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 21373 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • 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: 7726
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +8593
    • 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: +8493
    • 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: 1636
  • Respect: +1633
    • 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: +8493
    • 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: +8493
    • 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
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6321
  • Respect: +6813
    • 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: +8493
    • 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: 3151
  • 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: +8493
    • 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
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6321
  • Respect: +6813
    • 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
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6321
  • Respect: +6813
    • 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: 9546
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9308
    • 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: +8493
    • 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: 3122
  • 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

Warfreak2

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1149
  • KC->KC->[Scavenger, Scavenger, Lookout]
  • Respect: +1320
    • View Profile
    • Music what I do
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2013, 05:53:20 am »
+2

People don't have a problem with just not playing Chapel in the midgame, why is Lookout different? OK, occasionally you get a freak early play where it sees two Familiars and a Silver, but is that much worse than getting your Sea Hag Sea Hagged?
Logged
If the only engine on the board is Procession->Conspirator, I will play it.

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2013, 09:40:12 am »
+2

People don't have a problem with just not playing Chapel in the midgame, why is Lookout different? OK, occasionally you get a freak early play where it sees two Familiars and a Silver, but is that much worse than getting your Sea Hag Sea Hagged?

Yes. Discard a Familiar and trash a Silver is much worse than discard a Sea Hag.
Logged

Warfreak2

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1149
  • KC->KC->[Scavenger, Scavenger, Lookout]
  • Respect: +1320
    • View Profile
    • Music what I do
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2013, 11:39:50 am »
+1

And much, much less likely. I meant, is the risk of it happening much worse? Risk is a product of the negative consequences and the likelihood of those consequences.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 11:41:28 am by Warfreak2 »
Logged
If the only engine on the board is Procession->Conspirator, I will play it.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9097
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #28 on: December 16, 2013, 07:16:38 pm »
+1

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.

Why wouldn't you play it?  The only reasons I can think of are limited actions and shuffle/cycling control, which isn't that much different from early game.  I think official Lookout is fine as is and making it safer also makes it much less interesting.
Logged

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #29 on: December 17, 2013, 07:42:01 am »
0

Why wouldn't you play it?  The only reasons I can think of are limited actions and shuffle/cycling control, which isn't that much different from early game.  I think official Lookout is fine as is and making it safer also makes it much less interesting.

Moreover, weighing likelyhood and effect on the game, the worst about Lookout is how often it can miss Estates and miss Reshuffles in the early game, making the trashing extremely slow. The only good part about Lookout instead of Chapel is that, since you need to play Lookout many more times to trash down, bad trashing luck with Lookout is usually less extreme than bad trashing luck with Chapel.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
  • Respect: +3307
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #30 on: December 17, 2013, 09:12:18 am »
+1

There is no one forcing you to play Lookout, so when you play it, you're responsible for the risk you take.

If you happen to see "Familiar, Familiar, Silver", that's not so disastrous. When you have at least 2 Familiars and your opponent has a couple, Curses will run out pretty quickly anyway, so I might trash a Familiar here if it isn't going to deal out an extra Curse.

Also, with this selection, you might have opened Lookout/Potion which isn't the best for getting early Familiars so you've already gotten a bit lucky to be able to get 2 so quickly with your less than ideal opening.

This is all just to say: Lookout doesn't need a fix for its forced trashing, if anything it'd be fun to be able put one of the "looked-at" (not revealed mind you) cards in your hand, but that bumps it to $4 at least, maybe a mediocre $5.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #31 on: December 17, 2013, 09:38:28 am »
+1

This is all just to say: Lookout doesn't need a fix for its forced trashing, if anything it'd be fun to be able put one of the "looked-at" (not revealed mind you) cards in your hand, but that bumps it to $4 at least, maybe a mediocre $5.

I would say its a good $5, better than Junk Dealer for trashing your opening cards, which is not bad.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6321
  • Respect: +6813
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #32 on: December 17, 2013, 09:55:09 am »
+2

There is no one forcing you to play Lookout,

Throne Room and Golem are forcing me to play 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

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6869
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +8853
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #33 on: December 17, 2013, 10:09:21 am »
0

There is no one forcing you to play Lookout,

Throne Room and Golem are forcing me to play it.  :(

Buying Golem with forced trashers in your deck is begging for trouble.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #34 on: December 17, 2013, 10:09:56 am »
+5

Buying Golem with forced trashers in your deck is begging for trouble.

Beggar is not a forced trasher.
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3122
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +1676
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #35 on: December 17, 2013, 10:20:53 am »
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.

Why wouldn't you play it?  The only reasons I can think of are limited actions and shuffle/cycling control, which isn't that much different from early game.  I think official Lookout is fine as is and making it safer also makes it much less interesting.
Limited actions can be a pretty big deal sometimes. If I'm buying Lookout, I'm usually counting on it being non-terminal. If I do have spare actions, well then okay I'll play the Lookout, but it's really a gimped Navigator if you don't trash anything.
Logged

Warfreak2

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1149
  • KC->KC->[Scavenger, Scavenger, Lookout]
  • Respect: +1320
    • View Profile
    • Music what I do
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #36 on: December 18, 2013, 06:56:25 am »
+2

Also, with this selection, you might have opened Lookout/Potion which isn't the best for getting early Familiars so you've already gotten a bit lucky to be able to get 2 so quickly with your less than ideal opening.
Or Lookout/Squire. :-D
Logged
If the only engine on the board is Procession->Conspirator, I will play it.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 986
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +680
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2014, 01:13:11 am »
0

Quote
Harvest
$5 - Treasure

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put them back in the order they were in.  +$1 per differently named card revealed.

Why didn't they make Harvest as a treasure card in the first place?

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2014, 11:26:55 am »
0

Quote
Harvest
$5 - Treasure

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put them back in the order they were in.  +$1 per differently named card revealed.

Why didn't they make Harvest as a treasure card in the first place?

While not strictly better than Gold, that will usually be a Treasure worth at least $3 for $5.

If I were to try to fix Harvest, I'd do this:

Quote
Harvest
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put one of them back and discard the rest. +$1 per differently named card revealed.
Logged

qmech

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1915
  • Shuffle iT Username: qmech
  • What year is it?
  • Respect: +2288
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #39 on: January 06, 2014, 12:09:17 pm »
0

Buying Golem with forced trashers in your deck is begging for trouble.

Beggar is not a forced trasher.

I'd avoid buying Golem and Beggar together either.
Logged

Warfreak2

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1149
  • KC->KC->[Scavenger, Scavenger, Lookout]
  • Respect: +1320
    • View Profile
    • Music what I do
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #40 on: January 06, 2014, 12:13:06 pm »
+1

Nah, Golem/Beggar is a big combo, Golems become terminal +$6 and still skip over the Coppers. The trouble is buying enough Golems, so you need an Alchemy reprint of Beggar that gains three Potions to your hand.
Logged
If the only engine on the board is Procession->Conspirator, I will play it.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9546
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9308
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #41 on: January 06, 2014, 12:19:46 pm »
0

Nah, Golem/Beggar is a big combo, Golems become terminal +$6 and still skip over the Coppers. The trouble is buying enough Golems, so you need an Alchemy reprint of Beggar that gains three Potions to your hand.
How flavorful!

LibraryAdventurer

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 986
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +680
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #42 on: January 06, 2014, 11:23:24 pm »
0

Quote
Harvest
$5 - Treasure

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put them back in the order they were in.  +$1 per differently named card revealed.
Why didn't they make Harvest as a treasure card in the first place?

While not strictly better than Gold, that will usually be a Treasure worth at least $3 for $5.

If I were to try to fix Harvest, I'd do this:

Quote
Harvest
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put one of them back and discard the rest. +$1 per differently named card revealed.

Yeah, I guess my suggestion doesn't work.  Yours would work better, but I still think it should be a treasure card.  I guess I could just make it like this:
Quote
Harvest
$5 - Treasure

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put them back in the order they were in.  If all revealed cards are differently named then this is worth $4, otherwise this is worth $2.

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3849
  • Respect: +4060
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2014, 12:51:40 pm »
0

I would probably have scout give +1 Card instead of the money. Before the revealing, though (we don't want to be too generous).

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2014, 01:02:59 pm »
+1

I would probably have scout give +1 Card instead of the money. Before the revealing, though (we don't want to be too generous).

That makes it too similar to Cartographer and probably puts it on roughly the same power level as well. On a non-terminal card, every +1 Card is a huge buff. +$1 is much less drastic while still being significant.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 986
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +680
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #45 on: January 08, 2014, 12:08:54 am »
0

Suggestion for another card:
Quote
Transmute
$1p - Action
Trash a card from your hand.  If it is an…  Action card, gain a victory card costing up to $5; Treasure card, gain a transmute; Victory card, gain a Gold. | If you trashed a treasure and have a second transmute in your hand, you may reveal it.  If you do, you may gain any action card costing up to $5 or $2p instead of another transmute.
Alternatively, I might use this without the potion cost as cost $3 or $4.

Edit: Wow, I didn't realize how wordy that was at first.  Maybe this instead:
Quote
Transmute
$1p - Action
Trash a card from your hand.  If it is an…  Action card, gain a victory card costing up to $5; Treasure card, gain an action card costing up to 4 or 1p; Victory card, gain a Gold.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 01:08:09 am by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
  • Respect: +882
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2014, 01:03:54 am »
+1

Transmute:
Action - $P
(Same as before)
---
When you buy this, +2 Buys

Logged

Nic

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 138
  • Respect: +85
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #47 on: January 08, 2014, 01:31:33 am »
+1

Suggestion for another card:
Quote
Transmute
$1p - Action
Trash a card from your hand.  If it is an…  Action card, gain a victory card costing up to $5; Treasure card, gain a transmute; Victory card, gain a Gold. | If you trashed a treasure and have a second transmute in your hand, you may reveal it.  If you do, you may gain any action card costing up to $5 or $2p instead of another transmute.
Alternatively, I might use this without the potion cost as cost $3 or $4.

Also, revealing a card in response to an event to shouldn't be part of the action. You should phrase it like Trader.
Quote
Transmute
$1p - Action - Reaction

Trash a card from your hand.  If it is an… 
Action card, gain a victory card costing up to $5;
Treasure card, gain a Transmute;
Victory card, gain a Gold.
When you would gain a Transmute, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, instead, gain any action card costing up to $2p.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #48 on: January 08, 2014, 08:47:40 am »
0

Transmute is like Philosopher's Stone: perfectly good in a game with a few other Potion cards. Since I nearly always play with 2 sets at a time, I have no desire to change it. I think NoMoreFun's idea is cool, though. If you're going to have a card give +Buys when you buy it, a cheap Potion-cost card is a perfect fit. I don't think Transmute needs that change, but I would not complain if it happened.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 11:03:11 am by LastFootnote »
Logged

Holger

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Respect: +183
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #49 on: January 09, 2014, 10:57:00 am »
0

I would probably have scout give +1 Card instead of the money. Before the revealing, though (we don't want to be too generous).

