I don't understand. Even if Donate is extremely powerful, both players have universal access to it. You can buy it with zero money on the table and at any time in the game. I don't see how it could be broken, just super powerful for both players.
Just because everyone can access it doesn't mean it's not broken--at least as I construe what it means to be "broken", which is a card that is wildly imbalanced.
To me, Donate is that Event that means the better player will win. It reduces luck more than any other uh card-shaped thing. It's all about having a better plan for how the opening turns will unfold.
So, the idea that Donate is "broken," well you have to explain what it means to be "broken." I think you can argue that Dominion is best with a certain amount of luck, and Donate is over the line there, it reduces luck too much. Complaining about its power level doesn't make much sense to me otherwise.
For the amount of power Donate offers, it doesn't seem to have a cost that's aligned. You derive an instant amazing benefit at the expense of
to deal with on your next turn(s) (and more realistically it's
or
since you'll pay down some of the debt immediately). I don't think, for example, that one should create a card that costs
that reads "+6 Cards, +4 Actions, +3 Buys, +
, +8
" and then claim "well, it's not really 'broken' because everybody can afford
on Turns 1 and 2, you just object to the card's power level." (other card design principles aside, this is what I feel Chris is me's response inevitably leads to)
I didn't resign because I would have lost--though I probably would have, my husband is a better player than me--I resigned because the end was so inevitable and ridiculous the second Donate was purchased that for me it sucks all the fun out of even playing. Even in games when I lose I still have fun, but when Donate is on the board the Kingdom itself feels like it becomes almost irrelevant and the game degenerates into a race; in my opinion, it's a race to the bottom. I feel this way about almost any Kingdom where there is one clear strategy, it's just less enjoyable to play; much more fun is seeing how two divergent strategies play out.
Donate seems to be the biggest manifestation of this issue for me. It becomes a "must-buy" for everyone and it makes deck management irrelevant. "Am I going to line up my Curse with my Chapel? Have I put myself in a position where I'm pretty likely to end up with a total cost of
among cards I no longer need so that I can Forge them into a Colony? Aww, screw it, now I can just get rid of all the stuff I don't need anymore indiscriminately instead of cleverly!" Like, at that point why not start each game with 7 Golds and 3 Provinces?
Hm, maybe my gripe really is just with the mitigation of luck. Luck isn't a huge element of Dominion, but the fact that it lingers on the sidelines is part of what makes the game interesting.
I could probably go on, but I'd mostly be repeating the same thoughts using other examples. This was posted in Semi-Interesting moments and it seems I've sparked a discussion that is more than semi-interesting. Sorry, folks!