Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: Rush_Clasic on September 04, 2012, 09:36:36 pm
-
Reserve (4)
Victory
4VP
-----
When you gain this, trash it unless you spent only $ produced by Copper to buy it.
Reserve (4)
Victory
4VP
-----
You can't gain this unless you buy it spending $ produced by Copper and nothing else.
- #38 - Reserve
- I love Copper interactions! It's one of the weakest cards in the game, yet it facilitates so much, and since it's your starting income, it's a great candidate for building cards around.
- This started as "Spend only $ produced by Copper to buy this", but I really didn't want people gaining it through Remodel shenanigans. There were a lot of wordy and ugly ways to write it up, but this way seems succinctly understandable.
- Figuring out the best cost-to-VP ratio was a bit tough on this. At 4VP for $4, it threatens the validity of Duchy a bit, but the drawback seems real enough. If it isn't, raising the cost is a simple fix.
- Is tracking where your coins came from annoying? It can be if a lot of things care about it. One card isn't bad, but multiples could be. I wouldn't expand too much on this mechanical idea.
-
Why not change the bottom part to "You cannot buy this if you have Treasure cards in play other than Copper"
-
I believe the intent is that you can't gain it and you can't use virtual coin; you must use Copper. That said, I don't think the restriction is phrased well.
What happens if I have 4 Copper and two Festivals in play? Can I buy two of these? Am I restricted to just one? Can I buy none of them?
What if I play 4 Highways? Can I buy it with 0 Copper?
The thing is, without that restriction, this card is way too cheap for the VP it gives. And even with it, I wonder if it would be dominant to only buy Copper and this card (and Estates, maybe Duchies for the 3-pile). Probably not, but I wonder.
-
I believe the intent is that you can't gain it and you can't use virtual coin; you must use Copper. That said, I don't think the restriction is phrased well.
I would prefer a short and simple phrasing for the card. Treat this as a litmus test for that. If people understand it, the job was well done. You seemed to get it right away, whereas Archetype didn't. So... I'll wait for more responses, or for a better wording (I have plenty of LONG wordings that work, but as I said, short is the goal).
What happens if I have 4 Copper and two Festivals in play? Can I buy two of these? Am I restricted to just one? Can I buy none of them?
You can buy one, using the 4 coins produced by the Coppers. Nothing in the game requires you to track where your coins came from, really (that I know of), but it isn't difficult to do so in this manner, especially since Coppers aren't played until they're actually being used. I don't really see the validity of these particular questions, or rather, I feel most players will find the right answers without outside help.
What if I play 4 Highways? Can I buy it with 0 Copper?
This is a bit more complicated and perhaps the basis for any wording issues this card might have. Still, since you spent 0 Copper on the card, it says you trash it. I'm eager to know what most people think would happen in this scenario.
The thing is, without that restriction, this card is way too cheap for the VP it gives. And even with it, I wonder if it would be dominant to only buy Copper and this card (and Estates, maybe Duchies for the 3-pile). Probably not, but I wonder.
If you pile rush estates and this, it becomes very much like a Gardens rush, except you can't use the aid of Workshop.
-
What if I play 4 Highways? Can I buy it with 0 Copper?
This is a bit more complicated and perhaps the basis for any wording issues this card might have. Still, since you spent 0 Copper on the card, it says you trash it. I'm eager to know what most people think would happen in this scenario.
But you can argue it both ways. Your argument is that you have to have spent Copper on it. But the card says that you trash it unless you spend only Copper, i.e. trash it if you spend anything else (namely non-Copper Treasure and virtual coin). Well, spending 0 Copper is still nothing other than Copper!
I don't think the rule works because it conflicts with established Dominion convention. You don't spend Treasures at all. You spend coin, and Treasures produce coin. Copper produces $1 (Coppersmith notwithstanding), Silver produces $2. You can think of them as non-terminal Actions that you play in the Buy phase. This is why Grand Market says you can't buy it if Copper is in play, rather than saying that you can't spend Copper on it. It's also why you can use Copper and still buy GM if you remove the Copper from play first, e.g. with Counterfeit, or by buying Mandarin or Mint (with +Buy) first.
A possible way to get the effect you want is by adding a restriction that 4 Copper must be in play to gain it, and then you discard 4 Copper from play when you do so.
-
My card isn't saying to "spend Copper", but "spend $ produced by Copper." Coppersmith already uses a bit of this terminology, and there's reason to believe it can work here. Grand Market has a similar but altogether different drawback, and while they're comparable, it's existence doesn't suggest this terminology shouldn't exist.
Your first point is salient, though. I don't read it that way, but I suppose it could easily be read that way. I could try:
- Spend only $ produced by Copper to buy this. When you gain this without spending $ produced by Copper to buy it, trash it.
- You can't gain this unless you have at least 4 Copper in play.
- You can't gain this unless $ produced by Copper and nothing else was spent to buy it.
I hate the first one. It's so crowded. The second (per your suggestion) isn't bad at all, though it changes the functionality. The question there is if that lost functionality is bad for the way the card plays. I'm not sure that it is, though the card loses some nuance. But it might be the best route. Right now, the third is my solution.
-
If you play a coppersmith and 4 coppers, can you buy 2?
-
If you play a coppersmith and 4 coppers, can you buy 2?
Provided you have an additional buy, sure. Coppersmith specifically states that the Coppers themselves are producing the extra coins. Moneylender, on the other hand, won't help you buy this at all.
-
Yay, I get to Swindle my opponents' Caravans into nothing! This might not be a feature of the card you want to keep.