That makes it too similar to Cartographer and probably puts it on roughly the same power level as well. On a non-terminal card, every +1 Card is a huge buff. +$1 is much less drastic while still being significant.

But Scout would still not skip Coppers, Curses and other junk like Cartographer does. I think this buff would "only" make it a strong $4 card, at about Caravan's level. A probably smaller (and IMO more interesting) buff would be to draw a card only if Scout fails to reveal green cards, as was sometime suggested in an older thread.

Personally, I'd like to buff Scout by making it also skip Coppers and Curses; this seems most thematic to me. Since drawing Coppers would be too strong, I'd just add "You may discard all revealed cards costing $0." to the card text before the last sentence.
(This would make it similar to a weaker "automatic" Cartographer, removing the AP of that card.)
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2014, 04:08:52 pm »
0

I would probably have scout give +1 Card instead of the money. Before the revealing, though (we don't want to be too generous).

That makes it too similar to Cartographer and probably puts it on roughly the same power level as well. On a non-terminal card, every +1 Card is a huge buff. +$1 is much less drastic while still being significant.

But Scout would still not skip Coppers, Curses and other junk like Cartographer does. I think this buff would "only" make it a strong $4 card, at about Caravan's level. A probably smaller (and IMO more interesting) buff would be to draw a card only if Scout fails to reveal green cards, as was sometime suggested in an older thread.

Personally, I'd like to buff Scout by making it also skip Coppers and Curses; this seems most thematic to me. Since drawing Coppers would be too strong, I'd just add "You may discard all revealed cards costing $0." to the card text before the last sentence.
(This would make it similar to a weaker "automatic" Cartographer, removing the AP of that card.)

I don't feel like I have much AP when using Cartographer. As for Scout, I'd rather have a card that's more unique than one that's a weaker Cartographer. If Scout's main issue is straight-up power level, why not use the more simple, straightforward fix? I don't think the card needs a bunch of other clauses; they'll just make it less compelling to most players. I think the amount of complexity it currently has is ideal.
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1655
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +1778
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2014, 04:11:58 pm »
+2

What about a Thief that lets you put one of the gained cards on your deck, or even in your hand?
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2014, 04:26:13 pm »
0

What about a Thief that lets you put one of the gained cards on your deck, or even in your hand?

I think gaining it into hand would only make Thief more swingy than it is. Right now it ranges from helping its targets (trashing Copper for free) to hurting or really hurting them. It's already quite swingy in that the benefit to you is greater precisely when it hurts your opponent(s) most. If one of the Treasures went right into your hand, that'd be even more swingy. Even if you only hit Silver, that's like an Explorer that also hurts your target. I do like how it tempts you to gain Copper, but I don't think that's worth it.

I like gaining one on top of your deck a lot better, even if it doesn't tempt you to gain Copper. It also helps to differentiate it from Noble Brigand on boards that don't have special Treasures. Cool idea!
Logged

popsofctown

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4996
  • Respect: +2520
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2014, 05:40:42 pm »
0

I like the cards in the OP.  Now I wants one.
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2014, 05:47:17 pm »
0

I like the cards in the OP.  Now I wants one.

Feel free to print and play. If you sleeve your cards, it's pretty easy. You just need an image editing program like Photoshop or GIMP.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4996
  • Respect: +2520
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #55 on: January 13, 2014, 05:51:20 pm »
+1

I don't use sleeves.  I can't scrape together enough playtime with others to justify sleeves. 
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

Holger

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Respect: +183
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #56 on: January 13, 2014, 05:52:12 pm »
+2

I would probably have scout give +1 Card instead of the money. Before the revealing, though (we don't want to be too generous).

That makes it too similar to Cartographer and probably puts it on roughly the same power level as well. On a non-terminal card, every +1 Card is a huge buff. +$1 is much less drastic while still being significant.

But Scout would still not skip Coppers, Curses and other junk like Cartographer does. I think this buff would "only" make it a strong $4 card, at about Caravan's level. A probably smaller (and IMO more interesting) buff would be to draw a card only if Scout fails to reveal green cards, as was sometime suggested in an older thread.

Personally, I'd like to buff Scout by making it also skip Coppers and Curses; this seems most thematic to me. Since drawing Coppers would be too strong, I'd just add "You may discard all revealed cards costing $0." to the card text before the last sentence.
(This would make it similar to a weaker "automatic" Cartographer, removing the AP of that card.)

I don't feel like I have much AP when using Cartographer. As for Scout, I'd rather have a card that's more unique than one that's a weaker Cartographer. If Scout's main issue is straight-up power level, why not use the more simple, straightforward fix? I don't think the card needs a bunch of other clauses; they'll just make it less compelling to most players. I think the amount of complexity it currently has is ideal.

I agree that my fix might be less compelling to casual players; but it's not just a weaker Cartographer since it still draws the revealed VP cards.
Your fix is more simple, but to me it seems less elegant to add an "unrelated" +$1; also it makes Scout a little too similar to Oasis (and other Peddlers) in my opinion. As far as I know, all Action cards that give exactly +$1 are Peddler variants (except for Noble Brigand, whose +$1 I also find rather inelegant.)

The most straightforward fix IMO would be to just increase the number of revealed cards to 5 (or even more) and/or also draw Curses. Or would this make Scout too strong in Intrigue-heavy games?

But I'd happily try your version if it succeeds in balancing Scout. Thanks for sharing!
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1655
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +1778
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #57 on: January 13, 2014, 05:54:06 pm »
+1

What about a Thief that lets you put one of the gained cards on your deck, or even in your hand?

I think gaining it into hand would only make Thief more swingy than it is. Right now it ranges from helping its targets (trashing Copper for free) to hurting or really hurting them. It's already quite swingy in that the benefit to you is greater precisely when it hurts your opponent(s) most. If one of the Treasures went right into your hand, that'd be even more swingy. Even if you only hit Silver, that's like an Explorer that also hurts your target. I do like how it tempts you to gain Copper, but I don't think that's worth it.

I like gaining one on top of your deck a lot better, even if it doesn't tempt you to gain Copper. It also helps to differentiate it from Noble Brigand on boards that don't have special Treasures. Cool idea!

What about, "You may choose one of the trashed cards. If it is a Copper, put it in your hand. Otherwise, put it on top of your deck."?
Logged

AJD

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2666
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +2983
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #58 on: January 13, 2014, 06:03:09 pm »
+5

As far as I know, all Action cards that give exactly +$1 are Peddler variants

Herbalist, Merchant Guild, Bishop, Squire. Pawn, Ironworks. Bridge. Fishing Village, Lighthouse.

Abandoned Mine!
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 06:09:45 pm by AJD »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #59 on: January 13, 2014, 06:13:48 pm »
+1

I agree that my fix might be less compelling to casual players; but it's not just a weaker Cartographer since it still draws the revealed VP cards.

Sure, but it's much closer to Cartographer than either Scout or my updated version (Guide).

Your fix is more simple, but to me it seems less elegant to add an "unrelated" +$1; also it makes Scout a little too similar to Oasis (and other Peddlers) in my opinion. As far as I know, all Action cards that give exactly +$1 are Peddler variants (except for Noble Brigand, whose +$1 I also find rather inelegant.)

Here is a list of Kingdom cards that can give exactly +$1 (but no more) that are not Peddler variants: Bridge, Ironworks, Pawn, Herbalist, Bishop, Noble Brigand, Squire, Merchant Guild.

EDIT: Ninja'd by AJD. Although I didn't list Lighthouse and Fishing Village because they technically give more than $1 total.

So it's uncommon, but not as rare as you might think. I used Bishop as an example earlier in this thread because its +$1 also seems unrelated to the rest of the card. I understand what you mean by the inelegance of just slapping a +$1 on there, but if Scout had originally had that +$1, I doubt most people would have been like, "What does +$1 have to do with the rest of the card?"

The most straightforward fix IMO would be to just increase the number of revealed cards to 5 (or even more) and/or also draw Curses. Or would this make Scout too strong in Intrigue-heavy games?

I think drawing Curses is a fine idea. I'm not sure it would save the card, but I don't think it's a bad thing to try. Revealing 5 cards I'm less fond of. Each card you reveal potentially adds much more AP when you put those cards back on your deck. There are 24 ways to return 4 cards to your deck. There are 120 ways to return 5 cards. Navigator gets away with it because you usually don't care about the order you're returning those cards. You're either discarding them or drawing them all in your next hand.

But I'd happily try your version if it succeeds in balancing Scout. Thanks for sharing!

No problem! I haven't been able to playtest Guide myself yet, so I don't guarantee it's a perfect fix. But the other two cards (Clairvoyant and Build) were playtested by Donald and co and shown to be fine, so I'm not too worried about balance issues there.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 06:15:11 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #60 on: January 13, 2014, 06:17:21 pm »
0

What about a Thief that lets you put one of the gained cards on your deck, or even in your hand?

I think gaining it into hand would only make Thief more swingy than it is. Right now it ranges from helping its targets (trashing Copper for free) to hurting or really hurting them. It's already quite swingy in that the benefit to you is greater precisely when it hurts your opponent(s) most. If one of the Treasures went right into your hand, that'd be even more swingy. Even if you only hit Silver, that's like an Explorer that also hurts your target. I do like how it tempts you to gain Copper, but I don't think that's worth it.

I like gaining one on top of your deck a lot better, even if it doesn't tempt you to gain Copper. It also helps to differentiate it from Noble Brigand on boards that don't have special Treasures. Cool idea!

What about, "You may choose one of the trashed cards. If it is a Copper, put it in your hand. Otherwise, put it on top of your deck."?

I am guessing that is too many words. Thief is already a very wordy card, although some of those words can be cut out if we use more modern Dominion phrasing.
Logged

Holger

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Respect: +183
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #61 on: January 13, 2014, 07:03:50 pm »
0

I agree that my fix might be less compelling to casual players; but it's not just a weaker Cartographer since it still draws the revealed VP cards.

Sure, but it's much closer to Cartographer than either Scout or my updated version (Guide).

Your fix is more simple, but to me it seems less elegant to add an "unrelated" +$1; also it makes Scout a little too similar to Oasis (and other Peddlers) in my opinion. As far as I know, all Action cards that give exactly +$1 are Peddler variants (except for Noble Brigand, whose +$1 I also find rather inelegant.)

Here is a list of Kingdom cards that can give exactly +$1 (but no more) that are not Peddler variants: Bridge, Ironworks, Pawn, Herbalist, Bishop, Noble Brigand, Squire, Merchant Guild.

