- Theme changes due to new official cards:
- Blacksmith→Country Blacksmith
- Idol→Brazen Bull
- Inventor→Visionary
- Patrol→Salon
- Scholar→Servants
- Removed: Friar; proved too weak, a bit out of step with the release of Landmarks, and generally better implemented by Shepherd.
- Brazen Bull only gives Curses to players who cannot reveal 3 cards that are Actions or Curses (from unconditional). You can sometimes outpace Brazen Bull, but probably not so well if you are buying Brazen Bulls.
- Missionary optionally discards or trashes a non-Victory card (instead of mandatory unrestricted trash).
- Salon now costs $3 (from $4) and gives +1 Card before discarding a card if you don't trash (from +$1).
- War Flag now costs $6 (from $7) and its Attack is contingent on feeding it a Treasure or trashing itself (from an Attack identical to Legionary with no cost). Trashing War Flag to buy another War Flag is a fairly common move as its In-games-using-this effect causes this to clean your deck.
- New cards:
- Charity School: A Laboratory with a +Buy at $3, the catch being that extra Buys turn into Curses because of its in-games-using-this effect. A cute inter-set nombo with Street where you get 2 Buys every turn.
- Commission: A sifting Throne Room. You have to discard down to 4 cards, but could in-so-doing play a single Action 4 or more times!
- Courier: Hit yourself with a Knight-styled effect to get a big amount of money. Use the +Buy it gives you to top-deck the new card with Courier's In-games-using-this effect.
- Kitchen: A Laboratory at $4 that Enchantresses your next Action. It is worse than discarding a card, I swear.
- Séance: A terminal-Gold Curser. It hits yourself with a Swindler-like effect so long as you aren't milling Victory cards. The in-games-using-this makes its Cursing and self-Cursing much weaker as it gives everyone free Harbingers.
- Usurer: A Super Grand Market at $4 that restricts your next Buy, but you have to unlock it with other cards.
- Set name changed to Avarice (from Greed). This is to go hand-in-hand with a major change of In-games-using-this effects to Edicts (and also for internal reasons that are amusing only to me).
- Majority of artwork is refit to higher quality. All art is now properly credited (previously missed source on some free domain art).
- The majority of In-games-using-this effects are turned into Edicts: They are implemented differently here in that they are necessarily married to a Kingdom card, so the randomizer that includes the Kingdom card is itself the Edict with which it is paired. This change generally cleans up the text boxes of those cards. Servants, Prospector, and Frontier retain their In-games-using-this as they refer to themselves specifically.
- Removed: Visionary; too difficult to both amass Visionaries and be in a Kingdom where gaining so many $4-cost things was good.
- Countess cost down to $3 (from $4).
- Courier now trashes a card from hand or digs to find one to trash (instead of doing the Knight thing). It gives +2 Buys (from +1 Buy) and +$5 (from +$4) when you trash something, and nothing if you fail (from +$2).
- Fletcher now gains a non-Victory card costing up to $4 (from up to $3), and can only gain a second copy and an Estate if the pile is sufficiently large. Its Edict now applies to all cards with types other than Action, Treasure, or Victory (from Attack only), so many more cards are pulled into its price range.
- Missionary's Edict triggers on trashing any Action (from Missionary specifically) so as to use an Edict instead.
- Street cost up to $4 (from $3), draws +3 Cards (from +2 Cards), and makes you discard a card if you don't have a Buy to lose (from doing nothing in that circumstance).
- Usurer wildly simplified into an activated Conspirator that either explodes or restricts your buy. It is paired with an Edict that makes Silvers give a +Buy so you'll never be in a Kingdom where you can only pop the Usurers.
- Cards generally updated to Menagerie standards. I stand by the "you may X. If you do Y." wording.
Release of Allies[/list]
- Theme changes due to new official cards:
- Courier→Gravedigger
- Marquis→Scutagium
- Countess cost down to $2 (from $3).
- War Flag's Edict updated to use an on-gain trigger due to complete deprecation of on-buy triggers.
- Set is expanded to 400 cards. New Cards:
- Barkeep: A terminal Gold with a Buy, unless you have $ in which case he takes them and gives you a bunch of cards like a super Workshop.
- Philosopher: A devastating Attack regardless of hand-size that knocks out everything with types other than the normally playable things. The discard is relevant even of Victory cards because its Edict requires you to have chaff to discard to stop yourself from getting Cursed.
