Print

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

[WanderingWinder]

So many of these suggestions would make Dominion a worse game.  The general theme seems to be taking out what's inconvenient about various cards.  But if cards don't have any drawbacks, where is the opportunity to strategize?  The game is all about trying to figure out ways to use balanced cards in contexts where the strengths matter and the drawbacks don't.  But if all the cards cater to your whims in every way, who cares?

The suggestions also tend to add complexity to the game, which is not unworkable, but the really simple cards that are nevertheless interesting have a certain charm that a bunch of niggling exceptions and clarifications destroy.

The reasoning behind a lot of these wishes is that sometime Dominion can be too robotic. If certain Power 5s, Alt VPs, Chapel, cursers, etc., are on the board, they become auto buys. Sure, there's ways to get around a lot them even without these changes (which is what makes Dominion such a good game anyway), but generally, good Dominion players are going to know what's good and what's not going be worth it, and the game boils down to mirror matches, 1P advantage, or one to two differences in luck that mean everything. Giving more cards more opportunities to be useful could actually spice up the game. Just IMHO.

Sir, I invite you to get mauled by -Stef- or Marin.

[jonts26]

Talisman: Should allow gaining victory cards

Most of your ideas could fly, but this would be an absolute disaster. It's a non-issue most of the time, but when it would be an issue would be stupidly strong, but even worse super swingy and likely exacerbating first turn advantage to a huge degree. In gardens/silk road rushes where you just need to get 3-4 talismans and then you can unload the green at super speed. If you think Ironworks makes an unbeatable combo with these cards, this will blow it away.

[ftl]

 Yes....You somewhat figured out a little spoiler.
 

 Well, it just seems pretty common for "I wish this card were better..." When playing the card, you run up against its drawbacks and you wish they weren't there because then you could do better with them. Like making moat a cantrip instead of +2 cards - "I wish those attacks would just stop hitting me, I should be able to just pick up lots of moats with spare buys and have it not hurt me! "

Doesn't necessarily make the game better, though.

[Kahryl]

Transmute: Transmuting money should gain you an "action costing up to $4 or $3◉"

Why not just $4P? It's not like getting a Golem after your second reshuffle is overpowered by any means, and it's maybe slightly better than Transmuting Estates to Gold (plus Golem is very often not in the kingdom).

I was kinda guessing. The other two "prizes" from Transmute are worth $5 and $6, and I figured having a choice on what you gain should push it a bit lower ($4) but that gaining $6-equivalent max ($3◉) would be okay if it's thematic.

Most of your ideas could fly, but this would be an absolute disaster. It's a non-issue most of the time, but when it would be an issue would be stupidly strong, but even worse super swingy and likely exacerbating first turn advantage to a huge degree. In gardens/silk road rushes where you just need to get 3-4 talismans and then you can unload the green at super speed. If you think Ironworks makes an unbeatable combo with these cards, this will blow it away.

Yeah thinking about it you're right. I'm just wishing for a graceful way to buff Talisman..

[jonts26]

Most of your ideas could fly, but this would be an absolute disaster. It's a non-issue most of the time, but when it would be an issue would be stupidly strong, but even worse super swingy and likely exacerbating first turn advantage to a huge degree. In gardens/silk road rushes where you just need to get 3-4 talismans and then you can unload the green at super speed. If you think Ironworks makes an unbeatable combo with these cards, this will blow it away.

Yeah thinking about it you're right. I'm just wishing for a graceful way to buff Talisman..

Why does talisman need a buff. It's actually a pretty good card. It's somewhat strong with cheap alt vp strategies like gardens/SR/Dukes, or in games where you have cheap engine components like village types, smithy, watchtower, menagerie. No it's not really star of those games, but it's a nice little support card. And dominion needs nice little support cards.

[AJD]

Tribute: Remove "differently named" clause

I suspect the "differently named" clause is there so that Tribute isn't knock-down brilliant right out of the gate. That is, opening with revised Tribute would almost guarantee you +$4, +4cards, or two of each, which is perhaps a little too powerful for a $5 card to be on turns 3 and 4. As it is, you have a shot at +$4 if you hit your opponent's Silver opening, and a slightly better shot at two of each, but it's more risky.

