Print

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

[Donald X.]

What games do you consider your personal "primordial ooze"? Magic: The Gathering is an obvious influence that you've talked about, are there others?

Primordial Ooze, that's that uncommon in Legends for R that gets bigger but has upkeep. The main thing to do with it was to give it to your opponent with Gauntlets of Chaos.

In my youth I played D&D. I played other games here and there but mostly didn't see much until post-Magic. Magic got me interested in seriously designing games, and also introduced me to other gamers who were playing German games.

There is also the computer game angle - the early Ultima games, Heroes of Might and Magic II & III.

In the late 90s I played a lot of Knizia games.

[RevanFan]

There is also the computer game angle - the early Ultima games, Heroes of Might and Magic II & III.

Ah, Heroes of Might and Magic III. I still play that to this day. I've never played II, though. Is it good?

[Donald X.]

There is also the computer game angle - the early Ultima games, Heroes of Might and Magic II & III.

Ah, Heroes of Might and Magic III. I still play that to this day. I've never played II, though. Is it good?

Sure it's great.

I also highly recommend Dudes of Stuff and Things, which is somewhere in this thread.

[navical]

Why is Mint's treasure trashing on-buy rather than on-gain?

[Chris is me]

Why is Mint's treasure trashing on-buy rather than on-gain?

While I don't mean to suggest this is the intended rationale for the card being the way it is, one consequence is that there's no schenanigans if you use Trader to instead gain a Silver.

It is also less confusing if you use Watchtower to Trash it; it's more clear that you trash the Treasures anyway.

[werothegreat]

You're also more likely to actually have Treasures in play when you buy it. It also gives you an out if you don't want to trash.

[allanfieldhouse]

In your recent secret history, you talked about a treasure card stating "name a card, worth $1 per copy of it you have in play". You mentioned this as a possible Coppersmith replacement, but it also reminds me of a (flexible and stackable) card version of Training.

I can see this card not being great in a lot of slog type decks, but it seems like it would be amazing payload after setting up any sort of draw-your-deck engine. Depending on the action card splits, each of these would easily be worth $4-6.

Can you elaborate a bit on why this card "just wasn't worth it"?

[LastFootnote]

In your recent secret history, you talked about a treasure card stating "name a card, worth $1 per copy of it you have in play". You mentioned this as a possible Coppersmith replacement, but it also reminds me of a (flexible and stackable) card version of Training.

I can see this card not being great in a lot of slog type decks, but it seems like it would be amazing payload after setting up any sort of draw-your-deck engine. Depending on the action card splits, each of these would easily be worth $4-6.

Please take note that in a game with more than two players, your "share" of any given pile is significantly smaller.

[Accatitippi]

In your recent secret history, you talked about a treasure card stating "name a card, worth $1 per copy of it you have in play". You mentioned this as a possible Coppersmith replacement, but it also reminds me of a (flexible and stackable) card version of Training.

I can see this card not being great in a lot of slog type decks, but it seems like it would be amazing payload after setting up any sort of draw-your-deck engine. Depending on the action card splits, each of these would easily be worth $4-6.

Please take note that in a game with more than two players, your "share" of any given pile is significantly smaller.

But hey at the very least it's a nonterminal Coppersmith.

[Donald X.]

Why is Mint's treasure trashing on-buy rather than on-gain?

Probably because it started that way and then didn't change. It wasn't a secret that it was buy rather than gain; I had Hinterlands already, and had to FAQ the Royal Seal interaction. Later with (more focused work on) Hinterlands it became a thing, I tried to make everything when-gain but couldn't. But with Mint I think it was just like that and it worked fine so so much for that.

[Donald X.]

In your recent secret history, you talked about a treasure card stating "name a card, worth $1 per copy of it you have in play". You mentioned this as a possible Coppersmith replacement, but it also reminds me of a (flexible and stackable) card version of Training.

I can see this card not being great in a lot of slog type decks, but it seems like it would be amazing payload after setting up any sort of draw-your-deck engine. Depending on the action card splits, each of these would easily be worth $4-6.

Can you elaborate a bit on why this card "just wasn't worth it"?

The main test was of course, there it was, we bought it and it sucked, then we stopped buying it.

Yes you can compare it to Training, and that was clear, that comparison. They are so very different though. Let's consider an example.

