Print

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

[Carline]

Part 4

Probably the last couple of cards I want to present here. Maybe finally I will show you some more cards (without comments) that I do not consider being included in my set for one or the other reason.

Golden Fleece $5 Action – Treasure - Night If it’s your… Action phase, +$3;         Buy phase, +1 Buy and +$2;          Night phase, +2 Coffers.

Mutiny       $5 – Action – Attack - Duration        Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals 2. Choose for each player whether they discard those or 2 of the unrevealed cards. At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Coffers.

Pied Piper $5 - Action +3 Cards Discard a card. -------------------------- While you have this in play,         when you buy a card, you may          overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, +1 Villager.

Golden Apples $6 – Treasure $2 +2 Cards. Discard any              number of Action cards,              revealed, for +$1 each.

Golden Fleece
A card that can be played in any of 3 phases.

Mutiny
A nasty hand-size reducer, where also the attacker has a word on what has to be discarded.

Pied Piper
This allows overpaying when other cards are bought, which means that the overpay ability persists and can be used whenever a Pied Piper is in play.
If several Pied Pipers are in play, overpaying multiplies the Villager output. If a card is bought that has the overpay function itself, then overpaying gives the card’s regular bonus plus the Villagers from Pied Piper.

Golden Apples
A Silver that draws cards during the Buy phase. Basically any drawn card is welcome in one way or the other; either for sifting (Victory cards and Curses), for payload (Treasures and Action cards) or for playing them later (Night cards). The other side of the coin is that drawn Action cards (usually) cannot be played in the same turn.

I like very much all these ideas, specially Golden Fleece, a three-phase card, and the interactivity of Mutiny.

Golden Apples is a kind of Treasure version of Crusader of my Venus set (or Crusader is a Action version of Golden Apples) . I don't know which came first. I don't mind with the resemblance and I hope you also don't. Because of the different type, they play differently anyway.

[Timinou]

I love Golden Fleece! It is pretty good, especially the Night option. But I don't think it is overpowered.

I think Golden Fleece would be a decent buy at $5 even if all it did was give you +2 Coffers in the Night phase.  Considering that you also have the option to use it as a terminal gold or as silver that gives you +1 Buy, it becomes very powerful.  I would even buy it at $6.   
 

[segura]

Weird argument given that most $5s are bought when you hit $6.
The card is undoubtedly strong but it is no $6.

[Timinou]

Weird argument given that most $5s are bought when you hit $6.
The card is undoubtedly strong but it is no $6.

My point is that I think the card would be fairly priced at $6.  I don't understand your first comment, so I'm not sure if you are implying that there's no difference between something costing $5 and $6. 

[segura]

You said that you would even buy it at $6. That is true for a large majority of $5s, you often prefer them over Gold. Man, if you buy that Gold instead of that Witch or that Lab you are bound to lose. Spices is often better than Gold and yet it only costs $5. Funky world but that’s how it is.

Golden Fleece is a good $5 but most definitely no $6.

[Timinou]

You said that you would even buy it at $6. That is true for a large majority of $5s, you often prefer them over Gold. Spices is often better than Gold and yet it only costs $5.

Golden Fleece is a good $5 but most definitely no $6.

Sorry for the awkward phrasing - I just meant to convey what I think the cost should be, not the reason why I think it should cost $6.

I feel it's quite strong to be able to get Golden Fleece if you start with 5/2.  It's very versatile and you can always get some reliable use out of it.

I think we both agree it's on the strong side at a cost of $5.  Why don't you think it should cost $6?

[segura]

I just elaborated in my last post on the 5 and 6 thingy and I disagree about the power level: it is good but not a super strong $5. Charm, Spices, Crown and Counterfeit are all $5 Treasures that I would prefer over this in the majority of Kingdoms.

The notion that this is particularly strong in the opening is pretty weird. It doesn’t draw, doesn’t trash, doesn’t junk. It doesn’t do anything that you most want after the first shuffle.

[Carline]

In Action phase, it does less than cost terminal Golds like Legionary, Sacred Grove and Livery.
In Buy phase it does non-terminal Woodcutter, less than Charm.
In Night phase, though non-terminal, it does less than Butcher.

So , I think it's OK at . Versatility makes it a strong but not a .

I like it very much and I think it's well balanced.

[Timinou]

I just elaborated in my last post on the 5 and 6 thingy and I disagree about the power level: it is good but not a super strong $5. Charm, Spices, Crown and Counterfeit are all $5 Treasures that I would prefer over this in the majority of Kingdoms.

