Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Tweaking Diviner  (Read 14659 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Tweaking Diviner
« on: September 16, 2013, 12:14:19 pm »
+2

Quote
Diviner
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.

While this is in play, when you buy a card, reveal the top 2 cards of your deck, discard any number, and put the rest back on top in any order.

Even before we get to playtesting, there's an issue I have with this card. It's how the card stacks.

Let's say you have 3 of these in play. Even if you only buy 2 cards, that means you're revealing the top 2 cards of your deck six times. That's going to get old fast, and furthermore it's likely to stop doing anything for you after the first few times. Here is my proposed solution:


Quote
Diviner
Types: Action
Cost: $?
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.

When you buy a card, look at 2 cards from your deck per Diviner you have in play. Discard any number of them and put the rest back in any order.

This way you only do the effect once per card you buy, but it still gets more effective when stacked.

Ideally, I'd like to see the effect on this card instead, but it's more of a departure from the original card:

Quote
????
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card. +2 Actions.

When you buy a card, look at 1 card from your deck per ???? you have in play. Discard any number of them and put the rest back in any order.

Hinterlands could use another cheap village anyway and this way it's easy to stack them. In order to get the effect multiple times, you need a different source of +Buy.

Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2013, 12:18:54 pm »
+3

I definitely like your first improved version. The latter one just strikes me as too different, though.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

cluckyb

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 215
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2013, 12:24:03 pm »
+1

One possible issue with the second version is that it that if you have say, four in play, drawing eight cards will likely trigger a reshuffle that you don't want. Or maybe one you do want. But it makes it riskier to play a bunch of diviners because then whatever card you buy will miss a shuffle.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2013, 12:25:02 pm »
0

One possible issue with the second version is that it that if you have say, four in play, drawing eight cards will likely trigger a reshuffle that you don't want. Or maybe one you do want. But it makes it riskier to play a bunch of diviners because then whatever card you buy will miss a shuffle.

Hmm, that's fair. The benefit probably outweighs the detriment, though.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2013, 12:26:14 pm »
+4

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.
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

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1102
  • Respect: +2144
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2013, 12:28:34 pm »
+3

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.
In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2013, 12:31:00 pm »
0

I like your first improvement ok (though it's definitely stronger), but I actually don't think there's anything wrong with the original. The fact that it stacks is part of the reason I voted for it. I don't think it's a problem that you'll just put back the same cards at some point -- at that point, you can stop revealing and putting back, no one is going to ask you to do it 5 extra times when you don't need to.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2013, 12:31:15 pm »
0

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.
In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

What cards show this to be true? The line has always been just for easy reading/clarification, not introducing any new rule. I think you have to say "in games using this" like Duchess does if you want them to behave that way.
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

cluckyb

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 215
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2013, 12:31:38 pm »
0

One possible issue with the second version is that it that if you have say, four in play, drawing eight cards will likely trigger a reshuffle that you don't want. Or maybe one you do want. But it makes it riskier to play a bunch of diviners because then whatever card you buy will miss a shuffle.

Hmm, that's fair. The benefit probably outweighs the detriment, though.

Does revealing eight cards really take that much less time than revealing two cards four times? Or is the concern just that benefit gets lost because you have two cards you want sitting on top of your deck?
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2013, 12:31:50 pm »
0

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.
In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2013, 12:32:56 pm »
0

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.
In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.

Embargo is a good point. I think Duchess is a better example though, and I would add "in games using this." I thought it had been generally agreed that Embargo "should" have an "in games using this" clause, because as worded, it does not play strictly by the rules. And I think Embargo is the only card like that.
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

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2013, 12:33:15 pm »
0

One possible issue with the second version is that it that if you have say, four in play, drawing eight cards will likely trigger a reshuffle that you don't want. Or maybe one you do want. But it makes it riskier to play a bunch of diviners because then whatever card you buy will miss a shuffle.

Hmm, that's fair. The benefit probably outweighs the detriment, though.

Does revealing eight cards really take that much less time than revealing two cards four times? Or is the concern just that benefit gets lost because you have two cards you want sitting on top of your deck?

It's both. Revealing eight cards is faster than revealing two, putting them back, revealing two again, putting them back, revealing two again, putting them back, and revealing two again.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2013, 12:35:36 pm »
0

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.
In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.

Embargo is a good point. I think Duchess is a better example though, and I would add "in games using this." I thought it had been generally agreed that Embargo "should" have an "in games using this" clause, because as worded, it does not play strictly by the rules. And I think Embargo is the only card like that.