EDIT: Ninja'd by AJD. Although I didn't list Lighthouse and Fishing Village because they technically give more than $1 total.
Oops, you're totally right. I should not have made that claim from memory...

So it's uncommon, but not as rare as you might think. I used Bishop as an example earlier in this thread because its +$1 also seems unrelated to the rest of the card. I understand what you mean by the inelegance of just slapping a +$1 on there, but if Scout had originally had that +$1, I doubt most people would have been like, "What does +$1 have to do with the rest of the card?"

The most straightforward fix IMO would be to just increase the number of revealed cards to 5 (or even more) and/or also draw Curses. Or would this make Scout too strong in Intrigue-heavy games?

I think drawing Curses is a fine idea. I'm not sure it would save the card, but I don't think it's a bad thing to try. Revealing 5 cards I'm less fond of. Each card you reveal potentially adds much more AP when you put those cards back on your deck. There are 24 ways to return 4 cards to your deck. There are 120 ways to return 5 cards. Navigator gets away with it because you usually don't care about the order you're returning those cards. You're either discarding them or drawing them all in your next hand.
[...]

Usually you won't  return all the revealed cards; if I buy Scout, I'd want it to reveal at least (say) 2 VP cards on average, leaving only 3 cards to return. And the order only matters if you have more card draw this turn.
Logged

AJD

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2666
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +2983
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #62 on: January 13, 2014, 07:35:20 pm »
0

Ooh! Speaking of Noble Brigand, how about:

Scout
+1 Action
When you gain or play this….
Logged

popsofctown

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4996
  • Respect: +2520
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #63 on: January 13, 2014, 08:51:10 pm »
0

Didn't the Clairvoyant variant Donald tried still have the self-spy effect on it? Not that that's an issue, you're making it even weaker, and with the unbounded maximum draw power effect still present on the card it will still be very useful in many many kingdoms.  Just pedantic I guess.
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #64 on: January 13, 2014, 08:54:21 pm »
0

Didn't the Clairvoyant variant Donald tried still have the self-spy effect on it? Not that that's an issue, you're making it even weaker, and with the unbounded maximum draw power effect still present on the card it will still be very useful in many many kingdoms.  Just pedantic I guess.

No, it didn't have that. I asked him once. I'll try to find the link.

EDIT: Found it.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5799.msg149066#msg149066
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 09:00:19 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #65 on: January 16, 2014, 05:15:25 pm »
+4

Just for fun, an attempted revision of Pirate Ship inspired by this and this. I have no idea whether it works or not.

Logged

Warfreak2

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1149
  • KC->KC->[Scavenger, Scavenger, Lookout]
  • Respect: +1320
    • View Profile
    • Music what I do
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #66 on: January 16, 2014, 07:12:21 pm »
+2

Pirate Ship is already a weak card, I don't see the point in making it weaker.

edit: Oh, I see you made it a terminal Copper. Carry on.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2014, 07:24:38 pm by Warfreak2 »
Logged
If the only engine on the board is Procession->Conspirator, I will play it.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 986
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +680
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2014, 07:37:50 pm »
+1

Pirate Ship is already a weak card, I don't see the point in making it weaker.

edit: Oh, I see you made it a terminal Copper. Carry on.

To me pirate ship seems plently strong, especially with villages. Near the end of the game, you can easily be getting $4 to $6 or possibly even more from a $4 cost card.

LF's version seems very similar to the way it's usually played now, except that it gives something when you're attacking and doesn't have the flexibility of doing the attack when you already have as much coin in your hand as you want.  Also, you have to wait a shuffle between playing the galley to get the retired pirate and getting the benefit of the retired pirate which is a significant drawback.  It's a neat idea, but I like the original better.

KingZog3

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3160
  • Respect: +1356
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #68 on: January 16, 2014, 08:11:42 pm »
+3

Pirate Ship is already a weak card, I don't see the point in making it weaker.

edit: Oh, I see you made it a terminal Copper. Carry on.

To me pirate ship seems plently strong, especially with villages. Near the end of the game, you can easily be getting $4 to $6 or possibly even more from a $4 cost card.

LF's version seems very similar to the way it's usually played now, except that it gives something when you're attacking and doesn't have the flexibility of doing the attack when you already have as much coin in your hand as you want.  Also, you have to wait a shuffle between playing the galley to get the retired pirate and getting the benefit of the retired pirate which is a significant drawback.  It's a neat idea, but I like the original better.

Yeah agreed, regular Pirate Ship is fine. It's not strong, but I never felt it needed to be. It still comes in handy sometimes.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #69 on: January 16, 2014, 08:18:11 pm »
0

Yeah, this change wasn't meant to be a power tweak. It's more of a, "What might Pirate Ship have looked like if Donald had decided to go the Retired Pirate route?"
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3247
  • Respect: +5416
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #70 on: January 16, 2014, 10:21:10 pm »
+4

Yeah, this change wasn't meant to be a power tweak. It's more of a, "What might Pirate Ship have looked like if Donald had decided to go the Retired Pirate route?"

Rather than choosing attack or retire, I would make Pirate Ship always attack and then follow up with the option to trash and retire.  Otherwise, the turn when you retire will be awfully weak.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #71 on: January 16, 2014, 11:04:37 pm »
0

Yeah, this change wasn't meant to be a power tweak. It's more of a, "What might Pirate Ship have looked like if Donald had decided to go the Retired Pirate route?"

Rather than choosing attack or retire, I would make Pirate Ship always attack and then follow up with the option to trash and retire.  Otherwise, the turn when you retire will be awfully weak.

That thought had occurred to me as well. The reason I did it this way is because it's the way it was described in the Secret History of Dark Ages.
Logged

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #72 on: January 17, 2014, 07:55:03 am »
+1

Yeah, this change wasn't meant to be a power tweak. It's more of a, "What might Pirate Ship have looked like if Donald had decided to go the Retired Pirate route?"

Rather than choosing attack or retire, I would make Pirate Ship always attack and then follow up with the option to trash and retire.  Otherwise, the turn when you retire will be awfully weak.

That thought had occurred to me as well. The reason I did it this way is because it's the way it was described in the Secret History of Dark Ages.

You can give +1 Action and gain to hand, or even gain and play immediately, to combine both.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #73 on: January 17, 2014, 08:50:05 am »
0

Yeah, this change wasn't meant to be a power tweak. It's more of a, "What might Pirate Ship have looked like if Donald had decided to go the Retired Pirate route?"

Rather than choosing attack or retire, I would make Pirate Ship always attack and then follow up with the option to trash and retire.  Otherwise, the turn when you retire will be awfully weak.

That thought had occurred to me as well. The reason I did it this way is because it's the way it was described in the Secret History of Dark Ages.

You can give +1 Action and gain to hand, or even gain and play immediately, to combine both.

Gain and play immediately takes fewer words. I'll go for that. Thanks for the idea!
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3247
  • Respect: +5416
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #74 on: January 17, 2014, 09:48:38 am »
0

Does "gain and play immediately" break anything?  What if you are possessed, for instance?  Do you play it from an opponent's discard?
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #75 on: January 17, 2014, 09:57:23 am »
0

Does "gain and play immediately" break anything?  What if you are possessed, for instance?  Do you play it from an opponent's discard?

Since Possession is "would gain", it triggers before the play immediately, moving the card. Thus, Galley losses track of Retired Pirate and cannot play it. That seems a reasonable behavior.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9546
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9308
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #76 on: January 17, 2014, 10:01:49 am »
0

Does "gain and play immediately" break anything?  What if you are possessed, for instance?  Do you play it from an opponent's discard?

Since Possession is "would gain", it triggers before the play immediately, moving the card. Thus, Galley losses track of Retired Pirate and cannot play it. That seems a reasonable behavior.
Actually, Galley never has track of Retired Pirate in the first place because it never gains one. It tries to gain one, but fails, because Possession tells you that something else happens instead.

It's like gaining and playing the blue dog. If you don't gain a blue dog, you can't play the blue dog.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 10:03:42 am by Awaclus »
Logged

Warfreak2

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1149
  • KC->KC->[Scavenger, Scavenger, Lookout]
  • Respect: +1320
    • View Profile
    • Music what I do
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #77 on: January 17, 2014, 12:25:08 pm »
+1

To me pirate ship seems plently strong, especially with villages. Near the end of the game, you can easily be getting $4 to $6 or possibly even more from a $4 cost card.
However, you have to play it as a do-nothing terminal for the first half of the game, which harms your own economy, and it even removes Coppers from your opponent's deck. Trashing your opponent's Coppers without even hurting his current hand, that's a big drawback. If your Pirate Ship is worth $6, then you probably trashed at least 5 of your opponent's Coppers. Normally, he would have to buy a trasher (cost: one turn) and waste another few turns to get rid of those Coppers. (Of course, if there is a trasher, he can buy it and get rid of the rest of his Coppers, and then your Pirate Ships may never have anything to hit.)
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 12:26:56 pm by Warfreak2 »
Logged
If the only engine on the board is Procession->Conspirator, I will play it.

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
  • Respect: +882
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #78 on: January 23, 2014, 07:47:17 am »
0

Sea Hag
Action/Attack $4
Each player puts his deck in his discard pile.
Each other player gains a Curse, putting it on top of his deck.

It removes the "attack only" nature of the card, and no more swingy, arbitrary looking discard. It looks a little cleaner too.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
  • Respect: +882
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #79 on: January 23, 2014, 08:15:54 am »
0

This is a new idea, but I didn't think it was worth making a new thread.

Chancellor
Action - $3
You may put your deck in your discard pile. Look through your discard pile and put a Treasure from it into your hand.

It's a terminal gold, but you need to buy a Gold first. Do you buy a mediocre card first, or wait until after (when price doesn't matter as much).

Personally I don't think chancellor needs to exist, but other cards can do interesting things with the effect.
Logged

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #80 on: January 23, 2014, 09:04:27 am »
0

Sea Hag
Action/Attack $4
Each player puts his deck in his discard pile.
Each other player gains a Curse, putting it on top of his deck.

It removes the "attack only" nature of the card, and no more swingy, arbitrary looking discard. It looks a little cleaner too.

In 3+ player games, this would mean everyone reshuffling almost every turn. The Sea Hag slog is annoying enough.  And it would still be swingy, because non-optional deck->discard is good for some and bad for some others. Maybe you could make it optional for each player to do that. Or better, each player may choose to discard their top card (without looking).
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #81 on: May 20, 2014, 12:23:42 pm »
+1

What do people think of giving Secret Chamber +1 Action? It seems like the best buff to me.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • ♦ Twilight ♦
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #82 on: May 20, 2014, 12:58:48 pm »
+1

What do people think of giving Secret Chamber +1 Action? It seems like the best buff to me.

im not sure, i think there is reason why all (okay there are just three...) discard-for-$ are terminal. there are some pretty strong combos you can do with them, sc/scrying pool, sc/menagerie, sc/library, sc/watchtower. all of those are already out there, but with sc being non-terminal, they become much easier to pull off.

mabye just reveal more cards in the reaction part?