[Kahryl]

So Tribute would be a splendid $5 opening. So what! Merchant Ship is even better for 5/2 and nobody complains..

[Qvist]

Tribute: Remove "differently named" clause

I suspect the "differently named" clause is there so that Tribute isn't knock-down brilliant right out of the gate. That is, opening with revised Tribute would almost guarantee you +$4, +4cards, or two of each, which is perhaps a little too powerful for a $5 card to be on turns 3 and 4. As it is, you have a shot at +$4 if you hit your opponent's Silver opening, and a slightly better shot at two of each, but it's more risky.

So Tribute would be a splendid $5 opening. So what! Merchant Ship is even better for 5/2 and nobody complains..

Exactly the same I was going to post. A swingy $4 in the beginning is similar to the strength of Merchant Ship. I think this clause was added if you only play with Intrigue, because then you may hit 2 Nobles, Great Halls, Islands or Harems more often. But still the luck factor is bigger if I get unlucky and hit 2 same named cards than if I get lucky and hit 2 multi-type cards (I hope you understand what I mean). That's really the only thing I really like to change. Yeah, Adventurer could cost $5 or could get +Buy so that $6 is justified. But still there has to be a worst card of every price level, I think there's no real need to boost Scout or Thief or whatever. I'm in favor only changing cards that lower the fun playing Dominion. Having a bad card in a supply doesn't do that necessarily.

[jonts26]

Clearly Tribute has the differently named card clause in the game breaking event that you hit two curses.

[J.Co.]

 Yes....You somewhat figured out a little spoiler.
 

 Well, it just seems pretty common for "I wish this card were better..." When playing the card, you run up against its drawbacks and you wish they weren't there because then you could do better with them. Like making moat a cantrip instead of +2 cards - "I wish those attacks would just stop hitting me, I should be able to just pick up lots of moats with spare buys and have it not hurt me! "

Doesn't necessarily make the game better, though.

I see what you're saying, but that's not necessarily why I want Moat to be different (I just think it'd be cool to have a cantrip defense). Perhaps, though, Moat could simply be limited to defending against Cursers? +1 card, +1 action, "When attacked, reveal this card. If you were to receive a curse, don't" kind of thing.

I guess, in a sense, I'm thinking of a different card entirely rather than changing this one in particular, so you're right about that. Don't want to change things too much. Sometime, though, drawbacks to cards make those cards worth buying far less frequently, which can suck.

[eHalcyon]

 Yes....You somewhat figured out a little spoiler.
 

 Well, it just seems pretty common for "I wish this card were better..." When playing the card, you run up against its drawbacks and you wish they weren't there because then you could do better with them. Like making moat a cantrip instead of +2 cards - "I wish those attacks would just stop hitting me, I should be able to just pick up lots of moats with spare buys and have it not hurt me! "

Doesn't necessarily make the game better, though.

I see what you're saying, but that's not necessarily why I want Moat to be different (I just think it'd be cool to have a cantrip defense). Perhaps, though, Moat could simply be limited to defending against Cursers? +1 card, +1 action, "When attacked, reveal this card. If you were to receive a curse, don't" kind of thing.

I guess, in a sense, I'm thinking of a different card entirely rather than changing this one in particular, so you're right about that. Don't want to change things too much. Sometime, though, drawbacks to cards make those cards worth buying far less frequently, which can suck.

That's basically Watchtower.

[J.Co.]

So many of these suggestions would make Dominion a worse game.  The general theme seems to be taking out what's inconvenient about various cards.  But if cards don't have any drawbacks, where is the opportunity to strategize?  The game is all about trying to figure out ways to use balanced cards in contexts where the strengths matter and the drawbacks don't.  But if all the cards cater to your whims in every way, who cares?

The suggestions also tend to add complexity to the game, which is not unworkable, but the really simple cards that are nevertheless interesting have a certain charm that a bunch of niggling exceptions and clarifications destroy.