-
I want to echo eHalcyon's suggestion—the only way to make the effect you want actually work is "When you gain this, discard 4 coppers from play. If you can't, return this to the supply" (or trash this, whatever). That would have different interactions with some cards—Coppersmith, Mint, Mandarin, Grand Market, and Bridge/Highway/Princess—but basically have the overall effect you want in most cases.
Also, Jack Rudd is totally right about Swindler interactions.
-
Yay, I get to Swindle my opponents' Caravans into nothing! This might not be a feature of the card you want to keep.
The newer wording fixes that. Definitely not an interaction I want.
I want to echo eHalcyon's suggestion—the only way to make the effect you want actually work is "When you gain this, discard 4 coppers from play. If you can't, return this to the supply" (or trash this, whatever). That would have different interactions with some cards—Coppersmith, Mint, Mandarin, Grand Market, and Bridge/Highway/Princess—but basically have the overall effect you want in most cases.
The general idea of tracking where $ comes from isn't a difficult one in small capacities, so it's definitely a mechanism that can work. The exact wording might be tricky to nail down, but the current version clears things up. I'm not disagreeing to disagree; the game shouldn't have a problem knowing where $s come from, in the same way it knows to add more coin for a Coppersmith.
-
I think this card is kinda boring. It only interacts directly with Coppersmith. You can't Remodel to gain it and you can't buy it with virtual money. When is this going to be anything more than an opportunistic buy because of a bad draw? Has this been playtested on a few random boards?
Edit: And to a lesser degree Counting House and Beggar.
-
I think this card is kinda boring. It only interacts directly with Coppersmith. You can't Remodel to gain it and you can't buy it with virtual money. When is this going to be anything more than an opportunistic buy because of a bad draw? Has this been playtested on a few random boards?
Edit: And to a lesser degree Counting House and Beggar.
I haven't playtested it at all. Which brings up another point: I think I finally have the free time to playtest these cards.
It still interacts with Highway and other cost reducers, just not at a cost of $0. It also interacts with most of the cards Coppersmith does, namely things like Apothecary, Cache, Ill-Gotten Gains, Beggar, etc. It is a narrow card, but it follows the same line that most other alt-Victory cards do: it's either a supplement to a Province strategy, or a strategy unto itself you build your deck around.
I don't think it's so boring that people wouldn't want to see it, but I've been wrong about that before.
-
Reserve (4)
Victory
4VP
-----
You can't gain this unless you buy it spending $ produced by Copper and nothing else.
I play 4 Markets and 4 Coppers. I buy a Caravan and then notice that I have several buys left. Can I buy a Reserve? Why or why not? How can you tell?
-
Reserve (4)
Victory
4VP
-----
You can't gain this unless you buy it spending $ produced by Copper and nothing else.
I play 4 Markets and 4 Coppers. I buy a Caravan and then notice that I have several buys left. Can I buy a Reserve? Why or why not? How can you tell?
If it's casual play, you'd always be able to buy the Reserve unless you have an uptight play-group. If it's something like tournament play, a ruling would have to be issued about how coins are spent in this scenario. You could probably favor either way, but the logical thing would be to always allow that purchase of Reserve. Until an actual rules interaction causes a need for declaring how you're spending your $ (which this doesn't actually cause itself), this isn't an actual problem. And even if that problem were to exist, vocal declarations aren't exactly a new thing to the game. The rules can easily clear this up. Something in the card bio like "If you buy a card other than Reserve, it is assumed that $ from non-Copper sources are spent first."
You can easily over-intellectualize this situation, but I believe most people will arrive at the same answer: if there's no way to tell what they spent, the game gives them the benefit of the doubt.
-
Add my vote to the idea that the 'This can only be purchased coins generated from Copper' is a needlessly complex concept and a Bad Idea.
I haven't playtested it at all. Which brings up another point: I think I finally have the free time to playtest these cards.
Oh, thank goodness. Please, please, please start playtesting these cards before you post them. Quality over quantity, man.
-
I haven't playtested it at all. Which brings up another point: I think I finally have the free time to playtest these cards.
Oh, thank goodness. Please, please, please start playtesting these cards before you post them. Quality over quantity, man.
That doesn't mean I won't be posting ideas every day. If the intelligent crowd here can help me weed out the bad or uninteresting ideas before they get to play-testing, all the better. My experience with game design is that for every good idea, there are ten bad ones, and for each good idea that play-tests properly, five that don't. Having an open forum to discuss game-design at its rawest stage has always been a boon to me and many of the game designers I know. I'm trying every day to pull out an idea I find interesting to see what others think. That quantity does make my track record sub-par (especially since I'm new to designing Dominion), but it's also given me a ton of information to work with so that when I do start play-testing, the ideas I tackle will be the ones people enjoyed.
-
Add my vote to the idea that the 'This can only be purchased coins generated from Copper' is a needlessly complex concept and a Bad Idea.
I haven't playtested it at all. Which brings up another point: I think I finally have the free time to playtest these cards.
Oh, thank goodness. Please, please, please start playtesting these cards before you post them. Quality over quantity, man.
Yeah, I don't think we should discourage people from posting cards that aren't playtested. I'd rather people took up our time while we debate card ideas than he gets a bunch of his friends together to play cards that have clear flaws in them making an unfun Dominion experience for them.
-
I dunno, I feel the opposite. It's discouraging to wade through unplaytested, unfiltered ideas. I pay much more attention to posts where the OP has already playtested and worked through the proposed cards.
