Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: 'Strife' Expansion  (Read 7909 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

orson

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
'Strife' Expansion
« on: July 29, 2012, 03:39:07 pm »
+3

I've been cooking on an expansion for a while, which I think is in pretty good shape to share: http://nosro.net/games/dominion/strife

The basic theme is warfare and Attack cards.

Apologies if I've inadvertently copied any other fan ideas. I have not kept up on Fan expansions lately, and there are certain ideas I'm sure occur to everyone. My card names are certainly not unique, but I wanted what felt like a cohesive theme.

Thanks for your thoughts and comments!

And thanks to rinkworks for the excellent fan card creation guide, which I referred to many times.
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2012, 05:17:04 pm »
0

Lots of interesting cards, good work!

The one thing I'll say is I think Encampment is too weak when compared to Mining Village.  I'd like it a lot more as either costing $2, OR by allowing you to choose 2 benefits.
Logged
A man on a mission.

One Armed Man

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2012, 09:05:51 pm »
0

This is one of the best fan-sets and I like the original action ideas, though some of the trashing from hands can get swingy. I am curious to see how Knight plays; it is way more complicated than any other card in normal Dominion.

Tribunal: it is rough to get hit by a Tribunal, especially since it isn't an Attack. I see why it isn't, since the card is comparable to Masq. I don't like how much this pushes for big money, since villages can be easily pulled from engine hands. In long multiplayer games, having the Gold taken out of your "Province Province Gold Copper Silver" hands to draw a Copper can be make the game drag. A solid hand is a couple Tribunals from a crappy one.

Banner: I get the gut feeling Banner shouldn't gain VP when people reveal Reactions. Reactions become much more useful in multiplayer. Reactions aren't really "played" either unless the cards are used as Actions on their owner's turns.

Dungeon: "Forms a new deck" is weird, wouldn't "shuffles their deck" suffice? "they may put any card" is vague. Could it be "they put up to one card" or "they may put one card".

Messenger, since it is weak, could be made stronger by saying "You may look through..." since it could miss the reshuffle and pull an Estate from the top of the deck.

Cavalry: The "if you don't have any actions left" text might work better on other cards. Here, what it does is make a huge boon of using a terminal drawer to get the card, since drawing it outside of the normal 5 cards protects it from itself. Actually, I am not really sure whether that is good for the game or not, just random.

Tariff: I like this card, but I am worried about what multiple Tariffs in multiplayer can do to the game. Since 3 players who are behind can Tariff Province and Duchy (before it gets bought) or 2 players who are ahead can Tariff them to discourage catch-ups, the game could go long as the amount of deck-improving to get this to happen could become extreme, especially with Cursers. Embargo stops being a problem when curses are out. Tariffing can even get out of hand where silvers and $3 actions cost 5 or more and players cannot improve their decks anymore.

Stockpile: The closest card to this is Pirate Ship. This card only gets better when you buy certain actions. It takes 4 plays of this card to match a terminal gold unless you have +Buy and buy, say 2 copies of a $2 action you happened not to play. For this to be decent in all-but the most drawn out games, you need:1) Market or Grandmarket or Village+Buy (worker's village works best); 2) have a kingdom with at least 2 $2 or $3 cost actions you didn't play early (both can't be terminal unless you have lots of villages), 3) and Stockpile. A card that produces $0,$1,$2,$3,$4,$5,$6 is worse than one that produces $3,$3,$3,$3,$3,$3 since the early benefits allow you to buy better cards that you can use later.

Rinkworks posted a card with the same text as Frontier. Not saying either stole it from the other.

Overall: A number of the cards are best countered by themselves: Siege, and Admiral, and maybe Tribunal. Those kinds of cards create a game of "get as many as you can or fall behind". General is countered by itself, but 3rd or 4th players who don't get it have the advantage, so I like that gameplay. Cavalry counters itself, but a 3rd or 4th player with no Attacks is safe, which is fine.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 09:09:24 pm by One Armed Man »
Logged

Asklepios

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 394
  • Respect: +116
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2012, 07:15:50 am »
0

My thoughts:

Cannon seems very swingy. If it hits copper, you've just strengthened their deck. If it hits province, you've just demolished their deck. Admittedly they get that money back next turn, but after that you've put eight trash cards in in the late game. I suppose its nicely self limiting though, as it'll then start clearing out that trash for the player afterwards, but if I were playing cannon, I'd get one, hit a big card, then stop using it.
All in all though, I can't say its over-weak or over-strong. Instinct says to me it should cost 2P rather than 1P.

Battlefield seems to be always better than Estate, but thats not saying a great deal given that a player will rarely want to buy estates anyway. All in all, I think its a very interesting card, as you can't just spam it in the way you would most alt-VP cards. In fact, its probably most comparable to Fairgrounds. I do wonder if its undercosted at $2 though. I would have said $4, as we're always expecting it to be worth at least 2VP, and even with no other green cards other than estate, duchy, province it'll be 4VP. I'd have costed it at $4, to put it in line with Silk Road, which seems comparable in power.