Nope. Embargo's rule applies to all games with or without Embargo in them. It's just that you can't get Embargo tokens without Embargo itself. Likewise Diviner's rule can apply to all games with or without Diviner. It just only matters when Diviners are in play.

In games without a Duchess pile, you may not choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. That's why it has "In games using this".
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2013, 12:37:21 pm »
0

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.
In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.

Embargo is a good point. I think Duchess is a better example though, and I would add "in games using this." I thought it had been generally agreed that Embargo "should" have an "in games using this" clause, because as worded, it does not play strictly by the rules. And I think Embargo is the only card like that.

Alternatively, "in games using this" is redundant and unnecessary on Duchess.
Logged

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1102
  • Respect: +2144
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2013, 12:38:45 pm »
+1

Is there any reason that we have "reveal" rather than "look at"?  I think all official Dominion cards have "look at" whenever the revealing is not necessary and the wording is equally simple.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2013, 12:41:43 pm »
0

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.
In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.

Embargo is a good point. I think Duchess is a better example though, and I would add "in games using this." I thought it had been generally agreed that Embargo "should" have an "in games using this" clause, because as worded, it does not play strictly by the rules. And I think Embargo is the only card like that.

Nope. Embargo's rule applies to all games with or without Embargo in them. It's just that you can't get Embargo tokens without Embargo itself. Likewise Diviner's rule can apply to all games with or without Diviner. It just only matters when Diviners are in play.

In games without a Duchess pile, you may not choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. That's why it has "In games using this".

I'm sure there was a long discussion about Embargo here somewhere, in which it was agreed that, like Pirate Ship/Coin Tokens, and Nomad Camp not being an on-buy event, Embargo was a situation where the card is not worded completely correctly as to obey the normal rules of the game. Donald said that with Embargo, it just seems obvious enough that it works how it works. I'm not sure the same can be said for Diviner, because you are dealing with a number of cards in play. One could reasonably expect to get the effect from each Diviner he plays. Seems at least safer to use "In games using this"; I can't think of a downside to it.
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

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2013, 12:43:24 pm »
0

Um, what is the intent of the card? My impression is that the horizontal line is a mistake. If there is no horizontal line, the effect stacks fine as originally written. It is tedious in a SC kind of way, though, which is why I didn't care much for the card. Edit: Sir Peebles makes a good point: you just stop when they are two cards you want.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 01:02:50 pm by Polk5440 »
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2013, 12:54:53 pm »
0

Quote
Diviner
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.

While this is in play, when you buy a card, reveal the top 2 cards of your deck, discard any number, and put the rest back on top in any order.

Even before we get to playtesting, there's an issue I have with this card. It's how the card stacks.

Let's say you have 3 of these in play. Even if you only buy 2 cards, that means you're revealing the top 2 cards of your deck six times. That's going to get old fast, and furthermore it's likely to stop doing anything for you after the first few times.

What if we just add "you may"?
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2013, 12:57:25 pm »
0

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.
In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.

Embargo is a good point. I think Duchess is a better example though, and I would add "in games using this." I thought it had been generally agreed that Embargo "should" have an "in games using this" clause, because as worded, it does not play strictly by the rules. And I think Embargo is the only card like that.

Nope. Embargo's rule applies to all games with or without Embargo in them. It's just that you can't get Embargo tokens without Embargo itself. Likewise Diviner's rule can apply to all games with or without Diviner. It just only matters when Diviners are in play.

In games without a Duchess pile, you may not choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. That's why it has "In games using this".

I'm sure there was a long discussion about Embargo here somewhere, in which it was agreed that, like Pirate Ship/Coin Tokens, and Nomad Camp not being an on-buy event, Embargo was a situation where the card is not worded completely correctly as to obey the normal rules of the game. Donald said that with Embargo, it just seems obvious enough that it works how it works. I'm not sure the same can be said for Diviner, because you are dealing with a number of cards in play. One could reasonably expect to get the effect from each Diviner he plays. Seems at least safer to use "In games using this"; I can't think of a downside to it.

There are two downsides. The first is unnecessary card text. The second is that the card won't work when bought from the Black Market deck.

Duchess says: "In games using this". Looking at the FAQ, that means, "In games with Duchess in the Supply". In games where Duchess is not in the Supply, you cannot choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. Sure, you'd fail to gain that Duchess anyway, but the "In games using this" avoids a meaningless decision.

