Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2  All

Author Topic: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages  (Read 14617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3593
  • Respect: +6021
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« on: August 23, 2012, 03:18:44 pm »
0

Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7892
  • Respect: +8714
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2012, 03:43:14 pm »
+1

Awesome that you named Counterfeit! How did that come about?
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

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3593
  • Respect: +6021
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2012, 03:50:57 pm »
+3

The card was originally named Supplies as a placeholder and DXV wanted a better name for it.  I suggested Counterfeit and it stuck. 

This was incidentally pretty much my main contribution.  I didn't do a ton of playtesting, and most of what I did do was "Yep, this works well."  Also, a lot of really smart people were working on it, so most cards already had really good names/mechanics/etc.  Counterfeit was the only one that I thought of before someone else.
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2621
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3307
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2012, 03:52:19 pm »
+7

The card was originally named Supplies as a placeholder and DXV wanted a better name for it.  I suggested Counterfeit and it stuck. 

This was incidentally pretty much my main contribution.  I didn't do a ton of playtesting, and most of what I did do was "Yep, this works well."  Also, a lot of really smart people were working on it, so most cards already had really good names/mechanics/etc.  Counterfeit was the only one that I thought of before someone else.

I think you deserve a Sir Theory card. Too bad it would get progressively worse when stacked...  ;)
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7092
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9366
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2012, 03:52:32 pm »
+7

The card was originally named Supplies as a placeholder and DXV wanted a better name for it.

Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9149
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2012, 04:05:08 pm »
+1

Quote
I tried a version of Wall here, which had been a Hinterlands card that I did a better way as Island, then tried to do another version of for a while. The version here was an action-victory worth 2 VP with "look through your discard pile, shuffle all but 5 cards from it into your deck." The various Walls all were ways to shuffle your deck without so much garbage in it; I dropped it from Hinterlands in the end because I did Inn.

Does this imply that there is a final version of Wall in Guilds?  Or just that an old card called Wall ended up becoming Island and Inn?

Quote
- There was an old old card, gain a Silver to hand, each other player gains a Copper to hand, for $5. Way back when, we didn't know any better, and this card seemed okay. Then I tried a bunch of things to make this good enough, eventually drifting into "+1 Card +1 Action +$1, each other player gains a Copper in hand then discards down to 4." In the end nothing has survived. Giving other players Copper is bad in general because the pile varies in size so much, depending on the number of players and whether or not you add together the main set and Intrigue. It's fine if the attack is limited as to how much Copper it will really give out, like Jester and Noble Brigand and Ambassador.

Good to know for future design contests...

Quote
- A few cards tried to provide other uses for the Ruins pile. One was "+1 Card +1 Action, play the top Ruins, put it on the bottom." It was cute but there's a tracking issue. I did Ironmonger instead. Another card played the top four Ruins. It gave you +$3 instead if the Ruins ran out, because what fun is that.

Those do sound really fun.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 04:09:02 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7065
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9768
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2012, 04:27:12 pm »
+3

Quote
- The original main set had "Trash a card from your hand, discard a card, draw 3 cards." I dropped it from the main set for being redundant; there were other trashers.

The issue I have with the composition of the main set is that it only has one card that effectively trashes Curses: Chapel. Moneylender and Mine can't trash them at all and Remodel makes you take a Copper/Estate/Moat/Cellar/Chapel for each Curse you trash. This makes Witch even more powerful than it is in games with cards from other sets. Rare indeed is the Base Set-only game that Witch can't completely dominate. To make matters worse, new players usually buy Chapels (plural) reactively in a vain attempt to trash their Curses, rather than buying one preemptively.

This outtake card might have really helped that situation.

EDIT: Donald, out of curiosity, what was this card called? Also, how much did it cost?

EDIT 2: If you ever do make a Treasure Chest expansion, I would LOVE to see this card representing the base set. It's in keeping with the simplicity of the base game, and I think it would really round it out nicely. It's a card I'd be happy to whip out with the other Base Set cards when I'm teaching new players (after the standard first-game setup, of course).
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 04:40:37 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3593
  • Respect: +6021
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2012, 04:36:13 pm »
0

Also, I didn't actually edit his post, I don't know why it says that.
Logged

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2396
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4068
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2012, 05:25:59 pm »
0

Quote
"Trash a card from your hand. +$1 per different treasure in the trash, +1 Card per different victory card in the trash,"
Wow, I really like that version. Seems even more combo-ish, but Forager is also nice as-is.

Quote
and it meant I could safely do other non-supply $0* cards in the future without worrying about Graverobber, if somehow that comes up.
Is this a hint??

