Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All

Author Topic: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money  (Read 15290 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2012, 05:46:27 pm »
0

Derp. Yes, I was thinking 'what if someone was crazy enough to make action Blood Money' and thus typed action _. Terminal gold for $5 needs no penalty. Probably needs a small bonus if anything.

I disagree.  I believe Mandarin is a good example of a terminal Gold with penalty.  The topdeck can sometimes be helpful, but it is generally considered a penalty (contrast with Courtyard, which has draw to make the topdeck actually useful; compare with Count, where topdecking is one of the three penalty choices).  Harvest is another one, with the drawback being unreliability (though it CAN hit $4 sometimes too).

The single topdecking is a slight penalty, but it comes with a bonus on-buy effect, and on the whole, it's considered a weak $5. Count again, slight penalty, but it more than makes up for it with diversity of effect. And Harvest being unreliable is possibly a good thing, sure it averages probably just under $3 (but barely), but being able to hit $4 sometimes is a really good thing. Like, often you're gunning for Provinces, so hitting $7 or $6 doesn't matter (possibly even $5-7 being basically the same), so if you have $4+Harvest, that randomness is a good thing. Of course that's not always the case but eh. Oh, and Harvest is also considered one of the weaker $5's.

Sure.  But I think that suggests that a plain terminal +$3 would be a strong $5, and giving it a bonus would probably bump it up to $6.  Depends on the bonus though.
Logged

Lhurgoyf

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +22
    • View Profile
Re: You can't gain victory cards
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2012, 05:58:43 pm »
0

We do have an example of a "you can't" rule in an existing Dominion card:
Contraband
$5 - Treasure
Worth $3
+1 Buy
When you play this, the player to your left names a card. You can’t buy that card this turn.

So Tejayes' BLOOD MONEY would be worded:

BLOOD MONEY
$5 - Treasure
Worth $3
-
While this is in play, you can't gain Victory cards.

I do see, that there is a difference between those two:
- "You can't buy" means, you don't have the option, you have to choose somthing else.
- "You can't gain" means, you just can't gain it, and if you would, defaulting into not gaining anything.

With this out of my way: here is my take on the Blood Money card:

BLOOD MONEY
$5 ($4) - Treasure
Worth $3 ($4)
(When you play this) Every other player gains a Silver putting it into their hand (onto their draw pile?).

This would mean (outside of Colony games where Silver is bad) a real penalty that keeps on giving. A free Silver to start your turn with is very strong, so I might change the numbers to price $4 Worth $3 or price $5 Worth $4 or just let them get to topdeck it.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 05:59:52 pm by Lhurgoyf »
Logged

Tejayes

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +132
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2012, 05:59:26 pm »
0


Here's an idea that hurts VP acquisition without Cursing...

BLOOD MONEY
$5 - Treasure
Worth $3
-
While this is in play, you may not gain Victory cards.
This needs to be "you may not buy Victory cards". Otherwise it has rules clashes with a number of cards.

You mean like Horn of Plenty, Border Village, etc.? That was the entire point of the wording change -- to prevent players who play this version of Blood Money to acquire Victory cards in ANY manner.

I really like this idea, even though it's pretty similar to Quarry. That being said, it should definitely be 'buy' instead of 'gain'. It's a Treasure card anyway, and the number of situations in which you'd be gaining a Victory card without buying it during your Buy phase is small. In fact, it's so small that it's not worth the terrible rules interactions that 'you may not gain' would cause. Why in the world would you want to insert terrible rules interactions just to eliminate cool combos with Horn of Plenty and Border Village? Makes no sense.

What terrible rules interactions? Other than HoP, BV, and the aforementioned Swindler interaction that isn't a Swindler interaction?

The problem with 'you may not gain' is that there are cards effects that tell you to gain things. The rules do not cover what would happen when these two effects conflict. 'You may not buy' is fine, because no card forces you to buy things. There are tons of other threads in this forum where people list examples of why 'you may not gain' is bad, and I'm not going to waste time dredging them up for you.

Here's my question for you: why are you so stuck on using 'you may not gain'?

Because I have yet to see any legitimate reason against it. Your "tons of other threads" excuse is a classic ploy by people who claim something, yet resort to a vague existence of evidence without actually providing any. Find a thread discussing said issue, post a link, and your point will be made. I'll do some searching myself.