Mercenary is pretty interesting. Again, I worry about the low cost, but its a nice balancing mechanic. Kind of a mix between Militia and Minion. I think in attack terms, its attack is a lot better than militia of course, as the victim can't choose what to hold onto. I wonder if it might work better if it were just a militia-style attack (discard down to 3 cards) but with the changing control effect. The timing is interesting too, as the order of resolution makes it very hard to retain mercs. All in all, very interesting card, and very hard to say whether it is strong or weak without playtesting.

Raiders is a real oddity, but I wonder if its second cantrip effect offers too much board control for its price. I would limit it to trashing non-victory cards from the supply, or up it to $4.

Treaty is Embargo with a shorter lifespan but a little bonus... yeah, works for me.

Archer seems too good for $3, as a double archer opening would make for efficient trashing of your own deck while offering a Super-Bureaucrat attack. I'd say $4, as its benefit is better than Bureacrat, and its attack stronger, but its not good enough to justify $5. I think while its a better card than Bureacrat its fine for it to occupy the same price level though, as its different enough for each to be good in different kingdoms.

Conscription is mini-possession, and is almost too random to be useful. I like it! Good card for $3.

Encampment, I agree with the poster above, should be choose 2. For choose one, I'd not even buy it at $2. After all, you're sacrificing a buy and $3 now for its effect later. Definitely not worth it. Even at choose 2, I'd say its worth only $2, to make it comparable to Hamlet.

Knight is weird. Other players are going to want to discard and cycle victory or curse cards, so you'll normally call action or treasure as your chosen type. Then it all gets a bit head-gamey, especially in multiplayer. In a duel, it becomes quite weak, I think, as the opponent can control what effect you gain, and force you to have spent a terminal action on a small effect. Hell, even if they give you the +1 action, you've still not got a power effect. All in all, $3 seems appropriate, but I'd say that in a duel game, it is a very weak card, and in a multiplayer game its a weak but fun card.

Prize Fight is a terminal tournament that costs $3, and can always be lost. Its... weird. I think i dislike ti for the same reasons I dislike tournament, but its no less balanced a card than tournament.

Tribunal offers a small opportunity for collusion. So does Masquerade, of course, but Tribunal more so. Still, ignoring the funky game effect, +3 cards for a $3 terminal action is too good to me. Compare it to Smithy: thats $1 more for the same number of cards. Does being forced to make this attack make it weaker than Smithy? Personally, I think not. I'd make it $4.

Wall is kinda cool. Not as defensively solid as a moat, but actually a nice way to gradually thin your deck while defending yourself, with the added bonus that you can keep the estates there and use up the coppers first, thus retaining the VP of that trashed card. Hell, because its optional, you can even stash your provinces there. $3 seems kind of solid for it.
My only comment would be that you ought to need to have Wall in your hand to use it defensively (and thus should be used as a reaction in that circumstance). Persistent defence that doesn't need it to be in your hand simply seems too strong for $3, and would mean that if Wall was present, nobody would buy attacks.

Banner is really weird. I like it, but have no idea about its balance. Gaining actions only is an odd limitation though, and I wonder if it could just be gaining a non-victory card, to allow it to be useful in decks that need money rather than just pure engines.

Dungeon is again very hard to judge, but I like it as it stands. My only worry about it is a "dungeon lock" being possible, where the speed at which they return cards isn't enough to give them a hand of cards. It makes Masquerade locks even nastier too. Would this card work if you got back everything in the dungeon rather than just 1 card?

Messenger gives an excellent degree of draw control, but without +card I'm not sure that draw control is worth it for $4. I'd make it $3, as its very comparable to Scheme, in that it might give you more choices than Scheme, but its dependent on shuffle position a lot.

Profiteer kind of relies on good cards being in the trash, but I suppose it sets itself up for that. I guess its self limiting in a way, as your deck gets smaller and smaller, and to get to province you need to go through gold. I guess its also interesting in that if you pur great stuff in  the trash, your opponents might claim it before you do. All in all, a really interesting mechanic.

Sapper is brutal in the early game. Open Sapper/Silver. Name a cost of 0 on turn 3, and buy another silver. Gain a 1 or 2 turn lead. For this reason, I'd make it cost $5.

Siege I thought looked like wharf, but on reading I realised what it actually does is much more brutal. The attack portion of this is truly nasty!
I haven't got a great feel for how good this is, but I half suspect it should be a $5 attack.

Soldiers, I think, is brutal enough without the second effect. I'd get rid of the discard and draw clause, as otherwise the attack isn't self limiting enough. I guess it might misfire early game by clearing away their estates, and they can modify their tactics by greening later, but I'm still concerned about the effect of this. Its destructive effect as good as saboteur (fewer targets, but more specific targetting), but for $1 less, and with +2 cards. Either lose the +2 cards or the draw and discard, I reckon.

