Print

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

[Dsell]

Loot
Treasure-Reaction
Cost: $5
If this is the first time you played Loot this turn, it's worth $3, otherwise it's worth $0.

-------------

When another player gains a Gold, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, they gain a Loot instead.


This is sort of an anti-Fool's Gold, indeed borrowing the type and language directly from it. It was inspired by a comment made by Axxle on another thread about changing the wording on gold. It has an interesting (hopefully not bad!) reaction that lets you sabotage your opponents...maybe. There's really no reason NOT to pick one of these up, it's a cheap gold if you just have one, and it may give you a chance to wreck your opponent. But if your opponent gets one and you start racking these up, it can cause real issues when they collide. Not only is it a dead card, but it's a worthless treasure, which hurts. Interesting interactions with gold gainers like tunnel, explorer, and especially governor.

I've done absolutely zero playtesting since the idea only came to me a half hour ago. Criticize away!

Btw, not a big fan of the name on this one, so if you have any better suggestions...

[Young Nick]

I think this would be a really fun card but could lead to super ugly games where no one can get real Golds and both have decks flooded with Loots. Obviously "flooded" is an exaggeration seeing as an even split would be only have 5 Loots, but still, you know what I mean. Maybe if the reaction didn't hand them out?

If the reaction turned the Gold into a Silver or the Silver into a Copper it might be too powerful, but it's still a thought worth pursuing.

[permanoob]

What if your second loot is worth 2 and your third loot is 1. All subsequent loots would be 0. Or have all subsequent loots be $1. Or have one subsequent loot be worth $1. Some variant along those lines.

Edit: What if revealing your loot lets you trash it and gain a gold in addition to your opponent being affected!

[Dsell]

I think this would be a really fun card but could lead to super ugly games where no one can get real Golds and both have decks flooded with Loots. Obviously "flooded" is an exaggeration seeing as an even split would be only have 5 Loots, but still, you know what I mean. Maybe if the reaction didn't hand them out?

If the reaction turned the Gold into a Silver or the Silver into a Copper it might be too powerful, but it's still a thought worth pursuing.

What if your second loot is worth 2 and your third loot is 1. All subsequent loots would be 0. Or have all subsequent loots be $1. Or have one subsequent loot be worth $1. Some variant along those lines.

Is the reaction that bad though? You only want to buy one or maaaaybe two of these things for yourself. So with a single loot, you actually have to get a little lucky (while it's in your hand, your opponent has to be buying gold, which is risky in itself) to turn your opponents gold into loots. Even then, it might not hurt that bad. But I can see the game really devolving once one player has accumulated a few...it could have a cascading effect.

The fixes above could be good, and I'm curious what others would think is the best solution. Another option that would be quite strategic but may end up never being used is to discard the Loot to activate the reaction. This would allow for discarding redundancies but would be a sacrifice the first time you activate it (unless you had already bought two).

[popsofctown]

It's a bad thing that the first copy of this is strictly better than Gold :/

[Dsell]

It's a bad thing that the first copy of this is strictly better than Gold :/

Is that really that bad though? It's freely open to anyone and doesn't seem extremely swingy to me. If anything it's self correcting: the more a player accumulates, the more copies others are likely to receive. That is assuming normal play that risks purchasing Gold.

I'm not trying to sound obstinate, I'd really like to know. Why is it bad/broken for a single copy of a card to be strictly better than a card at a higher cost?

[O]

It's a bad thing that the first copy of this is strictly better than Gold :/

The first copy of treasure map is strictly worse than a ton of things cheaper than/same cost as it   

[qmech]

It's a bad thing that the first copy of this is strictly better than Gold :/

If you expect to be forced to take more later, you could take the view that the first Loot is worse than a Gold since it will reduce the value of your future deck compared to the situation where you only have Loots that you were forced to have.

There are potential political issues with this card, but not more serious than those for Tournament, so it's probably fine.

Affecting your opponents' gains is a good area of design space to explore.

[popsofctown]

It's a bad thing that the first copy of this is strictly better than Gold :/

The first copy of treasure map is strictly worse than a ton of things cheaper than/same cost as it   

That's not the same situation.  The first copy of Treasure Map is strictly worse than Silver.  I'm complaining that Loot is strictly better than Gold.

I don't think recursive reasoning solves the impact that has on decision making, but I could be wrong.

