Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[zahlman]

Some thoughts I had...

New Masquerade - Action/Attack - still $3? (but now the name doesn't work as well...)

+2 Cards
You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, each opponent with at least 4 cards in hand passes you a card. You may trash any of the received cards; gain the rest.

(Avoids the pin, and protects against Possession nastiness.)

----

New Ambassador - Action/Attack - probably more now?

Gain a Curse in hand. Set aside any number of cards from your hand. Each other player, in turn, takes one of the set aside cards, putting it in his hand. Trash any remaining set aside cards.

(This is perhaps political in the sense that you can choose to only hurt one player, and hit with a Curse; but you hurt your own opportunities in order to do so. The trashing is again to mitigate vs. Possession, although you can still lose 1 good card per opponent.)

[NoMoreFun]

Thief:
Action - $4
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck. He either trashes or discards the revealed treasure cards (your choice), and puts the other cards back in any order. You may gain a card trashed this way, putting it in your hand.

[NoMoreFun]

From an earlier topic:

Feast
Action - $4
Trash this card
---
When you trash this, gain a card costing up to $5

Embargo
Action - $2
+$2
Trash this card.
---
When you trash this, put an embargo token on top of a supply pile.
---
When a player buys a card, he gains a curse per embargo token on that pile.

Pillage:
Action/Attack - $5
Trash this card
Each player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals their hand and discards a card that you choose
---
When you trash this, gain 2 Spoils.

Madman:
Action - 0*
+2 Actions
Trash this
---
When you trash this, return it to the Madman pile.
If you do, +1 card for each card in your hand.

Mining Village:
Action - $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may trash this card
---
When you trash this, +$2
(Note: +$ is meaningless if it's not your turn)

[popsofctown]

Why would you make Masquerade more complicated 99.9% of the games it appears in just so that a pin isn't possible in .1% of its games?

[SirPeebles]

I've never really understood why the pin is so hated.  If you get hit by it, just resign.  If you use it, and your opponent won't resign, oh well.  You'll still win.  It takes some effort to reach, so is it really different than a mega turn strategy?  Personally I'm more bothered by bishop/fortress since it doesn't proceed toward a game ending condition.

[NoMoreFun]

The pin is a problem, but it can be resolved with adding an "if you did pass a card" before allowing the trashing. You can still do some powerful things like leave the opponent with a 2 card hand, but you won't be able to crush their hand and deck into oblivion reliably every turn.

Adding that clause would remove an unintentionally broken thing from dominion that wasn't discovered in playtesting. While it's pretty much just a megaturn, it's a malevolent one, and one that's a kingmaker in multiplayer games.

[NoMoreFun]

Fortress: When you trash this, gain a Fortress, putting it in your hand.

[LastFootnote]

Fortress: When you trash this, gain a Fortress, putting it in your hand.

Those will run out fast. Why make this change?

[popsofctown]

The pin is a problem, but it can be resolved with adding an "if you did pass a card" before allowing the trashing. You can still do some powerful things like leave the opponent with a 2 card hand, but you won't be able to crush their hand and deck into oblivion reliably every turn.

Adding that clause would remove an unintentionally broken thing from dominion that wasn't discovered in playtesting. While it's pretty much just a megaturn, it's a malevolent one, and one that's a kingmaker in multiplayer games.

I'd allege that .1% of games in which the card appears is not worth even 6 extra words on the card.

[SirPeebles]

The pin is a problem, but it can be resolved with adding an "if you did pass a card" before allowing the trashing. You can still do some powerful things like leave the opponent with a 2 card hand, but you won't be able to crush their hand and deck into oblivion reliably every turn.

Adding that clause would remove an unintentionally broken thing from dominion that wasn't discovered in playtesting. While it's pretty much just a megaturn, it's a malevolent one, and one that's a kingmaker in multiplayer games.

I thought about mentioning its lopsided impact on multiplayer games.  But is pinning even a reasonable strategy?  The pinning deck is not particularly strong on its own right; the benefit comes from destroying an opponent.  If there is a third player, it seems like you'd be dooming yourself nearly as badly as the opponent whose deck you trash.

[NoMoreFun]

Fortress: When you trash this, gain a Fortress, putting it in your hand.

Those will run out fast. Why make this change?