Cavalry has a really cool base effect, I'm not sure of the $value of the second half of the equation. However, I reckon its overcosted at $5 regardless. Its essentially a cantrip with an effect that won't always hit, and which can be planned against. I'd say call it $4 instead, and maybe even give it +$1.

General is interesting. I wonder though if it could be simpler, and more in tune with the attack theme of the set. I'm thinking ($4, Action) +1 Card, +1 Action. "While General is in play, if you play an attack, gain +1VP".

Gibbett is really interesting, in that it offers the opposition a choice of playing a really weak turn, or losing a strong card, but costs you a card and an action and a card slot to do so. Throwing estates on the Gibbett seems too easy though. However I don't think this is an overpowered attack at $5. This COULD make for low fun though, in that it can make for a very one sided game. A bit like the Torturer effect, but at least thats limited by curses. Maybe as a penalty option add "or gains a curse"?

Revolutionary is like Forge, but cheaper, forced in what you trash, and much much weaker for having to gain exactly three cards. Overall. I'd consider it almost always too weak to be worth acquiring - a strong contender for knocking Develop off its top spot as #1 Worst Trasher. To me, the fix here would be to say two cards and to make it cost $4, thus making it very similar to Remake. You'd get two cards out of it, you'd trash rapidly, and the fact that your deck value doesn't increase is balanced by the increased trashing speed and the ability to go province->province.

Stockpile is entirely fair and sensible. A slow burning money accumulator for $5. Cool.

Tariff is a bit odd, in that its a bit like a lesser effect than embargo, but generates a pile of cash at the same time. I'd consider making it cost $3, but otherwise be unchanged.
In comparison to Embargo, I'd disagree strongly that embargoes are in any way significantly limited by curses running out. If embargoes become redundant because curses run out, the cursed player has likely lost anyway. Multiple tariffs won't break the game, I'm sure. Even if provinces get pushed out of reach, a three pile is generally going to be attainable.

Admiral is Monument if there are no mats in play, which is most of the time. If there are mats in play, then it becomes a very conditional gainer of low value VP cards as well. All in all, a contender for worse $6 card around...  Its not even worth $5. It'd be worth $4.1, I reckon, and thats only if there are mats about.
I can't see a way to redeem this card when its so similar to Monument. Essentially, I think it needs a totally different bonus mechanic.

Frontier can only be worth 6VP, and its as hard to acquire as Province. Thats too weak to me. Call it a $4 alt-VP card, and it becomes worth thinking about.
I suppose there's edge cases where it might be worth $8+, but emptying more than 3 piles requires strong engines normally, and that usually means you're either stopping that engine from working by buying Frontiers, or you're getting all the Frontiers on one turn anyway, so the 4+ piling becomes overkill in a case where you'd have won anyway.
So yeah, $4 cost, I reckon, even if this means yet another Ironworks-rush option.




« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 08:26:04 am by Asklepios »
Logged

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2012, 08:23:59 am »
0

My thoughts:

Cannon seems very swingy. If it hits copper, you've just strengthened their deck. If it hits province, you've just demolished their deck. Admittedly they get that money back next turn, but after that you've put eight trash cards in in the late game. I suppose its nicely self limiting though, as it'll then start clearing out that trash for the player afterwards, but if I were playing cannon, I'd get one, hit a big card, then stop using it.
All in all though, I can't say its over-weak or over-strong. Instinct says to me it should cost 2P rather than 1P.


Cannon attacks a card from hand. You'd only be forced to kill a province if you have 4 or more cards, and all of them provinces. You'd probably win anyhow in that situation.
My general though - too many handsize reducing stuff..
Logged

Asklepios

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 394
  • Respect: +116
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2012, 08:29:23 am »
0

My thoughts:

Cannon seems very swingy. If it hits copper, you've just strengthened their deck. If it hits province, you've just demolished their deck. Admittedly they get that money back next turn, but after that you've put eight trash cards in in the late game. I suppose its nicely self limiting though, as it'll then start clearing out that trash for the player afterwards, but if I were playing cannon, I'd get one, hit a big card, then stop using it.
All in all though, I can't say its over-weak or over-strong. Instinct says to me it should cost 2P rather than 1P.


Cannon attacks a card from hand. You'd only be forced to kill a province if you have 4 or more cards, and all of them provinces. You'd probably win anyhow in that situation.
My general though - too many handsize reducing stuff..

Oh, I missed that!