-
Metallurgist (5)
Action
+1 Action
Gain a Copper card, putting it in your hand. Then reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Copper card. Put a card revealed this way into your hand and discard the rest.
- #39 - Metallurgist
- Copper works great as an identifier since you begin the game with so much of it in your deck. Coppersmith and Moneylender exist for this very reason. It's also one of the easiest cards to load up on, giving cards like Counting House a legitimate reason to exist.
- This started with just the latter ability. It's a difficult device to balance with just a cost, though; compare to Hunting Party, which might be the closest Dominion has to "search your deck for a card". Trashing all your Copper is probably easier more often. Thus the gain a Copper to hand drawback/benefit was added, both to give the card more spending power on bad searches and to make it tougher to abuse in trashing games. It can still perform really well with a good trasher; it just won't always be an automatic "find exactly what I want."
- Does gaining a Copper to hand make this too weak in non-trashing games? That's the question I'm eager to have answered. If all that Copper is too daunting, then this card is doomed to upset. But if there are enough clever ways to utilize it, the card becomes strategically interesting. I'm eager to hear opinions on that point especially.
I dunno, I feel the opposite. It's discouraging to wade through unplaytested, unfiltered ideas. I pay much more attention to posts where the OP has already playtested and worked through the proposed cards.
I've never felt this way myself. The Magic community I come from is overflowing with content and it's rather enjoyable to peel through all the ideas and see what people are brainstorming, more fun when I can help them on their way to whatever goal they have. Play-testing is arduous (though eventually necessary), but it's useful to talk about ideas even if they aren't completely fleshed out. Also, Magic is very much a game specific to play environment, and without knowing the cards surrounding that environment, it can be particularly difficult to suggest whether some designs will be healthy or not. Dominion is still at a point where the card count is low and the whole game can be contextualized, so there's a difference on how to approach the two. Either way, I enjoy talking with people about their designs no matter what stage a design is in, which is one of the reasons I enjoy contests so much (especially the mini-set one).
-
Hunting Party, which might be the closest Dominion has to "search your deck for a card".
Scavenger?
-
OK, I actually really like the concept of Metallurgist. The exact implementation may even be balanced. Tough to tell without playtesting.
Here's my suggested wording:
Metallurgist (5)
Action
+1 Action
Gain a Copper, putting it into your hand. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Copper. Put one of the revealed cards into your hand and discard the rest.
The biggest possible issue I see is that it could take a very long time to reveal your entire deck card by card if you have no Copper, but that's not really a dealbreaker.
-
Hunting Party, which might be the closest Dominion has to "search your deck for a card".
Scavenger?
Ya, that too.
*shakes fist at Dark Ages*
I'll get familiar with those cards one of these days. Probably after I actually get to play with the set.
-
Hunting Party, which might be the closest Dominion has to "search your deck for a card".
Scavenger?
Ya, that too.
*shakes fist at Dark Ages*
I'll get familiar with those cards one of these days. Probably after I actually get to play with the set.
No, you should have gotten familiar with Alchemy. But you'll get sage as a result of Dark Ages. Count on it. It spoils you.
-
OK, I actually really like the concept of Metallurgist. The exact implementation may even be balanced. Tough to tell without playtesting.
Here's my suggested wording:
Metallurgist (5)
Action
+1 Action
Gain a Copper, putting it into your hand. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Copper. Put one of the revealed cards into your hand and discard the rest.
The biggest possible issue I see is that it could take a very long time to reveal your entire deck card by card if you have no Copper, but that's not really a dealbreaker.
this problem already exists in Golem and, to a lesser extent, Hunting Party. with Copper though, if you are 100% sure that you have no coppers left in your deck I doubt anyone's gonna mind if you just flip over your whole deck at once to prove it.
also, I misread this at first as putting the revealed copper into your hand. which would be an interesting card too, although very different. a non-terminal silver that populated your deck with coppers and helped cycle through would certainly be interesting in an alt VP strategy, although it seems pretty bad outside of that. probably doesn't do enough to be worth it.
-
I'm fine with lots of un-playtested card ideas. I don't have the resources to playtest my ideas, but it doesn't stop me from theorycrafting and submitting to the contests! As long as Rush doesn't mind heavy critique, I think it's fine to post lots of ideas. His weekly threads are more manageable than the previous daily threads too.
Metallurgist, I think, is too weak without trashing. The copper gain is actually mostly a drawback -- it hinders your search in future plays. Considering that, I think this would be fine at $4. If there is strong trashing on the board that allows you to get rid of all your starting Copper, I am still not sure if it is strong enough to be worth $5. It might be.
-
Yay, I get to Swindle my opponents' Caravans into nothing! This might not be a feature of the card you want to keep.
The newer wording fixes that. Definitely not an interaction I want.
The newer wording certainly does not fix that; it creates a whole new problem. Suppose Reserve is the only $4 card in the Supply. What exactly happens when I hit one with my Swindler? The rules for Swindler say you have to gain one, the rules for Reserve say you can't.
(This also causes problems with Upgrade, Develop, Remake and Forge.)
-
Yay, I get to Swindle my opponents' Caravans into nothing! This might not be a feature of the card you want to keep.
The newer wording fixes that. Definitely not an interaction I want.
The newer wording certainly does not fix that; it creates a whole new problem. Suppose Reserve is the only $4 card in the Supply. What exactly happens when I hit one with my Swindler? The rules for Swindler say you have to gain one, the rules for Reserve say you can't.