Thanks for sharing the background of the Knights names. Very nice way of saying "thank you".

Quote
So you could go, play a Moneylender, trash it, gain a Golem, play the Golem.
Definitely crazy. Maybe someone should suggest that to the Design Contest.

Quote
There was a Throne Room variant that gave +1 Card +1 Action, and had every opponent play the card you Throned on their next turn. It had built-in super-crazy just by playing it on itself.
Oh yeah. Seems like anothe crazy card. Especially with Duration cards, it seems hard to keep track.

Quote
Another Throne hung around, set aside, until you wanted to use it (it was $5 and also gave you +1 Action when played). This works differently from Throne in multiples; two of them would let you do an action three times total, since each one just did it an extra time. This card was cool and was in the set for a while, but setting it aside indefinitely was problematic - in the past we've included playmats for that, and I didn't want playmats here - and the card was strong. A few times Bill Barksdale built a deck with lots of these Thrones and an Altar, which would take advantage of not actually having to trash a card to Altar if there are none in your hand, and would suddenly buy a pile of Duchies. One of those games, Bill pared his deck down to just an Altar and five copies of this Throne, drew the five Thrones and then watched a trashing attack trash his Altar. Good times.
Another interesting Throne Room variant. I laughed hard reading the "trashed Altar story", thanks for sharing.

Quote
I tried a victory card that was worth 1 VP per 3 copies of whatever action you had the most copies of. I had a few different reactions on the bottom, including Moat and giving you a new hand when attacked.
How much did it cost? $3 or $4? Giving a new hand when attacked is also an interesting idea although it may slow down the game.

Quote
I tried a version of Wall here
Wall? I don't know that card. Is this an unintentional Guilds spoiler?

Quote
A few cards tried to provide other uses for the Ruins pile. One was "+1 Card +1 Action, play the top Ruins, put it on the bottom." It was cute but there's a tracking issue. I did Ironmonger instead. Another card played the top four Ruins. It gave you +$3 instead if the Ruins ran out, because what fun is that.
Man, for that big set, I really expected to have more cards that care about Ruins, especially in a non-attack way. These sound like great ideas. I'm sad they had to go.

Quote
Here's a weird one. Woodcutter, copies of cards in the trash cost $1 less this turn; setup: we each put a kingdom card into the trash. Let me tell you, some slow decisions there, and then you have to keep the trash all spread out. It was interesting though. Those of you complaining about the Band of Misfits FAQ, this is how you could get King's Court to cost less than Band of Misfits.
Thanks for clarification. Interesting card. If you playing against the Golden Deck, you can really have a big end turn with this card.

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5353
  • Respect: +21694
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2012, 05:27:10 pm »
+7

Does this imply that there is a final version of Wall in Guilds?  Or just that an old card called Wall ended up becoming Island and Inn?
Does this imply that you think I'm answering questions about Guilds already?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9149
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2012, 05:28:34 pm »
0

Does this imply that there is a final version of Wall in Guilds?  Or just that an old card called Wall ended up becoming Island and Inn?
Does this imply that you think I'm answering questions about Guilds already?

Just musing. :)
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5353
  • Respect: +21694
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2012, 05:32:40 pm »
+1

Quote
- The original main set had "Trash a card from your hand, discard a card, draw 3 cards." I dropped it from the main set for being redundant; there were other trashers.
EDIT: Donald, out of curiosity, what was this card called? Also, how much did it cost?

EDIT 2: If you ever do make a Treasure Chest expansion, I would LOVE to see this card representing the base set. It's in keeping with the simplicity of the base game, and I think it would really round it out nicely. It's a card I'd be happy to whip out with the other Base Set cards when I'm teaching new players (after the standard first-game setup, of course).
This was called Dungeon. It originally cost $3, later $4. Two per large expansion and one per small expansion is 13 cards, leaving no room in a small Treasure Chest for a new main set card.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5353
  • Respect: +21694
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2012, 05:33:07 pm »
+1

Also, I didn't actually edit his post, I don't know why it says that.
It looks like it counts pinning the thread as modifying it.
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3593
  • Respect: +6021
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2012, 05:35:34 pm »
+2

I guess so!  Also I changed the icon on it to be a light bulb.  Otherwise the gospel is authentic and I am but a stickying prophet.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5353
  • Respect: +21694
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2012, 05:42:57 pm »
+1