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #83 on: May 20, 2014, 02:06:37 pm »
0

What do people think of giving Secret Chamber +1 Action? It seems like the best buff to me.

im not sure, i think there is reason why all (okay there are just three...) discard-for-$ are terminal. there are some pretty strong combos you can do with them, sc/scrying pool, sc/menagerie, sc/library, sc/watchtower. all of those are already out there, but with sc being non-terminal, they become much easier to pull off.

I suppose those combos would be much bettter. Is that a problem, though? Would those combos be broken? Right now they're incredibly difficult to pull off, requiring a bunch of villages. And when you don't have villages, it's hard to justify Secret Chamber as your terminal Action.

Outside these combos, non-terminal Secret Chamber doesn't really stack. It mostly just makes you able to buy Secret Chamber for its reaction and then still play a different terminal Action without Secret Chamber being dead.

mabye just reveal more cards in the reaction part?

It's not the reaction that needs a buff, though. Revealing even one more card adds a lot of AP and probably doesn't help fight attacks much more.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • ♦ Twilight ♦
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #84 on: May 20, 2014, 02:27:16 pm »
+3

i dunno, how do you judge whether a combo is broken? the strongest 2-card combo in the game is probably apprentice/market square. neither of the sc chamber combos come close to that, so if "broken" is "better than any other combo", it isn't broken. it's still pretty good though, especially sc/mengarie, which now requires no villages at all. i guess it depends what exactly your goal is; if it's to make the card less awful without changing the way it's used (i.e. make it good in the situations where it previously was kinda sorta okay) you won't meet the goal, because you can now do menagerie/sc without any support. if your goal is to make the game more fun, it depends on how fun the combos are... which would require playtesting.

I also see sc being really good in engines with draw but without ways to get rid of the starting estates. previously, it was a terminal gold, which is eh, now it's just a gold, which is nice
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 02:29:17 pm by silverspawn »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #85 on: May 20, 2014, 02:47:38 pm »
0

You make several good points, especially with your Menagerie example. Maybe it is too powerful after all.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #86 on: May 20, 2014, 04:05:51 pm »
+1

im not sure, i think there is reason why all (okay there are just three...) discard-for-$ are terminal.

I was perusing the Dominion Outtakes just now and I found this, which was apparently fine but just didn't make the cut:

Keep
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. Discard any number of cards. +$1 per card discarded.

So probably there's no special reason that the surviving Vault-style cards are all terminal. Keep is a decent reference point for a non-terminal Secret Chamber, though. +1 Card is a big bonus for any discard-for-benefit and each +1 Card also makes a huge power difference for any non-terminal Action. Non-terminal Secret Chamber may be OK at $2. I'd have to do some testing both with and without the mega-combos you mentioned.
Logged

qmech

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1915
  • Shuffle iT Username: qmech
  • What year is it?
  • Respect: +2288
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #87 on: May 20, 2014, 04:31:12 pm »
+1

Oasis is non-terminal discard-for-$, and not amazingly powerful.  Being limited to a single discard weakens the combo potential significantly though.
Logged

AJD

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2666
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +2983
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #88 on: May 20, 2014, 10:45:52 pm »
+8

Keep
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. Discard any number of cards. +$1 per card discarded.

It's just as well that this card didn't get published; it would have been very confusing.

"I'll keep 2 cards."
"Wait, do you mean you're discarding 2 cards with Keep, or not discarding 2 cards?"
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3039
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3321
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #89 on: May 21, 2014, 06:00:35 am »
+3

Keep
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. Discard any number of cards. +$1 per card discarded.

It's just as well that this card didn't get published; it would have been very confusing.

"I'll keep 2 cards."
"Wait, do you mean you're discarding 2 cards with Keep, or not discarding 2 cards?"

Edge case: you have four cards in hand.
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

Holger

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Respect: +183
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #90 on: May 24, 2014, 05:02:09 pm »
+3

Keep
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. Discard any number of cards. +$1 per card discarded.

It's just as well that this card didn't get published; it would have been very confusing.

"I'll keep 2 cards."
"Wait, do you mean you're discarding 2 cards with Keep, or not discarding 2 cards?"

Just rename it "Discard" and it's perfectly fine.  :P
Logged

Holger

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Respect: +183
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #91 on: May 24, 2014, 05:39:57 pm »
0

For all who hate Possession's "pseudo-attack", just replace the card by:

Self-Possession
Action-Duration, $6P
Take an extra turn after this one. This can’t cause you to take more than two consecutive turns.

Or, to still allow multiple plays per turn:

Strong Self-Possession
Action-Duration, $6P
If this is not an extra turn: Take an extra turn after this one.

I'm not quite sure if these are stronger or weaker than the published version; at least the second version sounds equally "insane"...
Logged

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #92 on: May 24, 2014, 09:23:03 pm »
0

I'm not quite sure if these are stronger or weaker than the published version; at least the second version sounds equally "insane"...

They seem stronger. You can counter Possession by greening earlier and then make the expensive Possessions of your opponent (pun intended) worse. If you Possess yourself, you can just megaturn in several turns, and there is nothing that will stop you. The opponent greening early would actually help.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • ♦ Twilight ♦
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #93 on: May 24, 2014, 10:38:58 pm »
+1

I'm not quite sure if these are stronger or weaker than the published version; at least the second version sounds equally "insane"...

They seem stronger. You can counter Possession by greening earlier and then make the expensive Possessions of your opponent (pun intended) worse. If you Possess yourself, you can just megaturn in several turns, and there is nothing that will stop you. The opponent greening early would actually help.

i agree, but either way it stops being insanely stupid, and that's what matters

KingZog3

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3160
  • Respect: +1356
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #94 on: May 25, 2014, 01:44:52 am »
+2

I'm not quite sure if these are stronger or weaker than the published version; at least the second version sounds equally "insane"...

They seem stronger. You can counter Possession by greening earlier and then make the expensive Possessions of your opponent (pun intended) worse. If you Possess yourself, you can just megaturn in several turns, and there is nothing that will stop you. The opponent greening early would actually help.

i agree, but either way it stops being insanely stupid, and that's what matters

I think if anything Self Possession is more stupid. It allows the person to get it first be in a huge advantage. More than normal possession, or KC or any other power card. This is just super outpost.

And at least as a thought experiment, regular Possession is actually quite interesting, with all kinds of interactions with other cards. It can feel stupid when you get burned by one of these interactions, but there is almost always something you can do to stop it.
Logged

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #95 on: May 25, 2014, 08:37:08 am »
0

And at least as a thought experiment, regular Possession is actually quite interesting, with all kinds of interactions with other cards. It can feel stupid when you get burned by one of these interactions, but there is almost always something you can do to stop it.

Agree with most of your post, but I disagree strongly with the last bit "there is almost always something you can do to stop it". Sometimes, you need to race for it. Similar to Tournament, I must say.
Logged

Holger

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Respect: +183
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #96 on: May 25, 2014, 04:58:04 pm »
0

I'm not quite sure if these are stronger or weaker than the published version; at least the second version sounds equally "insane"...

They seem stronger. You can counter Possession by greening earlier and then make the expensive Possessions of your opponent (pun intended) worse. If you Possess yourself, you can just megaturn in several turns, and there is nothing that will stop you.

Usually, a megaturn (by definition) is a single turn; you don't want to get the cards you pile-drive into your deck. (Edge case: Merchant Ship.)
The non-countering is indeed an argument for my versions being stronger (though your opponent can still try to rush the game before you reliably draw the S-P). But on the other hand you can no longer abuse the opponents' coin tokens, TfB, Durations, Masq. etc., and you can no longer mess up their deck. Also my first version is no longer thronable; you can never get more than one extra turn per turn any more.


I think if anything Self Possession is more stupid. It allows the person to get it first be in a huge advantage. More than normal possession, or KC or any other power card. This is just super outpost.

So what? Outpost is a mediocre $5 card, and all the other "power cards" also cost far less than Self-Possession. And I'm not even sure if (non-"Strong") Self-Possession is stronger than KC - you can't spam it at all, and usually one great turn is better than two mediocre ones.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • ♦ Twilight ♦
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #97 on: May 25, 2014, 05:10:03 pm »
+1

Quote
And at least as a thought experiment, regular Possession is actually quite interesting, with all kinds of interactions with other cards. It can feel stupid when you get burned by one of these interactions, but there is almost always something you can do to stop it.

it's stupid because it punishes good decks. yes, it's one of the most skill dependend cards in the game, but i dont care! degrading your own deck so that your opponent cant use it just isn't fun, and from what i've heard i'm not the only one who doesn't like it. I make a comment about possessino being an awful card in almost every game i play with it, and most of the times my opponent agrees.

self-possession doesn't have this problem, good decks get rewarded again. I actually don't think it's that great of a concept, because outpost already does it, but it does solve the problem possession has. for me it's nothing > self possession >>>> possession

Holger

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Respect: +183
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #98 on: May 25, 2014, 05:29:18 pm »
0

PS:
And at least as a thought experiment, regular Possession is actually quite interesting, with all kinds of interactions with other cards. [...]

I agree; but unfortunately Possession is real and my versions are only thought experiments.  :P
To clarify, I don't actually hate Possession, though I'd prefer a non-"attacking" version if it works. Self-Possession is meant to be an alternative, not a fix, for Possession.
As silverspawn wrote, Possession punishes good decks. It also increases the danger of infinite games, and has a potentially strong kingmaking effect in multiplayer: If player A goes for multiple Possessions per turn, player B has to either mess up their deck (giving C the win) or ignore the Possession (giving A the win).


self-possession doesn't have this problem, good decks get rewarded again. I actually don't think it's that great of a concept, because outpost already does it, but it does solve the problem possession has. for me it's nothing > self possession >>>> possession

I take this as a compliment.  :P :D 
The card may indeed be too similar to Outpost; but maybe the much higher price (and effect) and the fact that it also works reasonably in BM still justify it. I wonder if Donald ever tried it...
« Last Edit: May 25, 2014, 05:32:47 pm by Holger »
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1844
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #99 on: May 25, 2014, 06:51:19 pm »
+1

You make several good points, especially with your Menagerie example. Maybe it is too powerful after all.