(This also causes problems with Upgrade, Develop, Remake and Forge.)
"Can't" overrides forced actions in most games. It's the reason why a Throne Roomed Outpost doesn't actually work. You're right that it creates a whole new problem, though. I think my end goal for that card has steered away from a "no gain" clause. All I really care about is the "Spend only $ produced by Copper to buy this" function. If I can make the card balanced with just that, I'll be happy. Maybe at 3VP for $3.
-
Yay, I get to Swindle my opponents' Caravans into nothing! This might not be a feature of the card you want to keep.
The newer wording fixes that. Definitely not an interaction I want.
The newer wording certainly does not fix that; it creates a whole new problem. Suppose Reserve is the only $4 card in the Supply. What exactly happens when I hit one with my Swindler? The rules for Swindler say you have to gain one, the rules for Reserve say you can't.
(This also causes problems with Upgrade, Develop, Remake and Forge.)
"Can't" overrides forced actions in most games. It's the reason why a Throne Roomed Outpost doesn't actually work. You're right that it creates a whole new problem, though. I think my end goal for that card has steered away from a "no gain" clause. All I really care about is the "Spend only $ produced by Copper to buy this" function. If I can make the card balanced with just that, I'll be happy.
What forced action does "can't" override on TR-Outpost? Outpost is self-consistent and doesn't conflict with anything else. TR-Outpost still lets you play Outpost twice, it's just that the second Outpost doesn't let you take a third consecutive turn. The example given shows how your card would conflict with Swindler.
-
Yay, I get to Swindle my opponents' Caravans into nothing! This might not be a feature of the card you want to keep.
The newer wording fixes that. Definitely not an interaction I want.
The newer wording certainly does not fix that; it creates a whole new problem. Suppose Reserve is the only $4 card in the Supply. What exactly happens when I hit one with my Swindler? The rules for Swindler say you have to gain one, the rules for Reserve say you can't.
(This also causes problems with Upgrade, Develop, Remake and Forge.)
"Can't" overrides forced actions in most games. It's the reason why a Throne Roomed Outpost doesn't actually work. You're right that it creates a whole new problem, though. I think my end goal for that card has steered away from a "no gain" clause. All I really care about is the "Spend only $ produced by Copper to buy this" function. If I can make the card balanced with just that, I'll be happy.
What forced action does "can't" override on TR-Outpost? Outpost is self-consistent and doesn't conflict with anything else. TR-Outpost still lets you play Outpost twice, it's just that the second Outpost doesn't let you take a third consecutive turn. The example given shows how your card would conflict with Swindler.
"Can't" is just that simple in most games. It prevents you from doing what you would otherwise do. I used Outpost just as an example of a situation in the game where the word "can't" is actually used (since it's only on 3 cards in current Dominion). You would just Swindler as much as possible. It's the same idea behind choosing either function of Torturer when you can't actually fulfill a particular half: if you have no cards in hand, you can still "discard 2 cards", and if the Curses are all gone, you can still choose "gain a Curse card."
The current version of Reserve conflicts only in that if Swindler trashes it in a kingdom with no other 4s, nothing will be gained. That is, however, undesirable and very much worth changing.
-
Wow, you're still trying to justify this terrible wording? Just say 'you can't buy this unless you have 4 Coppers in play' and leave it at that. Don't want people to be able to gain it easily? Make it more powerful and cost it at $5.
-
Wow, you're still trying to justify this terrible wording? Just say 'you can't buy this unless you have 4 Coppers in play' and leave it at that. Don't want people to be able to gain it easily? Make it more powerful and cost it at $5.
We're just talking about how the game works. I already agreed that the Swindler interaction is undesirable and makes the "can't gain" feature bad. And now we're discussing how the game would actually handle it.
I don't get why you're being snippy.
-
I'm being snippy because:
1. Keeping track of coins spent on one thing vs. another is something Donald intentionally removed from the game, presumably because it's confusing and difficult to track. It's a Bad Idea.
2. Having 'can't gain' wording is also a Bad Idea that has many rules ambiguities that others have brought up.
3. You just keep arguing that these Bad Ideas are actually perfectly OK.
4. The whole concept of 'you can only gain this by buying it with Copper' is, in my opinion, uninteresting and not a compelling enough reason to have these rules ambiguities and questions. I mean, official cards have issues like this sometimes. Band of Misfits is a great example. The difference is that Band of Misfits is interesting enough to warrant all the rules questions.
-
Yay, I get to Swindle my opponents' Caravans into nothing! This might not be a feature of the card you want to keep.
The newer wording fixes that. Definitely not an interaction I want.
The newer wording certainly does not fix that; it creates a whole new problem. Suppose Reserve is the only $4 card in the Supply. What exactly happens when I hit one with my Swindler? The rules for Swindler say you have to gain one, the rules for Reserve say you can't.
(This also causes problems with Upgrade, Develop, Remake and Forge.)
"Can't" overrides forced actions in most games. It's the reason why a Throne Roomed Outpost doesn't actually work. You're right that it creates a whole new problem, though. I think my end goal for that card has steered away from a "no gain" clause. All I really care about is the "Spend only $ produced by Copper to buy this" function. If I can make the card balanced with just that, I'll be happy.
What forced action does "can't" override on TR-Outpost? Outpost is self-consistent and doesn't conflict with anything else. TR-Outpost still lets you play Outpost twice, it's just that the second Outpost doesn't let you take a third consecutive turn. The example given shows how your card would conflict with Swindler.