Quote
Another Throne hung around, set aside, until you wanted to use it (it was $5 and also gave you +1 Action when played). This works differently from Throne in multiples; two of them would let you do an action three times total, since each one just did it an extra time. This card was cool and was in the set for a while, but setting it aside indefinitely was problematic - in the past we've included playmats for that, and I didn't want playmats here - and the card was strong. A few times Bill Barksdale built a deck with lots of these Thrones and an Altar, which would take advantage of not actually having to trash a card to Altar if there are none in your hand, and would suddenly buy a pile of Duchies. One of those games, Bill pared his deck down to just an Altar and five copies of this Throne, drew the five Thrones and then watched a trashing attack trash his Altar. Good times.
Another interesting Throne Room variant. I laughed hard reading the "trashed Altar story", thanks for sharing.
Oh I can fill in details on another story, mentioned in the uh rant in reply to someone saying "maybe you should get beat up by KC/Masq/Goons before giving an opinion of it." Once Trader's reaction was on a card that cost $2. There was a game with heavy trashing attacks, probably cards/versions that do not survive. Keeping cards over $2 was getting hard, and Bill built a deck out of $2's. It had the Trader-ish card, Pawn, and a version of Squire. He massed $2's and then suddenly gained a ton of Silver by buying Coppers, in a deck he was drawing all of prior to that. He lost some immediately but got some Provinces and went on to win.

Quote
I tried a victory card that was worth 1 VP per 3 copies of whatever action you had the most copies of. I had a few different reactions on the bottom, including Moat and giving you a new hand when attacked.
How much did it cost? $3 or $4? Giving a new hand when attacked is also an interesting idea although it may slow down the game.
It cost $3. Another victory-reaction card in this slot was worth 2 VP if the Province pile was empty. I guess I missed that outtake.

Quote
I tried a version of Wall here
Wall? I don't know that card. Is this an unintentional Guilds spoiler?
It is me trying to write a paragraph in a readable fashion guys.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7065
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9768
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2012, 05:48:09 pm »
+1

This was called Dungeon. It originally cost $3, later $4. Two per large expansion and one per small expansion is 13 cards, leaving no room in a small Treasure Chest for a new main set card.

Ah, touché. I suppose it's a little bland for a Promo, or for a card representing Intrigue or Dark Ages in a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion. Still, I'd love to get my hands on it someday.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 05:56:57 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

AJD

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2959
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3781
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2012, 06:16:19 pm »
+5

This was called Dungeon. It originally cost $3, later $4. Two per large expansion and one per small expansion is 13 cards, leaving no room in a small Treasure Chest for a new main set card.

Ah, touché. I suppose it's a little bland for a Promo, or for a card representing Intrigue or Dark Ages in a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion. Still, I'd love to get my hands on it someday.

I'm sure no one would cry if a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion had one card representing the main set and one representing Intrigue. Just sayin'.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7065
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9768
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2012, 06:18:41 pm »
0

This was called Dungeon. It originally cost $3, later $4. Two per large expansion and one per small expansion is 13 cards, leaving no room in a small Treasure Chest for a new main set card.

Ah, touché. I suppose it's a little bland for a Promo, or for a card representing Intrigue or Dark Ages in a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion. Still, I'd love to get my hands on it someday.

I'm sure no one would cry if a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion had one card representing the main set and one representing Intrigue.

I sure wouldn't. It's not like we've got a shortage of cards with choices on them in the later expansions, and I'd be perfectly happy with just one additional Action/Victory card (or one additional one-shot).
Logged

engineer

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
  • Respect: +57
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2012, 08:40:37 pm »
+4

These "secret histories" are a fascinating look into the process of designing a successful yet complex board game.  As an amateur board game designer, I find them enthralling.  Thanks for sharing.
Logged

michaeljb

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1395
  • Shuffle iT Username: michaeljb
  • Respect: +2042
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #19 on: August 23, 2012, 09:17:09 pm »
+3

This was called Dungeon. It originally cost $3, later $4. Two per large expansion and one per small expansion is 13 cards, leaving no room in a small Treasure Chest for a new main set card.

Ah, touché. I suppose it's a little bland for a Promo, or for a card representing Intrigue or Dark Ages in a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion. Still, I'd love to get my hands on it someday.

I'm sure no one would cry if a hypothetical Treasure Chest expansion had one card representing the main set and one representing Intrigue.

I sure wouldn't. It's not like we've got a shortage of cards with choices on them in the later expansions, and I'd be perfectly happy with just one additional Action/Victory card (or one additional one-shot).

And once Guilds is released, we can start demanding the Treasure Chest set, and speculating on what the new Duration and VP token cards will be. Man, I hope we do get a Treasure Chest set.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8158
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9526
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2012, 09:54:07 pm »
+1

Quote
A two-use Gold (you trash it and gain a Spoils).