- Sluice: A Victory card that pulls Estates out of the trash. Its worth 4VP on its own if the Province pile is emptied, so 2.5VP per card (unless there aren't Estates in the trash, obviously).
- Visionary: A super-Kiln, gaining whatever you want and to the top of your deck, but with the worst part of Outpost attached.
- 20 Landmarks:
- Blood Money: Curse anyone by trashing valuable stuff. A big buff for trash-for-benefit or an excuse to trash weird things you might not normally.
- Blueblood Legacy: All the middle cards become terrible for your score.
- Campaign: Make sure you gain Actions as the game ends.
- Charity: Stop playing high-cost cards to cash in VP.
- Day of Mourning: Everything is Hideout.
- Fissures: Opposite to Wolf Den, repetitive cards become bad... even Victory cards.
- Grand Migration: A major nerf to Copper-trashing as it gives the player to your left +Cards.
- Hidden Kingdom: Avoid Provinces for a huge 22VP stipend. Then again, you're normally allotted 24VP from Provinces...
- Land Grab: You can get +Buys from getting Victory cards.
- Market Closing: An end-game Mission to produce as much $ as possible.
- Old World: Get lots of Victory cards and lord the size of your Dominion over other players.
- Ossuary: VP for keeping a bunch of cards with copies in the trash. A Duchy starts in the trash for good measure.
- Precipice: A reverse of Tower, VP for having cards from non-empty Supply piles.
- Revolution: The losing player gets the Estate pile (kind of).
- Royal Nursery: Throne Room for Victory cards, we just determine which one it affects at the start of the game.
- Sacrament: A little VP mini-game for Curses, or else nullifies the VP value of losing the Curse split.
- Sprawling Conquest: Provinces come with more Victory cards.
- Supply Line: VP for alternative Treasures. Some bonus VP for Silvers as well (since it will often not matter otherwise).
- Town Well: The Estate version of Fountain.
- War-torn Land: VP for Attacks and fewer for those precious Provinces.
Alehouse
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may discard 4 cards. If you do, +3 Actions.
Arcanum
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Reveal your hand. If you revealed any Curses, trash one, gain a Copper, and then +1 Card. Otherwise, gain a Curse and, if you do, +4 Cards.QuoteEDICT In games using this, when you trash a Curse, return it to the Supply.
Architect
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Action. Reveal your hand. The player to your left chooses one that doesn't cost $5. Trash it and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.QuoteEDICT In games using this, Copper costs $1 more.
Barkeep
Types: Action
Cost: $5
If you have at least $3, pay all your $ and gain 3 differently named cards each costing up to $6. Otherwise, +1 Buy and +$3.
Brazen Bull
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $5
$2. Each other player may reveal 3 cards from their hand that are Actions or Curses. If they don't, they gain a Curse.QuoteEDICT In games using this, the VP value of Curses is multiplied by the number of Treasures costing at least $5 in your deck.
Charity School*-Note that we subscribe to the Adventures school of Events, wherein you cannot buy Events that do nothing.
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards, +1 Action, +1 Buy.QuoteEDICT In games using this, at the start of your Clean-Up, gain a Curse for each unused Buy you have.
Commission
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. Discard down to 5 cards in hand. You may play an Action from your hand once per card discarded.
Countess
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Cards. At the start of Clean-Up, if you didn't buy any cards this turn, gain a Duchy.QuoteEDICT In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more.
Country Blacksmith
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $3
Reveal any number of Treasures from your hand and discard them. +2 Cards per card discarded.
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, exchange the gained card for a Copper to your hand.
Fletcher
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a non-Victory card costing up to $4. If there are at least 5 cards left in its pile, you may gain another copy and an Estate.QuoteEDICT In games using this, cards with types other than Action, Treasure, and Victory cost $1 less.
Frontier
Types: Victory
Cost: $5
5VP.
In games using this, at the end of each turn taken by the last player in turn order that is not an extra turn, they put a Frontier from the Supply into the trash.
Gravedigger
Types: Action
Cost: $3
You may trash a card costing from $3 to $6 from your hand. If you don't, reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal such a card, trash it, and then discard the rest. If you trashed a card, +2 Buys and +$5.QuoteEDICT In games using this, when you gain a card, you may spend a Buy. If you do, put the gained card on top of your deck.