Crossroads has some ridiculously powerful combos for a card that costs $2, though, so maybe non-terminal SC isn't so powerful.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9097
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #100 on: May 26, 2014, 03:25:43 am »
0

Quote
And at least as a thought experiment, regular Possession is actually quite interesting, with all kinds of interactions with other cards. It can feel stupid when you get burned by one of these interactions, but there is almost always something you can do to stop it.

it's stupid because it punishes good decks. yes, it's one of the most skill dependend cards in the game, but i dont care! degrading your own deck so that your opponent cant use it just isn't fun, and from what i've heard i'm not the only one who doesn't like it. I make a comment about possessino being an awful card in almost every game i play with it, and most of the times my opponent agrees.

self-possession doesn't have this problem, good decks get rewarded again. I actually don't think it's that great of a concept, because outpost already does it, but it does solve the problem possession has. for me it's nothing > self possession >>>> possession

A good deck still beats Possession most of the time.  Possession mainly punishes almost-good decks, which do what good decks do but slower, thus giving Possession a chance to take advantage.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #101 on: May 27, 2014, 01:53:34 pm »
0

What do people think of a variant of Spy that's slightly weaker, but in turn less time-consuming to resolve?

Spy
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Card. +1 Action. Look at the top card of your deck. You may discard it. Name a card type (Victory, Action, etc.). Each other player reveals the top card of his deck and discards it if it doesn't have the named type.

Too complex? I wanted to keep the combo with Thief, etc.
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3122
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +1676
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #102 on: May 27, 2014, 02:16:19 pm »
+1

What do people think of a variant of Spy that's slightly weaker, but in turn less time-consuming to resolve?

Spy
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Card. +1 Action. Look at the top card of your deck. You may discard it. Name a card type (Victory, Action, etc.). Each other player reveals the top card of his deck and discards it if it doesn't have the named type.

Too complex? I wanted to keep the combo with Thief, etc.
That seems longer to resolve. You still have to reveal and know what the top card is in order to resolve the effect properly, but in addition there might also be AP associated with stuff like "It'd be great if he discards a Bazaar, but what if he discards his ruins?" And then there's the situation where one opposing player has a Copper left on his or her deck and another and another has an Estate on top. Do you name Treasure or Victory card? At least with the original spy, you can be all like "just leave your top cards there everyone" after playing a chain of them.

Edit: Okay, you can name "Pokemon card" and leave all junk on top. There's still the issue of not knowing stuff like whether a Nobles, a Harem, or an Estate is on top of a player's deck, and then agonizing over it, while considering that you don't want the other players to discard their Coppers.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2014, 02:21:20 pm by markusin »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • ♦ Twilight ♦
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #103 on: May 27, 2014, 02:26:16 pm »
+1

yea, I don't reallly see how that version takes considerably less time either

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9097
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #104 on: May 27, 2014, 02:49:42 pm »
+1

It takes a tiny bit longer in 2 player games but it's faster with more players.  With the original Spy, you have to make one decision for each other player based on the card they reveal.  With this version, you make one single decision and then everybody can resolve it simultaneously.

That said, I think it weakens it too much for a minor gain that is still unreliable (I think it makes the card faster in general, but there is more potential AP when you have to choose before seeing the flipped cards).
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #105 on: May 27, 2014, 02:52:54 pm »
0

That seems longer to resolve. You still have to reveal and know what the top card is in order to resolve the effect properly, but in addition there might also be AP associated with stuff like "It'd be great if he discards a Bazaar, but what if he discards his ruins?" And then there's the situation where one opposing player has a Copper left on his or her deck and another and another has an Estate on top. Do you name Treasure or Victory card? At least with the original spy, you can be all like "just leave your top cards there everyone" after playing a chain of them.

Edit: Okay, you can name "Pokemon card" and leave all junk on top. There's still the issue of not knowing stuff like whether a Nobles, a Harem, or an Estate is on top of a player's deck, and then agonizing over it, while considering that you don't want the other players to discard their Coppers.

yea, I don't reallly see how that version takes considerably less time either

It takes a tiny bit longer in 2 player games but it's faster with more players.  With the original Spy, you have to make one decision for each other player based on the card they reveal.  With this version, you make one single decision and then everybody can resolve it simultaneously.

That said, I think it weakens it too much for a minor gain that is still unreliable (I think it makes the card faster in general, but there is more potential AP when you have to choose before seeing the flipped cards).

Yeah, good points all around. This change isn't worth it.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • ♦ Twilight ♦
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #106 on: May 27, 2014, 03:04:57 pm »
0

the problem i have with spy isn't so much that it takes a lot of time to resolve, but rather that it's super weak. compare it to ironmonger, both have the self-spy effect, but ironmonger is also either a village, a peddler, or a lab, which is 3$, 4$, and 5$ worth respectively. spy on others is worth... dunno, but 2$ at most.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #107 on: May 27, 2014, 03:08:58 pm »
0

the problem i have with spy isn't so much that it takes a lot of time to resolve, but rather that it's super weak. compare it to ironmonger, both have the self-spy effect, but ironmonger is also either a village, a peddler, or a lab, which is 3$, 4$, and 5$ worth respectively. spy on others is worth... dunno, but 2$ at most.

Spy definitely seems weak. The problem is that its effects are almost invisible. I think Spy would be passable $4 card if it didn't take forever to resolve. Not a powerful $4 card, but a passable one.

Really, Spy should just be taken out of the Base Set and replaced with some other $4 cantrip that doesn't attack.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9546
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9308
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #108 on: May 27, 2014, 03:40:23 pm »
0

the problem i have with spy isn't so much that it takes a lot of time to resolve, but rather that it's super weak. compare it to ironmonger, both have the self-spy effect, but ironmonger is also either a village, a peddler, or a lab, which is 3$, 4$, and 5$ worth respectively. spy on others is worth... dunno, but 2$ at most.
Edge case: You hit a Curse. Both cards can discard it, which is often almost as good as Lab, but Spy also attacks.


Spy is either insignificant or played many times per turn. I like Spy because (I like cantrips in general and) it's usually easy to tell that it isn't worth the opportunity cost of gaining multiple Spies, but when it is worth it, it's difficult to tell that it is. IRL, this is a bit problematic, though, since either it's irrelevant or takes a long time to resolve. P-Stone is another card that's guilty of this, but it's not as subtle as Spy (and not a cantrip so I don't like it as much).

silverspawn

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • ♦ Twilight ♦
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #109 on: October 15, 2014, 04:36:23 am »
0

hey, the images don't work anymore. I just wanted to reference this thread, and now they're gone. tsts.

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
  • Respect: +3307
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #110 on: October 23, 2014, 08:40:41 am »
0

Adventurer should be pretty easy to "fix".

Adventurer - $6
Action

Name a Treasure card.
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Treasure cards that are not the named card. Put those Treasure cards into your hand and discard the other revealed cards.


This just adds the "Rebuild" clause, making it possible to skip Coppers. From 2 Silvers onward, this is then guaranteed to provide at least $4 of spending power (if they're not already in your hand). But it's still a terminal with its terminal issues.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Holger

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Respect: +183
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #111 on: October 23, 2014, 09:26:13 am »
0

Adventurer should be pretty easy to "fix".

Adventurer - $6
Action

Name a Treasure card.
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Treasure cards that are not the named card. Put those Treasure cards into your hand and discard the other revealed cards.


This just adds the "Rebuild" clause, making it possible to skip Coppers. From 2 Silvers onward, this is then guaranteed to provide at least $4 of spending power (if they're not already in your hand). But it's still a terminal with its terminal issues.

I think this is too strong. If you can skip (or trash) Silver and just gain 2-3 Golds, this reliably gives $6 without you having to trash any Copper. Even with 2 Silvers and 2 Golds in your deck, it gives $5 on average.

But what about:

"Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Treasure cards. You may trash one of them. Put the remaining revealed Treasure card(s) into your hand and discard the other revealed cards."

This would give Adventurer a chance to improve itself over time, by trashing the hated Coppers, removing the need for a Copper-trasher support card.
Logged

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #112 on: October 23, 2014, 09:31:47 am »
+1

Adventurer - $6
Action

Name a Treasure card.
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Treasure cards that are not the named card. Put those Treasure cards into your hand and discard the other revealed cards.

Wouldn't this make Adventurer-BM too strong? It would make Adventurer a terminal +$4 or better pretty reliably. The increased cycling could be bad because after one or two plays you will be greening already, but still, +$4 in a deck full of Treasures pretty realiably gets you a Province.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • ♦ Twilight ♦
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #113 on: October 23, 2014, 09:55:12 am »
0

well I've said this multiple times before, and I still think he can just dig for three treasure cards instead of two, and that's it. I doubt it would be too strong.

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
  • Respect: +3307
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #114 on: October 23, 2014, 10:08:00 am »
+2

Adventurer - $6
Action

Name a Treasure card.
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Treasure cards that are not the named card. Put those Treasure cards into your hand and discard the other revealed cards.

Wouldn't this make Adventurer-BM too strong? It would make Adventurer a terminal +$4 or better pretty reliably. The increased cycling could be bad because after one or two plays you will be greening already, but still, +$4 in a deck full of Treasures pretty realiably gets you a Province.
Maybe Adventurer-BM would be way stronger compared to regular BM, but against engines, I don't think it's particularly strong.
I really think this is just fine, but I also think dig for 3 is fine.

My main goal is to make the card usable in a fun way. Discarding Coppers is more fun than drawing 2 of them and wishing you'd bought a Gold instead.

How I wish there was an open Isotropic server where we can playtest these easily implemented revisions.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #115 on: October 23, 2014, 10:27:04 am »
+2

Rather than "Name a Treasure card", it's almost certainly cleaner to just say "other than Copper". It's pretty rare that you'd want to name other cards.
Logged

Rubby

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
  • Respect: +318
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #116 on: October 23, 2014, 10:55:03 am »
0

Rather than "Name a Treasure card", it's almost certainly cleaner to just say "other than Copper". It's pretty rare that you'd want to name other cards.

If your deck (excluding what's in your hand) has no non-Copper treasures, or its only non-Copper treasure card is a Silver or something no better than a Silver, or if you have no Copper and multiple treasures that are better than your worst treasure, you would not want to name Copper.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 10:57:42 am by Rubby »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #117 on: October 23, 2014, 11:14:29 am »
+4

Rather than "Name a Treasure card", it's almost certainly cleaner to just say "other than Copper". It's pretty rare that you'd want to name other cards.

If your deck (excluding what's in your hand) has no non-Copper treasures, or its only non-Copper treasure card is a Silver or something no better than a Silver, or if you have no Copper and multiple treasures that are better than your worst treasure, you would not want to name Copper.

If the first two are true, you shouldn't have bought Adventurer. If you have no Copper and Adventurer is already pulling at least two Silvers, it does not need an additional buff.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1844
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #118 on: October 23, 2014, 06:36:31 pm »
0

Idea: dig for a third Treasure card if both revealed Treasures were Copper.
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3039
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3321
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #119 on: October 23, 2014, 07:13:51 pm »
+1

Idea: dig for a third Treasure card if both revealed Treasures were Copper.