The only instances where the "you may not gain" will become an issue other than HoP, BV, etc. is, as Jack Rudd brought up, with Black Market. Assuming you play this version of Blood Money when you play Black Market, and even then, there are rare cards that force you to gain Victory cards. And in all of those circumstances, the playing of Blood Money first will negate any forced gains, such as with Baron.

Lhurgoyf's wording, I'll admit, is better...
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2012, 06:04:28 pm »
0

I'm bored of the "can't gain" discussion that we've had before, so instead, I will quote rinkworks:

And you can still pull off fancy tricks like ... playing Big Money ...

So fancy!
Logged

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1306
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1368
    • View Profile
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2814
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3341
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2012, 06:25:12 pm »
0

Sure.  But I think that suggests that a plain terminal +$3 would be a strong $5, and giving it a bonus would probably bump it up to $6.  Depends on the bonus though.

I don't think so. The +$3's with something else we currently have are, as I just said, pretty much barely negative overall, and they're pretty mediocre $5's. A flat +$3 isn't really that much better, so it'd probably still be a below average $5. I think this has been discussed before, and people tend to think a $5 cost, +$3 would be balanced at $5. Balanced though covers a large range, and I think adding some bonus would leave it still okay as a $5, although strong.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7489
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10706
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2012, 06:28:44 pm »
0

Because I have yet to see any legitimate reason against it. Your "tons of other threads" excuse is a classic ploy by people who claim something, yet resort to a vague existence of evidence without actually providing any.

Hee hee! My laziness is a "classic ploy". I like that!

Really it's just that this conversation has already been done to death in this very forum and I'm sick of having it.

Rinkworks's post on why you need to be very careful when using "can't".

Thanks a lot for finding this.
Logged

Tejayes

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +132
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2012, 06:30:48 pm »
0

Rinkworks's post on why you need to be very careful when using "can't".

Thanks, Jack Rudd.

Even though I think the "while this is in play" clause would take precedence over all of the forced-Victory-gain edge cases out there, rinkworks made excellent points as usual. And I suppose that HoP, BV, etc. themselves are pretty edge-case-y already...

Very well, that version of Blood Money is now...

BLOOD MONEY
$5 - Treasure
$3
-
While this is in play, you cannot buy Victory cards.
Logged

Tejayes

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +132
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2012, 06:35:12 pm »
0

Because I have yet to see any legitimate reason against it. Your "tons of other threads" excuse is a classic ploy by people who claim something, yet resort to a vague existence of evidence without actually providing any.

Hee hee! My laziness is a "classic ploy". I like that!

Really it's just that this conversation has already been done to death in this very forum and I'm sick of having it.

I can understand your frustration about the topic. Please understand my frustration with people who consistently make claims along the lines of "Many published articles agree with me" or "You can find this in any 'reputable' collection", then refuse to provide any actual examples because, in the end, they don't exist. I have put up with this way too much in my lifetime. Since your example did exist, please accept my apologies.
Logged

petrie911

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
  • Respect: +109
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2012, 07:38:25 pm »
0

Using the "Blood Money gives other players something good" interpretation...

Blood Money
$4 Action
+1 Buy
+$3
Each other player draws a card.

I think this would be balanced.  As Governor and Council Room have taught us, giving each other player an extra card can be quite dangerous.

Also, with the buy vs gain thing, it's also about consistency.  Talisman, Hoard, and Contraband care about you buying things while they're in play, while no treasure cares about you gaining things while it's in play.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 07:39:58 pm by petrie911 »
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4357
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2012, 07:42:30 pm »
0

no treasure cares about you gaining things while it's in play.

Royal Seal, actually.
Logged

petrie911

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
  • Respect: +109
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2012, 07:47:52 pm »
0

Really?  Hmm, I'd say that it should only care about buys, but Royal Seal hardly needs to be made worse.
Logged

Saucery

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
  • Respect: +82
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2012, 07:56:01 pm »
0

I feel like cache and death cart (and contraband) already cover the big $ with penalty space, so heres some other ideas, centered around trashing/restitution.

Blood Money
$5 - Treasure
Worth $3
--
You cannot buy this unless you reveal an action card from your hand. When you buy this, trash an action card from your hand.

Blood Money
$4 - Treasure-Reaction
Worth $1
You may trash a card from your hand.
--
When a player trashes a card costing $3 or more, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, place this on top of your deck and gain a silver, putting it into your hand.