Conversely, if Embargo and Diviner had "In games using this, their underline text would fail to function when the cards were bought from the Black Market deck.
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2013, 12:58:40 pm »
+7

I don't see why the original card needs that tweak.  Once you decide not to discard cards, then you'll just stop looking at the cards.  The same way as with Spy, when you just tell everyone to leave their Curse on top as you continue along with your turn playing additional Spies.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 01:02:20 pm by SirPeebles »
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2013, 01:04:23 pm »
0

Duchess says: "In games using this". Looking at the FAQ, that means, "In games with Duchess in the Supply". In games where Duchess is not in the Supply, you cannot choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. Sure, you'd fail to gain that Duchess anyway, but the "In games using this" avoids a meaningless decision.

Conversely, if Embargo and Diviner had "In games using this, their underline text would fail to function when the cards were bought from the Black Market deck.

I think that's a perverse interpretation of "in games using this". The job of the FAQ for Duchess is to clarify what Duchess does, not what the terms used on the card mean in general.

I'm getting more convinced that Duchess would behave the exact same way if it didn't say "in games using this".
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2013, 01:05:44 pm »
0

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.
In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.

Embargo is a good point. I think Duchess is a better example though, and I would add "in games using this." I thought it had been generally agreed that Embargo "should" have an "in games using this" clause, because as worded, it does not play strictly by the rules. And I think Embargo is the only card like that.

Nope. Embargo's rule applies to all games with or without Embargo in them. It's just that you can't get Embargo tokens without Embargo itself. Likewise Diviner's rule can apply to all games with or without Diviner. It just only matters when Diviners are in play.

In games without a Duchess pile, you may not choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. That's why it has "In games using this".

I'm sure there was a long discussion about Embargo here somewhere, in which it was agreed that, like Pirate Ship/Coin Tokens, and Nomad Camp not being an on-buy event, Embargo was a situation where the card is not worded completely correctly as to obey the normal rules of the game. Donald said that with Embargo, it just seems obvious enough that it works how it works. I'm not sure the same can be said for Diviner, because you are dealing with a number of cards in play. One could reasonably expect to get the effect from each Diviner he plays. Seems at least safer to use "In games using this"; I can't think of a downside to it.

There are two downsides. The first is unnecessary card text. The second is that the card won't work when bought from the Black Market deck.

Duchess says: "In games using this". Looking at the FAQ, that means, "In games with Duchess in the Supply". In games where Duchess is not in the Supply, you cannot choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. Sure, you'd fail to gain that Duchess anyway, but the "In games using this" avoids a meaningless decision.

Conversely, if Embargo and Diviner had "In games using this, their underline text would fail to function when the cards were bought from the Black Market deck.

Good point. I guess "In games using this" isn't an option. I still do think that just borrowing from Embargo here would lead to confusion, as Embargo itself has been questioned in terms of why it works with the rules. At least with Embargo it's extremely obvious, because the rule isn't tied to having played an Embargo that turn in any way. The text pretty clearly just defines what an "embargo token" does.

In this case, the text is tied to having Diviner in play, because it references the number you have in play and does nothing if it's not in play. This makes it much less obvious than Embargo that it's adding a general rule to the entire game as opposed to describing what the card does. I still believe that there's no rule in Dominion at all that says that the horizontal line means anything. If I remember correctly, different translations of the game don't use the line consistently. It's just there as a helpful reminder, not as any rule. So how is a player to know that the "when you buy a card" isn't attached to the Diviner that they just played?
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

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2013, 01:09:13 pm »
0

Duchess says: "In games using this". Looking at the FAQ, that means, "In games with Duchess in the Supply". In games where Duchess is not in the Supply, you cannot choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. Sure, you'd fail to gain that Duchess anyway, but the "In games using this" avoids a meaningless decision.

Conversely, if Embargo and Diviner had "In games using this, their underline text would fail to function when the cards were bought from the Black Market deck.

I think that's a perverse interpretation of "in games using this". The job of the FAQ for Duchess is to clarify what Duchess does, not what the terms used on the card mean in general.

I'm getting more convinced that Duchess would behave the exact same way if it didn't say "in games using this".

Sure, because the decision would me meaningless. You could decide to gain a Duchess, but you would fail to do so.