Strategies built around fortress, like Procession/Fortress, tend to strike me as a bit overpowered. This puts a limit on them, and also prevents things like bishop/fortress going on indefinitely, while still making the card functionally identical.

[NoMoreFun]

The pin is a problem, but it can be resolved with adding an "if you did pass a card" before allowing the trashing. You can still do some powerful things like leave the opponent with a 2 card hand, but you won't be able to crush their hand and deck into oblivion reliably every turn.

Adding that clause would remove an unintentionally broken thing from dominion that wasn't discovered in playtesting. While it's pretty much just a megaturn, it's a malevolent one, and one that's a kingmaker in multiplayer games.

I thought about mentioning its lopsided impact on multiplayer games.  But is pinning even a reasonable strategy?  The pinning deck is not particularly strong on its own right; the benefit comes from destroying an opponent.  If there is a third player, it seems like you'd be dooming yourself nearly as badly as the opponent whose deck you trash.

This is true. You'd only do this if you desperately wanted the player to your left not to win, but you shouldn't be allowed to do this in Dominion.

Also Masquerade isn't exactly too dense with words to be significantly hurt by adding a small clause to fix it. I'd wager that in the small number of games where the pin pops up (if it isn't a very obscure Golem pin), it's usually the best strategy on the board, as the only way to beat a player setting up a pin is to make the game end before he can set it up, which isn't easy to do, even on a board with King's Court. Its existence does hurt dominion as a whole, and IIRC, Donald X would have changed the wording if he noticed the combo in playtesting.

[popsofctown]

The pin is a problem, but it can be resolved with adding an "if you did pass a card" before allowing the trashing. You can still do some powerful things like leave the opponent with a 2 card hand, but you won't be able to crush their hand and deck into oblivion reliably every turn.

Adding that clause would remove an unintentionally broken thing from dominion that wasn't discovered in playtesting. While it's pretty much just a megaturn, it's a malevolent one, and one that's a kingmaker in multiplayer games.

I thought about mentioning its lopsided impact on multiplayer games.  But is pinning even a reasonable strategy?  The pinning deck is not particularly strong on its own right; the benefit comes from destroying an opponent.  If there is a third player, it seems like you'd be dooming yourself nearly as badly as the opponent whose deck you trash.

This is true. You'd only do this if you desperately wanted the player to your left not to win, but you shouldn't be allowed to do this in Dominion.

Also Masquerade isn't exactly too dense with words to be significantly hurt by adding a small clause to fix it. I'd wager that in the small number of games where the pin pops up (if it isn't a very obscure Golem pin), it's usually the best strategy on the board, as the only way to beat a player setting up a pin is to make the game end before he can set it up, which isn't easy to do, even on a board with King's Court. Its existence does hurt dominion as a whole, and IIRC, Donald X would have changed the wording if he noticed the combo in playtesting.

Your recollection is at odds with my recollection.

[NoMoreFun]

You're right indeed; I just checked the "dominion time machine" post.
I don't see what's so awful about saying "If you passed a card, you may trash a card from your hand" though. It looks pretty clean to me.

[dondon151]

Because then you'd have players wondering why that clause exists.

[NoMoreFun]

Because then you'd have players wondering why that clause exists.

Then they'd realise that it's because playing masquerade with an empty hand/deck takes a card away from the player to your right, which isn't fair, so thank god the clause exists.

Is it seriously that big a deal to have a few words to fix a card? It's not like Masquerade's a vanilla card anyway.

[Jimmmmm]

Personally I like Masquerade the way it is, and I like the fact that in Dominion there are certain card combos that do super crazy unusual things like trashing all your opponents cards.

[NoMoreFun]

Personally I like Masquerade the way it is, and I like the fact that in Dominion there are certain card combos that do super crazy unusual things like trashing all your opponents cards.

I like insane combos as well, but Masquerade pins cross the line into being unfun and game breaking, and aren't actually that uncommon in the grand scheme of things, since there are several cards that can substitute for "goons" (and even King's Court is negotiable). I'd even wager that if you're playing with all expansions, you're more likely to run into a Masquerade pin than a board where Scout is worth buying.

[Captain_Frisk]

Personally I like Masquerade the way it is, and I like the fact that in Dominion there are certain card combos that do super crazy unusual things like trashing all your opponents cards.