[O]

It's a bad thing that the first copy of this is strictly better than Gold :/

The first copy of treasure map is strictly worse than a ton of things cheaper than/same cost as it   

That's not the same situation.  The first copy of Treasure Map is strictly worse than Silver.  I'm complaining that Loot is strictly better than Gold.

I don't think recursive reasoning solves the impact that has on decision making, but I could be wrong.

Yes, it's actually the opposite reasoning.. but with the exact same implications.

And the first loot is barely, barely better than gold. And it comes with the danger of being flooded with more loot later, making the first loot "worse" than gold.

[Mic Qsenoch]

It's a bad thing that the first copy of this is strictly better than Gold :/

In Dominion, cards with different costs can't be "strictly better/worse" than each other because of trash for benefit cards. Even if Loot was just a $5 Gold it wouldn't be "strictly better".

[rinkworks]

It's a bad thing that the first copy of this is strictly better than Gold :/

Is that really that bad though? It's freely open to anyone and doesn't seem extremely swingy to me.

"Freely open to anyone" doesn't really say much.  If you repriced Gold at $1, it would be freely available to anyone and still break the game.  And actually it *isn't* freely available to anyone, at least during that critical first shuffle.  5/2 opening getting you a Gold puts you at a huge advantage over 4/3 openers -- more so than Mountebank, I suspect, where the opening split might be enough to decide the game right there.

But opening split issues aside, the fact that "there's really no reason NOT to pick one of these up" is not a good thing.  If there's a card that's always a must-buy almost every time it's on the table, that closes the strategy space rather than opening it up.  Because the card doesn't provide the player with a new strategic choice to make.  You have to buy one.  And because it has quirks all its own (as opposed to the very generic behavior of Coppers and Estates, which you start with), it shapes every game it's in.

It's significant that the $5 Gold-substitutes that already exist are severely nerfed:  Contraband and Cache carry super-heavy penalties, even if you only buy one.  This one carries no penalty at all unless you accrue multiples.  And even then, getting a second copy is often going to be a no-brainer.

All the above said, I actually like the card.  I like how using the reaction ability increases the chances it'll be used back at you.  I just think you need to make one tweak:  price it at $6.  Hey, it's Gold with one buff and one nerf.  Power level is probably comparable.  And then you avoid opening split imbalances, too!

[WanderingWinder]

It's a bad thing that the first copy of this is strictly better than Gold :/

Is that really that bad though? It's freely open to anyone and doesn't seem extremely swingy to me.

"Freely open to anyone" doesn't really say much.  If you repriced Gold at $1, it would be freely available to anyone and still break the game.  And actually it *isn't* freely available to anyone, at least during that critical first shuffle.  5/2 opening getting you a Gold puts you at a huge advantage over 4/3 openers -- more so than Mountebank, I suspect, where the opening split might be enough to decide the game right there.

But opening split issues aside, the fact that "there's really no reason NOT to pick one of these up" is not a good thing.  If there's a card that's always a must-buy almost every time it's on the table, that closes the strategy space rather than opening it up.  Because the card doesn't provide the player with a new strategic choice to make.  You have to buy one.  And because it has quirks all its own (as opposed to the very generic behavior of Coppers and Estates, which you start with), it shapes every game it's in.

It's significant that the $5 Gold-substitutes that already exist are severely nerfed:  Contraband and Cache carry super-heavy penalties, even if you only buy one.  This one carries no penalty at all unless you accrue multiples.  And even then, getting a second copy is often going to be a no-brainer.

All the above said, I actually like the card.  I like how using the reaction ability increases the chances it'll be used back at you.  I just think you need to make one tweak:  price it at $6.  Hey, it's Gold with one buff and one nerf.  Power level is probably comparable.  And then you avoid opening split imbalances, too!

But if you price it at $6, it's incredibly boring. Simply never prefer it to gold. In order for the buff to be worth it, you have to hit them with the reaction twice, and then have the two loots come up together. Or hit them more often. Which just isn't going to happen so often. Also not that, in this case, they absolutely dig their own grave more by buying any loots at all. What do I mean? Basically, you can't get FEWER loots by buying any. The buff/nerf is extremely unlikely to be relevant, and moreso if one player simply ignores the thing.

[eHalcyon]

So it sounds like the problem is that $5 is too cheap because you can just pick up one, maybe even two, and the nerf usually won't hurt you at all, thus making it *usually* as good as Gold at a more accessible price.  But at $6, there's really no good reason to take it over Gold.  Perhaps the card can be changed so that the nerf comes into play more often, or increase the nerf on it?  Or at $6, make the buff better?