OK, let's compare it to Spices and Charm, since as a Treasure, they give the same vanilla bonuses.  Why would you choose Spices over Golden Fleece at $5?  I think that the versatility over the course of the game that you would get with Golden Fleece is better than the 2 Coffers you get with Spices.  I might prefer Charm over Golden Fleece in certain kingdoms, but I think I would prefer Golden Fleece more often than not.   

I agree that Crown can be very strong, especially once you've thinned out your deck or have better control of it.  However, there are some turns where Crown won't be particularly strong.  Golden Fleece will almost never be useless in your hand.  It's a trade-off between something that's potentially quite powerful (and versatile in its own right) and something that is quite reliable and versatile. 

[Timinou]

In Action phase, it does less than cost terminal Golds like Legionary, Sacred Grove and Livery.
In Buy phase it does non-terminal Woodcutter, less than Charm.
In Night phase, though non-terminal, it does less than Butcher.

So , I think it's OK at . Versatility makes it a strong but not a .

I think the problem with comparing it to other Action cards, or other Treasures, or other Night cards is that it's probably not the best way to assess the balance of the card.  Yes, other Action cards that are terminal golds do more than Golden Fleece when played as an Action.  But they don't do anything if you don't have sufficient Actions, whereas with Golden Fleece you can still play it as a Treasure or in the Night phase.

I like it very much and I think it's well balanced.

I like it too!  I think gambit's come up with another very clever design.  I think it's a bit too strong, but that's without actually playtesting it.

[segura]

I just elaborated in my last post on the 5 and 6 thingy and I disagree about the power level: it is good but not a super strong $5. Charm, Spices, Crown and Counterfeit are all $5 Treasures that I would prefer over this in the majority of Kingdoms.

OK, let's compare it to Spices and Charm, since as a Treasure, they give the same vanilla bonuses.  Why would you choose Spices over Golden Fleece at $5?  I think that the versatility over the course of the game that you would get with Golden Fleece is better than the 2 Coffers you get with Spices.  I might prefer Charm over Golden Fleece in certain kingdoms, but I think I would prefer Golden Fleece more often than not.   

I agree that Crown can be very strong, especially once you've thinned out your deck or have better control of it.  However, there are some turns where Crown won't be particularly strong.  Golden Fleece will almost never be useless in your hand.  It's a trade-off between something that's potentially quite powerful (and versatile in its own right) and something that is quite reliable and versatile.

You are overestimating the strength of the Action option. Otherwise you would not claim that Golden Fleece is better than Spices, which is the Treasure option of Golden Fleece on play and the Night option on gain.

[Gubump]

I just elaborated in my last post on the 5 and 6 thingy and I disagree about the power level: it is good but not a super strong $5. Charm, Spices, Crown and Counterfeit are all $5 Treasures that I would prefer over this in the majority of Kingdoms.

OK, let's compare it to Spices and Charm, since as a Treasure, they give the same vanilla bonuses.  Why would you choose Spices over Golden Fleece at $5?  I think that the versatility over the course of the game that you would get with Golden Fleece is better than the 2 Coffers you get with Spices.  I might prefer Charm over Golden Fleece in certain kingdoms, but I think I would prefer Golden Fleece more often than not.   

I agree that Crown can be very strong, especially once you've thinned out your deck or have better control of it.  However, there are some turns where Crown won't be particularly strong.  Golden Fleece will almost never be useless in your hand.  It's a trade-off between something that's potentially quite powerful (and versatile in its own right) and something that is quite reliable and versatile.

You are overestimating the strength of the Action option. Otherwise you would not claim that Golden Fleece is better than Spices, which is the Treasure option of Golden Fleece on play and the Night option on gain.

I do think Golden Fleece is arguably stronger than Spices even without the Action option. If you use it as a Treasure, then it's like taking +2 Coffers and spending them immediately, so Golden Fleece minus the Action option is effectively similar to +2 Coffers but you have to spend both or none of them now, instead of being able to only use 1. And reusable +2 Coffers is better than one-time +2 Coffers (except that you don't need to play the card first to get Spices' Coffers). A Silver that gave Coffers instead of would probably be a very strong , let alone , and Golden Fleece is very close to that even without the Action option.

[segura]

I do think Golden Fleece is arguably stronger than Spices even without the Action option.

The Action option of Golden Fleece is negligible but the on-gain option of Spices is not. You gotta play Golden Fleece one time more often than Spices until it catches up in power. Good luck achieving that with a non-drawing card.

You gotta play Spices more than two times until it can technically become worse than Gold (Remodel Gold into Provinces ignored). You cannot say the same thing about Golden Fleece.

[Timinou]

Segura, if Golden Fleece were only a Night card that gave you +2 Coffers, how much do you think it should cost?

[segura]

Segura, if Golden Fleece were only a Night card that gave you +2 Coffers, how much do you think it should cost?