Blood Money
$5 - Action-Attack
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If any player trashes a card this way, gain a spoils, putting it into your hand.

For the first one, I don't know if having an action in hand (meaning you have to buy an action, draw it, then hit $5 without playing it) is a strong enough penalty, but its basic idea of requiring to trash actions somehow to get blood money. The second only barely self-synergizes, and is mainly something to look at in DA/swindler/saboteur games, following the restitution theme. The third, i think its kinda similar to rogue and some other DA cards, but i'll throw the idea out there in terms of what blood money could potentially be.
Logged

Archetype

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
  • Suffers from Fancy Play Syndrom
  • Respect: +690
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2012, 08:20:48 pm »
0

Blood Money
$4 - Treasure-Reaction
Worth $1
You may trash a card from your hand.
--
When a player trashes a card costing $3 or more, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, place this on top of your deck and gain a silver, putting it into your hand.

Blood Money
$5 - Action-Attack
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If any player trashes a card this way, gain a spoils, putting it into your hand.

These seem... a lot different from what I usually think Blood Money is.
Logged

Tejayes

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +132
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #39 on: October 04, 2012, 09:36:34 pm »
0

I feel like cache and death cart (and contraband) already cover the big $ with penalty space, so heres some other ideas, centered around trashing/restitution.

Blood Money
$5 - Treasure
Worth $3
--
You cannot buy this unless you reveal an action card from your hand. When you buy this, trash an action card from your hand.

Blood Money
$4 - Treasure-Reaction
Worth $1
You may trash a card from your hand.
--
When a player trashes a card costing $3 or more, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, place this on top of your deck and gain a silver, putting it into your hand.

Blood Money
$5 - Action-Attack
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If any player trashes a card this way, gain a spoils, putting it into your hand.

Blood Money A (Sacrifice an Action to buy) is a little steep of a price, considering that Actions are rarely worth trashing, especially to get $1 off of the price of a Gold. Also, it's easier to gain this through Remodel and the like.

Blood Money B is a little weird for the name, but it kind of works. Get junked? Your restitution is a Copper that can trash it. Get Saboteured? Instant Silver, AND you get this back in your next turn (assuming it doesn't fall prey to the same attack).

At first, I compared Blood Money C to Dame Sylvia (and really, the rest of the Knights). Then, I realized that the Spoils won't be gained on every play. That probably keeps this from being too strong.
Logged

Saucery

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
  • Respect: +82
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2012, 09:41:56 pm »
0

Come to think of it, the 3rd has the damage/restitution effects aligned rather than reversed. A card which is compensation for loss would more likely be a reaction.

Blood Money
$3 - Action-Reaction
+$2
When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a spoils.

Don't have an interesting way to limit the effect, but there's a baseline...

Or how about, Blood Money is a type of spoils gained when people attack you/you trash things?
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 09:53:42 pm by Saucery »
Logged

jamespotter

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
  • Respect: +45
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2012, 10:21:08 pm »
0

Blood Money
$6*-Treasure
+$4
+1 buy
Trash a card from your hand costing $3 or more, or reveal a hand with no cards costing $3 or more and gain a curse.

When you buy this card, you may trash a treasure card costing $2 or more from play. If you do, this card costs $2.

I think this card fixes the "Too powerful when you run out of curses" problem, without being absolutely devastating to the user. The buy can be used to help it feed itself. I also added several things that prevent a first turn buy...it's just too good as an opening.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9620
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #42 on: October 05, 2012, 01:39:20 am »
+1

So... no comments on my idea?
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/

Archetype

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
  • Suffers from Fancy Play Syndrom
  • Respect: +690
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #43 on: October 05, 2012, 02:10:02 am »
0

Blood Money - Treasure-Duration - $5

+2 Buys
$5

When you play this, reveal cards from the top of your deck until revealing one costing $3 or more.  If you find one, trash it, discard the other revealed cards, and trash this.  If you do not find one, at the start of your next turn, discard down to three cards in hand.
It's pretty kooky, and kinda hard to see how good it is. I just think this card has a lot of moving parts with them not really being related to each other.

5$ for 5$ and 2 Buys...I think I still like Death Cart better.
Logged

Sakako

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
  • Respect: +15
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #44 on: October 05, 2012, 02:20:36 am »
0

So... no comments on my idea?