...Dig for two differently named treasures? Similar, but less text.

...or Dig for three treasures and keep two.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 07:16:49 pm by pacovf »
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2697
  • Respect: +1456
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #120 on: October 24, 2014, 02:15:05 am »
0

the problem i have with spy isn't so much that it takes a lot of time to resolve, but rather that it's super weak. compare it to ironmonger, both have the self-spy effect, but ironmonger is also either a village, a peddler, or a lab, which is 3$, 4$, and 5$ worth respectively. spy on others is worth... dunno, but 2$ at most.

Spy definitely seems weak. The problem is that its effects are almost invisible. I think Spy would be passable $4 card if it didn't take forever to resolve. Not a powerful $4 card, but a passable one.

Really, Spy should just be taken out of the Base Set and replaced with some other $4 cantrip that doesn't attack.
The cycle-junk-to-top aspect of Spy already got some fixed versions: Rabble, Fortune Teller. The only cool thing that Spy does that they don't is to combo with deck-trashing cards. Here's an attempt at a fix: make Spy terminal and change the effect to "each player reveals the top 5 cards of his deck and puts them back in an order you choose". That makes Spy useless for cycling junk to the top, and in a game without deck attacks it will rarely be bought, but it has some pretty killer combos with Swindler/Knights/etc. Maybe give it +$2 also, so it's then:

Infiltrator - $4
Action - Attack
+$2
Each player (including you) reveals the top 5 cards of his deck and puts them back in an order you choose.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
  • Respect: +3307
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #121 on: October 24, 2014, 02:17:29 am »
0

Rather than "Name a Treasure card", it's almost certainly cleaner to just say "other than Copper". It's pretty rare that you'd want to name other cards.
Well, possibly, but I wanted to keep it flexible.

With "Name a Treasure card" or better yet "name a card" you can name the Ace of Spades and still dig up 2 Coppers if you really wanted to (let's say you already have 2 Silvers in your hand you can't draw with it).

I also wanted to point out that even if you make Adventurer a lot stronger, it's still a terminal that has to compete with a lot of other powerful $5+ terminals.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

silverspawn

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • ♦ Twilight ♦
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #122 on: October 24, 2014, 03:35:28 am »
0

...or Dig for three treasures and keep two.

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #123 on: October 24, 2014, 08:21:14 am »
+2

Infiltrator - $4
Action - Attack
+$2
Each player (including you) reveals the top 5 cards of his deck and puts them back in an order you choose.

This looks like an insane amount of AP.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #124 on: October 28, 2014, 04:29:55 pm »
0

hey, the images don't work anymore. I just wanted to reference this thread, and now they're gone. tsts.

Sorry about this. Imgur told me I was reaching my limit (which I didn't know existed), and I kind of overcompensated by deleting lots of stuff. All the pretty images I made for the next official expansion were on my imgur so that we could all look at them and print them out for use if the spirit moved us. Anyway, I was keeping a bunch of outtake images too for some reason, and it was a lot of images, even without the hi-res versions.

I should re-upload the ones for this post, at least the low-res versions.

Oh hey, I can get rid of my old Enterprise images now that I've updated that OP with the latest changes. That's another 50-some images I can shed.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • ♦ Twilight ♦
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #125 on: October 28, 2014, 04:32:59 pm »
0

Here is what I would change

Scout: add +1$
Adventurer: dig for 1 additional treasure
Rebuild: return cards to the supply instead of trashing them.
Transmute: add a +Action
Scrying Pool: Cut both the self-spy and the regular spy effect
All P3$ cards: make them 1$ cheaper

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #126 on: October 28, 2014, 04:40:11 pm »
0

So, continuing the conversation here.

I saw that change to rebuild, and I didn't even get it until I read that it was the previous card that would have been in the set if it weren't for Rebuild. But that's not a fix, it's a different card.

Mostly I feel that Rebuild is unsalvageable. The entire concept is turning Victory cards into better Victory cards. That makes you want to spend most of your $5 buys on Duchies, which sucks. It could be a better card instead.

How about making transmute non-terminal, and making adventurer dig for 3 cards? I mean, you can't think that Adventurer is fine and thief isn't.

I have made my feelings about Transmute known many times, even in this very thread. Transmute is fine—even good—as long as there are other Potion-cost cards on the board. And since I always play with 2 sets at once, there always are!

I think Adventurer digging for 3 cards sounds strong, but it does have the big advantage of the card being no more complex than it is now. The idea is growing on me. Previously I was thinking about having it topdeck one revealed Action, but that takes more words and is more complex, which is not great in the Base Set.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #127 on: October 28, 2014, 04:45:47 pm »
0

In addition to needing a boost, Thief's wording could really be more concise and clear.

Quote
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck. If they revealed any Treasure cards, they trash one of them that you choose. You may gain any or all of these trashed cards. They discard the other revealed cards.

Quote
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest. You may gain any number of the trashed cards.

EDIT: Updated with Polk's suggested addition of "You may".
« Last Edit: October 28, 2014, 05:01:00 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • ♦ Twilight ♦
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #128 on: October 28, 2014, 04:47:51 pm »
0

Quote
I have made my feelings about Transmute known many times, even in this very thread. Transmute is fine—even good—as long as there are other Potion-cost cards on the board. And since I always play with 2 sets at once, there always are!
well I get that. But if you're making the changes, then you're offering it to the community, right? So, it's not about how you play, because most people just play all random, because goko pretty much forces you to. And if you do play all random, then it is weak, because you never buy it. that's what weak means.

Quote
Mostly I feel that Rebuild is unsalvageable. The entire concept is turning Victory cards into better Victory cards. That makes you want to spend most of your $5 buys on Duchies, which sucks. It could be a better card instead.
Well it wouldn't be a fun card. But if we start replacing cards with largely unrelated cards, then there are immediately a dozen other cards that could be replaced. Wasn't the point to just tweak them a little bit?

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #129 on: October 28, 2014, 04:49:54 pm »
+1

All P3$ cards: make them 1$ cheaper

I don't like that one bit. The rest seem fine, though I feel a better fix for Transmute would be making the gains optional. I would also add +Buy to Counting House given that it is both narrow and likes +Buy.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • ♦ Twilight ♦
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #130 on: October 28, 2014, 04:51:54 pm »
0

Quote
I don't like that one bit.
why? I mean, I get why you could think it isn't necessary, but not how you can think it's bad. Why do you think it's bad?

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1636
  • Respect: +1633
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #131 on: October 28, 2014, 04:52:09 pm »
+1

In addition to needing a boost, Thief's wording could really be more concise and clearer.

Quote
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck. If they revealed any Treasure cards, they trash one of them that you choose. You may gain any or all of these trashed cards. They discard the other revealed cards.

Quote
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest. Gain any number of the trashed cards.

Perhaps "and discards the rest" should be "then discards the rest".

Also, isn't it pretty standard Dominion wording to say "You may" when 0/not doing something is a choice? "Gain any number of the trashed cards" reads too much like it is forcing you to gain at least one of the trashed cards.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #132 on: October 28, 2014, 04:55:59 pm »
0

Quote
I have made my feelings about Transmute known many times, even in this very thread. Transmute is fine—even good—as long as there are other Potion-cost cards on the board. And since I always play with 2 sets at once, there always are!
well I get that. But if you're making the changes, then you're offering it to the community, right? So, it's not about how you play, because most people just play all random, because goko pretty much forces you to. And if you do play all random, then it is weak, because you never buy it. that's what weak means.

Quote
Mostly I feel that Rebuild is unsalvageable. The entire concept is turning Victory cards into better Victory cards. That makes you want to spend most of your $5 buys on Duchies, which sucks. It could be a better card instead.
Well it wouldn't be a fun card. But if we start replacing cards with largely unrelated cards, then there are immediately a dozen other cards that could be replaced. Wasn't the point to just tweak them a little bit?

Well, I like to offer stuff to the community, but really this thread was more, "This is stuff I'm thinking of doing; it's here for you if you want it." I even say that right in the OP. Can me selfish, but I'm not interested in improving (and maybe overpowering) a card that's already fine in the games I play. Likewise, maybe there are a dozen cards you'd like to replace, but for me there are only a handful. My goal is to make my IRL games more fun with as few changes as possible. The scale of those changes—tweaking a card vs. replacing it entirely—isn't really a concern for me.

But by all means, continue to suggest other changes you'd like to use. I don't have a monopoly on card change suggestions. If you want, I can even mock up some images for you.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #133 on: October 28, 2014, 04:59:15 pm »
+1

Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest. Gain any number of the trashed cards.

Perhaps "and discards the rest" should be "then discards the rest".

Noble Brigand says, "and discards the rest." I think that's pretty standard wording, although I'm sure your wording would also be fine.

Also, isn't it pretty standard Dominion wording to say "You may" when 0/not doing something is a choice? "Gain any number of the trashed cards" reads too much like it is forcing you to gain at least one of the trashed cards.

Yes, I considered that, but was going for maximum concision. I think you're right that I should add it, though. It's only two words and it eliminates a common rules confusion.
Logged

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #134 on: October 28, 2014, 05:00:52 pm »
+3

why? I mean, I get why you could think it isn't necessary, but not how you can think it's bad. Why do you think it's bad?

It would make Alchemist an autobuy almost all the time and Familiar almost all the time. They are already good enough. I think the possibility of not getting $3P on each shuffle is part of the risk assessment you need to make. Sea Hag, Ambassador and Swindler's swingyness is comparable, and I don't mind them either.

And it is completely false that you lose the game immediately if you fail to get $3P on the first shuffle, because Familiars tend to miss shuffles and luck may even out, and Alchemists may always find a Potion to be topdecked, or never, so you can also have a swing of luck. Minimizing luck is good when you can do it without altering other variables. Making Familiar super-powerful because you can buy it everytime the Potion comes up would reduce the variety of the game, and consequently, the fun.

Can me selfish

I don't think I want to call you selfish, though I don't mind if that's what you really want, but I sure won't be canning you no shellfish. Go to the supermarket if you want some.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #135 on: October 28, 2014, 05:04:34 pm »
0

And it is completely false that you lose the game immediately if you fail to get $3P on the first shuffle, because Familiars tend to miss shuffles and luck may even out, and Alchemists may always find a Potion to be topdecked, or never, so you can also have a swing of luck. Minimizing luck is good when you can do it without altering other variables. Making Familiar super-powerful because you can buy it everytime the Potion comes up would reduce the variety of the game, and consequently, the fun.

