Print

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

[eHalcyon]

I'm fine with lots of un-playtested card ideas.  I don't have the resources to playtest my ideas, but it doesn't stop me from theorycrafting and submitting to the contests!  As long as Rush doesn't mind heavy critique, I think it's fine to post lots of ideas.  His weekly threads are more manageable than the previous daily threads too.





Metallurgist, I think, is too weak without trashing.  The copper gain is actually mostly a drawback -- it hinders your search in future plays.  Considering that, I think this would be fine at $4.  If there is strong trashing on the board that allows you to get rid of all your starting Copper, I am still not sure if it is strong enough to be worth $5.  It might be. 

[Jack Rudd]

Yay, I get to Swindle my opponents' Caravans into nothing! This might not be a feature of the card you want to keep.

The newer wording fixes that. Definitely not an interaction I want.

The newer wording certainly does not fix that; it creates a whole new problem. Suppose Reserve is the only $4 card in the Supply. What exactly happens when I hit one with my Swindler? The rules for Swindler say you have to gain one, the rules for Reserve say you can't.

(This also causes problems with Upgrade, Develop, Remake and Forge.)

[Rush_Clasic]

Yay, I get to Swindle my opponents' Caravans into nothing! This might not be a feature of the card you want to keep.

The newer wording fixes that. Definitely not an interaction I want.

The newer wording certainly does not fix that; it creates a whole new problem. Suppose Reserve is the only $4 card in the Supply. What exactly happens when I hit one with my Swindler? The rules for Swindler say you have to gain one, the rules for Reserve say you can't.

(This also causes problems with Upgrade, Develop, Remake and Forge.)

"Can't" overrides forced actions in most games. It's the reason why a Throne Roomed Outpost doesn't actually work. You're right that it creates a whole new problem, though. I think my end goal for that card has steered away from a "no gain" clause. All I really care about is the "Spend only $ produced by Copper to buy this" function. If I can make the card balanced with just that, I'll be happy. Maybe at 3VP for $3.

[eHalcyon]

Yay, I get to Swindle my opponents' Caravans into nothing! This might not be a feature of the card you want to keep.

The newer wording fixes that. Definitely not an interaction I want.

The newer wording certainly does not fix that; it creates a whole new problem. Suppose Reserve is the only $4 card in the Supply. What exactly happens when I hit one with my Swindler? The rules for Swindler say you have to gain one, the rules for Reserve say you can't.

(This also causes problems with Upgrade, Develop, Remake and Forge.)

"Can't" overrides forced actions in most games. It's the reason why a Throne Roomed Outpost doesn't actually work. You're right that it creates a whole new problem, though. I think my end goal for that card has steered away from a "no gain" clause. All I really care about is the "Spend only $ produced by Copper to buy this" function. If I can make the card balanced with just that, I'll be happy.

What forced action does "can't" override on TR-Outpost?  Outpost is self-consistent and doesn't conflict with anything else.  TR-Outpost still lets you play Outpost twice, it's just that the second Outpost doesn't let you take a third consecutive turn.  The example given shows how your card would conflict with Swindler.

[Rush_Clasic]

Yay, I get to Swindle my opponents' Caravans into nothing! This might not be a feature of the card you want to keep.

The newer wording fixes that. Definitely not an interaction I want.

The newer wording certainly does not fix that; it creates a whole new problem. Suppose Reserve is the only $4 card in the Supply. What exactly happens when I hit one with my Swindler? The rules for Swindler say you have to gain one, the rules for Reserve say you can't.

(This also causes problems with Upgrade, Develop, Remake and Forge.)

"Can't" overrides forced actions in most games. It's the reason why a Throne Roomed Outpost doesn't actually work. You're right that it creates a whole new problem, though. I think my end goal for that card has steered away from a "no gain" clause. All I really care about is the "Spend only $ produced by Copper to buy this" function. If I can make the card balanced with just that, I'll be happy.

What forced action does "can't" override on TR-Outpost?  Outpost is self-consistent and doesn't conflict with anything else.  TR-Outpost still lets you play Outpost twice, it's just that the second Outpost doesn't let you take a third consecutive turn.  The example given shows how your card would conflict with Swindler.

"Can't" is just that simple in most games. It prevents you from doing what you would otherwise do. I used Outpost just as an example of a situation in the game where the word "can't" is actually used (since it's only on 3 cards in current Dominion). You would just Swindler as much as possible. It's the same idea behind choosing either function of Torturer when you can't actually fulfill a particular half: if you have no cards in hand, you can still "discard 2 cards", and if the Curses are all gone, you can still choose "gain a Curse card."