Historian
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Draw until you have 6 cards in hand; you may set aside up to 2 cards as you draw them. When you finish drawing, trash the set aside cards.
Inquisitor
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
Choose one: Discard a card and each other player gains a Curse; or trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
Kitchen
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards, +1 Action. The next time you play an Action this turn, get +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions.
Leper Village
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1. Each other player with at least 4 cards in hand discards a card.QuoteEDICT In games using this, at the end of each of your turns after the first, +1 Card.
Missionary
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Card. You may trash or discard a non-Victory card from your hand. +1 Action per $1 in its cost.QuoteEDICT In games using this, the first time you trash a Silver or Action each turn, you may gain a different Action costing $5, putting it into your hand.
Opium Den
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Buy. You may trash a Silver from your hand. If you do, +$6. Otherwise, gain both a Copper and a Silver to your hand.QuoteEDICT In games using this, when you gain a Gold, put it on top of your deck and gain an Estate.
Philosopher
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Buy, +$2. Each other player reveals their hand and discards each card with a type other than Action, Treasure, or Attack.QuoteEDICT In games using this, when you gain a card other than Copper or Curse, you may discard a card. If you don't, gain a Curse.
Prospector
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. Trash a card from your hand. If you have no Treasures in hand, you may reveal it and gain a Gold.
In games using this, when you gain a Gold, each other player may gain a Prospector to their hand.
Salon
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +2 Actions. You may trash a card costing at least $3 from your hand or else discard a card. If you trash a card, name a card, reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a copy of the named card, put it into your hand, and discard the rest.
Scutagium
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+2 Cards, +$2. Each other player gets +1 Card. Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, each other player discards a card to a minimum of 3 cards in hand.
Séance
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+$3. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it isn't a Victory card, trash it, and gain a differently named card with the same cost. Each other player gains a Curse.QuoteEDICT In games using this, when you gain a card costing at most $2, you may put a card from your discard pile on top of your deck.
Servants
Types: Action
Cost: $0
+1 Action. Draw until you have 4 cards in hand.
In games using this, directly after resolving an Action, if you haven't gained a Servants this turn, you may gain a Servants and play it.
Slave Trade
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +2 Actions. Gain a Copper to your hand. Each other player gains a Copper.QuoteEDICT In games using this, at the start of your Clean-Up, you may trash a Copper from your hand for every 2 differently named card you have in play.
Sluice
Types: Victory
Cost: $4
1VP. Worth 3VP more if the Province pile is empty.
When you gain this, gain an Estate from the trash.
Street
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Cards cost $1 less this turn. If you have any Buys, -1 Buy.QuoteEDICT In games using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
Tanner
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Put the revealed cards costing at least $2 into your hand and the rest back in any order.QuoteEDICT In games using this, once per turn, directly after you shuffle your deck, gain a Copper.
Usurer
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action, +$2. Choose one: Trash this; or your next buy this turn must be a card that costs $3.QuoteEDICT In games using this, when you play a Silver, +1 Buy.
Visionary
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Gain a card costing up to $5, setting it aside. When this leaves play, put the set aside card on top of your deck. You only draw 3 cards for your next hand.
War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $5
$3. Either trash this or discard a Treasure, then each other player discards a card for each coin in its cost then draw until they have 3 cards in hand.QuoteEDICT In games using this, when you gain a card costing at least $5, if you bought it, trash a card you would discard from play this turn.
Quote Street | Quote Fletcher |
Sorry it took a while to respond to this. I've been busy at work (which is where I usually do my card critiques).I agree in general, although I'd suggest that it can be difficult if you don't have anything to remind you of those effects if the Supply pile is empty. For example:
I think "in games using this" is a fine avenue to explore. It might be nice if those Kingdom cards had a new type and a bright color, just to remind you that they're always doing something just by being in the Kingdom.
Some of the effects here, especially ones where specific types of cards have altered costs, will probably need a token or something to mark them. This is actually one space where it makes a lot more sense to do online, since on Goko the cards with altered cost would have a visual representation (the cost written in red rather than black).
Young Witch doesn't give any reminder about which card is the Bain.
I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.