+1 Action
+2 Coffers

This is a $5, it is not clear per se whether you prefer the Coffers or Baker's draw but they are of similar strength.
So the Night version is a $4.5.

[gambit05]

Thank you all for your overwhelming interest on Golden Fleece!

When I designed the card I thought of course a lot about its cost. What I did was to look at situations in which I can buy it very early; e.g. 5/2 opening or hitting $5 in turn 3 or 4. In the presence of any of the powerful $5 cost cards I would likely prefer those over Golden Fleece. If I would be in the situation to buy Gold or Golden Fleece, I would definitively buy the latter more often than not. If there are strong $6 cost cards on the board, I would prefer them. With those comparisons in my mind, I decided to give it a $5 cost. I am sure with this cost it will be a competitive and attractive card, maybe not bought very early, but for sure in a lot of cases later on. I hope that I will have the opportunity to play Dominion in real life soon again. If so, Golden Fleece will be one of my first Fan cards that I will include in games. This will likely tell me more about its strength and about which cost is better suited. It is easier to start with $5, instead of $6, since I expect to see the dynamics of the card much more often. If it turns out that Golden Fleece causes a flood of Coffers too often, well then I guess it will have to cost $6.

[segura]

It is easier to start with $5, instead of $6, since I expect to see the dynamics of the card much more often. If it turns out that Golden Fleece causes a flood of Coffers too often, well then I guess it will have to cost $6.

That's also DXV's design principle: make a card as strong/cheap as possible and try to get away with it. There are quite some official cards which could cost more: Spices could be a $6, Lackeys could be a $3 and so on. Better err on the side of cheap, strong and available than expensive and rarely used.

[gambit05]

It is easier to start with $5, instead of $6, since I expect to see the dynamics of the card much more often. If it turns out that Golden Fleece causes a flood of Coffers too often, well then I guess it will have to cost $6.

That's also DXV's design principle: make a card as strong/cheap as possible and try to get away with it. There are quite some official cards which could cost more: Spices could be a $6, Lackeys could be a $3 and so on. Better err on the side of cheap, strong and available than expensive and rarely used.

I am always wondering where you people get the knowledge about Donald's design principles. I mean here it looks like it is the obvious way to go and I don't think that Golden Fleece with a cost of $5 will break the opening turns. Early in a game, I would prefer Spices over Golden Fleece, because the on-gain Coffers can immensely accelerate the deck quality. In the long run, Golden Fleece might be stronger if compared in a vacuum. However, Spices in the meantime gave more buying power and flexibility, allowing to buy better cards than Golden Fleece does before it catches up or even overtakes. 

[gambit05]

I like very much all these ideas, specially Golden Fleece, a three-phase card, and the interactivity of Mutiny.

Golden Apples is a kind of Treasure version of Crusader of my Venus set (or Crusader is a Action version of Golden Apples) . I don't know which came first. I don't mind with the resemblance and I hope you also don't. Because of the different type, they play differently anyway.

Thank you! It is always nice to hear when people like the concepts and ideas of your own cards.

I have no problem with the similarity between Crusader and Golden Apples, even if they would be identical. The chances are very slim that they will ever be in the same Kingdom. And even if they would, they are considerably different.

[segura]

I am always wondering where you people get the knowledge about Donald's design principles.

I don't remember where he wrote that about making cards as strong as possible, perhaps somebody can find a quote.

That you shouldn't do something with VP tokens that doesn't lead to the game ending is fairly obvious but is probably also somewhere to be found concerning playtesting experiences in Prosperity.

Other principles change over time, e.g. Attacks were always terminal but often very strong in earlier expansions (Torturer, Mountebank) whereas nowadays there are often weaker but also more frequently non-terminal.

That you shouldn't do a Silver+ for $4 is something that DXV has often said, but then he did Patron and the world did not end.

[gambit05]

I am always wondering where you people get the knowledge about Donald's design principles.

I don't remember where he wrote that about making cards as strong as possible, perhaps somebody can find a quote.

That you shouldn't do something with VP tokens that doesn't lead to the game ending is fairly obvious but is probably also somewhere to be found concerning playtesting experiences in Prosperity.

Other principles change over time, e.g. Attacks were always terminal but often very strong in earlier expansions (Torturer, Mountebank) whereas nowadays there are often weaker but also more frequently non-terminal.

That you shouldn't do a Silver+ for $4 is something that DXV has often said, but then he did Patron and the world did not end.

I have seen this last statement more than once and I always wondered what the reason is. Are such cards too boring or is it too easy to accumulate $ for that card cost? At least such cards to not draw.

[segura]

I am always wondering where you people get the knowledge about Donald's design principles.