Hmmm, in that case it seems truly poor as a card, at any price. I doubt I'd pick it up even if it had a $0 cost, short of a Vineyards game. Its either going to be helping out, or needing a lot of luck to do a mass of damage. I guess theres the fact that as it thins the opponent deck its more likely to hit something good, but that'll be a one off, after which it'll be back to undoing its own damage.
Logged

One Armed Man

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2012, 11:10:45 am »
0

Battlefield seems to be always better than Estate, but thats not saying a great deal given that a player will rarely want to buy estates anyway. All in all, I think its a very interesting card, as you can't just spam it in the way you would most alt-VP cards. In fact, its probably most comparable to Fairgrounds. I do wonder if its undercosted at $2 though. I would have said $4, as we're always expecting it to be worth at least 2VP, and even with no other green cards other than estate, duchy, province it'll be 4VP. I'd have costed it at $4, to put it in line with Silk Road, which seems comparable in power.
$3 sounds better to me

Encampment, I agree with the poster above, should be choose 2. For choose one, I'd not even buy it at $2. After all, you're sacrificing a buy and $3 now for its effect later. Definitely not worth it. Even at choose 2, I'd say its worth only $2, to make it comparable to Hamlet.
It could cost 2 or get a buff to its trashing, I wouldn't like both

Tribunal offers a small opportunity for collusion. So does Masquerade, of course, but Tribunal more so. Still, ignoring the funky game effect, +3 cards for a $3 terminal action is too good to me. Compare it to Smithy: thats $1 more for the same number of cards. Does being forced to make this attack make it weaker than Smithy? Personally, I think not. I'd make it $4.
You do get your best card discarded out of your hand. None-the-less, I think it is annoying and powerful at 3, so 4 might be better.

Wall is kinda cool. Not as defensively solid as a moat, but actually a nice way to gradually thin your deck while defending yourself, with the added bonus that you can keep the estates there and use up the coppers first, thus retaining the VP of that trashed card. Hell, because its optional, you can even stash your provinces there. $3 seems kind of solid for it.
My only comment would be that you ought to need to have Wall in your hand to use it defensively (and thus should be used as a reaction in that circumstance). Persistent defence that doesn't need it to be in your hand simply seems too strong for $3, and would mean that if Wall was present, nobody would buy attacks.
I agree that having a persistent defense would be extremely useful against unstackable attacks that don't draw cards like Militia, but Wall gives the attacker incentive to play the same attack twice even though they wouldn't normally. It makes sort of a siege (not the card)!

Banner is really weird. I like it, but have no idea about its balance. Gaining actions only is an odd limitation though, and I wonder if it could just be gaining a non-victory card, to allow it to be useful in decks that need money rather than just pure engines.
I wouldn't want it to gain Coppers. That would feel like a drag. I say keep that part.

Sapper is brutal in the early game. Open Sapper/Silver. Name a cost of 0 on turn 3, and buy another silver. Gain a 1 or 2 turn lead. For this reason, I'd make it cost $5.
I don't agree. If the opponent has 5 coppers turn 3, they are doing okay and the attack gets them closer to the cards they bought. If they have 3 coppers, it will get rid of a few but make it so their bought cards aren't lost in the reshuffle. If they have the cards they bought in their hand, it hurts them but gets them closer to reshuffling.

Cavalry has a really cool base effect, I'm not sure of the $value of the second half of the equation. However, I reckon its overcosted at $5 regardless. Its essentially a cantrip with an effect that won't always hit, and which can be planned against. I'd say call it $4 instead, and maybe even give it +$1.
Cavalry is at the right price. +$1 would be ridiculous. It is cool that Cavalry protects against the other $5 attacks and you have to choose to get the Cavalry or the attack.

General is interesting. I wonder though if it could be simpler, and more in tune with the attack theme of the set. I'm thinking ($4, Action) +1 Card, +1 Action. "While General is in play, if you play an attack, gain +1VP".
The problem is that both sides attacking each other and gaining stacks of VP for it doesn't encourage ending the game.


Tariff is a bit odd, in that its a bit like a lesser effect than embargo, but generates a pile of cash at the same time. I'd consider making it cost $3, but otherwise be unchanged.
In comparison to Embargo, I'd disagree strongly that embargoes are in any way significantly limited by curses running out. If embargoes become redundant because curses run out, the cursed player has likely lost anyway. Multiple tariffs won't break the game, I'm sure. Even if provinces get pushed out of reach, a three pile is generally going to be attainable.
A $3 costing Tariff is way too good and would quickly run out and the game would be very weird.

Admiral is Monument if there are no mats in play, which is most of the time. If there are mats in play, then it becomes a very conditional gainer of low value VP cards as well. All in all, a contender for worse $6 card around...  Its not even worth $5. It'd be worth $4.1, I reckon, and thats only if there are mats about.
I can't see a way to redeem this card when its so similar to Monument. Essentially, I think it needs a totally different bonus mechanic.
Interesting, if there are no other bonuses, there isn't as much reason to get the first Admiral. It still gets a 5VP version of a Duchy. Admiral list: All Durations [and those in this set] except Lighthouse and Outpost, Pirate Ship, Native Village, [Stockpile, Wall, Dungeon], Goons, Monument, Bishop, Horse Traders. That looks like around 19 cards if you include those in this set.