I think "in games using this" is a fine avenue to explore. It might be nice if those Kingdom cards had a new type and a bright color, just to remind you that they're always doing something just by being in the Kingdom.A type would just be silly, but I did consider giving each "in games using this" effect a chartreuse (http://www.photos-public-domain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/bumpy-chartreuse-plastic-texture.jpg) background as a reminder. I was ultimately leery of doing so for its inconsistency with Duchess.
Street
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. -1 Buy to a minimum of 0 Buys. Cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0.
In game using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
Street reduces costs, but it reduces your buys; the exact opposite effect that you want with a cost reducer. The +2 Cards just isn't making up for that. If the concept of the card is –Buy (and starting your turns with an additional buy), then I think you're better off choosing a bonus that isn't diametrically opposed to the penalty. I like Street's "in games using this" clause. I don't think it needs to be paired with –Buy to make it interesting, but obviously if you want –Buy, that's the rule to pair it with.A -Buy is not necessary to make a "2 Buys per turn" card interesting, but it makes the 2 Buys significantly easier to remember. Having a "+Buy in games using this" slapped on to any card that combos with +Buys (or is totally irrelevant) would make the "in games using this" harder to remember since there are already a lot of cards that combo with +Buys (or do not care at all). As you stated though, giving out a -Buy nearly requires +Buy be present as well, and this "in games using this" effect is a good work around.
Fletcher
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain up to 2 cards that aren't Victory cards, each costing up to $3. If you gain 2 cards, gain an Estate.
In game using this, Attacks cost $1 less, but not less than $0.
Street reduces costs, but it I like Fletcher's rule as well, but again the action effect seems lackluster. Yes it's nice with Attack cards that normally cost $4. But even with that, it seems like gaining 2 cards each costing up to $3 is a fine $4 card even without the penalty of gaining an Estate. Maybe I'm underestimating it, but it seems weak. I'd rather see it be more straightforward. Like, "Gain 2 differently named cards each costing up to $4. Gain a Curse."I did describe Fletcher as a deceptively powerful Workshop variant. To understand why, look no further than Stonemason. Stonemason is strong in its ability to multiply buying power for Actions, but is especially notable for how rapidly it can pile out a game--even in 2-player. Considering that, Fletcher is quite comparable to Stonemason in its ability to force a 3-pile ending.
Have you considered using a "while this is in play" or "while this is (publicly) visible" clause instead of "while this is in the game"? As well as not possibly making players remember the modifications if the piles run out, it would give more tactical decisions. Another option is to include a card with each pile of relevant kingdom cards that simply states the rule.I did not consider this limitation because of Young Witch's similarly untraceable effects. I usually have randomizers sitting on the table when I am playing games, and even when they are not, the "in games using this" effects of the majority of cards are such a major strategic consideration to the game state that players very, very rarely forget them.
To do otherwise would be ridiculous, especially since, by the strictest rule, the deck for Black Market has one of every Kingdom card that is not already in the Supply, which means every "in games using this" effect would apply in every Kingdom with Black Market in it.I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.
Have you considered using a "while this is in play" or "while this is (publicly) visible" clause instead of "while this is in the game"? As well as not possibly making players remember the modifications if the piles run out, it would give more tactical decisions. Another option is to include a card with each pile of relevant kingdom cards that simply states the rule.I did not consider this limitation because of Young Witch's similarly untraceable effects. I usually have randomizers sitting on the table when I am playing games, and even when they are not, the "in games using this" effects of the majority of cards are such a major strategic consideration to the game state that players very, very rarely forget them.
It would honestly be harder to remember the "in games using this" effects if they changed in the middle of the game.
I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.
You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.
I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.
You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.
I think that would be really counter-intuitive to be able to 'use' (buy, draw, play etc) a card which has an "In games using this" clause that doesn't trigger.
I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.
You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.
I think that would be really counter-intuitive to be able to 'use' (buy, draw, play etc) a card which has an "In games using this" clause that doesn't trigger.
I disagree!
I imagine this would particularly be an issue with Black Market.
You do "Setup" rules for cards that are in the Black Market. I think it's reasonable to interpret "In games using this" as only games where the pile is actually in the Supply.
I think that would be really counter-intuitive to be able to 'use' (buy, draw, play etc) a card which has an "In games using this" clause that doesn't trigger.
I disagree!
Do we disagree on what the word 'use' means?