This card + Venture = Win.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Hockey Mask

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
  • Respect: +164
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2012, 10:25:33 pm »
+10

If Donald ever has more kids he's going to have to come out with some Promo Knights.  No way he could live with himself if he didn't.  :P

DX, time to light a couple of candles and pour some wine.  I'll be looking for my Promo card in 9 months.  ;D

And no fair naming your next kid 'Province'.  >:(
Logged
-The Compulsive Completist

wcbarksdale

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #22 on: August 23, 2012, 10:47:52 pm »
+5

Quote
Another Throne hung around, set aside, until you wanted to use it (it was $5 and also gave you +1 Action when played). This works differently from Throne in multiples; two of them would let you do an action three times total, since each one just did it an extra time. This card was cool and was in the set for a while, but setting it aside indefinitely was problematic - in the past we've included playmats for that, and I didn't want playmats here - and the card was strong. A few times Bill Barksdale built a deck with lots of these Thrones and an Altar, which would take advantage of not actually having to trash a card to Altar if there are none in your hand, and would suddenly buy a pile of Duchies. One of those games, Bill pared his deck down to just an Altar and five copies of this Throne, drew the five Thrones and then watched a trashing attack trash his Altar. Good times.
Another interesting Throne Room variant. I laughed hard reading the "trashed Altar story", thanks for sharing.
Oh I can fill in details on another story, mentioned in the uh rant in reply to someone saying "maybe you should get beat up by KC/Masq/Goons before giving an opinion of it." Once Trader's reaction was on a card that cost $2. There was a game with heavy trashing attacks, probably cards/versions that do not survive. Keeping cards over $2 was getting hard, and Bill built a deck out of $2's. It had the Trader-ish card, Pawn, and a version of Squire. He massed $2's and then suddenly gained a ton of Silver by buying Coppers, in a deck he was drawing all of prior to that. He lost some immediately but got some Provinces and went on to win.

Of course, the reason I was drawing all of my deck is that it was fewer than five cards.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1462
  • Respect: +1045
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2012, 12:49:12 am »
0

Very interesting read

Interesting that there was a "top of deck" theme distinct from Seaside's "next turn" theme - seemed like they'd be a natural fit.

"There was a Spy variant for $2 that put bottom cards on top or didn’t." - Pearl diver?

I'm also wondering why it was decided that there'd be exactly 5 different ruins, especially since it affected the design of the Shelters. Considering not much attention was paid to making them all internally balanced (Ruined Village), wouldn't having lots of different Ruins have been more interesting? I'm sure there was no shortage of ideas.

Also I'm not convinced that "gain a copper to hand" is actually a bad idea from the explanation here. It seems like the idea was dismissed because it was tied to a cantrip attack, so of course the size of the copper pile would be a problem. I hope the idea gets tried again in the future.

Same problem here: "There was a Remodel that put the card into your hand. Originally it didn’t give +1 Action; then it did and was crazy." It's annoying to see good ideas (in that case the terminal remodel to hand) be given up on for no good reason - although I guess Mine fills that niche.

Knowing that there'll be at most 13 more Kingdom cards is saddening as it's clearly evident that there's no shortage of ideas (both from Donald X and from everyone else). There'll be promos I guess - and it will be easier to design and playtest cards one at a time going forth.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5353
  • Respect: +21694
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion for The Secret History of Dark Ages
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2012, 05:37:21 am »
+6

"There was a Spy variant for $2 that put bottom cards on top or didn’t." - Pearl diver?
No dude, it was an attack. Pearl Diver is Pearl Diver.

I'm also wondering why it was decided that there'd be exactly 5 different ruins, especially since it affected the design of the Shelters. Considering not much attention was paid to making them all internally balanced (Ruined Village), wouldn't having lots of different Ruins have been more interesting? I'm sure there was no shortage of ideas.
As explained, there are five (with those particular four) so you can learn them quickly. Some people would not like not knowing what they were.

Also I'm not convinced that "gain a copper to hand" is actually a bad idea from the explanation here. It seems like the idea was dismissed because it was tied to a cantrip attack, so of course the size of the copper pile would be a problem. I hope the idea gets tried again in the future.

Same problem here: "There was a Remodel that put the card into your hand. Originally it didn’t give +1 Action; then it did and was crazy." It's annoying to see good ideas (in that case the terminal remodel to hand) be given up on for no good reason - although I guess Mine fills that niche.
Dude, that Remodel got so many chances. Giving opponents copper, I tried that for years in various forms. These are not things I just ditched after a game where no-one bought them or whatever.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.095 seconds with 22 queries.