Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  All

Author Topic: Revised versions of published cards  (Read 21422 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8497
    • View Profile
Revised versions of published cards
« on: December 11, 2013, 12:52:29 pm »
+8

Since I mocked these up for my own IRL set, I thought I might as well post them here. Just a few Dominion Time Machine changes.



Manor replaces Harem.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 01:43:42 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7732
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +8608
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2013, 01:35:21 pm »
+1

Scrying Pool doesn't need fixing. I rather like annoying people by playing several in a row.
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/

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8497
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2013, 01:36:45 pm »
+1

Scrying Pool doesn't need fixing. I rather like annoying people by playing several in a row.

That's cool, man. I'm not trying to force people to adopt these. They're just here in case you want them.
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1640
  • Respect: +1636
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2013, 02:05:23 pm »
0

I'm with you on removing the Spy from Scry (or at the very least, the spy on other's decks). Spying could be dropped from Duchess, too.

Logged

AHoppy

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 978
  • Respect: +525
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2013, 02:11:21 pm »
+4

DXV even said he would change SP to not have the spying if he had to go back and change something (Not looking it up, I'm lazy).  And if you remove that bit from Duchess, it's literally just a terminal silver...  I kinda like it on Duchess, especially because while it seems pretty good for you, it also helps out your opponent.

A Drowned Kernel

  • 2015 World Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1059
  • They can't all be the best personal text ever
  • Respect: +1911
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2013, 02:15:17 pm »
+6

I think SP should still have the self-spy, though. It's the attack that's mostly unnecessary and annoying.
Logged
The perfect engine
But it will never go off
Three piles are empty

twitch.tv/a_drowned_kernel

zporiri

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
  • Shuffle iT Username: zporiri
  • Go, and do likewise.
  • Respect: +130
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2013, 02:48:03 pm »
+2

<insert joke here about guide being way too over-powered since scout is already one of the best cards>
Logged
Go, and do likewise.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8497
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2013, 02:58:28 pm »
0

I think SP should still have the self-spy, though. It's the attack that's mostly unnecessary and annoying.

Yes, I did it this way because that was how the card originally was. If it turns out to be super-weak without the self-Spy, I may add it. Otherwise I'll stick with the simpler version.
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1788
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1786
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2013, 03:02:52 pm »
+2

How about Throne Room and Moneylender that either say may, or have the "(or reveal a hand with no)"?
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8497
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2013, 03:13:54 pm »
+2

How about Throne Room and Moneylender that either say may, or have the "(or reveal a hand with no)"?

And Mine. People forget about Mine. I'll do those when I get the chance. Odds are I won't change their names, though, since the effect will be almost identical.

EDIT: (Oh, and they will say, "You may." Having to reveal a hand without is wordier and clunkier, and the cards won't mind the tiny buff.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 03:41:24 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6322
  • Respect: +6814
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2013, 04:06:49 pm »
+2

How about Throne Room and Moneylender that either say may, or have the "(or reveal a hand with no)"?

And Mine. People forget about Mine. I'll do those when I get the chance. Odds are I won't change their names, though, since the effect will be almost identical.

EDIT: (Oh, and they will say, "You may." Having to reveal a hand without is wordier and clunkier, and the cards won't mind the tiny buff.

Don't forgot Graverobber. And I'm pretty sure there's at least 1 or 2 others...
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

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8497
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2013, 04:29:42 pm »
+2

Don't forgot Graverobber.

I didn't forget Graverobber so much as purposefully omit it and hope nobody noticed. Adding a "you may" to Graverobber's second option would make the wording really awkward. I guess it could just say, "You may choose one:" For all practical purposes, if they pick the second choice and then opt not to trash an Action card, they are effectively picking neither choice.

And I'm pretty sure there's at least 1 or 2 others...

Actually, I don't think so. Moneylender, Throne Room, Mine, and Graverobber are the only cards I usually think of as having accountability issues.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 04:31:11 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3153
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2310
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2013, 04:42:39 pm »
+4

Treasure Map!
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8497
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2013, 04:55:27 pm »
0

Treasure Map!

Good call, but rewording Treasure Map is not high on my priority list. Like, the number of situations in which you buy Treasure Maps and then play one with another one in hand that you opt not to trash, while perhaps nonzero, is pretty damn small.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 04:57:03 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6322
  • Respect: +6814
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2013, 04:58:30 pm »
+3

Don't forgot Graverobber.

I didn't forget Graverobber so much as purposefully omit it and hope nobody noticed. Adding a "you may" to Graverobber's second option would make the wording really awkward. I guess it could just say, "You may choose one:" For all practical purposes, if they pick the second choice and then opt not to trash an Action card, they are effectively picking neither choice.


But there's no room for "all practical purposes" in the ultra-pedantic world of F.DS! I don't really see anything wrong with "you may" on the second choice. You choose choice #2, at which point you choose if you want to do the "you may" or not.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 05:03:19 pm by GendoIkari »
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

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6322
  • Respect: +6814
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2013, 05:02:45 pm »
+3

Treasure Map!

Good call, but rewording Treasure Map is not high on my priority list. Like, the number of situations in which you buy Treasure Maps and then play one with another one in hand that you opt not to trash, while perhaps nonzero, is pretty damn small.