The reasoning behind a lot of these wishes is that sometime Dominion can be too robotic. If certain Power 5s, Alt VPs, Chapel, cursers, etc., are on the board, they become auto buys. Sure, there's ways to get around a lot them even without these changes (which is what makes Dominion such a good game anyway), but generally, good Dominion players are going to know what's good and what's not going be worth it, and the game boils down to mirror matches, 1P advantage, or one to two differences in luck that mean everything. Giving more cards more opportunities to be useful could actually spice up the game. Just IMHO.

Sir, I invite you to get mauled by -Stef- or Marin.

I understand what you're saying. I'm just thinking more along the lines that a lot of the same cards will be dominant on most boards. I consider myself a strong player, too, and yes, strong players will recognize things on the board that go beyond "Ooh, Witch is on the board. Gotta get that." But if more cards were admittedly wishfully buffed even a little, I think it would open more possibilities for more strategies to win.

[AJD]

So Tribute would be a splendid $5 opening. So what! Merchant Ship is even better for 5/2 and nobody complains..

All I'm sayin' is, you know, I'm sure they playtested it with the simpler wording and there's a reason they didn't use it.

[Titandrake]

Given that Tribute counters the dual-type cards in Intrigue, I'm not sure if it's in the best interests to make it stronger than it is. Plus, +$4 on one turn just sounds horribly good.

[DStu]

So Tribute would be a splendid $5 opening. So what! Merchant Ship is even better for 5/2 and nobody complains..

I don't think MS would be better than the Tribute2.0 for 5/2. Merchant Ship misses the reshuffle in 6/11 (or 7/12 if there's a $2 you buy) of the cases. In this cases, Merchant Ship's second +$2 (the stronger one) also only happens in the second reshuffle.
Tribute2.0 would also miss the reshuffle if in hand 2 and you trigger +4cards (or +2cards without $2 buy), but this would be a very short shuffle, and it doesn't trigger reshuffle on +$4. It might hit an action, but in this case, you hit your opponents action, and the probability is something like 1/6 usually.  And if in hand1 and you hit +4cards, or (+2cards+$2), that's also a great speed advantage.

[WanderingWinder]

So many of these suggestions would make Dominion a worse game.  The general theme seems to be taking out what's inconvenient about various cards.  But if cards don't have any drawbacks, where is the opportunity to strategize?  The game is all about trying to figure out ways to use balanced cards in contexts where the strengths matter and the drawbacks don't.  But if all the cards cater to your whims in every way, who cares?

The suggestions also tend to add complexity to the game, which is not unworkable, but the really simple cards that are nevertheless interesting have a certain charm that a bunch of niggling exceptions and clarifications destroy.

The reasoning behind a lot of these wishes is that sometime Dominion can be too robotic. If certain Power 5s, Alt VPs, Chapel, cursers, etc., are on the board, they become auto buys. Sure, there's ways to get around a lot them even without these changes (which is what makes Dominion such a good game anyway), but generally, good Dominion players are going to know what's good and what's not going be worth it, and the game boils down to mirror matches, 1P advantage, or one to two differences in luck that mean everything. Giving more cards more opportunities to be useful could actually spice up the game. Just IMHO.

Sir, I invite you to get mauled by -Stef- or Marin.

I understand what you're saying. I'm just thinking more along the lines that a lot of the same cards will be dominant on most boards. I consider myself a strong player, too, and yes, strong players will recognize things on the board that go beyond "Ooh, Witch is on the board. Gotta get that." But if more cards were admittedly wishfully buffed even a little, I think it would open more possibilities for more strategies to win.

I guess what I'd say to that is, if "Jeremy" is actually "jeremy" at least, it does not look like you are a particularly strong player, regardelsss of whether or not consider yourself one. At least relatively - I am sure you are much better than the average player, but there are whole depths of strategy beyond where you are at. In  any case, I don't know why you think that you can design these cards better than the guy who actually made his game, all his playtesters, and the vast majority of people here who agree with them. This doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong, but you should be pretty incredibly convicted to think that. And as I'm just quite sure that you are wrong anyway, I think that getting repeatedly beaten by players like the two I mentioned, specifically, who will use those weak cards to good effect quite often, you will begin to appreciate this more.