I did describe Fletcher as a deceptively powerful Workshop variant. To understand why, look no further than Stonemason. Stonemason is strong in its ability to multiply buying power for Actions, but is especially notable for how rapidly it can pile out a game--even in 2-player. Considering that, Fletcher is quite comparable to Stonemason in its ability to force a 3-pile ending.
In a game with Fletcher and $2 or $3 cards that are desirable in multiples, not only can those cards pile out fast, but the Estate pile can be drained simultaneously. Monitoring the Supply piles is incredibly important in Fletcher games, since a player who is ahead can possibly pick up two or three Fletchers and start emptying $3 piles 3 cards at a time while gaining Estates to try to maintain their lead (which is what makes Estates a more compelling gain than any other junk). Sometimes though, there are no $2 or $3 cards you want in multiples, in which case you would only buy Fletcher as a Workshop- if at all and can use it to pick up an Estate in absence of +Buy by taking Silvers.
Fletcher has been nerfed more than any other card in Greed. In its inception, it could be used to gain copies of itself and had no qualifier put on what types it gained. Piling out on Fletcher\Estate\Anything was so fast that basically nothing else was possible. Because of those games, I am hesitant to change Fletcher to anything that can easily gain copies of itself (even if it is gaining Curses to do so) since the games will be more likely to boil down to incredibly dull Workshop rushes.
I don't find Street compelling at all, or rather its on-play effects, to be exact. While I think that -1 Buy on-play combined with 2 Buys at the start of each turn is a fine idea, I cannot cotton up to "+2 Cards" as a vanilla bonus. You say it can be the draw part of your engine, but +2 Cards is so weak and -Buys is the exact opposite of what an engine usually wants.Street's vanilla benefit cannot be considered separate its cost reduction. If you want to try to ignore its cost reduction, at least call Street +2 Cards, +$1 like it actually is when your only Action. As an opener, that effect is quite strong; sometimes better than a Silver (usually at least as good) and always leaves you closer to important early game reshuffles.
I would much rather see it at $5 with +3 Cards, or at $4 with +$2 on top. The first would would still be a little vexing as your only source of draw in an engine but it would be a nice Big Money card. The latter could be a great payload of your engine, as it would be similar to a Gold with -1 Buy. Actually, playing only one of it would be quite strong. It might justify a cost of $5 as well.
If Fletcher runs out piles too fast, the obvious solution is to not have it gain Estates (or Curses). Just raise its cost and have it gain at most two cards.Fletcher's point is not to cut games short nor does it--what I said was that Fletcher can cut a game short. Apologies if I gave the sense otherwise.
What I'm getting from your post is that Fletcher's "deceptive power" comes from the ability to quickly end the game on piles. That's…not fun. Not for most players, anyway. It's fun to be able to build up your deck. When the entire point of a card is to cut the game short, that's no fun. When we were playtesting Adventures, cards were scrapped or changed specifically to avoid running out piles too fast.
Quote Arcanum | Quote Idol |
The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card.
The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card.
What's the relationship between the passive effect and the on-play effect of Fletcher? They seem unrelated to me.
The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card.
What's the relationship between the passive effect and the on-play effect of Fletcher? They seem unrelated to me.
It encourages gaining Attacks, because you can get $4 Attacks with it but not $4 non-Attacks.
Arcanum: A self-curser that returns curses to the Supply? Sounds familiar. I made a card using similar mechanics but it works totally different. I like that this idea is explored even more here. I can't assess the card balance-wise but I assume it has been tested sufficiently already. Seems fine to me and very interesting.Self-cursing is a very difficult thing to balance and Arcanum really is no different. The design trick is in how much or little Curses can hurt a deck in any given game: in some games with strong trashing or precise trashing the Curses don't matter; in others with no trashing Curses are the worst thing ever. To fix that, Arcanum non-optionally trashes Curses that it possibly has given you (since its trashing is clearly the weaker option of the two if you bought it in the first place). There are certainly boards where it does basically nothing (need good payloads or +Buys), but when you need to get some cards to collide, a nonterminal +4 Cards is hard to argue with, even with that penalty.
As a non terminal curser, you should just be buying them up. So what if having them makes curses worse for you? That only matters if your opponent is also cursing you. Which just means that you have to go for this card every time it's available. Who cares about the vp penalty; curses hurt way more by clogging your deck.To be fair, the majority of the time when one skips a Curser it is only because there is a better Curser available, especially in 2-player.