I think missing $3P on your first shuffle is a level of magnitude worse than one (or more) of your Familiars missing a shuffle. The reason is that usually your $2P hand is an utter dud. But again, this problem can be solved by playing with more than one Potion-cost card at once, rather than lowering Familiar's cost. Buying nothing or e.g. Native Village instead of Familiar on turn 3 or 4 is gg. Buying an Apothecary or University instead means you haven't really fallen that far behind.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • ♦ Twilight ♦
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #136 on: October 28, 2014, 05:05:45 pm »
0

Quote
but really this thread was more, "This is stuff I'm thinking of doing; it's here for you if you want it."
oh, you do say it in the op. if that's what it was meant to be, than that's what it is, you're of course not obligated to do anything. I just thought this was more targeted towards the community.

Quote
If you want, I can even mock up some images for you.
well Showdown is already doing cards for me, and I think he's pretty amazing at it (and he said he doesn't need more than a few min for a card if he has the image) so I wouldn't ask you for that. but thanks for the offer :)

Quote
It would make Alchemist an autobuy almost all the time and Familiar almost all the time.
It wouldn't. I mean, there is no point arguing about these kinds of things, but come on. Scrying pool and Apothecary aren't stronger because they are cheaper, they're stronger because of what they do.

AJD

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2666
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +2983
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #137 on: October 28, 2014, 11:47:34 pm »
0

Also, isn't it pretty standard Dominion wording to say "You may" when 0/not doing something is a choice? "Gain any number of the trashed cards" reads too much like it is forcing you to gain at least one of the trashed cards.

Actual Thief does say "you may gain any or all", but most Dominion cards actually don't say "you may" when 0 is a choice: cf. Cellar, Forge, Chapel, etc.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #138 on: October 28, 2014, 11:54:42 pm »
0

Also, isn't it pretty standard Dominion wording to say "You may" when 0/not doing something is a choice? "Gain any number of the trashed cards" reads too much like it is forcing you to gain at least one of the trashed cards.

Actual Thief does say "you may gain any or all", but most Dominion cards actually don't say "you may" when 0 is a choice: cf. Cellar, Forge, Chapel, etc.

Well, the difference is that with those cards, you wouldn't choose to play them at all if you didn't want to trash, discard, or gain at least one card. Yes, there's Golem, Conspirator, etc., but you know. Cards that you also have another reason to play (like Dame Anna and Thief) usually specify "you may".
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1844
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #139 on: October 29, 2014, 04:31:11 pm »
0

I think missing $3P on your first shuffle is a level of magnitude worse than one (or more) of your Familiars missing a shuffle. The reason is that usually your $2P hand is an utter dud. But again, this problem can be solved by playing with more than one Potion-cost card at once, rather than lowering Familiar's cost.

Yes, but not everyone abides by this recommendation, and when going full random online, I don't think this option exists at all.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #140 on: October 29, 2014, 06:12:57 pm »
+1

I think missing $3P on your first shuffle is a level of magnitude worse than one (or more) of your Familiars missing a shuffle. The reason is that usually your $2P hand is an utter dud. But again, this problem can be solved by playing with more than one Potion-cost card at once, rather than lowering Familiar's cost.

Yes, but not everyone abides by this recommendation, and when going full random online, I don't think this option exists at all.

I agree; it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard, especially when it comes to Alchemy.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2697
  • Respect: +1456
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #141 on: November 02, 2014, 11:20:13 pm »
0

Infiltrator - $4
Action - Attack
+$2
Each player (including you) reveals the top 5 cards of his deck and puts them back in an order you choose.

This looks like an insane amount of AP.
Eh maybe, but it's terminal, so it won't happen much more than once per turn. I can't see it overall being much worse AP-wise than cards like Cartographer and Apothecary. Although, to be fair, those cards are pretty heavy on AP if you want to play fully optimally.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 11:21:31 pm by blueblimp »
Logged

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #142 on: November 03, 2014, 08:27:10 am »
0

The huge difference is rearranging oppnent's cards. Since you usually don't know their hand, you have to estinate and track, and that takes a lot of extra work.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
  • Respect: +882
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #143 on: November 04, 2014, 05:39:14 pm »
+2

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

Not a huge change, but makes the card much more interesting.

Alternatively, leave Feast as is and have it cost $2. I can't think of any $5 cards that make opening Feast/Feast too powerful, it would be a big deal on boards with +buys and it would be handy in a slog.
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3122
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +1676
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #144 on: November 04, 2014, 06:04:12 pm »
+2

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

Not a huge change, but makes the card much more interesting.

Alternatively, leave Feast as is and have it cost $2. I can't think of any $5 cards that make opening Feast/Feast too powerful, it would be a big deal on boards with +buys and it would be handy in a slog.
This would let you open $5/Feast. That might still be okay.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #145 on: November 04, 2014, 06:05:34 pm »
0

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

This is a cool idea, but it causes tracking issues with Durations. I guess you could leave the Feast itself in play to remind you of the Duration.
Logged

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1733
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #146 on: November 04, 2014, 06:12:12 pm »
0

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

This is a cool idea, but it causes tracking issues with Durations. I guess you could leave the Feast itself in play to remind you of the Duration.

It also has infinite-loop potential. You could do a scheme-like wording and have the trash and gain happen on discard-from-play of the chosen card.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9546
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9308
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #147 on: November 04, 2014, 08:14:40 pm »
0

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

Not a huge change, but makes the card much more interesting.
But this would suck with Procession.

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
  • Respect: +882
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #148 on: November 05, 2014, 06:35:06 am »
0

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

This is a cool idea, but it causes tracking issues with Durations. I guess you could leave the Feast itself in play to remind you of the Duration.

It also has infinite-loop potential.

How?
Logged

theblankman

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
  • Respect: +347
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #149 on: November 06, 2014, 09:27:54 am »
0

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

This is a cool idea, but it causes tracking issues with Durations. I guess you could leave the Feast itself in play to remind you of the Duration.

It also has infinite-loop potential. You could do a scheme-like wording and have the trash and gain happen on discard-from-play of the chosen card.

I'm not immediately seeing the infinite loop, but I am seeing a very interesting payload to an engine built around KC.  Also you usually can't use it on treasures, but it becomes yet another card that does neat things with Black Market. 
Logged
it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #150 on: June 28, 2017, 01:15:13 pm »
+4

I'm finally replacing the Harems in my copy of Intrigue. There are just so many reasons.

• The art is horrible.
• I don't want to have to explain what a harem is to my children once they're old enough to play.
• I'm pretty sure Harem should cost $5. It's a really weak $6 card. I mean compare it to Nobles.

Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #151 on: June 28, 2017, 01:42:02 pm »
+3

Other updates.

Logged

Q

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #152 on: June 29, 2017, 06:32:56 am »
+1

Interesting changes.
I think that Harem is often underrated and pricing it at 5$ would basically make it a Duchy substitute, i.e. the tricky decision between Gold-Harem and later Harem-Duchy becomes less tricky and more trivial.
The non-trashing clause on Possession makes the card easier to understand but at the cost of making all trash-for-benefit cards quasi-defenses against Possession.
I like your Harvest buff, it is not too much and it now nicely interacts with cards like Vassal or Chariot Race.
Logged

Chris is me

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2166
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +2418
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #153 on: June 29, 2017, 08:19:32 am »
+2

Manor is good.

Scrying Pool can I think preserve the self-Spy aspect of it - removing the attack part is all you need to speed it up, and in decks where you can't thin it becomes just that much swingier and less reliable. But it's not like it's now unusable.

Possession's fox is interesting and probably works. I probably still prefer a variant of Donald's fix, but that gets rid of a lot of issues and makes TFB decks a viable counter.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

they/them

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #154 on: June 29, 2017, 11:51:07 am »
0

I think that Harem is often underrated and pricing it at 5$ would basically make it a Duchy substitute, i.e. the tricky decision between Gold-Harem and later Harem-Duchy becomes less tricky and more trivial.

Well admittedly I have yet to test Manor, but I'm not really worried about the issues you're bringing up. Whenever you have $6, you're making the same decision between Gold, Harem, and Duchy that you always have. There's really no change there. At $5, there are still times you'd buy Duchy over Harem. And in fact, I'm not sure this change would ever make me buy Harem when I would previously have bought Duchy. If anything, it might sometimes make me buy Harem over the other $5 cards that I would have bought over Duchy. Maybe I'm wrong, and that sometimes when I would have bought Duchy I now get Harem. That's sounds like an upside to me, though. Clearly I still buy Duchy when I don't think I'll draw it this game. Why would I sacrifice 1 VP for $2 that I'll never get to use?

Really you've got two situations here. First, games where you specifically want Victory cards, because of Patrol or Silk Road or what-have-you. I think it will be great to be able to pick up Harems a bit more easily in those games and see those combos more.

Second, you've got games without that, where you're just making calls between Gold, Harem, and Duchy. In these games, Gold is best early and Duchy is best late. Harem has a narrow band in the middle. This cost reduction lets you buy more Harems/Manors during that band, and I think that's all to the good. I'd rather be buying the Kingdom card than the basic ones.

I'm rambling, but the point I'm trying to make is that this Gold vs. Manor/Harem vs. Duchy thing is just a total non-issue. The actual issue is whether Manor is too strong at $5 compared to other Kingdom cards. And man, I just really doubt that it is.

The non-trashing clause on Possession makes the card easier to understand but at the cost of making all trash-for-benefit cards quasi-defenses against Possession.

Thanks. "Easier to understand" wasn't my primary goal, but I'm glad you find it that. I wouldn't call making trash-for-benefit cards counters for Possession a "cost". I think it's a mild positive.

I like your Harvest buff, it is not too much and it now nicely interacts with cards like Vassal or Chariot Race.

Thanks! I've played a fair few games with this version, and it's been great. Even without the combos it's a significant boost. It doesn't make it a top $5 card, but we actually buy it now outside of narrow combos (King's Court, Tunnel, etc.).

« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 11:58:00 am by LastFootnote »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #155 on: June 29, 2017, 11:56:00 am »
0

Scrying Pool can I think preserve the self-Spy aspect of it - removing the attack part is all you need to speed it up, and in decks where you can't thin it becomes just that much swingier and less reliable. But it's not like it's now unusable.

Yeah, I've played a few games with this version, and it's an enormous nerf. I mean Scrying Pool needed an enormous nerf, but you know. It's significant. The jury's still out on if it's too weak. Adding the self-Spy is a lot of words, though, and it muddies the core concept of the card. I'd rather buff it by reducing its cost (probably to P) than by adding back those words.

Possession's fox is interesting and probably works. I probably still prefer a variant of Donald's fix, but that gets rid of a lot of issues and makes TFB decks a viable counter.