However, lets say you have another card that changes the rules of the game when its Supply pile is out. Maybe when a certain Supply pile is out, the game doesn't end when the Provinces are exhausted. How would you phrase that text? "When this card's Supply pile is in the Supply?" Yuck. Would that cease to function when they were bought out? No, you'd use "In games using this".
Logged

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1102
  • Respect: +2144
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2013, 01:09:38 pm »
+2

I still believe that there's no rule in Dominion at all that says that the horizontal line means anything. If I remember correctly, different translations of the game don't use the line consistently. It's just there as a helpful reminder, not as any rule.
It is not in the rules, but Donald X. has talked about it before: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/8150227#8150227.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2013, 01:13:39 pm »
0

Good point. I guess "In games using this" isn't an option. I still do think that just borrowing from Embargo here would lead to confusion, as Embargo itself has been questioned in terms of why it works with the rules. At least with Embargo it's extremely obvious, because the rule isn't tied to having played an Embargo that turn in any way. The text pretty clearly just defines what an "embargo token" does.

In this case, the text is tied to having Diviner in play, because it references the number you have in play and does nothing if it's not in play. This makes it much less obvious than Embargo that it's adding a general rule to the entire game as opposed to describing what the card does. I still believe that there's no rule in Dominion at all that says that the horizontal line means anything. If I remember correctly, different translations of the game don't use the line consistently. It's just there as a helpful reminder, not as any rule. So how is a player to know that the "when you buy a card" isn't attached to the Diviner that they just played?

Hmm, that's a valid point. It doesn't say "this turn", that's part of it.

I can't think of a better way to word such an effect, though.
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3846
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2437
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2013, 01:30:22 pm »
0

I'm going to agree with Sir Peebles that this card doesn't need to stack, at least not in a see-8-cards-at-once kind of way. Of course, play testing can confirm or deny that. Either way, it gets really confusing if this stacks with the number of diviners in play, as opposed to stacking with multiple buys. If it only stacks with buys, you can say "if you have at least 1 diviner in play...".

Hmm... Still sounds weird. I cast my ballot fully expecting this to play out like spy when it hits cards you don't want to discard. That seems fine. Gosh, we should have talked about this one earlier if we noticed the rules confusion.
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #26 on: September 16, 2013, 01:32:07 pm »
+1

I'm going to agree with Sir Peebles that this card doesn't need to stack, at least not in a see-8-cards-at-once kind of way. Of course, play testing can confirm or deny that. Either way, it gets really confusing if this stacks with the number of diviners in play, as opposed to stacking with multiple buys. If it only stacks with buys, you can say "if you have at least 1 diviner in play...".

Hmm... Still sounds weird. I cast my ballot fully expecting this to play out like spy when it hits cards you don't want to discard. That seems fine. Gosh, we should have talked about this one earlier if we noticed the rules confusion.

I think the rules confusion is only in LastFootnote's proposed tweak -- the original doesn't have any rules issues as far as I can tell.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #27 on: September 16, 2013, 01:41:07 pm »
0

Duchess says: "In games using this". Looking at the FAQ, that means, "In games with Duchess in the Supply". In games where Duchess is not in the Supply, you cannot choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. Sure, you'd fail to gain that Duchess anyway, but the "In games using this" avoids a meaningless decision.

Conversely, if Embargo and Diviner had "In games using this, their underline text would fail to function when the cards were bought from the Black Market deck.

I think that's a perverse interpretation of "in games using this". The job of the FAQ for Duchess is to clarify what Duchess does, not what the terms used on the card mean in general.

I'm getting more convinced that Duchess would behave the exact same way if it didn't say "in games using this".

Sure, because the decision would me meaningless. You could decide to gain a Duchess, but you would fail to do so.

Yes, that's why.

Quote
However, lets say you have another card that changes the rules of the game when its Supply pile is out. Maybe when a certain Supply pile is out, the game doesn't end when the Provinces are exhausted. How would you phrase that text? "When this card's Supply pile is in the Supply?" Yuck. Would that cease to function when they were bought out? No, you'd use "In games using this".

The thing is, if a card is in the Black Market deck, the game is still "using it".
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3846
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2437
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #28 on: September 16, 2013, 01:46:32 pm »
0

I'm going to agree with Sir Peebles that this card doesn't need to stack, at least not in a see-8-cards-at-once kind of way. Of course, play testing can confirm or deny that. Either way, it gets really confusing if this stacks with the number of diviners in play, as opposed to stacking with multiple buys. If it only stacks with buys, you can say "if you have at least 1 diviner in play...".

