in Possession games as a precaution (while Masq. and Amb. are usually too strong to ignore, AND can give copies of themselves to the unwilling opponent).
Logged

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 710
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +434
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2020, 02:27:43 pm »
0

i already have this with my IRL set and it's much nicer than all the finnicky errata around "would gain"

urza

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2020, 03:09:00 pm »
+2

Is Trader the only effect in the game that triggers when you would do something?  (Similar to replacement effects in Magic?)  If so, I'm definitely in favor of getting rid of that wording.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8904
  • Respect: +9688
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2020, 04:12:09 pm »
0

i already have this with my IRL set and it's much nicer than all the finnicky errata around "would gain"

What do you mean by you already have this? Do you mean that you've been just choosing to play it that way?
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

pubby

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 455
  • Respect: +780
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2020, 03:55:50 am »
+5

I wouldn't expect most players to fully understand "exchange" so this may not be the best wording. For example, if the board has Guildhall + Trader and my opponent reveals trader, I'm sure I'd get in an argument with the guy when I tell him he doesn't get a coffer because he's gaining a treasure but technically he's not gaining a treasure because exchange is not gaining.

The OG trader had ruling issues, but they were rare to appear in an actual game and otherwise the card was straightforward. This new text has clearer rulings, but I'd expect it to confuse more players.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2020, 04:09:00 am by pubby »
Logged

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 710
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +434
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2020, 04:41:11 am »
0

i already have this with my IRL set and it's much nicer than all the finnicky errata around "would gain"

What do you mean by you already have this? Do you mean that you've been just choosing to play it that way?
i sleeve because i print fan cards and ive made a couple quality of life improvements to the canon cards - updating BoM/Inheritance/etc post errata, rewording Trader to this (nearly identical, fewer commas in mine tho), making Lost In The Woods an artifact (so as to further codify things you fight over as Artifacts, and more strongly define states as a thing that a player gets), adding Coppersmith back into Intrigue.
So yeah, i already have this. or, i'm choosing to play it this way, i guess, but also i dont have to explain to others that "we're choosing to play it this way", they just get that thats how the card is worded.

I wouldn't expect most players to fully understand "exchange" so this may not be the best wording. For example, if the board has Guildhall + Trader and my opponent reveals trader, I'm sure I'd get in an argument with the guy when I tell him he doesn't get a coffer because he's gaining a treasure but technically he's not gaining a treasure because exchange is not gaining.

The OG trader had ruling issues, but they were rare to appear in an actual game and otherwise the card was straightforward. This new text has clearer rulings, but I'd expect it to confuse more players.

I mean, just explain to him at the beginning of the game that exchanging isn't gaining. The only issue here is mid-game rules explanations.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2020, 09:29:26 am by spineflu »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8904
  • Respect: +9688
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2020, 09:45:03 am »
0

i already have this with my IRL set and it's much nicer than all the finnicky errata around "would gain"

What do you mean by you already have this? Do you mean that you've been just choosing to play it that way?
i sleeve because i print fan cards and ive made a couple quality of life improvements to the canon cards - updating BoM/Inheritance/etc post errata, rewording Trader to this (nearly identical, fewer commas in mine tho), making Lost In The Woods an artifact (so as to further codify things you fight over as Artifacts, and more strongly define states as a thing that a player gets), adding Coppersmith back into Intrigue.
So yeah, i already have this. or, i'm choosing to play it this way, i guess, but also i dont have to explain to others that "we're choosing to play it this way", they just get that thats how the card is worded.


Did you do this based on something Donald said before, or did you just happen to think of the same errata?
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

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 710
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +434
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2020, 09:47:47 am »
0

i already have this with my IRL set and it's much nicer than all the finnicky errata around "would gain"

What do you mean by you already have this? Do you mean that you've been just choosing to play it that way?
i sleeve because i print fan cards and ive made a couple quality of life improvements to the canon cards - updating BoM/Inheritance/etc post errata, rewording Trader to this (nearly identical, fewer commas in mine tho), making Lost In The Woods an artifact (so as to further codify things you fight over as Artifacts, and more strongly define states as a thing that a player gets), adding Coppersmith back into Intrigue.
So yeah, i already have this. or, i'm choosing to play it this way, i guess, but also i dont have to explain to others that "we're choosing to play it this way", they just get that thats how the card is worded.


Did you do this based on something Donald said before, or did you just happen to think of the same errata?
I happened to think it should work on the exchange mechanic (based on something someone had said in... idk the endless interview? somewhere on the board). the wording similarity was a happy coincidence.

pubby

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 455
  • Respect: +780
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2020, 10:34:43 am »
+1

I mean, just explain to him at the beginning of the game that exchanging isn't gaining. The only issue here is mid-game rules explanations.
Followed by them wondering why the card requires that extra special "exchange" rule in the first place instead of just say "gain". If you haven't played adventures or nocturne the mechanic looks like an unnecessary contrivance.

FWIW I think exchange makes sense on the traveler and vampire line. People can see that the card you're exchanging represents the same character and they can also understand the game design reasons for having the effect distinct from "gain". But when it attached to on-gain effects like changeling it starts to become confusing. Like, if you ironworks an action and exchange it for a silver, how many people are going to guess that you get +Action instead of  +$1? The old trader was confusing in this manner too, but man, this version doesn't fix that.

Anyway Donald, have you considered a version that just trashes the gained card to gain a silver?
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8904
  • Respect: +9688
    • View Profile
Re: Considering Trader errata
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2020, 11:07:03 am »
+7

Like, if you ironworks an action and exchange it for a silver, how many people are going to guess that you get +Action instead of  +$1? The old trader was confusing in this manner too, but man, this version doesn't fix that.

I think that particular interaction is clearer in the new version. You gained an action card, Ironworks cares about the card you gained. Some might still ask the question, but I don't see this wording leading to a multi-page thread on BGG where Donald changes his mind on the correct ruling 2 separate times and needing to invoke blue dogs to explain how it works. The rules answer is much more straight forward; you gained whatever you gained with Ironworks, so Ironworks just works completely normally, same as it would if Trader weren't involved.
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
Pages: [1] 2 3  All
 

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 21 queries.