1A. I draw two Villages and have Trained them. I get +$2. And I didn't have to draw Training; it's like I drew two Peddlers (on top of the two Villages).

1B. I draw two Villages and Treasure Name-a-card Coppersmith. I name Village. The card was a Silver. Silver: not as good as two Peddlers.

2A. I draw three Villages and have Trained them. Now I get +$3, it was like three Peddlers.

2B. I draw three Villages. I don't draw Treasure Name-a-card Coppersmith; I drew it on the two Villages turn. Nothing at all: not as good as three Peddlers.

Yes if everything goes your way, you draw your deck every turn in a game with no way to trash Coppers, and this card is a Treasure worth $7, yeeha. You don't start out with everything going your way, don't get there first by buying bad cards, and everything going your way is already awesome without this card. I mean, Coppersmith: also worth $7 if you draw your deck every turn and didn't trash your Coppers.

[Limetime]

This card seems like really good payload.
If i draw my deck with 5 of these I have like 30 coins in that alone. No way this is underpowered. The first one is less powerful than training but training doesn't stack. Reminds me of a game I played today where I played a whole bunch of lost arted rabbles then 5 soldiers. I wish that this situation was more common.

[Donald X.]

This card seems like really good payload.
If i draw my deck with 5 of these I have like 30 coins in that alone. No way this is underpowered. The first one is less powerful than training but training doesn't stack. Reminds me of a game I played today where I played a whole bunch of lost arted rabbles then 5 soldiers. I wish that this situation was more common.

Feel free to do your own playtesting! We did ours, and the card didn't make it. No regrets there.

[Beyond Awesome]

This card seems like really good payload.
If i draw my deck with 5 of these I have like 30 coins in that alone. No way this is underpowered. The first one is less powerful than training but training doesn't stack. Reminds me of a game I played today where I played a whole bunch of lost arted rabbles then 5 soldiers. I wish that this situation was more common.

Playing 5 Soldiers seems pretty rare

[Dingan]

Playing 5 Soldiers seems pretty rare

Standing by for a game log...

[AdrianHealey]

Soldier is world greatest payload. I mean, it's kotnrate that I have at least 3 in play during a teacher game. Often times more.

[Asper]

In your recent secret history, you talked about a treasure card stating "name a card, worth $1 per copy of it you have in play". You mentioned this as a possible Coppersmith replacement, but it also reminds me of a (flexible and stackable) card version of Training.

I can see this card not being great in a lot of slog type decks, but it seems like it would be amazing payload after setting up any sort of draw-your-deck engine. Depending on the action card splits, each of these would easily be worth $4-6.

Can you elaborate a bit on why this card "just wasn't worth it"?

The main test was of course, there it was, we bought it and it sucked, then we stopped buying it.

Yes you can compare it to Training, and that was clear, that comparison. They are so very different though. Let's consider an example.

1A. I draw two Villages and have Trained them. I get +$2. And I didn't have to draw Training; it's like I drew two Peddlers (on top of the two Villages).

1B. I draw two Villages and Treasure Name-a-card Coppersmith. I name Village. The card was a Silver. Silver: not as good as two Peddlers.

2A. I draw three Villages and have Trained them. Now I get +$3, it was like three Peddlers.

2B. I draw three Villages. I don't draw Treasure Name-a-card Coppersmith; I drew it on the two Villages turn. Nothing at all: not as good as three Peddlers.

Yes if everything goes your way, you draw your deck every turn in a game with no way to trash Coppers, and this card is a Treasure worth $7, yeeha. You don't start out with everything going your way, don't get there first by buying bad cards, and everything going your way is already awesome without this card. I mean, Coppersmith: also worth $7 if you draw your deck every turn and didn't trash your Coppers.

I don't doubt you had your reasons to drop the card (probably not mainly strength), but for completeness sake, in your comparison you left out the cases where Training is worse:

3A. I play three Markets. I trained Village. I get nothing.
3B. I play three Markets. I draw Treasure Name-A-Card Coppersmith. The card is a Gold.

Gold as a good-case outcome is still not much value for a card which would have to cost $5 (unless you consider doing straight upgrades and cost it $4) but things like adding a buy or some effect on gain (like Border Village) seem plausible options to boost it.