"Can't" is just that simple in most games. It prevents you from doing what you would otherwise do. I used Outpost just as an example of a situation in the game where the word "can't" is actually used (since it's only on 3 cards in current Dominion). You would just Swindler as much as possible. It's the same idea behind choosing either function of Torturer when you can't actually fulfill a particular half: if you have no cards in hand, you can still "discard 2 cards", and if the Curses are all gone, you can still choose "gain a Curse card."
The current version of Reserve conflicts only in that if Swindler trashes it in a kingdom with no other 4s, nothing will be gained. That is, however, undesirable and very much worth changing.
While other games may have that as a rule, Dominion does not. I can think of no example where a card says you CAN'T do something, in such a way that it would contradict other cards (Swindler in our example).
Outpost says you can't take more than one consecutive turn. It is a limit on itself, not something that will contradict other cards.
Grand Market says you can't buy it with Copper in play. This is a restriction on itself, not something that will contradict other cards (e.g. you can still gain it with other cards, or you can remove Copper from play and buy it then).
The rule that you do all that you can does not deal with "can't". Torturer says you CAN choose to gain a Curse. So you can choose that. If the Curses are out then you have done all you can, and the mechanics of the game prevent you from gaining a Curse that isn't available to be gained.
Saying that you can't gain as per the wording you have used WILL result in direct contradiction between two cards. Why should your card have default precedence? You can argue that it is the most logical ruling, and that's fine, but in general you should probably strive to avoid such rules confusion.
-
1. Keeping track of coins spent on one thing vs. another is something Donald intentionally removed from the game, presumably because it's confusing and difficult to track. It's a Bad Idea.
I'd like to read this if you know where he talks about it. (I'm not being challenging or snippy: I'm actually interested.) In practice, you don't actually have to keep track save in corner cases, and those don't feel worse than, say, a trashed Mining Village in the midst of a long Action chain. But no one addressed that in the most recent debate.
2. Having 'can't gain' wording is also a Bad Idea that has many rules ambiguities that others have brought up.
This was addressed and I agreed. The only thing I talked about afterwards is that the game can handle the interaction easily. I didn't say that it was a good interaction to have. I want to change any future iteration of the card specifically because of it! But I'm only talking about the card anymore to respond to people; otherwise, it's an idea not many people seem to like and not a route I intend on doing much with, if anything.
3. You just keep arguing that these Bad Ideas are actually perfectly OK.
I changed the card a number of times because of the problems people addressed. The only issue my opinion has differed on is the "spend" terminology.
4. The whole concept of 'you can only gain this by buying it with Copper' is, in my opinion, uninteresting and not a compelling enough reason to have these rules ambiguities and questions. I mean, official cards have issues like this sometimes. Band of Misfits is a great example. The difference is that Band of Misfits is interesting enough to warrant all the rules questions.
Fair enough. The general idea has no champions. That feedback is what I want most; it was better for this card than most, since people addressed the actual concept rather than just the execution.
The rule that you do all that you can does not deal with "can't". Torturer says you CAN choose to gain a Curse. So you can choose that. If the Curses are out then you have done all you can, and the mechanics of the game prevent you from gaining a Curse that isn't available to be gained.
Saying that you can't gain as per the wording you have used WILL result in direct contradiction between two cards. Why should your card have default precedence? You can argue that it is the most logical ruling, and that's fine, but in general you should probably strive to avoid such rules confusion.
The "do as much as you can" rule doesn't currently apply to this situation because the interaction doesn't exist in this capacity (though it does to an extent in that Develop or any other trasher that uses "exact" gains nothing if the appropriate priced card doesn't exist). I'm not arguing that the mechanic should exist, but the game really is well equipped to handle it. If I thought there was real potential rules confusion, I'd agree with your point, but I don't believe it to actually exist any more than other novice rules understandings.
-
Saying that you can't gain as per the wording you have used WILL result in direct contradiction between two cards. Why should your card have default precedence?
The "do as much as you can" rule doesn't currently apply to this situation because the interaction doesn't exist in this capacity (though it does to an extent in that Develop or any other trasher that uses "exact" gains nothing if the appropriate priced card doesn't exist). I'm not arguing that the mechanic should exist, but the game really is well equipped to handle it. If I thought there was real potential rules confusion, I'd agree with your point, but I don't believe it to actually exist any more than other novice rules understandings.
I don't follow this at all. Dominion is conspicuously NOT equipped to handle conflicts like this. I say conspicuous because of how much deliberate care there is in the wording of the cards to avoid ever encountering such a conflict, no matter how unlikely or contrived a situation you'd need.
To reiterate, if one card says "gain X" and card X says "you can't gain this," then there is NO WAY to resolve the situation. There is nothing inherent in the wordings or context of either card to suggest that one or the other should take precedence. You have to invent a new rule for the game overall -- not just a rule on a card somewhere but a rule governing the mechanics and terminology of the entire game -- that would describe how you would resolve such a conflict.
The reason "can't" works in the three cards that use it:
(1) Outpost's "can't" only qualifies what IT does and does not impose any restrictions on what other cards can do. It is significant that it doesn't say "You can't play this if it would cause you to take more than two consecutive turns," because then it would conflict with a card that told you to play it. (Golem turning up two copies, for instance.)
(2) Grand Market says you can't buy it with Copper in play, and that's okay because buying is always something the player is free to do. No rule -- either in the game or on another card -- tell you to buy something. Therefore, if no rule forces you to do it, it's fine if a card forces you not to. Very significantly, Grand Market does NOT say you can't gain it with Copper in play, because there are tons of other cards that force you to gain things.
