Print

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

[Diving Pikachu]

Thanks for the reply, but it's obvious to everyone that's played more than a couple of games of dominion that Thief was never intended to be anything more than a trick. You admitted in your post that "copper isn't too hot", so why would a card with the primary function of trashing your opponents copper (and allowing you to gain it) ever have any chance of being a good card?

Dude. Thief can be a fearsome card, especially in games with heavy trashing. Its very presence in a Chapel game makes me reconsider my usual Chapel strategies very carefully. If you've got a trim deck and your economy is treasure-based instead of action-based (a very possible scenario; Minion won't be in every kingdom, after all), you can witness the very swift obliteration of your buying power as your opponent thieves away your Golds, Platinums, Horns of Plenty, or Spoils. Thief's interactions with Ill-Gotten Gains also shouldn't be underestimated. It can give you more chances to curse while disrupting the IGG-Curse-Duchy 3-pile early ending that often happens with the presence of IGG in a kingdom. And as WanderingWinder has pointed out, Thief's power scales up during multiplayer. My advice: Listen to WanderingWinder. And Theory. And Donald X.

Is this what you wanted to design? A card for experienced players to secretly laugh at new players who'd dare think it was a powerful card? It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that Thief, despite being weak, is a trashing attack, which is the most hateful kind of play, and I can't imagine people getting any delight out of it being played other than the aforementioned in joke that comes with understanding how the game works.

"The most hateful kind of play"? What does that even mean? And I must wonder whether you truly have "understanding" of "how the game works" if you think Thief's "primary function" is "trashing your opponents copper". Sure, opening with Thief is a pretty bad idea, but that doesn't mean it will always be doomed to have a "primary function" of trashing copper. Dominion is so flexible and variable that you can't predict a card's role in all kingdoms with such broad language.

[Jorbles]

Witch
Torturer
Embargo
Sea Hag
Familiar
Mountebank
Young Witch
Jester
Followers* (So include tournament)
Ill Gotten Gains

I'd also add swindler (even though it isn't strictly a curser)

Throw in a Bane (say Swindler) and you've got yourself the cursiest kingdom possible!

[Donald X.]

As I have previously posted, Thief is weak enough on average that I would like it to be better. I haven't been talking about that. I was disagreeing with the statement that Thief was *intended* to be weak. Man. It was not.

[WanderingWinder]

[Scout joke here]

[Robz888]

As I have previously posted, Thief is weak enough on average that I would like it to be better. I haven't been talking about that. I was disagreeing with the statement that Thief was *intended* to be weak. Man. It was not.

I would like to say that in one of my last games on Isotropic ever, I bought Thief and used it to great success. My opponent pursued Chapel/Treasure Map on an otherwise fairly weak board, and my Thief punished him relentlessly. I went Duchy-Duke, and grabbed an easy win.

Thank you, Thief. And thank you, Donald.

[Razzishi]

When I first read the thread title, I thought "base" was "bad".  I was very confused.

[carstimon]

There's something I like about cards that aren't usually useful.  It's very rewarding when you find a way to use them.  The number of times when it's obviously a dead card is offset by the coolness of finding a time when it's not.

[engineer]

There's something I like about cards that aren't usually useful.  It's very rewarding when you find a way to use them.  The number of times when it's obviously a dead card is offset by the coolness of finding a time when it's not.

That feeling actually was by design.  Donald mentions how he did a few cards that would only really be strong in certain situations, because some folks get a kick out of winning games with those cards.  I wish I could find the quote.

[Donald X.]

There's something I like about cards that aren't usually useful.  It's very rewarding when you find a way to use them.  The number of times when it's obviously a dead card is offset by the coolness of finding a time when it's not.

That feeling actually was by design.  Donald mentions how he did a few cards that would only really be strong in certain situations, because some folks get a kick out of winning games with those cards.  I wish I could find the quote.

For any given card it may or may not be by design (e.g. Scout wasn't intended to be weak), but yes, there are a very small number of cards that are so narrow that they often aren't very good, where the idea is, some people like to win with a card that you usually can't win with, and the only way to get that feeling is to have a card you usually can't win with. But I try to do very few of those, and Thief wasn't trying to be one of them. Thief in fact is one of the "pillars" of the main set, changing the game significantly, and as such it would be nice if it was still doing that for good players.

[engineer]

You know, Donald, it would be really cool if you actually did a revised edition of dominion.  Like, rerelease the original set, but with slight card and rule changes that clarify lingering issues and perhaps "fix" cards that didn't work as intended. 

I know that this idea is icky: you want Dominion to stand on its own as a finished product, and "improving" it could backfire, sorta like how the original Star Wars trilogy was better before George Lucas went back and updated all the special effects. 