I like insane combos as well, but Masquerade pins cross the line into being unfun and game breaking, and aren't actually that uncommon in the grand scheme of things, since there are several cards that can substitute for "goons" (and even King's Court is negotiable). I'd even wager that if you're playing with all expansions, you're more likely to run into a Masquerade pin than a board where Scout is worth buying.

why do you view KC + Goons + Masq as any more offensive than KC x2 Bridge x3?  Both end the game immediately.

[dondon151]

Then they'd realise that it's because playing masquerade with an empty hand/deck takes a card away from the player to your right, which isn't fair, so thank god the clause exists.

Would they really? These are the same players who don't know why Curses are always in the kingdom. Clearly they'd realize that their existence in 2-player provides a convenient avenue to 3-pile endings in Goons engines.

Pins would be significantly less of a problem if KC were fixed. The easiest versions of the pin to set up are the KC-KC ones. It also alleviates the KC-KC-3xBridge problem, huzzah!

[NoMoreFun]

Personally I like Masquerade the way it is, and I like the fact that in Dominion there are certain card combos that do super crazy unusual things like trashing all your opponents cards.

I like insane combos as well, but Masquerade pins cross the line into being unfun and game breaking, and aren't actually that uncommon in the grand scheme of things, since there are several cards that can substitute for "goons" (and even King's Court is negotiable). I'd even wager that if you're playing with all expansions, you're more likely to run into a Masquerade pin than a board where Scout is worth buying.

why do you view KC + Goons + Masq as any more offensive than KC x2 Bridge x3?  Both end the game immediately.

It's not immediately. It's a slow grind, and unless there's a looter or a pile already empty, the game doesn't even end officially.

I don't mind being hit by KC/KC/Bridge/Bridge/Bridge, but Bridge could maybe do with the same wording as Highway and Princess.

Edit: I guess though, that every time you buy a copper, the pinning player can destroy it, and once you can't buy copper there's no way to get back on your feet. However in pins where "goons" is Ghost Ship or Margrave, the pinning player also has no money, so it would be a draw.

[Mic Qsenoch]

Personally I like Masquerade the way it is, and I like the fact that in Dominion there are certain card combos that do super crazy unusual things like trashing all your opponents cards.

I like insane combos as well, but Masquerade pins cross the line into being unfun and game breaking, and aren't actually that uncommon in the grand scheme of things, since there are several cards that can substitute for "goons" (and even King's Court is negotiable). I'd even wager that if you're playing with all expansions, you're more likely to run into a Masquerade pin than a board where Scout is worth buying.

why do you view KC + Goons + Masq as any more offensive than KC x2 Bridge x3?  Both end the game immediately.

It's not immediately. It's a slow grind, and unless there's a looter or a pile already empty, the game doesn't even end officially.

I don't mind being hit by KC/KC/Bridge/Bridge/Bridge, but Bridge could maybe do with the same wording as Highway and Princess.

Edit: I guess though, that every time you buy a copper, the pinning player can destroy it, and once you can't buy copper there's no way to get back on your feet. However in pins where "goons" is Ghost Ship or Margrave, the pinning player also has no money, so it would be a draw.

The game can end immediately. This has been said a lot of times but here's one more. If you are pinned, then resign. It's that simple.

[Drab Emordnilap]

The game can end immediately. This has been said a lot of times but here's one more. If you are pinned, then resign. It's that simple.

Why should I resign? We're tied!

 

[NoMoreFun]

If they're so insistent on keeping them, there should be some errata that specify game ending conditions for the case of masquerade pins and possibly bishop+fortress. There's some other situations that can lead to the game not being motivated to end, like a thief engine destroying everyone's treasure on a board with no virtual $ or gainers but those situations are a lot rarer. I'd personally always include the ruins pile so that there are 3 piles costing 0 and regardless of where the game goes, you can theoretically force a 3 pile end.

Then again, I'm also in favour of there being infinitely many base treasures, so make of that what you will.

[zahlman]

Then again, I'm also in favour of there being infinitely many base treasures, so make of that what you will.

Definite -1 to this, especially for the Platinum pile. Having to fight over 12 of them is often very relevant, and it's actually quite neat to have it available as a target for 3-piles, powering Cities etc.