Hmm... Still sounds weird. I cast my ballot fully expecting this to play out like spy when it hits cards you don't want to discard. That seems fine. Gosh, we should have talked about this one earlier if we noticed the rules confusion.

I think the rules confusion is only in LastFootnote's proposed tweak -- the original doesn't have any rules issues as far as I can tell.
The original is fine so long as you can introduce a resolving order. I guess that's fine. Other cards require resolving order too (Watchtower, talisman, Royal Seal).
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2013, 02:25:13 pm »
+1

I've been convinced that the original wording is fine, or at least that it should be tested to see if my fears are founded. Part of my issue is that resolving the effect 6 times would be incredibly annoying in an online implementation, but perhaps that shouldn't be a consideration for these cards. In real life, you can obviously stop looking at the top 2 cards once you're happy with them.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2013, 02:58:23 pm »
0

I feel like there are already too many cards with synonymous names like Oracle, Fortune Teller, and Soothsayer. Is there something less confusing (and more Hinterlandsy) we can call this than "Diviner"?
Logged

jamespotter

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
  • Respect: +45
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2013, 03:02:16 pm »
+1

Two things I missed when designing the card were the fact that it probably should be look at, not reveal, and it should say "While this is in play, when you buy a card, you may..." That would make it work with the online interface, too, addressing your concern, LastFootNote, as you could just click "no" a bunch of times, ending the sequence. I am totally open to a name change, I just lack the creativity to come up with something better.
Logged

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3347
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2013, 03:35:58 pm »
+1

I've been convinced that the original wording is fine, or at least that it should be tested to see if my fears are founded. Part of my issue is that resolving the effect 6 times would be incredibly annoying in an online implementation, but perhaps that shouldn't be a consideration for these cards. In real life, you can obviously stop looking at the top 2 cards once you're happy with them.

The obvious online solution is just to have an extra 'don't look again' option if you put the two cards back which you look at, until something would change with regards to your deck. Whether the obvious solution is the best one, though, would remain to be seen.

[insert joke about obvious solutions and Goko here]
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.

achmed_sender

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 234
  • Shuffle iT Username: achmedsender
  • Respect: +202
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2013, 03:41:43 pm »
+4

First read "Twerking Diviner" and was shocked that Miley Cyrus already arrived at the Dominion forum...
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2013, 05:20:11 pm »
+2

First read "Twerking Diviner" and was shocked that Miley Cyrus already arrived at the Dominion forum...

james did say he was open to a new name.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

NoMoreFun

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2006
  • Respect: +2110
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #35 on: September 19, 2013, 03:38:23 am »
+2

The card makes good use of +buy, but I'm worried that we've now exhausted the set's quota of cards with +buy.
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1886
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #36 on: September 19, 2013, 08:10:51 am »
0

My issue with the proposed wording is, it's worded the exact same way as Goons, but works differently. With Goons, you follow the instruction once, separately, for each Goons in play, but for this, you're suggesting for an identical trigger condition to apply at different (or less in this case) times.
Logged

nopawnsintended

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
  • Respect: +186
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2013, 10:40:26 am »
+2

I feel like there are already too many cards with synonymous names like Oracle, Fortune Teller, and Soothsayer. Is there something less confusing (and more Hinterlandsy) we can call this than "Diviner"?

Just throwing ideas until they stick.  Most of these are bad.  They come in 3 categories.

Ideas that capture the forecasting element of the card: Folksy Weatherman.  Fertilizer.  "See" Urchin.  Forecaster.
Ideas that capture the buy element of the card: Salesman. Tradesman.  Time Merchant. 
Ideas that take inspiration from elsewhere: Time Lord. Consulting Detective (world's only).  Man of Science.  Man of Faith.

Or, we could just go with "Tweaking Diviner."  I like that change.

Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2013, 10:53:29 am »
+2

After some thought,  I feel like Diviner fits Seaside more than Hinterlands.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2013, 11:37:08 am »
0

Ideas that capture the forecasting element of the card: Folksy Weatherman.  Fertilizer.  "See" Urchin.  Forecaster.
Ideas that capture the buy element of the card: Salesman. Tradesman.  Time Merchant. 

If Dominion weren't medieval in theme, I'd suggest something like Stock Trader: someone who buys things, and has to keep aware of upcoming trends in the market.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #40 on: September 21, 2013, 12:17:31 pm »
0

After some thought,  I feel like Diviner fits Seaside more than Hinterlands.