When you are forced to play one with double-Throne Room / Smithy, and you have 3 in your hand, not 2. You only want to trash 2 of them, not all 3. Of course you're fixing Throne Room, but then, what happens when that comes up? You have to choose; Trash all 3 for the Golds, or keep all 3 for more Golds later?

Or, perhaps it's late game and you've never been able to connect them. You have a bunch of Fairgrounds, and already at least 1 Gold. You want to trash a Treasure Map to remove a basically dead card from your deck, but you need to keep the other one around for Fairgrounds.

Ok, I'll stop now.
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

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1163
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2013, 04:05:44 am »
0

As LFN said, nonzero, but minimal.
Logged

ta56636

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
  • Respect: +18
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2013, 04:41:21 am »
0

Nice, but I probably prefer the change to Scout where you add +1 VP (or possibly even +2) and make it an action-victory (I saw this somewhere here): then it has a nice self synergising feature.
Logged

ta56636

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
  • Respect: +18
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2013, 04:46:28 am »
0

PS As someone who quite often plays 4 player games, I'd be looking quite closely at cutpurse, saboteur and torturer (played a few horrible games with each of those...)

Adventurer would be a nice card to buff too...
Logged

Matt_Arnold

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
  • Designed the DS masthead & councilroom.com art.
  • Respect: +37
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2013, 01:27:11 pm »
0

Nice, but I probably prefer the change to Scout where you add +1 VP (or possibly even +2) and make it an action-victory (I saw this somewhere here): then it has a nice self synergising feature.
That was mine; thanks. Personally even if it were just a Victory card that gives you 0 VP, like Overgrown Estate, or if the card just said "Victory cards or Scouts", I would still like this change.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9559
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +9322
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2013, 01:48:58 pm »
+3

Nice, but I probably prefer the change to Scout where you add +1 VP (or possibly even +2) and make it an action-victory (I saw this somewhere here): then it has a nice self synergising feature.
That was mine; thanks.
Mine
$5 Action - Victory
Trash a Treasure card from your hand. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $3 more; put it into your hand.
_________
Worth 1 VP (or possibly even 2)

Matt_Arnold

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
  • Designed the DS masthead & councilroom.com art.
  • Respect: +37
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2013, 02:05:47 pm »
+1

Nice, but I probably prefer the change to Scout where you add +1 VP (or possibly even +2) and make it an action-victory (I saw this somewhere here): then it has a nice self synergising feature.
That was mine; thanks. Personally even if it were just a Victory card that gives you 0 VP, like Overgrown Estate, or if the card just said "Victory cards or Scouts", I would still like this change.
Mine
$5 Action - Victory
Trash a Treasure card from your hand. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $3 more; put it into your hand.
_________
Worth 1 VP (or possibly even 2)
Fixed that for you:
Mine
$5 Action - Victory
Victory cards or Scouts. Trash a Treasure card from your hand, or reveal a hand with no Treasure. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $3 more; put it into your hand.
_________
Worth 0 VP (or possibly even 1 or 2)
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8497
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2013, 01:36:54 pm »
+6

Nice, but I probably prefer the change to Scout where you add +1 VP (or possibly even +2) and make it an action-victory (I saw this somewhere here): then it has a nice self synergising feature.

I strongly prefer my version and I'll tell you why. First of all, I do not consider self-synergy to be a desirable trait for a card to have. It may not be inherently undesirable, but I can't think of the last time I thought, "Oh, good, a Minion/Governor board! My favorite!" Second, giving Scout 1 VP steps on Great Hall's toes, and giving it 2 VP eclipses Great Hall almost completely.

I think giving it +$1 brings it up to an appropriate power level without changing what the card does. Imagine if Bishop were published without +$1. We'd have been all like, "Oh, this card is cool!" And then after playing it for a while and losing, we'd say, "Oh, this isn't so hot after all. I can't trash Copper without hurting my buying power this turn. Lame."

Are there other, more interesting fixes for Scout? Sure, probably. But we forget that Scout is already a pretty unique card. Nothing else really does what Scout does. It just doesn't seem fancy to us because it's been around forever and it's weak. I don't think it needs more bells and whistles. It's already fairly compelling; new players open with it all the time. It just needs to not be so terrible.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 986
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +680
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #23 on: December 15, 2013, 05:21:27 pm »
0

Lookout
Action
Cost $3
Look at top 3 deck cards, discard one, topdeck one, and either discard, topdeck, or trash the third. If you trash a card, +1 action.

(This is my casual wording. I guess you probablly wouldn't use the verb "topdeck" in an official wording, but this makes it shorter.)

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3124
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +1676
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2013, 08:50:29 pm »
0

Lookout
Action
Cost $3
Look at top 3 deck cards, discard one, topdeck one, and either discard, topdeck, or trash the third. If you trash a card, +1 action.

(This is my casual wording. I guess you probablly wouldn't use the verb "topdeck" in an official wording, but this makes it shorter.)
Safe-trashing Lookout is for wimps!

In all seriousness, this seems like a reasonable fix, although personally I imagine that I'd be willing to trash good cards late game to avoid the "terminal Tournament" problem. That's just me.

Edit: With this card, I still think the correct move will be to not play it in the mid-late-game to late-game. It doesn't affect much, really.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 09:01:59 pm by markusin »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  All
 

Page created in 0.1 seconds with 20 queries.