I enjoy Possession in my IRL games (which is where I use these revised cards), so for me, keeping the core concept was important. But I definitely wanted to stop multi-Possession turns, and making trash-for-benefit cards usable in Possession games is also nice from my perspective.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6321
  • Respect: +6813
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #156 on: June 29, 2017, 12:33:12 pm »
0

What if your version of Scrying Pool had a +1 card on it? It would be slightly stronger than self-spying, but not buy much, and far less words than self-spying.

If the top card of your deck is an action, then you would have drawn it with old Scrying Pool or +1 card Scrying Pool, so it makes no difference at all.

If the top card of your deck isn't an action, then with old Scrying Pool would would have discarded it; with +1 card Scrying Pool you draw it instead. Good if it's a treasure.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 12:36:51 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

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #157 on: June 29, 2017, 06:16:18 pm »
+2

What if your version of Scrying Pool had a +1 card on it? It would be slightly stronger than self-spying, but not buy much, and far less words than self-spying.

If the top card of your deck is an action, then you would have drawn it with old Scrying Pool or +1 card Scrying Pool, so it makes no difference at all.

If the top card of your deck isn't an action, then with old Scrying Pool would would have discarded it; with +1 card Scrying Pool you draw it instead. Good if it's a treasure.

I think that would make it crazy. I mean at that point it's always a Laboratory, and quite often better.
Logged

Q

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #158 on: June 30, 2017, 07:26:01 am »
0

I'm rambling, but the point I'm trying to make is that this Gold vs. Manor/Harem vs. Duchy thing is just a total non-issue. The actual issue is whether Manor is too strong at $5 compared to other Kingdom cards. And man, I just really doubt that it is.
I think that if you were only playing with Base and Intrigue Harem would be totally fine but from a retrospective all-expansions perspective you are totally right: engines have become more frequent, making a Treasure-Victory card a bit worse, and 5s are often situationally better than Gold anyway.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
  • Respect: +882
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #159 on: June 30, 2017, 08:17:24 am »
0

I prefer the revised base/intrigue approach to fixing cards; new card that isn't quite the same but fills the niche in a different way.

I like your version of Harvest, but I think it would be more interesting as a $3 card that turns up 3 cards (keeping the "put back" clause).

$5 Harem would probably be better if either the VP or Treasure were more complex/conditional
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
  • Respect: +882
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #160 on: June 30, 2017, 08:21:17 am »
0

But $5 Harem is a good idea. $6 Harem provides an interesting choice between Harem and Gold, but $5 also makes you think about whether to go for Harem or Duchy, and it also has early game relevance.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6321
  • Respect: +6813
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #161 on: June 30, 2017, 10:46:49 am »
0

What if your version of Scrying Pool had a +1 card on it? It would be slightly stronger than self-spying, but not buy much, and far less words than self-spying.

If the top card of your deck is an action, then you would have drawn it with old Scrying Pool or +1 card Scrying Pool, so it makes no difference at all.

If the top card of your deck isn't an action, then with old Scrying Pool would would have discarded it; with +1 card Scrying Pool you draw it instead. Good if it's a treasure.

I think that would make it crazy. I mean at that point it's always a Laboratory, and quite often better.

I feel like it's rare for regular Scrying Pool to not always be a Laboratory, and quite often better... if the +1 card version draws a card more than regular Pool, it's only if that extra card is a non-action, which is generally a junk card in a Scrying Pool deck anyway.
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: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #162 on: June 30, 2017, 11:15:50 am »
0

What if your version of Scrying Pool had a +1 card on it? It would be slightly stronger than self-spying, but not buy much, and far less words than self-spying.

If the top card of your deck is an action, then you would have drawn it with old Scrying Pool or +1 card Scrying Pool, so it makes no difference at all.

If the top card of your deck isn't an action, then with old Scrying Pool would would have discarded it; with +1 card Scrying Pool you draw it instead. Good if it's a treasure.

I think that would make it crazy. I mean at that point it's always a Laboratory, and quite often better.

I feel like it's rare for regular Scrying Pool to not always be a Laboratory, and quite often better... if the +1 card version draws a card more than regular Pool, it's only if that extra card is a non-action, which is generally a junk card in a Scrying Pool deck anyway.

Well first of all, I would prefer this version to be weaker than regular Scrying Pool (in addition to being faster). Regular Scrying Pool is overpowered. And I think you're putting the cart before the horse on your second point. A deck with Cantrip Scrying Pool doesn't have to care nearly as much about having more non-Actions in it in order to be great.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #163 on: June 30, 2017, 11:28:26 am »
0

I prefer the revised base/intrigue approach to fixing cards; new card that isn't quite the same but fills the niche in a different way.
Hmm, I think it depends on the card. I'd much rather have Bandit than a slightly-tweaked Thief. But now that I've played with Patrol a bunch, I think I'd rather have Scout with +$1 than Patrol. Scout was perfectly unique and it was better at interacting with e.g. Mill and Nobles than Patrol is. It just needed a boost.

I like your version of Harvest, but I think it would be more interesting as a $3 card that turns up 3 cards (keeping the "put back" clause).
I think that would be too weak to even cost $2. I mean both the coin-generating and sifting properties are significantly weaker with that change; so much weaker that I would very rarely want to waste a terminal action on it. It would be another Chancellor, I think.

$5 Harem would probably be better if either the VP or Treasure were more complex/conditional
Here is the perfect example of "slight tweak" being better than "complete overhaul". The concept is fine, and simplicity is good. I'm not eager to make it more complex for no gain.

It's tempting to put the Coppersmith replacement on top, I guess.

Quote
Manor: Treasure-Victory, $5
When you play this, it's worth $1 per copy of the card you have the most copies of in play.

2 VP
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 11:31:09 am by LastFootnote »
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7726
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +8593
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #164 on: July 03, 2017, 11:52:04 am »
0

Yeah, I think Harem/Manor is fine at .  It still gets bought enough.

I'm also amused that it took you 4 years to mock up Manor, though.
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: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #165 on: July 03, 2017, 07:06:34 pm »
0

Yeah, I think Harem/Manor is fine at .  It still gets bought enough.

I'm also amused that it took you 4 years to mock up Manor, though.

What can I say? I'm a busy guy.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 986
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +680
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #166 on: July 03, 2017, 08:46:08 pm »
0

[Manor]
That would take all the fun out of teasing my mom that Harem is her favorite card...

Holger

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Respect: +183
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #167 on: July 27, 2017, 04:52:26 pm »
+1

These are interesting revisions. But LastFootnote, could you re-insert your older revisions (Scout etc.) to your first post? I haven't saved them, and I may still want to try them out in the future...

$5 Harem would probably be better if either the VP or Treasure were more complex/conditional
Here is the perfect example of "slight tweak" being better than "complete overhaul". The concept is fine, and simplicity is good. I'm not eager to make it more complex for no gain.
I agree. In this spirit, I've also been thinking of tweaking some of the removed cards slightly to make them more playable:

Adventurer would probably work with just a reduced cost; I think I'd try it at $4 (or even $3); this might make it a reasonable BM card (in engines, it's still usually worse than Moat).

Feast could certainly afford a price decrease to $3 as well (making the TR/Feast opening possible again :) ), but it would probably still be weakish then. However, what about:

Feast: Action, $3
Trash this. Gain a card costing up to $6.

I think this would still not be overpowered. This change would allow you to always gain a Gold on your second shuffle, but you often prefer an early $5 Action over Gold anyway. It would be very strong with a $6 Action like Goons on the board, but I think that's okay.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 06:04:26 pm by Holger »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8493
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #168 on: July 27, 2017, 05:34:58 pm »
0

These are interesting revisions. But LastFootnote, could you re-insert your older revisions (Scout etc.) to your first post? I haven't saved them, and I may still want to try them out in the future...

I will try to remember to re-upload my updated Scout. Were there other ones that I removed? I forget. I figured with Patrol, updating Scout was a moot point. Though I think I do prefer Scout with +$1 to Patrol overall, I don't prefer it enough to make that change in my own set. Again, I will try to remember to mock it up with my latest template for posting here.

EDIT: Oh that's right, I had a Rebuild replacement. It was a Dark Ages outtake, but I never really tested it. And when we tried a version of that (for Adventures or Empires, can't recall which), it wasn't any fun. So, do you want that one? I cannot vouch for its quality like I can for Scout+.

$5 Harem would probably be better if either the VP or Treasure were more complex/conditional
Here is the perfect example of "slight tweak" being better than "complete overhaul". The concept is fine, and simplicity is good. I'm not eager to make it more complex for no gain.
I agree. In this spirit, I've also been thinking of tweaking some of the removed cards slightly to make them more playable:

Adventurer would probably work with just a reduced cost; I think I'd try it at $4 (or even $3); this might make it a reasonable BM card (in engines, it's still usually worse than Moat).

I think Adventurer should cost $2, no joke. It takes a lot of work to make it good, like Poor House. Arguably it takes even more work than Poor House, though the upper bound on its power is also higher. Anyway, yeah, $2. That's my unofficial official recommendation.

Feast could certainly afford a price decrease to $3 as well (making the TR/Feast opening possible again :) ), but it would probably still be weakish then. However, what about:

Feast: Action, $3
Gain a card costing up to $6.

I think this would still not be overpowered. This change would allow you to always gain a Gold on your second shuffle, but you often prefer an early $5 Action over Gold anyway. It would be very strong with a $6 Action like Goons on the board, but I think that's okay.

I would be tempted to also cost Feast at $2, having it still gain a card costing up to $5. Your version is likely also totally fine power-wise, but might be boring in practice since lots of casual players (most even?) will just take the Gold every time.

Alternatively, Feast could cost $3 or $4 and top-deck the gained card. That's kind of close to Artisan? I mean if we're talking Base Set, Artisan replaces Feast in a very real way. And the set already has that and Workshop filling the "workshop" slots.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 05:38:02 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

Q

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #169 on: July 29, 2017, 03:47:08 am »
0

I think Adventurer should cost $2, no joke. It takes a lot of work to make it good, like Poor House. Arguably it takes even more work than Poor House, though the upper bound on its power is also higher. Anyway, yeah, $2. That's my unofficial official recommendation.
I totally agree. At first it sounds crazy that a formerly-existing 6 would be balanced at 2. But Adventurer has a simple problem: it is a terminal payload card that is only good if you have decent Treasures in your deck. If you play BM you could also just draw those Treasures with terminal draw. If you play an engine you either don't wanna clog your deck with Treasures or, e.g. if you get them on the way via something like Soothsayer, you don't wanna waste terminal space on a terminal payload card as the Gold in your deck already does the trick.
So the card becomes only useful in rare cases like Platinum games or alt-VP where digging for Treasures becomes important due to all the green in your deck.

Something like Poor House might require more work than Adventurer (trashing, extra Buys, decent village support) but it is not at its core such an inconsistent card.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 [All]
 

Page created in 0.277 seconds with 20 queries.