Frontier can only be worth 6VP, and its as hard to acquire as Province. Thats too weak to me. Call it a $4 alt-VP card, and it becomes worth thinking about.
I suppose there's edge cases where it might be worth $8+, but emptying more than 3 piles requires strong engines normally, and that usually means you're either stopping that engine from working by buying Frontiers, or you're getting all the Frontiers on one turn anyway, so the 4+ piling becomes overkill in a case where you'd have won anyway.
So yeah, $4 cost, I reckon, even if this means yet another Ironworks-rush option.
Rinkworks has this at $6, and I agree. It averages $4 when you want it. $4 encourages VP rush way too hard.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 11:11:51 am by One Armed Man »
Logged

Rush_Clasic

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
  • never knows best
  • Respect: +80
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2012, 04:06:22 pm »
0

I think the set lacks a bit of simplicity. There aren't many cards you see and just know what they do. The overall design is nice, but the complexity is a bit daunting with all these things thrown together.

Cannon: This is an interesting way to flood someone's deck, at the possible cost of giving them a huge turn. I like the idea greatly. The potion add-on seems needlessly confusing, though. Even if your set had a greater potion theme, it'd seem like a bunch of unneeded extra text. It ruins the elegance of the card and overall idea. I'd cut that part altogether and cost this at 3.

Battlefield: Interesting card in alternate VP games. I'd say the cost feels good, though 3 might work as well. It's a subgame card and those are often fun. The biggest downer about this card is that it'll often help the person who's already ahead rather than the one who's behind, but that doesn't seem to be a huge turn-off. This card had to have been a wording challenge. I think you got through it well enough, though it's still a mouthful.

Encampment: Definitely costs too much. I'd cost it at 2 and possibly give it more of a benefit when its trashed. The most interesting approach I think would be:

+2 Actions
You may trash this immediately. If you do, choose two: +1 Card, +1 Buy, +$1.

The choose two version will never be more powerful than a 4 cost card, which is where you'd like to see it upon trashing.

Mercenaries: I'd probably cost this at 3, but as Asklepios noted, this is the type of card that really needs playtesting to figure that out. I wish this card didn't require so many words, since the idea is a simple enough one. Do you intend ties to still go to the player on your left?

Raiders: I'd definitely cost this higher. The random trash just doesn't hurt enough to make Laboratory cost only 2. A cost of 4 feels appropriate; sometimes its a poor sifter with a minor ability (sorta like Spy), other times its a cheaper Laboratory (which, if memory serves well, is one of the better 5s you can buy). Random trashing just doesn't hurt enough in the early game to warrant a small cost.

Treaty: I like the idea of utilizing the randomizer cards. That's some nifty design space you're tapping into. I don't know how useful it will be, but I like the idea. This card is a bit political, but not enough that I think it shouldn't exist. Great with cards that reveal hands. The real problem is when multiples collide. Punishing people for playing cards is one thing; making them not want to play them at all is another. I think that's needlessly detrimental to the game-state and to this card's idea. Maybe change it to "At the start of your next turn and whenever a player plays a copy of this, empty the mat."

Archer: Wordy idea, but simple in its execution. I'd cost it at 4 just to avoid a scenario where you're thinning your deck out on turns 3 and 4 while simultaneously setting others back. Another idea would be to force everyone to do the same action, which would allow you to tack on some other benefit.

Conscription: I'd word "The player to your left reveals cards from his deck until revealing an Action card, then discards the rest. You may play that card. When that player's card leaves play, put it into his discard pile or on top of his deck, his choice." The set aside stuff just isn't needed. It feels a lot like Smuggler in theme, but plays altogether differently. Basically just borrowing an action from their deck. Nifty.

Knight: There's a lot going on with this card. I think you can do without the naming game altogether and get a mostly similar, simpler effect. That part could easily just become +1 Action.
What I'm saying is that the card is interesting enough on its own that the extra fluff can easily be cut. Also, did you consider allowing yourself to discard a card so you could help influence what you want? That might make it more interesting. Also also, I don't know what happens on ties.



I'll look at more later because I find your set quite interesting. Like I said in my opener, it could do with a few more simple parts on what is a sea of text-heavy cards.

orson

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2012, 09:16:42 pm »
0

Thank you for the great feedback. This community is really thoughtful and helpful.

I will have to digest your comments and suggestions. Some of the opinions are contradictory, which is to be expected since I can't please everyone, but there are some clear universal reactions which have already caused me to change a few things.

Overall, a general issue of this set is unnecessary complexity and excessive card text. I'm aware of this. It's been a real struggle to keep the text concise and descriptive. Some simple mechanics are surprisingly difficult to describe in very few words. Of course, some of my ideas aren't as simple as they could be. I will do my best to streamline these cards down to their minimal viable core.