The current version of Reserve conflicts only in that if Swindler trashes it in a kingdom with no other 4s, nothing will be gained. That is, however, undesirable and very much worth changing.

[LastFootnote]

Wow, you're still trying to justify this terrible wording? Just say 'you can't buy this unless you have 4 Coppers in play' and leave it at that. Don't want people to be able to gain it easily? Make it more powerful and cost it at $5.

[Rush_Clasic]

Wow, you're still trying to justify this terrible wording? Just say 'you can't buy this unless you have 4 Coppers in play' and leave it at that. Don't want people to be able to gain it easily? Make it more powerful and cost it at $5.

We're just talking about how the game works. I already agreed that the Swindler interaction is undesirable and makes the "can't gain" feature bad. And now we're discussing how the game would actually handle it.

I don't get why you're being snippy.

[LastFootnote]

I'm being snippy because:

1. Keeping track of coins spent on one thing vs. another is something Donald intentionally removed from the game, presumably because it's confusing and difficult to track. It's a Bad Idea.

2. Having 'can't gain' wording is also a Bad Idea that has many rules ambiguities that others have brought up.

3. You just keep arguing that these Bad Ideas are actually perfectly OK.

4. The whole concept of 'you can only gain this by buying it with Copper' is, in my opinion, uninteresting and not a compelling enough reason to have these rules ambiguities and questions. I mean, official cards have issues like this sometimes. Band of Misfits is a great example. The difference is that Band of Misfits is interesting enough to warrant all the rules questions.

[eHalcyon]

Yay, I get to Swindle my opponents' Caravans into nothing! This might not be a feature of the card you want to keep.

The newer wording fixes that. Definitely not an interaction I want.

The newer wording certainly does not fix that; it creates a whole new problem. Suppose Reserve is the only $4 card in the Supply. What exactly happens when I hit one with my Swindler? The rules for Swindler say you have to gain one, the rules for Reserve say you can't.

(This also causes problems with Upgrade, Develop, Remake and Forge.)

"Can't" overrides forced actions in most games. It's the reason why a Throne Roomed Outpost doesn't actually work. You're right that it creates a whole new problem, though. I think my end goal for that card has steered away from a "no gain" clause. All I really care about is the "Spend only $ produced by Copper to buy this" function. If I can make the card balanced with just that, I'll be happy.

What forced action does "can't" override on TR-Outpost?  Outpost is self-consistent and doesn't conflict with anything else.  TR-Outpost still lets you play Outpost twice, it's just that the second Outpost doesn't let you take a third consecutive turn.  The example given shows how your card would conflict with Swindler.

"Can't" is just that simple in most games. It prevents you from doing what you would otherwise do. I used Outpost just as an example of a situation in the game where the word "can't" is actually used (since it's only on 3 cards in current Dominion). You would just Swindler as much as possible. It's the same idea behind choosing either function of Torturer when you can't actually fulfill a particular half: if you have no cards in hand, you can still "discard 2 cards", and if the Curses are all gone, you can still choose "gain a Curse card."

The current version of Reserve conflicts only in that if Swindler trashes it in a kingdom with no other 4s, nothing will be gained. That is, however, undesirable and very much worth changing.

While other games may have that as a rule, Dominion does not.  I can think of no example where a card says you CAN'T do something, in such a way that it would contradict other cards (Swindler in our example).

Outpost says you can't take more than one consecutive turn.  It is a limit on itself, not something that will contradict other cards.

Grand Market says you can't buy it with Copper in play.  This is a restriction on itself, not something that will contradict other cards (e.g. you can still gain it with other cards, or you can remove Copper from play and buy it then).

The rule that you do all that you can does not deal with "can't".  Torturer says you CAN choose to gain a Curse.  So you can choose that.  If the Curses are out then you have done all you can, and the mechanics of the game prevent you from gaining a Curse that isn't available to be gained.

Saying that you can't gain as per the wording you have used WILL result in direct contradiction between two cards.  Why should your card have default precedence?  You can argue that it is the most logical ruling, and that's fine, but in general you should probably strive to avoid such rules confusion.

[Rush_Clasic]

1. Keeping track of coins spent on one thing vs. another is something Donald intentionally removed from the game, presumably because it's confusing and difficult to track. It's a Bad Idea.

I'd like to read this if you know where he talks about it. (I'm not being challenging or snippy: I'm actually interested.) In practice, you don't actually have to keep track save in corner cases, and those don't feel worse than, say, a trashed Mining Village in the midst of a long Action chain. But no one addressed that in the most recent debate.