I don't have any comments on mine either. :3
Logged

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2814
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3341
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #45 on: October 05, 2012, 02:28:57 am »
0

Blood Money - Treasure-Duration - $5

+2 Buys
$5

When you play this, reveal cards from the top of your deck until revealing one costing $3 or more.  If you find one, trash it, discard the other revealed cards, and trash this.  If you do not find one, at the start of your next turn, discard down to three cards in hand.

I think the penalty will be extremely swingy. My Blood Money trashes my Silvers, yours destroys two Provinces. But that's not necessarily a bad thing; it's self-inflicted and some cards need to have higher variance to make things more interesting. I don't know if the whole discarding if you don't find one clause is really that necessary, in most games it won't come into effect beyond the second shuffle, although it would make this card a killer combo in Highway games (maybe Bridge, but that's a bit harder methinks). I think the simplified version which is just 'When you play this, reveal cards from your deck until revealing one costing $3 or more. Trash that card and discard the other revealed cards' would work okay. Possibly has to remove one buy to balance it, perhaps both, but it simplifies the card somewhat.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #46 on: October 05, 2012, 03:09:04 am »
0

Sure.  But I think that suggests that a plain terminal +$3 would be a strong $5, and giving it a bonus would probably bump it up to $6.  Depends on the bonus though.

I don't think so. The +$3's with something else we currently have are, as I just said, pretty much barely negative overall, and they're pretty mediocre $5's. A flat +$3 isn't really that much better, so it'd probably still be a below average $5. I think this has been discussed before, and people tend to think a $5 cost, +$3 would be balanced at $5. Balanced though covers a large range, and I think adding some bonus would leave it still okay as a $5, although strong.

Really?  I thought consensus was that a plain terminal gold was too good for $5.  Maybe I should look for those old discussions and review.
Logged

loppo

  • 2014 Austrian Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +194
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #47 on: October 05, 2012, 03:27:22 am »
0

Nonetheless, I think a score-manipulating Blood Money ought to be doable if the penalty happens on-play, in keeping with the principles of balance I started this post talking about.  "When you play this, gain a Curse token."  A Curse token would be like a VP token but worth -1 point instead of 1.  Something along those lines can probably work.
You could also just have it give each other player a VP chip, and not need to create new components.

I wish I could give this more '+1's. Brilliant! This is what I want to see for one of the Prosperity cards in the Treasure Chest expansion: a powerful card that gives opponents VP chips when played. That's two of Prosperity's themes right there. Seems perfect!

BRIBE
$3 - Treasure
Worth $3
-
When you play this each other player gets 1VP.

sorry if this if off topic, but the moment read that, that came up in my head. You get a gold for the price of a silver, but if you want to use it, you have to bribe your opponents
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 03:28:46 am by loppo »
Logged

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2400
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4084
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #48 on: October 05, 2012, 06:47:36 am »
+1

Rinkworks's post on why you need to be very careful when using "can't".

Thanks, Jack Rudd.

Even though I think the "while this is in play" clause would take precedence over all of the forced-Victory-gain edge cases out there, rinkworks made excellent points as usual. And I suppose that HoP, BV, etc. themselves are pretty edge-case-y already...

Very well, that version of Blood Money is now...

BLOOD MONEY
$5 - Treasure
$3
-
While this is in play, you cannot buy Victory cards.

That basically very similar to Quarry.
It's a Gold if you want to buy Action cards and if you buy Victory cards it's a Copper instead of "you can't". Yeah, it's not the same because of the cost reduction of Quarry, but still too similar to make it interesting. Also, this should basically cost $4.

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4786
  • Respect: +3408
    • View Profile
Re: Card That Name! -- Episode 2: Blood Money
« Reply #49 on: October 05, 2012, 07:05:51 am »
0


Blood Money - $5
Treasure


$2
------------
When you play this, discard a Copper from your hand.
If you do: +$2. If you don't: Gain a Curse.


I don't know if this is the best implementation of the idea, but the idea is to have players "pay" for their Blood Money and if they can't, suffer some consequences. The "gain a Curse" clause can be easily replaced. Having it discard Coppers makes it so it doesn't stack very well. I mean, a hand of BM, BM, C, C, X will net you a Province, same as 2G+2C, but a hand of 3BM, X, X won't do you much good.

We currently don't have non-stackable Treasures; in fact we have Bank and Fool's Gold which are the opposite. Thoughts?
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 21 queries.