(3) Contraband, again, only says "can't" with respect to buying cards, not gaining them. I can play Contraband, be forbidden Provinces, then play a Horn of Plenty and gain a Province. But if it said "gain," then what do I do if Coppers and Curses are out, Estates are the only $2 cards out, Contraband forbids me Estates, and then I play a Horn of Plenty worth $2? This is a crazy edge case, and yet Donald very conspicuously wrote Contraband to avoid this kind of conflict. I don't know why you'd think a fan card exhibiting less care would be acceptable to Dominion players at large.
It's all well and good to say "Can't is simple -- can't means can't" and trick yourself into thinking it's all perfectly clear. But you could just as easily say "Gain is simple -- gain means gain" and trick yourself the other way.
-
Hunting Party, which might be the closest Dominion has to "search your deck for a card".
Scavenger?
Ya, that too.
*shakes fist at Dark Ages*
I'll get familiar with those cards one of these days. Probably after I actually get to play with the set.
No, you should have gotten familiar with Alchemy. But you'll get sage as a result of Dark Ages. Count on it. It spoils you.
I don't know if everyone got all of the puns here. I got the last three, but couldn't figure out what the heck the first sentence meant for a while. When it hit me, I burst out laughing. I wish I could give you +10 respect, my good sir.
-
*shakes fist at Dark Ages*
I'll get familiar with those cards one of these days. Probably after I actually get to play with the set.
No, you should have gotten familiar with Alchemy. But you'll get sage as a result of Dark Ages. Count on it. It spoils you.
I don't know if everyone got all of the puns here. I got the last three, but couldn't figure out what the heck the first sentence meant for a while. When it hit me, I burst out laughing. I wish I could give you +10 respect, my good sir.
:D
-
The "do as much as you can" rule doesn't currently apply to this situation because the interaction doesn't exist in this capacity (though it does to an extent in that Develop or any other trasher that uses "exact" gains nothing if the appropriate priced card doesn't exist). I'm not arguing that the mechanic should exist, but the game really is well equipped to handle it. If I thought there was real potential rules confusion, I'd agree with your point, but I don't believe it to actually exist any more than other novice rules understandings.
I don't follow this at all. Dominion is conspicuously NOT equipped to handle conflicts like this. I say conspicuous because of how much deliberate care there is in the wording of the cards to avoid ever encountering such a conflict, no matter how unlikely or contrived a situation you'd need.
To reiterate, if one card says "gain X" and card X says "you can't gain this," then there is NO WAY to resolve the situation. There is nothing inherent in the wordings or context of either card to suggest that one or the other should take precedence. You have to invent a new rule for the game overall -- not just a rule on a card somewhere but a rule governing the mechanics and terminology of the entire game -- that would describe how you would resolve such a conflict.
There's a good enough chance that I'm so familiar with "can't trumps can" that the logic just doesn't seem reasonable the other way around to me. It's an interesting topic to debate. When I said "the game really is well equipped to handle it", I didn't mean that the rules to govern this issue were inherent in its structure, just that the game handles "impossible actions" as part of its structure, and that this could be added to that.
The reason "can't" works in the three cards that use it:
(1) Outpost's "can't" only qualifies what IT does and does not impose any restrictions on what other cards can do. It is significant that it doesn't say "You can't play this if it would cause you to take more than two consecutive turns," because then it would conflict with a card that told you to play it. (Golem turning up two copies, for instance.)
(2) Grand Market says you can't buy it with Copper in play, and that's okay because buying is always something the player is free to do. No rule -- either in the game or on another card -- tell you to buy something. Therefore, if no rule forces you to do it, it's fine if a card forces you not to. Very significantly, Grand Market does NOT say you can't gain it with Copper in play, because there are tons of other cards that force you to gain things.
At the heart of it, I think the game avoids that because it is an undesirable effect to have from a game enjoyment standpoint, not because it would be confusing to handle. The only purpose to write on a card that it "can't" do something is because the game would naturally make or allow you to do that something. That "can't" is in stark contrast to whatever is normally allowed, and its reasonable to believe that most people would read it that way. It happens all the time in games.
(3) Contraband, again, only says "can't" with respect to buying cards, not gaining them. I can play Contraband, be forbidden Provinces, then play a Horn of Plenty and gain a Province. But if it said "gain," then what do I do if Coppers and Curses are out, Estates are the only $2 cards out, Contraband forbids me Estates, and then I play a Horn of Plenty worth $2? This is a crazy edge case, and yet Donald very conspicuously wrote Contraband to avoid this kind of conflict. I don't know why you'd think a fan card exhibiting less care would be acceptable to Dominion players at large.
Just to be clear, I think the original card I posted (Reserve), and the subsequent versions I've posted, are flawed, as pointed out by a number of people now. I feel as though we're arguing separate matters. I think the game can handle these situations without causing mass confusion. That doesn't mean I think the game should attempt clauses like "can't be gained", at least, not in the way I've attempted, not with the information others have shared that I overlooked. Games are basically a set of allowances and forced actions, and most use some set of stoppers to vary the interaction. If you think of cards as just a subset of rules, you see that these conflicts occur all the time. The game says "draw 5 cards during your clean-up step"; Outpost says "only draw 3." The game says "trashed cards go to the trash pile." Possession redirects them. It's the same conflict, really: one thing says to do something, one thing says to do something else. They work on dependency and allowance, and "can't gain" should be instinctively played similarly.