I don't remember where he wrote that about making cards as strong as possible, perhaps somebody can find a quote.

That you shouldn't do something with VP tokens that doesn't lead to the game ending is fairly obvious but is probably also somewhere to be found concerning playtesting experiences in Prosperity.

Other principles change over time, e.g. Attacks were always terminal but often very strong in earlier expansions (Torturer, Mountebank) whereas nowadays there are often weaker but also more frequently non-terminal.

That you shouldn't do a Silver+ for $4 is something that DXV has often said, but then he did Patron and the world did not end.

I have seen this last statement more than once and I always wondered what the reason is. Are such cards too boring or is it too easy to accumulate $ for that card cost? At least such cards to not draw.

I never got the principle either and am glad that it is gone. It probably evolved during the more Treasure-y early days of Dominion. Royal Seal is e.g. a clear $4 for me.
It also teaches you do use your own brain when designing cards. Some principles make sense, like don't do a cantrip VP token card. Some like no Silver+ for $4 don't.

[Carline]

I am always wondering where you people get the knowledge about Donald's design principles.

I don't remember where he wrote that about making cards as strong as possible, perhaps somebody can find a quote.

That you shouldn't do something with VP tokens that doesn't lead to the game ending is fairly obvious but is probably also somewhere to be found concerning playtesting experiences in Prosperity.

Other principles change over time, e.g. Attacks were always terminal but often very strong in earlier expansions (Torturer, Mountebank) whereas nowadays there are often weaker but also more frequently non-terminal.

That you shouldn't do a Silver+ for $4 is something that DXV has often said, but then he did Patron and the world did not end.

I have seen this last statement more than once and I always wondered what the reason is. Are such cards too boring or is it too easy to accumulate $ for that card cost? At least such cards to not draw.

I never got the principle either and am glad that it is gone. It probably evolved during the more Treasure-y early days of Dominion. Royal Seal is e.g. a clear $4 for me.
It also teaches you do use your own brain when designing cards. Some principles make sense, like don't do a cantrip VP token card. Some like no Silver+ for $4 don't.

From the interview with Donald X.:

"Silver with a bonus for $4" was considered one of the taboos of card design here, but that's what Patron is. Was it ever actually a rule for you?

Yes, I am the source of that idea. The problem is that normal people buy Silver for $4 often enough that they just automatically empty the Silver-plus-for-$4 pile, without regard even for what the bonus is.

Patron does have this issue, though not always. As you can see it seemed like it wasn't enough of a problem to not do the card. And the fact that I hadn't done one of these meant... that I hadn't done one of these.

I think principles are not to be followed blindly. If you understand why the principle exists, you are free to follow it or try to create a solution which avoids the issues the principle tries to prevent.

[gambit05]

I am always wondering where you people get the knowledge about Donald's design principles.

I don't remember where he wrote that about making cards as strong as possible, perhaps somebody can find a quote.

That you shouldn't do something with VP tokens that doesn't lead to the game ending is fairly obvious but is probably also somewhere to be found concerning playtesting experiences in Prosperity.

Other principles change over time, e.g. Attacks were always terminal but often very strong in earlier expansions (Torturer, Mountebank) whereas nowadays there are often weaker but also more frequently non-terminal.

That you shouldn't do a Silver+ for $4 is something that DXV has often said, but then he did Patron and the world did not end.

I have seen this last statement more than once and I always wondered what the reason is. Are such cards too boring or is it too easy to accumulate $ for that card cost? At least such cards to not draw.

I never got the principle either and am glad that it is gone. It probably evolved during the more Treasure-y early days of Dominion. Royal Seal is e.g. a clear $4 for me.
It also teaches you do use your own brain when designing cards. Some principles make sense, like don't do a cantrip VP token card. Some like no Silver+ for $4 don't.

From the interview with Donald X.:

"Silver with a bonus for $4" was considered one of the taboos of card design here, but that's what Patron is. Was it ever actually a rule for you?

Yes, I am the source of that idea. The problem is that normal people buy Silver for $4 often enough that they just automatically empty the Silver-plus-for-$4 pile, without regard even for what the bonus is.

Patron does have this issue, though not always. As you can see it seemed like it wasn't enough of a problem to not do the card. And the fact that I hadn't done one of these meant... that I hadn't done one of these.

I think principles are not to be followed blindly. If you understand why the principle exists, you are free to follow it or try to create a solution which avoids the issues the principle tries to prevent.

Amazing! How did you found that? It's two years old. Thanks for the information.

[Carline]

Amazing! How did you found that? It's two years old. Thanks for the information.

I remembered I read something about it in the interview, I searched for "Patron" in it and found the quote.