To repeat, these are just arguments about strength - i have no idea how much fun playing with the card was, which might be enough reason to give up on it either way. Actually, i'd be kind of surprised if you had felt the card was fun and dropped it because you couldn't make it strong enough. There's enough room for that.

[schadd]

3A. I play three Markets. I trained Village. I get nothing.
3B. I play three Markets. I draw Treasure Name-A-Card Coppersmith. The card is a Gold.

what this example illustrates, though, is that training gives you money if you can play a lot of one certain card. [new thing] is good uh if you draw it with a bunch of cards that are the same

[allanfieldhouse]

So yeah, in the non-draw-your-deck scenario, "Name-A-Coppersmith" can often whiff or end up as just a silver. I was thinking more of the instances where you've trashed all your coppers & estates, and then won the Hunting Party split 6-4. Or won the Magpie/Peddler/etc split 7-3.

To simplify the examples/scenarios:
1. You are able to play most of your deck every turn -- including at least one card you can play 4+ of. "Name-A-Coppersmith" is anything from just a good payload to a megaturn enabler.
2. You aren't able to play most of your deck every turn. If you're lucky, you might line something up, but you should probably just skip this card.

Seems perfect -- a super powerful (best case) card that is often skippable depending on the board. But you're right...you've played with it, and I haven't. Maybe I'm just missing something.

[Limetime]

Playing 5 Soldiers seems pretty rare

Standing by for a game log...

http://gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?http://dominion-game-logs.s3.amazonaws.com/game_logs/20161005/log.0.1475707173326.txt

[Donald X.]

To repeat, these are just arguments about strength - i have no idea how much fun playing with the card was, which might be enough reason to give up on it either way. Actually, i'd be kind of surprised if you had felt the card was fun and dropped it because you couldn't make it strong enough. There's enough room for that.

Dominion and Intrigue especially did not want to add a second concept to a card to make it good enough (yes Diplomat has two concepts, but something had to be a Reaction). Some other set could do that, a when-gain or something, but these sets wanted sleek cards. I think the only thing acceptable would have been +1 Buy, and Intrigue has plenty of +Buy, and I don't want to make very many +Buy Treasures, and then Empires had Charm (the other set this card tried out for). Costing $4 wasn't an option (without a penalty that would have been a second concept).

It's hard to separate "it sucked" from "it was no fun" but well it sucked and was no fun. It looked nice on paper.

A card that's only good when you're drawing your deck, and is strong then, is just not something I am ever in need of.

And I mean, if there's a way to fix it up maybe I will hit on it someday, and in the meantime y'all can talk about that in the variants forum.

[Donald X.]

what this example illustrates, though, is that training gives you money if you can play a lot of one certain card. [new thing] is good uh if you draw it with a bunch of cards that are the same

Or as I like to put, they are different all the ways they are different.

[Asper]

To repeat, these are just arguments about strength - i have no idea how much fun playing with the card was, which might be enough reason to give up on it either way. Actually, i'd be kind of surprised if you had felt the card was fun and dropped it because you couldn't make it strong enough. There's enough room for that.

Dominion and Intrigue especially did not want to add a second concept to a card to make it good enough (yes Diplomat has two concepts, but something had to be a Reaction). Some other set could do that, a when-gain or something, but these sets wanted sleek cards. I think the only thing acceptable would have been +1 Buy, and Intrigue has plenty of +Buy, and I don't want to make very many +Buy Treasures, and then Empires had Charm (the other set this card tried out for). Costing $4 wasn't an option (without a penalty that would have been a second concept).

Oh, right, when i suggested these two I forgot you worked with the restrictions of Base and Intrigue. It's great what you did to the sets with this re-visit.

[Accatitippi]

So, sooner or later all the promos will get a reprint, cool.
This made me wonder about a few pointless things: Will the 2nd edition promos all use the Summon/Sauna banner as their expansion symbol or will they keep their original symbols? Will Stash' back change now that Dominion's box lost the SdJ pawn? Will Black Market's setup procedure change? (I suppose not)

[Donald X.]

So, sooner or later all the promos will get a reprint, cool.
This made me wonder about a few pointless things: Will the 2nd edition promos all use the Summon/Sauna banner as their expansion symbol or will they keep their original symbols? Will Stash' back change now that Dominion's box lost the SdJ pawn? Will Black Market's setup procedure change? (I suppose not)

Someday, we will know these things; then we will be as gods.