2. Having 'can't gain' wording is also a Bad Idea that has many rules ambiguities that others have brought up.

This was addressed and I agreed. The only thing I talked about afterwards is that the game can handle the interaction easily. I didn't say that it was a good interaction to have. I want to change any future iteration of the card specifically because of it! But I'm only talking about the card anymore to respond to people; otherwise, it's an idea not many people seem to like and not a route I intend on doing much with, if anything.

3. You just keep arguing that these Bad Ideas are actually perfectly OK.

I changed the card a number of times because of the problems people addressed. The only issue my opinion has differed on is the "spend" terminology.

4. The whole concept of 'you can only gain this by buying it with Copper' is, in my opinion, uninteresting and not a compelling enough reason to have these rules ambiguities and questions. I mean, official cards have issues like this sometimes. Band of Misfits is a great example. The difference is that Band of Misfits is interesting enough to warrant all the rules questions.

Fair enough. The general idea has no champions. That feedback is what I want most; it was better for this card than most, since people addressed the actual concept rather than just the execution.

The rule that you do all that you can does not deal with "can't".  Torturer says you CAN choose to gain a Curse.  So you can choose that.  If the Curses are out then you have done all you can, and the mechanics of the game prevent you from gaining a Curse that isn't available to be gained.

Saying that you can't gain as per the wording you have used WILL result in direct contradiction between two cards.  Why should your card have default precedence?  You can argue that it is the most logical ruling, and that's fine, but in general you should probably strive to avoid such rules confusion.

The "do as much as you can" rule doesn't currently apply to this situation because the interaction doesn't exist in this capacity (though it does to an extent in that Develop or any other trasher that uses "exact" gains nothing if the appropriate priced card doesn't exist). I'm not arguing that the mechanic should exist, but the game really is well equipped to handle it. If I thought there was real potential rules confusion, I'd agree with your point, but I don't believe it to actually exist any more than other novice rules understandings.

[rinkworks]

Saying that you can't gain as per the wording you have used WILL result in direct contradiction between two cards.  Why should your card have default precedence?

The "do as much as you can" rule doesn't currently apply to this situation because the interaction doesn't exist in this capacity (though it does to an extent in that Develop or any other trasher that uses "exact" gains nothing if the appropriate priced card doesn't exist). I'm not arguing that the mechanic should exist, but the game really is well equipped to handle it. If I thought there was real potential rules confusion, I'd agree with your point, but I don't believe it to actually exist any more than other novice rules understandings.

I don't follow this at all.  Dominion is conspicuously NOT equipped to handle conflicts like this.  I say conspicuous because of how much deliberate care there is in the wording of the cards to avoid ever encountering such a conflict, no matter how unlikely or contrived a situation you'd need.

To reiterate, if one card says "gain X" and card X says "you can't gain this," then there is NO WAY to resolve the situation.  There is nothing inherent in the wordings or context of either card to suggest that one or the other should take precedence.  You have to invent a new rule for the game overall -- not just a rule on a card somewhere but a rule governing the mechanics and terminology of the entire game -- that would describe how you would resolve such a conflict.

The reason "can't" works in the three cards that use it:

(1) Outpost's "can't" only qualifies what IT does and does not impose any restrictions on what other cards can do.  It is significant that it doesn't say "You can't play this if it would cause you to take more than two consecutive turns," because then it would conflict with a card that told you to play it.  (Golem turning up two copies, for instance.)

(2) Grand Market says you can't buy it with Copper in play, and that's okay because buying is always something the player is free to do.  No rule -- either in the game or on another card -- tell you to buy something.  Therefore, if no rule forces you to do it, it's fine if a card forces you not to.  Very significantly, Grand Market does NOT say you can't gain it with Copper in play, because there are tons of other cards that force you to gain things.

(3) Contraband, again, only says "can't" with respect to buying cards, not gaining them.  I can play Contraband, be forbidden Provinces, then play a Horn of Plenty and gain a Province.  But if it said "gain," then what do I do if Coppers and Curses are out, Estates are the only $2 cards out, Contraband forbids me Estates, and then I play a Horn of Plenty worth $2?  This is a crazy edge case, and yet Donald very conspicuously wrote Contraband to avoid this kind of conflict.  I don't know why you'd think a fan card exhibiting less care would be acceptable to Dominion players at large.

It's all well and good to say "Can't is simple -- can't means can't" and trick yourself into thinking it's all perfectly clear.  But you could just as easily say "Gain is simple -- gain means gain" and trick yourself the other way.