[Taco Lobster]

Yup.  I am no great player myself, but I've come to understand that one of the key differences between where I'm at and the next plateau is understanding the value in "bad" cards and when "good" cards aren't.  Chapel is the a good example because most people make the first big jump with that card.  Then, it becomes an auto-pick, and you start to think "who's this noob" when they don't buy Chapel in the first buy or two. 

And then, you encounter the 30+ player who wipes the floor with you and doesn't take Chapel because it's too slow, or doesn't support the big money strategy that is the best available on the board, and you start to think "huh, maybe Chapel isn't a brainless autopick after all."

I assume after this point, additional skill develops. But, the point remains, Chapel doesn't need to be fixed, it's not too powerful.  It's power is relative to the skill of the players involved.  If you only encounter the noobs who have no idea how good Chapel is in the right deck or are still playing it in Big Money, it may seem like an overpowered card.  If that was the deepest Dominion could go, then, yes, Chapel might need a tweak.  But Dominion goes far deeper, and eventually, Chapel isn't an auto-buy because it's "good" in the abstract, but a conditional buy when and if it's good in that particular board.

[LastFootnote]

Because I have nothing better to do right now, I'm going to criticize other people's proposed fixes to Scout.

As for adding +1 card, this puts Scout on a power level comparable to Cartographer. It doesn't allow you to discard Coppers and Curses, but it does allow you to take Victory cards into your hand, which can be significant if you have sifting cards. It would probably have to cost $5, at which point it'd be too similar to Cartographer to be interesting.

Raising the number of cards to 5 or 6 would be a mistake (although I wouldn't be surprised if I had suggested it myself at some point). I believe there's a reason that all the non-terminal Scout-like cards cap out at 4 cards, and it has to do with AP. If none of the 4 revealed cards are Victory cards, you've got 30 possible ways to put them back on your deck, which may seem high but isn't awful. However, adding a fifth card multiplies the number of choices by 5 and adding both a fifth and sixth card multiplies it by 30. Not only that, but once you get to a sixth card, you may be deciding which cards go into the turn after your next turn.

Navigator is a different case. It's terminal and almost always you play it as your last Action, so it doesn't matter which order you put the cards back in.

[NoMoreFun]

Adventurer: Cost 5, or even 4 (it's actually quite a weak card until later in the game, so the cost isn't particularly important)
Thief: Each other player reveals cards until he reveals a treasure, then either discard or trash that treasure (your choice). You may gain the trashed treasure.
Spy: Draw the card AFTER deck inspection
Moneylender: Gain a copper in hand if you don't have any copper to trash
---
Scout: Reduce cost to 3, give it +2 actions, 5 card inspection, allow it to pick up curses as well
Secret Chamber: Allow the reaction ability to be triggered on play as well
Wishing Well: Guess, then draw (to combo with cards like Scout and Lookout)
---
Pearl Diver: Have the option be "put on top or discard" instead of  top or bottom
---
Possession: Limit to one extra turn, no matter how many possessions are played
---
Fortune Teller: Have the wording be "not an action or a treasure", and I really like the cursing idea as well
---
Walled Village: Nomad Camp effect

[rinkworks]

Adventurer: Cost 5, or even 4 (it's actually quite a weak card until later in the game, so the cost isn't particularly important)

It can be super powerful super quickly with Chapel or Mint trashing.  $4 would be simply disastrous.  I'm somewhat sympathetic to those who want it to be $5.  I wondered if it would be better there myself at one time, but the more I play the game, the more I realize that it's correct at $6, if very narrow there.

[Kahryl]

Scout: Reduce cost to 3, give it +2 actions, 5 card inspection, allow it to pick up curses as well

I like these changes, they seem fun and thematic (Scouts should look for DANGER, not just report how big your harems are..) although with all these buffs I think the price should stay $4. You only need 20% of your deck to be victory/curse cards for this to be a village on average (although slightly worse in that the scout-village can't normally draw a terminal to match its +actions)