Cannon
Most commenters dislike the Potion component of this and it actually wasn't part of my first version of the card. I added it later in testing. My reasoning was this - a goal for this set was to be able to add more re-playability and interesting combinations with all official sets, and hopefully bringing some new possibilities for less popular cards. I felt Alchemy as a set is getting marginalized as more non-Potion cards get introduced, so I wanted to give some nod toward Alchemy. As it stood, the Cannon would devalue Alchemy cards even more by ignoring Potion costs, and so I decided to include Potions. That said, I understand this might have compromised an otherwise clean mechanic. I'm really torn. I am tempted to make a Potion and non-Potion version of Cannon. (By the way, if anyone wants to make their own variants I'd be happy to share these template Photoshop files).

Encampment is definitely priced too high. I can see it clearly now. It seems similar to the Pawn to me. It wasn't obvious to me in my playtests, but that's because I'm just doing solitaire simulations and it doesn't compare to having real players (something which I hope to do soon). I have lowered the price of the Encampment to $2, rather than increase the number of choices, following my goal of simplification.

Banner
I'm considering dropping the VP gain on "playing Reactions". I think I misunderstood the official rules here. I guess using a Reaction does not count as playing it? What is the general term for this, if not restricted to 'reveal'? Using a Reaction ability? In any case, I think I could live with trimming out that bit and simplifying a card which already has a lot going on. It is definitely one of the oddball cards in my opinion. It grew organically out of two different card ideas which didn't work well on their own. I liked the idea of a defense which gains VP when Attacked, but it doesn't drive the game forward. Another card had the Action gaining ability, but it felt awkward and almost a liability. Fusing the cards seemed to work out. I'm a little worried that it is too weak to be a $4, but I'll leave it for now.

I'll go through some of the other cards now, and check back later...

Thanks,
Orson
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 09:57:21 pm by orson »
Logged

orson

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2012, 12:57:35 am »
0

Conscription: I'd word "The player to your left reveals cards from his deck until revealing an Action card, then discards the rest. You may play that card. When that player's card leaves play, put it into his discard pile or on top of his deck, his choice." The set aside stuff just isn't needed. It feels a lot like Smuggler in theme, but plays altogether differently. Basically just borrowing an action from their deck. Nifty.

This is far better wording. I'm going to use this, thank you!

Knight: There's a lot going on with this card. I think you can do without the naming game altogether and get a mostly similar, simpler effect. That part could easily just become +1 Action.
What I'm saying is that the card is interesting enough on its own that the extra fluff can easily be cut. Also, did you consider allowing yourself to discard a card so you could help influence what you want? That might make it more interesting. Also also, I don't know what happens on ties.

Ties would provide no benefit to the player of the Knight.
Yes, I have my doubts about this card. I will rethink it. The active player discarding rather than naming a type seems like it has possibilities.
Logged

carstimon

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 194
  • Respect: +115
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2012, 03:58:15 am »
0

I really don't like battlefield.  I haven't read the rest of the deck- I don't have time now- so maybe other cards there make it more interesting.  But here's my analysis:

In what's below, when I mention a goons strategy I mean something which mostly doesn't buy green cards, and uses vp tokens from goons for vp.

There's two types of boards that might be made more interesting by battlefield, and that's bishop and goons with lots of support for bishop/goons.  It makes keeping those green cards (or in goons case, actually buying them) slightly more viable.

In games with slight bishop/goons support, it makes bishop/goons pretty much undoable.  Basically, by trashing your estates/provinces or not buying duchies/provinces, you're letting your opponent have $2 duchies.

Now let's look at the case of alt-vp: duke/duchy or gardens or silk road, in particular:
Non-mirror: these give such a huge advantage to the alt-vp player that it's practically impossible to not mirror.  Basically, the way I see it they give the alt-vp player $2 duchies.
Mirror: In this case they're uninteresting because they just exaggerate the point lead of whoever wins the split; or they don't really matter if the alt-vp goes evenly

And I think in the case of standard duchy games they won't ever matter.

Maybe I'm ignoring too much the effect of things like harem, nobles, great hall.

P.S.  I don't mean this to be harsh, I like most of the other cards but I usually don't put a lot of time into thinking about fan cards.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2012, 04:25:45 am by carstimon »
Logged

yudantaiteki

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 234
  • Respect: +167
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2012, 06:33:44 am »
0

I have two other comments about Wall.

First of all, the card does not specify what happens to the cards on the mat at the end of the game (compare Native Village).

Second, Island is a $4 cost card that lets you remove one card from your deck and gives you 2 VP.  Wall is a $3 that lets you remove multiple cards from your deck and lets you block attacks.  Maybe I'm wrong, but IMO Wall without the attack blocking component is overpowered at $3 (if the cards return to your deck at the end of the game...if not I still think it's overpowered but not as bad).  I think it's a neat concept but don't forget that being able to remove cards from your deck, especially if you can get them back later, is a very powerful ability on its own.  (Native village allows you to set aside many cards but because the set-aside card is random it would take some work to use this as a deck-thinner.)

Quote
I think I misunderstood the official rules here. I guess using a Reaction does not count as playing it? What is the general term for this, if not restricted to 'reveal'? Using a Reaction ability?