[Schneau]

Hunting Party, which might be the closest Dominion has to "search your deck for a card".

Scavenger?

Ya, that too.

*shakes fist at Dark Ages*

I'll get familiar with those cards one of these days. Probably after I actually get to play with the set.

No, you should have gotten familiar with Alchemy. But you'll get sage as a result of Dark Ages. Count on it. It spoils you.

I don't know if everyone got all of the puns here. I got the last three, but couldn't figure out what the heck the first sentence meant for a while. When it hit me, I burst out laughing. I wish I could give you +10 respect, my good sir.

[AJD]

*shakes fist at Dark Ages*

I'll get familiar with those cards one of these days. Probably after I actually get to play with the set.

No, you should have gotten familiar with Alchemy. But you'll get sage as a result of Dark Ages. Count on it. It spoils you.

I don't know if everyone got all of the puns here. I got the last three, but couldn't figure out what the heck the first sentence meant for a while. When it hit me, I burst out laughing. I wish I could give you +10 respect, my good sir.

 

[Rush_Clasic]

The "do as much as you can" rule doesn't currently apply to this situation because the interaction doesn't exist in this capacity (though it does to an extent in that Develop or any other trasher that uses "exact" gains nothing if the appropriate priced card doesn't exist). I'm not arguing that the mechanic should exist, but the game really is well equipped to handle it. If I thought there was real potential rules confusion, I'd agree with your point, but I don't believe it to actually exist any more than other novice rules understandings.

I don't follow this at all.  Dominion is conspicuously NOT equipped to handle conflicts like this.  I say conspicuous because of how much deliberate care there is in the wording of the cards to avoid ever encountering such a conflict, no matter how unlikely or contrived a situation you'd need.

To reiterate, if one card says "gain X" and card X says "you can't gain this," then there is NO WAY to resolve the situation.  There is nothing inherent in the wordings or context of either card to suggest that one or the other should take precedence.  You have to invent a new rule for the game overall -- not just a rule on a card somewhere but a rule governing the mechanics and terminology of the entire game -- that would describe how you would resolve such a conflict.

There's a good enough chance that I'm so familiar with "can't trumps can" that the logic just doesn't seem reasonable the other way around to me. It's an interesting topic to debate. When I said "the game really is well equipped to handle it", I didn't mean that the rules to govern this issue were inherent in its structure, just that the game handles "impossible actions" as part of its structure, and that this could be added to that.

The reason "can't" works in the three cards that use it:

(1) Outpost's "can't" only qualifies what IT does and does not impose any restrictions on what other cards can do.  It is significant that it doesn't say "You can't play this if it would cause you to take more than two consecutive turns," because then it would conflict with a card that told you to play it.  (Golem turning up two copies, for instance.)

(2) Grand Market says you can't buy it with Copper in play, and that's okay because buying is always something the player is free to do.  No rule -- either in the game or on another card -- tell you to buy something.  Therefore, if no rule forces you to do it, it's fine if a card forces you not to.  Very significantly, Grand Market does NOT say you can't gain it with Copper in play, because there are tons of other cards that force you to gain things.

At the heart of it, I think the game avoids that because it is an undesirable effect to have from a game enjoyment standpoint, not because it would be confusing to handle. The only purpose to write on a card that it "can't" do something is because the game would naturally make or allow you to do that something. That "can't" is in stark contrast to whatever is normally allowed, and its reasonable to believe that most people would read it that way. It happens all the time in games.

(3) Contraband, again, only says "can't" with respect to buying cards, not gaining them.  I can play Contraband, be forbidden Provinces, then play a Horn of Plenty and gain a Province.  But if it said "gain," then what do I do if Coppers and Curses are out, Estates are the only $2 cards out, Contraband forbids me Estates, and then I play a Horn of Plenty worth $2?  This is a crazy edge case, and yet Donald very conspicuously wrote Contraband to avoid this kind of conflict.  I don't know why you'd think a fan card exhibiting less care would be acceptable to Dominion players at large.

Just to be clear, I think the original card I posted (Reserve), and the subsequent versions I've posted, are flawed, as pointed out by a number of people now. I feel as though we're arguing separate matters. I think the game can handle these situations without causing mass confusion. That doesn't mean I think the game should attempt clauses like "can't be gained", at least, not in the way I've attempted, not with the information others have shared that I overlooked. Games are basically a set of allowances and forced actions, and most use some set of stoppers to vary the interaction. If you think of cards as just a subset of rules, you see that these conflicts occur all the time. The game says "draw 5 cards during your clean-up step"; Outpost says "only draw 3." The game says "trashed cards go to the trash pile." Possession redirects them. It's the same conflict, really: one thing says to do something, one thing says to do something else. They work on dependency and allowance, and "can't gain" should be instinctively played similarly.