Still, it seems like the cards that actually could use a "fix" are so few and far between, there would be no chance of "ruining" the original flavor of the game (since the vast majority of games would be completely unchanged), and it could add some fun to kingdoms where the "fixed" cards happen to appear.

Maybe some day, when you're old and you decide you want the money, you could do the revised edition.  I certainly wouldn't consider it ill-gotten gains.   

[Donald X.]

You know, Donald, it would be really cool if you actually did a revised edition of dominion.  Like, rerelease the original set, but with slight card and rule changes that clarify lingering issues and perhaps "fix" cards that didn't work as intended. 

There are I think only two things you can hope for here.

First, there might someday be a rethemed Dominion that's trying to get noticed by more people who aren't gamers. It's been brought up but hasn't happened (and may never). If it did happen then possibly I wouldn't change any cards, but I would tweak the exact mix of 25 in order to be better.

Second, if I make a Dominion spin-off and it is close enough to Dominion that some cards from Dominion will work in it, then naturally I will only be revisiting stuff in the best form I can make it at that time.

[LastFootnote]

If nothing else, it would be nice to hear how you would go about trying to make certain cards better. You've mentioned that you'd like Scout and Thief to be better, but you've never shared any specific ideas. Was that intentional, or have you just not given it much thought?

[Donald X.]

If nothing else, it would be nice to hear how you would go about trying to make certain cards better. You've mentioned that you'd like Scout and Thief to be better, but you've never shared any specific ideas. Was that intentional, or have you just not given it much thought?

Well I've mentioned a few things, but in general it's bad if I suggest changes. It sets people up to argue over whether to play the official rules or the designer's variant. This is something RGG in particular does not want to have happen.

I personally have not gone back and changed anything; I play the cards as printed. Which I guess isn't saying much, since online they're programmed as printed, and irl I don't play for fun, I just playtest (which is fun, but still), and to playtest I should play the cards as printed.

[Piemaster]

If nothing else, it would be nice to hear how you would go about trying to make certain cards better. You've mentioned that you'd like Scout and Thief to be better, but you've never shared any specific ideas. Was that intentional, or have you just not given it much thought?

Well I've mentioned a few things, but in general it's bad if I suggest changes. It sets people up to argue over whether to play the official rules or the designer's variant.

Yeah that's the issue I would have with it.  If some people sit down to play a game, but first have to agree about what set of rules to use and then end up having to constantly refer to printed copies of erratas and current rulings during the game then it cheapens the game and makes it less fun.  Obviously in many games this ends up being the lesser of two evils and is the best solution, but Dominion is currently a long way from that point and plays very eloquently in its original iteration.

[pst]

Yeah that's the issue I would have with it.  If some people sit down to play a game, but first have to agree about what set of rules to use and then end up having to constantly refer to printed copies of erratas and current rulings during the game then it cheapens the game and makes it less fun.

On the other hand, not changing any game rules as such, but just a few cards in a new edition of a particular box wouldn't mean that. You would play the cards as written. Just like people playing with Intrigue+Seaside are playing the same game as those playing with Base+Hinterlands, even though they don't use the same kingdom cards, they would be playing the same game as those with Base#2+Hinterlands. Eventually Thief#1 from Base#1 wouldn't be that common. For players playing with oldtimers and get Thief#1 in play it will be like a (slightly or totally) "new" card for them.

Not that this is necessary at all, but wouldn't have to mean any of that negotiation or retconning cards in errata.

[Grujah]

If nothing else, it would be nice to hear how you would go about trying to make certain cards better. You've mentioned that you'd like Scout and Thief to be better, but you've never shared any specific ideas. Was that intentional, or have you just not given it much thought?

He fixes it in expansions. See: Noble Brigand, Vagrant, Ironmonger, Scavanger

[Octo]

I think there's also something to bear in mind is the context of Thief: in base set alone thief has different potential than when all set are combined, and as mentioned thief varies with the numbers of players too. I've had games grind to a halt because of thief due to there not being enough +$ (in fact in that game the only +$ was mountebank which just made the situation even worse!!) and I've certainly had to think twice about going chapel when Thief is on the board, especially in 3/4 player games which is what I normally play. In 2 player, yeah, I may well ignore it, but I mainly play 3/4.

People seem to be so keen on labelling a card (and stuff in general) as "good" or "bad" so that they can pigeon-hole it, which means they don't have to think about it any more, the decision is made. This is naive and also leads to irritatingly polarised opinions such as "it's so obvious after a couple of plays that Thief is a trap card" .....really?.....REALLY? Maybe given some particular circumstances and events perhaps, but ........ no.

Re: Why is Curse a base card?