There are no official cards that react to other people's reactions.  There's no standard term for it because each reaction card fully defines the way it works without reference to any outside terms other than "reveal".  It's difficult to word your card because the term "reveal" applies to a lot of things and even attacks can cause reaction cards to be revealed without the reaction being used (i.e. Oracle or Spy flipping them over).  You might have to create a new term and define it elsewhere....this one's hard.  (Is there a term "reaction ability"?  "When a player uses a reaction ability"?)

One more wording comment that someone else mentioned -- Dungeon doesn't need the "and forms a new deck" part; not only is "form a new deck" undefined in the rules but I don't think that phrase does anything that "After shuffling..." doesn't do.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2012, 06:41:29 am by yudantaiteki »
Logged

orson

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2012, 08:38:57 am »
0

I've made two pricing adjustments:

Archers -> $4. At one point the Archer's player's card reveal was mandatory as well, but I removed this restriction for more flexibility, and never raised the cost to compensate. I think double opening Archers is probably a good thing to avoid, as various people have said. I haven't tested this yet, but I feel it's a very reasonable change.

Raiders -> $3; and allowed it to trash from standard Supply piles. I did this because I think many players would assume any Supply was fair game anyway even though it said 'Kingdom Supply', so this conceptually simplifies the card. I am going to do more playtesting to see how badly it can affect game pacing by trashing Provinces. It could be used defensively to trash Curses, too.

The comments about Battlefield are making me think long and hard about it. I see how it forces a mirroring strategy for alt-VP games, and explodes if there are other Victory piles. Especially in a two person game. In a 3-4 person it becomes significantly weaker. It drops to a 0-1 VP card more often than not. I'm not pleased with how it scales weirdly like this with # of players either. It's got some issues.

I should add text to indicate cards set aside by Wall and Dungeon return to their owner's decks at the end of the game - that's going to be difficult to fit. I thought there was a precedent in the game which didn't specify this. I'm thinking of Haven, but it doesn't use a play mat and I can see that it might be an important distinction, if a future expansion has a play mat with cards with don't return at the end of the game.
Logged

orson

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2012, 08:48:55 am »
0

I'm still testing based on your feedback, but it looks like I'm going to make quite few changes:

Costing changes:

Wall : Cost $3 -> $4
I'm raising cost to $4 because cards set aside return to the player's deck at the end of the game, as pointed out by yudantaiteki. I did compare this card to Island when I was working on it, but it seemed like the fact that a Island + Estate play was equivalent to Wall + Estate three times, it didn't seem overpowered. Plus if you use the defense ability those stashed Victory cards are burned, so the two effects are opposing. But maybe it's roughly equivalent; this seems to play fine at $4.

Messenger : Cost $4 -> $3
I'm lowering its cost to $3. It is comparable to Scheme. I thought it was a bit better since it can search through more cards potentially, but not having the +1 Card brings the cards back to being roughly equivalent power, I think.

Rules Changes and Simplification

Soldiers: Simplify & Weaken
I'm removing the discard/draw option of the attack. I was originally concerned about missing and having no effect, but since then it got the +2 Cards, so that is not a concern. I know many think it is still too cheap, but playtesting it at cost $4 still seems fair to me. It is a late game buy, and the Duchy turns out to be a better option most of the time in that circumstance. Only if an opponent has an insurmountable lead in green cards but their engine is starting to stall, can the Soldiers come to your rescue.

Siege: Simplify
Not sure about how this will work yet, but I'm considering removing the active players discard and draw 2 cards effect. That would put Siege into the ranks of purely nasty cards like Sea Hag and Saboteur, with no benefit for its player. But it's nearly there anyway, and seems to fit the card. It does make the card somewhat more powerful because there isn't the 2 card 'stake' put at risk in playing it. I need to playtest this.

Open Issues / Major Changes needed

Cannon: Remove Potion text ... remove targeting restriction?
I playtested without the Potion text and it seemed fine at first, then I realized that this card had other issues. The target hand size limit of 4+ cards really makes it nearly useless. I'd agree with Asklepios that it is not even a $0 card. What happened? I thought it was balanced when I posted it. Then I remembered that this card had no targeting hand size limit at one time. It was Torturer like, but weaker and slower... until there was a critical mass of them. A kind of Cannon-lock could happen in the game, particularly if multiple players got the card and the barrages became ceaseless. Decks rapidly rose in value but then began bleeding out in Copper in the end game ... then the Coppers ran out and the game degenerated to players nearly losing entire hands of cards (even though the Cannons were blowing each other up as well). Buying Curses became a last ditch protection. How can I balance this card between being completely useless or a game breaker? An equilibrium felt quite close. Actually the Potion in the cost slowed down a Cannon heavy strategy. Maybe it can be done by costing it at $5? Or maybe the target hand size could be 3+ or lower? I'm stumped.