Again, I now agree that there are too many undesirable effects with my card to want it to say "can't gain", but those are all based on the game's enjoyability.

[Rush_Clasic]

Scam Artist (4)
Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, discards the non-Copper cards, and puts the rest back on top of his deck in any order. He gains a Copper card for each card he discarded, putting it on top of his deck.

• #40 - Scam Artist
  
• This is a cross section of a few different card ideas, mostly Sea Hag and Rabble. I've liked the idea of Copper as a drawback ever since Garden decks stopped winning all our games!
• I worked on a few different version of this idea before settling on the one above. I wasn't sure initially how much Copper I was okay with it doling out, but "2 a round at most" was the safest answer, and felt right, similar to how Militia only hits once a round against any particular player.
• Part of me wanted to cost this at 3, but the card feels strong enough to work at 4. Copper isn't as bad a punishment as Curses, but it can still get annoying.

[Jack Rudd]

Scam Artist (4)
Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, discards the non-Copper cards, and puts the rest back on top of his deck in any order. He gains a Copper card for each card he discarded, putting it on top of his deck.

So it's a junker/mucker like Sea Hag, with the junking attack weaker but with a benefit to the player? Fair enough; it looks reasonable at that price. Playtest it and see how it goes.

[Jack Rudd]

OK, here's my take on how to make Reserve do something like what Rush_Clasic wants it to, but not have horrible interactions with other cards:

Reserve (4)
Victory
4VP
-----
When you gain this, discard four Coppers from play. If you do not, return this card to the Supply and gain a Silver.

[chester]

OK, here's my take on how to make Reserve do something like what Rush_Clasic wants it to, but not have horrible interactions with other cards:

Reserve (4)
Victory
4VP
-----
When you gain this, discard four Coppers from play. If you do not, return this card to the Supply and gain a Silver.

I can't wait to Ironworks one of these.

[Jack Rudd]

OK, here's my take on how to make Reserve do something like what Rush_Clasic wants it to, but not have horrible interactions with other cards:

Reserve (4)
Victory
4VP
-----
When you gain this, discard four Coppers from play. If you do not, return this card to the Supply and gain a Silver.

I can't wait to Ironworks one of these.

Eh, it's OK, but not stunning. Ironworks a Reserve and you get a Silver and +1 Card. (Unless, of course, you play Ironworks after Black Market, when you may be able to get a Reserve and +1 Card.)

[Rush_Clasic]

I'm thinking that my initial concerns about the card being overpowered were overstated. With that in mind, I could just go the simplest route--reverse Grand Market:

Reserve (3)
Victory
3VP
-----
You can't buy this unless you have at least 3 Copper in play.

The wording I initially chose was always an attempt to lessen this card's power, but I think it can easily be fair at this cost and value.



That said, I like your idea, Jack.

[O]

I liked the 4VP. Heres an idea:

Reserve 0$

Victory
4VP
------------
When you gain this, discard four coppers from your hand. If you don't, return this card to the supply.


EDIT: fixed when gain/simplified

[zahlman]

Another idea, off the top of my head: "[This Card] cannot be bought. In games using this, during your Buy phase, you may discard N coppers any number of times; each time you do, gain a [This Card]."

[Rush_Clasic]

Coffers (4)
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
-----
When you buy this, put it on top of your deck unless you have non-Copper Treasure cards in play.

• #41 - Coffers
• So, I tried making a card that used Copper as a restriction, and not only did it fail to work well in the eyes of my peers, but the basic concept wasn't much liked. So, I thought, what about reversing it? Why not just make a card that has an occasional boon, that boon being the Copper restriction? Well, it seems much better that way.
• I wanted this to produce coins so you wouldn't necessarily have to go out of Copper mode. I'm not sure if the base stats of this card want to exist alone anywhere. I feel like Donald discussed this somewhere, but I haven't been about to find it. Anyway, it's obviously stronger than Oasis, but arguably less so than Treasury, which is why I middled it at $4.

[Schneau]

Note that most people agree that straight +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1 is fairly priced at $4. So, you can compare this card to that.

[Archetype]

You could change it's cost to five and change it to this:

"When you buy this, if you have 2 or more Copper cards in play, put this card on top of your deck. You may also put a Copper you have in play on top of your deck too"

It probably changes the card too much, but this card can't cost 4, as Schneau said.