Some ideas at $5:

- When you play Loot, you also gain a Loot.
- In the clean-up phase, if any Gold is in play with Loot, one of the Gold must be replaced with Loot.
- While this is in play, all Gold in this buy phase is worth $2 instead of $3.

Some ideas at $6:

- When an opponents gain Gold, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, they gain Loot and a Copper (or a Curse?) instead.
- Give it +1 Buy.

(Edit to fix a typo.)

[rinkworks]

It's a bad thing that the first copy of this is strictly better than Gold :/

In Dominion, cards with different costs can't be "strictly better/worse" than each other because of trash for benefit cards. Even if Loot was just a $5 Gold it wouldn't be "strictly better".

Close enough, though.  True, in Dominion whenever someone says "strictly better" or "strictly worse," there's an unspoken puzzle question being unwittingly posed:  Can you think of a situation when you'd actually prefer the supposedly strictly worse card?  There are always correct answers -- if nothing else, to provide variety for Fairgrounds/Menagerie/Harvest/HoP and other such shenanigans.  And, yes, trash-for-benefit in the case of differing costs.

However, citing any of these things in a discussion of balancing a new card is almost always uselessly pedantic.  So what if some interaction with a card that won't even usually be present in any given game provides some slim and perhaps even impractical possibility of breaking the "strictly" relationship via a combo?

When discussing game design, saying "The first copy of Loot is strictly superior to Gold at a cheaper price" outside of puzzle context ought to be acceptable and understood.  The caveats are essentially irrelevant in this and most such cases.   If for some reason the usual caveats matter in some particular case, they can be brought up, but otherwise it's more useful to discuss the issues than the precision of the words used to discuss them.

[Mic Qsenoch]

You're right, its a fair comparison to make for evaluating the card. There's just no need to use the word "strictly" here, which implies the first copy is better than gold in all situations. Its a nitpicky point, but words are useless if we don't use them consistently.

[WanderingWinder]

Yes, you should, strictly speaking, never use the word strictly... 

[Dsell]

But opening split issues aside, the fact that "there's really no reason NOT to pick one of these up" is not a good thing.  If there's a card that's always a must-buy almost every time it's on the table, that closes the strategy space rather than opening it up.

Ok, I probably shouldn't have said it like that. I ought to have said, "there's really no reason NOT to pick one of these up if it would be a good idea to buy gold." And even that is probably not true in light of qmech's point. But while it could be a game-changer, it's not a must-buy. Even gold is not a must-buy in every game, and picking up a single Loot comes with some risk of a crappy future deck in return for cheap gold now.

The first copy may or may not be "strictly" better than gold. I'm still not sure that's a bad thing. I think eHalcyon may be on to something but I'm not sure if I like any of those specific "fixes."

While it's true that the other $5 golds (Contraband and Cache) are nerfed, even those nerfs don't make them "strictly" worse than gold. Games with no other +buy or gardens games are good examples.

I do know, however, that I'd rather have 5 Caches in my deck than 5 Loots (In 99.9% of cases).

[Dsell]

Oh hey. I should have entered this into the dual-type contest... *facepalm*

[AJD]

It just occurred to me that the reaction here becomes super-overpowered as soon as the Loot stack is empty (or if Loot comes from the black market deck).

[Dsell]

It just occurred to me that the reaction here becomes super-overpowered as soon as the Loot stack is empty (or if Loot comes from the black market deck).

That could be fixed with a quick wording change, like adding "if possible" to the end or something.

Actually I'd forgotten about this card and have been rereading everything and trying to come up with a way that it could be balanced. There are some really good ideas in this thread.

Edit: actually, "if possible" probably wouldn't work, but I'm sure there's some way to get the idea across simply.

[wrathofmine]

It just occurred to me that the reaction here becomes super-overpowered as soon as the Loot stack is empty (or if Loot comes from the black market deck).

That could be fixed with a quick wording change, like adding "if possible" to the end or something.

Actually I'd forgotten about this card and have been rereading everything and trying to come up with a way that it could be balanced. There are some really good ideas in this thread.

Edit: actually, "if possible" probably wouldn't work, but I'm sure there's some way to get the idea across simply.

and why not "When another player gains a Gold, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, they gain a treasure costing less than gold they choose".
In that case opponent will often take a Loot because otherwise it would be a 6$ Silver. When there is no Loot anymore it's not so overpowered, because there is good chance that at this point your opponent has already enough Loots and don't want one more.
And it can have fun interaction with others alternative treasures.