Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Declining Village/Chervil  (Read 2412 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

yuma

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 695
  • Respect: +609
    • View Profile
Declining Village/Chervil
« on: August 07, 2012, 04:56:02 pm »
0

#5 - Declining Village by yuma with 16 points (Chervil)
$5 - Action
If played for the first time this turn: +2 Cards, +2 actions, +$1.
All other plays: +$1, +2 Actions.


I have noticed that two promo cards were inspired from other board games (walled village=carcassone, governor=puerto rico). As such I thought I might try to create one based off another favorite board game, Small World.

As such I tried to create a card that became worse when played in multiple. As pointed out this essentially becomes a reverse village. The first play is essentially the doubled powered city (only minus the +buy)--which in hindsight may have been too powerful. Whereas the later plays would be worse than Fishing Village as the +1 action/1$ wouldn't show up on the next turn.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Declining Village/Chervil
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2012, 05:00:39 pm »
0

The problem is, city in reverse doesn't work, mechanically, even though city does. If you have to buy a bunch of a card to get it to be good, then that's okay, because it is basically an additional card. If it's going to be that with too many, the thing is bad, then the issue is that you just buy one, and if you balance it like you assume that the pile is getting bought out (i.e. several are going to each player), then that guy who just dips for one has way too strong a card.

FishingVillage

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 120
  • Respect: +28
    • View Profile
Re: Declining Village/Chervil
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2012, 05:33:23 pm »
0

I think I would've liked Declining Village more if the other plays were just +1 Card, +2 Actions instead of +$1, +2 Actions. Subsequent plays won't be as strong, but at least my momentum won't be completely dead. I don't think I mind if it's very strong with 1 or few; if I don't buy enough Declining Villages, I don't get to play them as often unless trashing is available. Somewhat reminiscent of Shanty Town; it's ok to have some, but not too many, otherwise when they collide then that hand becomes a waste of time.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Declining Village/Chervil
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2012, 07:45:43 pm »
0

Second what WW says.  Taken to the logical extreme, it's like this:

Card
$5 - Action
At the end of your turn, if you have one of these in play, you win the game.  If you have more than one, you lose.

One is so powerful it's a must-buy, so you have to buy one.  Two isn't, so you don't.  There are already cards like this.  You rarely rarely rarely want more than one Contraband, Moneylender, Chapel, or Forge, so you just don't buy more.  But the capability of those cards in singles is nevertheless appropriate for their price, which means none of them are must-buys.

If you do want to do a reverse City sort of thing, the way to do it would be to set it up so that even one copy degrades over the course of the game.  The new Sage card is a good example:  as you green, it stops finding your good cards.  A reverse Trade Route mechanic would work, too -- that would do less and less the more tokens there are on the Trade Route mat.  A true reverse City (the card degrades when supply piles empty) would be trickier, though, since a great many games end on Provinces or Colonies.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Declining Village/Chervil
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2012, 07:57:14 pm »
0

I think the card is very flawed design, and the number of votes the card got made me lose lots of faith in the Mini-set design republic (not that you're the only card that has done so)
Logged

One Armed Man

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: Declining Village/Chervil
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2012, 07:59:49 pm »
+1

Archetype recently posted this in his Woodlands expansion:
4 Cost
Vender
Action
+1$
+1 Card
If no supply piles are empty:
+1 Action
Gain a Vender
It is an interesting reverse City. I think a card like the one below would be stupid, but the idea is still relevant.
YTIC
$4 - Action
+1 Action
Gain 2 Actions costing 3 or less.
For each empty supply pile, discard a card.
Logged

Archetype

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
  • Suffers from Fancy Play Syndrom
  • Respect: +690
    • View Profile
Re: Declining Village/Chervil
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2012, 02:02:27 am »
0

Thanks for shout-out OAM!

Vender is one of my cards that recieved the most testing, but the card I have made that reminds me the most of this card Lodge.

It costs 5 and gives you +2 cards and +2 Actions on the first play. All other players give you the choice between the 2 bonuses.

My hope was that since it was so good people would stock up on them so they can play them more often, which ocasionally happens. But usually, the exact opposite occurs.

Everyone will buy 1, maybe 2 in a thicker deck, and then no more. It just isnt worth them colliding.

I did fix this, by changing the mechanics of it a bit. But by doing this, it was no longer a reverse City.

So I think you are better off using some sort of token system to lower the cost of the card based on how many you have already bought. But I dont this mechanic can work very well in a game like this.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.121 seconds with 20 queries.