Battlefield: How to cost?
The concept is fairly simple (even though it might take a couple reads to get it). Unfortunately, it doesn't seem very elegant in practice. It seems like it should cost $4 in a two player game, $3 in a 3 player and $2 in a four player. Having other Victory Kingdom cards throws more variability into this. This might not be a viable card.

Knight: Radical Simplification needed
I'm brainstorming whether I can capture the spirit of this card in a simpler way.

Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2012, 09:25:42 am »
0

Knight doesn't seem at all like an attack. Your opponents get to cycle a free card! They can discard their worst card, and replace it with an average card. This is a benefit to them, not an attack. Sure they could instead discard a better card to block you from +1 action, but that's their choice.
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

orson

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2012, 10:10:48 am »
0

Knight doesn't seem at all like an attack. Your opponents get to cycle a free card! They can discard their worst card, and replace it with an average card. This is a benefit to them, not an attack. Sure they could instead discard a better card to block you from +1 action, but that's their choice.

You're right, it's pretty mild. The concept I was trying for was to apply pressure on other players to discard a certain type of card, without forcing it. As it stands, it's just an incentive to hinder the active player from getting the benefit they are looking for.
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2012, 10:52:13 am »
0

Cannon: Remove Potion text ... remove targeting restriction?
I playtested without the Potion text and it seemed fine at first, then I realized that this card had other issues. The target hand size limit of 4+ cards really makes it nearly useless. I'd agree with Asklepios that it is not even a $0 card. What happened? I thought it was balanced when I posted it. Then I remembered that this card had no targeting hand size limit at one time. It was Torturer like, but weaker and slower... until there was a critical mass of them. A kind of Cannon-lock could happen in the game, particularly if multiple players got the card and the barrages became ceaseless. Decks rapidly rose in value but then began bleeding out in Copper in the end game ... then the Coppers ran out and the game degenerated to players nearly losing entire hands of cards (even though the Cannons were blowing each other up as well). Buying Curses became a last ditch protection. How can I balance this card between being completely useless or a game breaker? An equilibrium felt quite close. Actually the Potion in the cost slowed down a Cannon heavy strategy. Maybe it can be done by costing it at $5? Or maybe the target hand size could be 3+ or lower? I'm stumped.

I recommend costing it at 2P and changing 1 card / 1 action to just 3 cards.  Un-cantriping it should stop a degenerate game.
Logged
A man on a mission.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2012, 11:22:01 am »
0

I think you should make sure Admiral always has tokens to go and trash, that way it can be less dependent on other effects.  Making it cause all players to gain some VP chips when it is gained makes every game a game with tokens. , even if your opponents don't mirror. 
I would take away the discarding card from play part, because the way Duration cards are written they can take effect even if they are removed from play, I believe.
Logged

orson

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2012, 08:38:47 am »
0

I guess I gave myself the solution to the Cannon in the description of the problem: simply check if the Copper Supply is empty!
And with no Potion component, it is simpler and no longer an orphan in its own set:

Cannon Cost $3
+1 Card
+1 Action
If the Copper Supply pile is not empty, each other player trashes a card from his hand.
He gains a Copper per <Coin> in the cost, putting them into his hand.
Logged

One Armed Man

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #19 on: August 06, 2012, 02:35:20 pm »
0

Dark Ages preview card Graverobber does a bit of what Profiteer from 'Strife' does. Each has their advantages. Good thing you posted before the preview.
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1886
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2012, 10:13:54 am »
0

I guess I gave myself the solution to the Cannon in the description of the problem: simply check if the Copper Supply is empty!
And with no Potion component, it is simpler and no longer an orphan in its own set:

Cannon Cost $3
+1 Card
+1 Action
If the Copper Supply pile is not empty, each other player trashes a card from his hand.
He gains a Copper per <Coin> in the cost, putting them into his hand.

You could also make the 'trash' into 'return to the supply'.
Logged

orson

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2012, 12:43:43 pm »
0

Dark Ages preview card Graverobber does a bit of what Profiteer from 'Strife' does. Each has their advantages. Good thing you posted before the preview.

I was worried it would be worse. The themes of Dark Ages and Strife overlap. I'm dropping the knight which was problematic, anyway. The mercenary will get a new name... I'm thinking 'blackguard', 'scoundrel' or maybe 'deserter' and I'll drop the treasure component of its effect, which complicated it anyway.

Otherwise the set comes through unscathed, but I have to do a lot of playtesting to test interactions. Are the graverobber and profiteer balanced?
Logged

orson

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Re: 'Strife' Expansion
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2012, 12:54:21 pm »
0

You could also make the 'trash' into 'return to the supply'.

Thanks, I tried the tamed card and it just doesn't seem to work. I've removed its restrictions and I think the degenerate ending actually works better. The way this card plays is to set up a countdown clock for the game to explode. It becomes an interesting race between other strategies. Big money can generally beat the clock if only one player has cannons, but if multiple players take the cannon strategy, the timer runs much faster, but they end up destroying each other's engines, so its possible for other players to survive the Copper depletion stage.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.104 seconds with 20 queries.