Print

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

[theory]

Source

Barring a typo or a card that turns out not to actually work with the rules, I don't think there will ever be errata for anything. More specifically, I sure don't expect any power-level errata. And (@theory) Throne Room does not have errata; it should have said "you may," but it doesn't; if necessary, and why would it be but still, you could ask someone not in the game to verify that the player has no actions to play.

The central problem with errata is that it's not on the cards. An errata-based solution only works for people who actually look up the errata. Then too you get those people interacting with people who have not looked up the errata, and perhaps get arguments that I can avoid by not having the errata. Whereas not having errata is so clean. The card does what it says. If it's overpowered, some groups will enjoy that, others will choose not to play with it, and some may even house rule it.

It is not my intention to make cards that many people are banning from their table; there are always going to be cards that some people hate, if there are cards that anyone likes at all, but you know. But like, put me in the position of trying to make people like the sets more, now that I've seen them out in the world, and I'm not going to go straight to the powerful cards to nerf them. I'm going straight to the weak cards.

I did not see the King's Court / Masquerade combo in playtesting. I'm sure the cards must have come up, I mean I played those sets together, but I never noticed the combo or saw it done. It is on the subtle side. In theory's blog, there was recently an annotated game that had the combo and neither player went for it.

There are two environments to consider crazy combos for: games played irl, and games played online. I would like a commercial online version to be available and the game will have to work well that way, but so far it's a real card game and that comes first.

IRL, I am most concerned about crazy combos that are two cards within one expansion. I am concerned but less so about crazy combos that are two cards between two expansions where one of the expansions is a standalone, or three cards within one expansion. I am not at all concerned about three card combos between two expansions, or two cards between expansions that aren't standalones, except maybe two small sets since you might play them together as a large set. Anyway the point is, how often does this combo come up? The more expansions you're playing with, the less often you see it.

If you see a crazy thing once in a blue moon, I think that's great. If King's Court / Masquerade is a three-card combo, i.e. if you have to specifically have X Y or Z to make it work (okay a 2.8-card combo or whatever), then I think it's just a cool thing. It won't come up often; when it does you can be the person who spotted it and made out. We have a crazy game and then move on to the next one.

King's Court / Masquerade, if it doesn't require a 3rd card, is more common than that, what with Masquerade being in Intrigue. Some people will just own Intrigue and Prosperity. I have nerfed things at that level in playtesting. I don't think I would have put on a "what happens if someone has no cards in hand" clause, as I bet that looks horrible, however it ends up phrased. Probably I would have combined "everyone passes a card left" with different other abilities, or limited what you could trash.

I don't know that the combo is just those two cards though. I haven't done any testing on this since it came up. I have seen a log of King's Court / Masquerade losing, in a game with no Goons/Militia. Obv. some things make the combo better and some things make it worse. Anyway it's somewhere between a 2 and 3 card combo, which puts me somewhere between wishing it were harder to get and being happy with it. Overall, the amount of time it took for someone to post about it on BGG suggests that it is not ruining Dominion for people irl.

Then there is playing online. You set up your game, invite your sucker, beat them up with a subtle combo. You can't really do this irl. "Go away now, I need someone else to beat up with this." Maybe CABS gets enough people. You sure aren't doing it at your kitchen table. You can beat them up with it once, but even then, now you're that guy.

And online, this combo is just a stand-out way to pick on strangers. Just playing a set of 10 random cards repeatedly gives you an edge, and is against the spirit of the game, if you lie about it (it's obv. fine if some people just want to explore a set of 10). King's Court / Masquerade is a subtle trap, but I'm sure you can find less subtle ones that will still sucker some people.

The solution online is to warn people when the game is rigged. That was good to learn and so much for that.

That's where I stand on this exciting issue! I think it's cool that there was a subtle Masquerade combo hiding out; I like exotic stuff like that existing irl and don't think it will be a problem although if it really doesn't require a 3rd card then it's more common than I would like; online it made it clear that you have to be able to see when your opponent is rigging the game.