Again, I now agree that there are too many undesirable effects with my card to want it to say "can't gain", but those are all based on the game's enjoyability.
-
Scam Artist (4)
Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, discards the non-Copper cards, and puts the rest back on top of his deck in any order. He gains a Copper card for each card he discarded, putting it on top of his deck.
- #40 - Scam Artist
- This is a cross section of a few different card ideas, mostly Sea Hag and Rabble. I've liked the idea of Copper as a drawback ever since Garden decks stopped winning all our games!
- I worked on a few different version of this idea before settling on the one above. I wasn't sure initially how much Copper I was okay with it doling out, but "2 a round at most" was the safest answer, and felt right, similar to how Militia only hits once a round against any particular player.
- Part of me wanted to cost this at 3, but the card feels strong enough to work at 4. Copper isn't as bad a punishment as Curses, but it can still get annoying.
-
Scam Artist (4)
Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, discards the non-Copper cards, and puts the rest back on top of his deck in any order. He gains a Copper card for each card he discarded, putting it on top of his deck.
So it's a junker/mucker like Sea Hag, with the junking attack weaker but with a benefit to the player? Fair enough; it looks reasonable at that price. Playtest it and see how it goes.
-
OK, here's my take on how to make Reserve do something like what Rush_Clasic wants it to, but not have horrible interactions with other cards:
Reserve (4)
Victory
4VP
-----
When you gain this, discard four Coppers from play. If you do not, return this card to the Supply and gain a Silver.
-
OK, here's my take on how to make Reserve do something like what Rush_Clasic wants it to, but not have horrible interactions with other cards:
Reserve (4)
Victory
4VP
-----
When you gain this, discard four Coppers from play. If you do not, return this card to the Supply and gain a Silver.
I can't wait to Ironworks one of these.
-
OK, here's my take on how to make Reserve do something like what Rush_Clasic wants it to, but not have horrible interactions with other cards:
Reserve (4)
Victory
4VP
-----
When you gain this, discard four Coppers from play. If you do not, return this card to the Supply and gain a Silver.
I can't wait to Ironworks one of these.
Eh, it's OK, but not stunning. Ironworks a Reserve and you get a Silver and +1 Card. (Unless, of course, you play Ironworks after Black Market, when you may be able to get a Reserve and +1 Card.)
-
I'm thinking that my initial concerns about the card being overpowered were overstated. With that in mind, I could just go the simplest route--reverse Grand Market:
Reserve (3)
Victory
3VP
-----
You can't buy this unless you have at least 3 Copper in play.
The wording I initially chose was always an attempt to lessen this card's power, but I think it can easily be fair at this cost and value.
That said, I like your idea, Jack.
-
I liked the 4VP. Heres an idea:
Reserve 0$
Victory
4VP
------------
When you gain this, discard four coppers from your hand. If you don't, return this card to the supply.
EDIT: fixed when gain/simplified
-
Another idea, off the top of my head: "[This Card] cannot be bought. In games using this, during your Buy phase, you may discard N coppers any number of times; each time you do, gain a [This Card]."
-
Coffers (4)
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
-----
When you buy this, put it on top of your deck unless you have non-Copper Treasure cards in play.
- #41 - Coffers
- So, I tried making a card that used Copper as a restriction, and not only did it fail to work well in the eyes of my peers, but the basic concept wasn't much liked. So, I thought, what about reversing it? Why not just make a card that has an occasional boon, that boon being the Copper restriction? Well, it seems much better that way.
- I wanted this to produce coins so you wouldn't necessarily have to go out of Copper mode. I'm not sure if the base stats of this card want to exist alone anywhere. I feel like Donald discussed this somewhere, but I haven't been about to find it. Anyway, it's obviously stronger than Oasis, but arguably less so than Treasury, which is why I middled it at $4.
-
Note that most people agree that straight +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1 is fairly priced at $4. So, you can compare this card to that.
-
You could change it's cost to five and change it to this:
"When you buy this, if you have 2 or more Copper cards in play, put this card on top of your deck. You may also put a Copper you have in play on top of your deck too"
It probably changes the card too much, but this card can't cost 4, as Schneau said.
-
You could change it's cost to five and change it to this:
"When you buy this, if you have 2 or more Copper cards in play, put this card on top of your deck. You may also put a Copper you have in play on top of your deck too"
It probably changes the card too much, but this card can't cost 4, as Schneau said.
This is false. While the community believes (correctly so, I think) that a vanilla Peddler should cost $4, there is no such official card. Coffers as proposed might be fine at $4 as well. There is no official card at $4 to which Coffers would be strictly superior or inferior. While the $4 Vanilla Peddler is a nice benchmark to consider, it is still not a real card.
It might need to be $5 for a different reason -- I think the bonus is actually quite strong, as it would have a large impact on the opening. With it, you could end up opening $4/$4. It is weaker later in the game, but it is REALLY good early on.
-
You could change it's cost to five and change it to this:
"When you buy this, if you have 2 or more Copper cards in play, put this card on top of your deck. You may also put a Copper you have in play on top of your deck too"
It probably changes the card too much, but this card can't cost 4, as Schneau said.
This is false. While the community believes (correctly so, I think) that a vanilla Peddler should cost $4, there is no such official card. Coffers as proposed might be fine at $4 as well. There is no official card at $4 to which Coffers would be strictly superior or inferior. While the $4 Vanilla Peddler is a nice benchmark to consider, it is still not a real card.
