Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]  All

Author Topic: Revised versions of published cards  (Read 20120 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6453
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8312
    • 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: 6453
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8312
    • View Profile
Re: Revised versions of published cards
« Reply #151 on: June 28, 2017, 01:42:02 pm »
+3

Other updates.

Logged

Q

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
  • Respect: +6
    • 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
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2093
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +2293
    • 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: 6453
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8312
    • 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: 6453
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8312
    • 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
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6188
  • Respect: +6681
    • 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: 6453
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8312
    • 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

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
  • Respect: +6
    • 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: +880
    • 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: +880
    • 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
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6188
  • Respect: +6681
    • 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: 6453
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8312
    • 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: 6453
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8312
    • 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: 7605
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +8415
    • 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: 6453
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8312
    • 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: 985
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +677
    • 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: 390
  • Respect: +179
    • 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: 6453
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8312
    • 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
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]  All
 

Page created in 0.104 seconds with 21 queries.