That's fair, but Seaside has Navigator, which is somewhat similar.
Logged

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1102
  • Respect: +2144
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2013, 12:25:21 pm »
0

After some thought,  I feel like Diviner fits Seaside more than Hinterlands.
I think it would be weird having two cards with identical on-play effects in the same set (Diviner and Wharf), even if they play out differently.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #42 on: September 21, 2013, 12:48:03 pm »
+3

I feel like there are already too many cards with synonymous names like Oracle, Fortune Teller, and Soothsayer. Is there something less confusing (and more Hinterlandsy) we can call this than "Diviner"?

Just throwing ideas until they stick.  Most of these are bad.  They come in 3 categories.

Ideas that capture the forecasting element of the card: Folksy Weatherman.  Fertilizer.  "See" Urchin.  Forecaster.
Ideas that capture the buy element of the card: Salesman. Tradesman.  Time Merchant. 
Ideas that take inspiration from elsewhere: Time Lord. Consulting Detective (world's only).  Man of Science.  Man of Faith.

Or, we could just go with "Tweaking Diviner."  I like that change.



Time Lord conflicts with Doctor, though.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #43 on: September 21, 2013, 12:57:45 pm »
0

After some thought,  I feel like Diviner fits Seaside more than Hinterlands.

That's fair, but Seaside has Navigator, which is somewhat similar.

Anyway, most sets have cards that seem like they could fit into other sets. Scheme could be a Seaside card, Explorer could be a Hinterlands card, Knights could be a Cornucopia card, and so forth. The on-buy effect of Diviner makes it more Hinterlandsy than, say, Spice Merchant or Highway. (The only on-buy effect in Seaside is Embargo!)
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2013, 09:50:50 pm »
+3

A more modern version of "Diviner" could be "Consultant".  But that's too anachronistic, so shorten it to Sultan. ;)
Logged

nopawnsintended

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
  • Respect: +186
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2013, 11:11:08 pm »
+1

I feel like there are already too many cards with synonymous names like Oracle, Fortune Teller, and Soothsayer. Is there something less confusing (and more Hinterlandsy) we can call this than "Diviner"?

Just throwing ideas until they stick.  Most of these are bad.  They come in 3 categories.

Ideas that capture the forecasting element of the card: Folksy Weatherman.  Fertilizer.  "See" Urchin.  Forecaster.
Ideas that capture the buy element of the card: Salesman. Tradesman.  Time Merchant. 
Ideas that take inspiration from elsewhere: Time Lord. Consulting Detective (world's only).  Man of Science.  Man of Faith.

Or, we could just go with "Tweaking Diviner."  I like that change.



Time Lord conflicts with Doctor, though.

Doctor?!?  Doctor Who?  Actually, the Time Lord card must have the ability to regenerate into an entirely new card... scratch that idea.
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #46 on: September 22, 2013, 10:19:19 am »
+5

I feel like there are already too many cards with synonymous names like Oracle, Fortune Teller, and Soothsayer. Is there something less confusing (and more Hinterlandsy) we can call this than "Diviner"?

Just throwing ideas until they stick.  Most of these are bad.  They come in 3 categories.

Ideas that capture the forecasting element of the card: Folksy Weatherman.  Fertilizer.  "See" Urchin.  Forecaster.
Ideas that capture the buy element of the card: Salesman. Tradesman.  Time Merchant. 
Ideas that take inspiration from elsewhere: Time Lord. Consulting Detective (world's only).  Man of Science.  Man of Faith.

Or, we could just go with "Tweaking Diviner."  I like that change.



Time Lord conflicts with Doctor, though.

Doctor?!?  Doctor Who?  Actually, the Time Lord card must have the ability to regenerate into an entirely new card... scratch that idea.

...Into a Madman with a box?
Logged

jamespotter

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
  • Respect: +45
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking Diviner
« Reply #47 on: September 22, 2013, 12:29:46 pm »
+3

Here are my proposed changes: Raise the price to $4, add "you may" to the reveal clause, change reveal to "look at", and change the name to Adept (like a Temple Adept).

New proposed card to be playtested:

Adept
Action $4
+2 cards
+1 buy

While this is in play, when you buy a card, you may look at the top 2 cards of your deck, discard any number, and put the rest back in any order.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All]
 

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 20 queries.