Because you've misunderstood themes in this game. Themes are layer on top of the basic mechanics. The basic game requires a certain amount to basic mechanics to be varied and fun - you cannot split absolutely every mechanic off into it's own expansion as that would be incredibly dull for the first few of sets until you got enough of a mix to make it interesting. Cursing is included in the basic mechanics as are trashers and dead drawers as previously mentioned as core elements of the game, not optional flavours of the game.

And also, yeah, you're only going to get X amount of cards in total - whether those curses appear in the base set or expansions it's still the same amount of cards.

[Beyond Awesome]

I think there's also something to bear in mind is the context of Thief: in base set alone thief has different potential than when all set are combined, and as mentioned thief varies with the numbers of players too. I've had games grind to a halt because of thief due to there not being enough +$ (in fact in that game the only +$ was mountebank which just made the situation even worse!!) and I've certainly had to think twice about going chapel when Thief is on the board, especially in 3/4 player games which is what I normally play. In 2 player, yeah, I may well ignore it, but I mainly play 3/4.

People seem to be so keen on labelling a card (and stuff in general) as "good" or "bad" so that they can pigeon-hole it, which means they don't have to think about it any more, the decision is made. This is naive and also leads to irritatingly polarised opinions such as "it's so obvious after a couple of plays that Thief is a trap card" .....really?.....REALLY? Maybe given some particular circumstances and events perhaps, but ........ no.

Re: Why is Curse a base card?

Because you've misunderstood themes in this game. Themes are layer on top of the basic mechanics. The basic game requires a certain amount to basic mechanics to be varied and fun - you cannot split absolutely every mechanic off into it's own expansion as that would be incredibly dull for the first few of sets until you got enough of a mix to make it interesting. Cursing is included in the basic mechanics as are trashers and dead drawers as previously mentioned as core elements of the game, not optional flavours of the game.

And also, yeah, you're only going to get X amount of cards in total - whether those curses appear in the base set or expansions it's still the same amount of cards.

Thief is a power card in 4-player games! In two-player, it's very weak. Also, Jester is a beast in 4-player. And, cursers get even more powerful.

[engineer]

I don't think thief is always bad even in 2 player games.  For example, if you play a colony game with thief and the other guy trashes his coppers in favor of better treasures, the thief suddenly becomes pretty strong.  Gank one plat and it has more than earned its place in the deck.

I just get the impression that thief is much weaker in most kingdoms than Donald intended.

[lespeutere]

When I first read the thread title, I thought "base" was "bad".  I was very confused.

So was I. Would've been easy +5 for me.. ;-)

[pst]

You know, Donald, it would be really cool if you actually did a revised edition of dominion.  Like, rerelease the original set, but with slight card and rule changes that clarify lingering issues and perhaps "fix" cards that didn't work as intended. 

There are I think only two things you can hope for here.

First, there might someday be a rethemed Dominion that's trying to get noticed by more people who aren't gamers. It's been brought up but hasn't happened (and may never). If it did happen then possibly I wouldn't change any cards, but I would tweak the exact mix of 25 in order to be better.

Second, if I make a Dominion spin-off and it is close enough to Dominion that some cards from Dominion will work in it, then naturally I will only be revisiting stuff in the best form I can make it at that time.

Hoping for the third option instead paid off!

[Donald X.]

You know, Donald, it would be really cool if you actually did a revised edition of dominion.  Like, rerelease the original set, but with slight card and rule changes that clarify lingering issues and perhaps "fix" cards that didn't work as intended. 

There are I think only two things you can hope for here.

First, there might someday be a rethemed Dominion that's trying to get noticed by more people who aren't gamers. It's been brought up but hasn't happened (and may never). If it did happen then possibly I wouldn't change any cards, but I would tweak the exact mix of 25 in order to be better.

Second, if I make a Dominion spin-off and it is close enough to Dominion that some cards from Dominion will work in it, then naturally I will only be revisiting stuff in the best form I can make it at that time.

Hoping for the third option instead paid off!

Sometimes, the horse learns to sing.

[madeofghosts]

You know, Donald, it would be really cool if you actually did a revised edition of dominion.  Like, rerelease the original set, but with slight card and rule changes that clarify lingering issues and perhaps "fix" cards that didn't work as intended.

Maybe some day, when you're old and you decide you want the money

[no comment]

[ackmondual]

Cursing is a core concept of Dominion. That is why it is in Base. Ruins are like a new take on that core concept.

Ditto with why each expansion also has cards that give you +Buys, branch actions (+2 or more actions), chains (+1 action), +cards, +coins, and trashing.  I hear Rio Grande Games likes to have expansions not require other expansions to play, so this sort of design works out well towards that, as opposed to having an "all/mostly card drawing" set, etc.