It might need to be $5 for a different reason -- I think the bonus is actually quite strong, as it would have a large impact on the opening. With it, you could end up opening $4/$4. It is weaker later in the game, but it is REALLY good early on.
Yeah, I guess you're right, there is Tournament, but it isn't usually a Peddler late game.
Didn't even think about how you could open 4/4, yeah this might need to cost 5, but maybe with the 2 or more Coppers thing, otherwise, I think you'd only use it if you opened 5/2 or you have lots of virtual money.
-
You could change it's cost to five and change it to this:
"When you buy this, if you have 2 or more Copper cards in play, put this card on top of your deck. You may also put a Copper you have in play on top of your deck too"
It probably changes the card too much, but this card can't cost 4, as Schneau said.
It might need to be $5 for a different reason -- I think the bonus is actually quite strong, as it would have a large impact on the opening. With it, you could end up opening $4/$4. It is weaker later in the game, but it is REALLY good early on.
Nomad Camp already has this interaction. $4/$5 even.
-
You could change it's cost to five and change it to this:
"When you buy this, if you have 2 or more Copper cards in play, put this card on top of your deck. You may also put a Copper you have in play on top of your deck too"
It probably changes the card too much, but this card can't cost 4, as Schneau said.
It might need to be $5 for a different reason -- I think the bonus is actually quite strong, as it would have a large impact on the opening. With it, you could end up opening $4/$4. It is weaker later in the game, but it is REALLY good early on.
Nomad Camp already has this interaction. $4/$5 even.
Well, except Nomad Camp really gives you the equivalent of at best a $3/$5 open, since Nomad Camp is essentially a $3 card that you pay $4 for the privilege of gaining to your deck. That is, a Peddler variant is a strong $4, whereas Nomad Camp is a weak $4, which makes a difference in the effect of potential $4/$4 openings.
-
You could change it's cost to five and change it to this:
"When you buy this, if you have 2 or more Copper cards in play, put this card on top of your deck. You may also put a Copper you have in play on top of your deck too"
It probably changes the card too much, but this card can't cost 4, as Schneau said.
It might need to be $5 for a different reason -- I think the bonus is actually quite strong, as it would have a large impact on the opening. With it, you could end up opening $4/$4. It is weaker later in the game, but it is REALLY good early on.
Nomad Camp already has this interaction. $4/$5 even.
Well, except Nomad Camp really gives you the equivalent of at best a $3/$5 open, since Nomad Camp is essentially a $3 card that you pay $4 for the privilege of gaining to your deck. That is, a Peddler variant is a strong $4, whereas Nomad Camp is a weak $4, which makes a difference in the effect of potential $4/$4 openings.
And also you can get very unlucky and draw a hand of NC-Copper-Copper-Estate-Estate
You wouldn't believe how many times that has happened to me :P
-
You could change it's cost to five and change it to this:
"When you buy this, if you have 2 or more Copper cards in play, put this card on top of your deck. You may also put a Copper you have in play on top of your deck too"
It probably changes the card too much, but this card can't cost 4, as Schneau said.
It might need to be $5 for a different reason -- I think the bonus is actually quite strong, as it would have a large impact on the opening. With it, you could end up opening $4/$4. It is weaker later in the game, but it is REALLY good early on.
Nomad Camp already has this interaction. $4/$5 even.
Well, except Nomad Camp really gives you the equivalent of at best a $3/$5 open, since Nomad Camp is essentially a $3 card that you pay $4 for the privilege of gaining to your deck. That is, a Peddler variant is a strong $4, whereas Nomad Camp is a weak $4, which makes a difference in the effect of potential $4/$4 openings.
And also you can get very unlucky and draw a hand of NC-Copper-Copper-Estate-Estate
You wouldn't believe how many times that has happened to me :P
Me too. In fact, I don't know if I've ever gone $4/$5 off of it.
Also of note on this card is that going $4/$4 allows for better spamming than with Nomad Camp, which may prove its undoing. I mean, there's the possibility of going through the whole pile without needing to stop. So, maybe I should change the top half. I could make it to a village... that might be the best solution:
Coffers (4)
Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
-----
When you buy this, put it on top of your deck unless you have non-Copper Treasure cards in play.
Except I'd probably change the name.
-
I'm thinking that my initial concerns about the card being overpowered were overstated. With that in mind, I could just go the simplest route--reverse Grand Market:
Reserve (3)
Victory
3VP
-----
You can't buy this unless you have at least 3 Copper in play.
The wording I initially chose was always an attempt to lessen this card's power, but I think it can easily be fair at this cost and value.
I like the idea of some restriction on acquiring this card based on copper. $3 is a pretty low price in dominion, and for cards this cheap one needs to consider the impact of +Buy. Once an engine is built that draws your whole deck, oozing with + buys, it can be pretty trivial to add 3 coppers back into your deck. Then you have a situation where you can pick up VP at a rate of one per coin. You would only need $6 to purchase a province worth of VP. Now, I know that similar rates arise with other alt VP. Fairgrounds often becomes 6 VP for $6, and doesn't even require plus buy. Gardens can certainly exceed 1 VP per $1, as can Silk Roads and Dukes. But in all of these other cases, one really needs to plan for them. They alter the entire feel of the game.
One interesting side effect of Jack's suggestion is that you wouldn't be able to purchase the card while possessing another player. If Alice possesses Bob, and then compels Bob to buy a Reserve, then Alice will gain it. But having no coppers in play to discard -- indeed, no cards in play at all, aside from duration cards and those modifying them -- Alice would immediately return it to the supply and gain a Silver.