*Edit* I see you mention 0VP curses, so obviously it's not meant as an additional -1VP. I think the wording could be ambiguous though. One one hand "worth X" should simply set the value, like you want. But because it's negative, the minus sign can make it look like it's subtracting from the worth of curses.I have had enough players initially parse it as -1VP more for each Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck, so I will make it unambiguous. Corrected above.
The operating word is "try." Fletcher gains cards at a fixed price point and reduces the cost of certain cards which is at least a passive relationship. As you stated, Fletcher\Spy is an especially nice combo since it gives you Estates and a way to deal with them.The "in games using this" effects in Dominion: Greed try to be related to the play of the card.What's the relationship between the passive effect and the on-play effect of Fletcher? They seem unrelated to me.
You would get more playtesting if you posted all your cards.Certainly. I was waiting until some excitement died down regarding Adventures (especially with the previews). I also expected Adventures to be released earlier in the month, but what can you do?
Quote Blacksmith | Quote Slave Trade |
I've been playing with these as they come out, and I really like the "in games using this" effects. Two buys per turn changes the whole game in a really interesting way.Care to let me know how any of your games have been going? I am glad to hear someone is enjoying them.
Is there some kind of release schedule, so I don't need to keep checking back here?Off the forum, I have been moving from one location to another. I am just getting settled, so I can release cards more evenly. I offer my apologies. How about Thursday\Sunday? Sounds fun.
Quote Countess | Quote Inquisitor |
If it helps, there is now a pseudo-official ruling on how cost increases and cost reductions interact due to our playtesting of a cost-increasing card in Adventures. First you apply all the cost changes, then you apply limits (e.g. not less than $0).
I like some of your ideas (Countess's on-play effect is cool), but your implementations are plagued with all these little exceptions. I would strongly prefer Countess's bottom to just read "In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more" and Inquisitor's bottom to read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card, put it on top of your deck". Much simpler to remember.
QuoteIdol
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $5
$2. Each other player gains a Curse.
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP for each Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck instead of -1VP.
Street is the only one we've spent much time on, since we have them in rotation with all other cards, and that's how the randomizers were drawn.I am happy for any of Greed to be included among the other cards with which you are playing.
Street's constant effect, as I said, is a very interesting addition, and something I like having in rotation. The active effect of +2 cards, cards cost 1 less, was rarely seen as worth it.
That was probably partially because, being given the excitement of two buys every turn, people didn't want to lose that, and partly because -1 cost antisynergizes with fewer buys.
I'm not saying it's underpowered, that's just how it played. Also, given your "in games using this" effect, it still benefits the game even when no one is buying it.
I like some of your ideas (Countess's on-play effect is cool), but your implementations are plagued with all these little exceptions. I would strongly prefer Countess's bottom to just read "In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more" and Inquisitor's bottom to read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card, put it on top of your deck". Much simpler to remember.I will cover these two suggestions individually.
As a Treasure that deals out Curses, I think [Idol] needs to be compared to IGG. IGG costs the same, has a worse on-play ability, and only deals out a single Curse. Sure, the opponent gains the Curse immediately with IGG, whereas it is delayed with Idol, but I still think Idol is stronger, and IGG is not such a bad card. I would think Idol could get away with just yielding $1.I appreciate this analysis and have considered it myself. While Idol certainly has a stronger on-play than Ill-Gotten Gains, you analysis omits what makes Ill-Gotten Gains a top 10 card (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10850.msg365915#msg365915): Ill-Gotten Gains is a rush card. Emptying the Ill-Gotten Gains pile necessarily empties two piles (Trader or Blacksmith aside). While Idol might end up being stronger than Ill-Gotten Gains (seeing as Witch, being an unconditional $5 Curser, is considered stronger), these two Treasures do not compare to one another. Comparisons to Witch and Mountebank are much more apt, but still hard to make because of how Idol makes Curses more painful for the owner of it, which brings up:
I'm not sure I like the concept of the card. In games with trashing, you either ignore this (with strong trashing) or get lots of these to win the split (you don't care about the negative points from Curses, since you'll have trashed most of them when the game ends). So here I don't think changing the Curse -VPs has much of an impact.Strong trashing does not equate to ignoring a Curser (possibly unless that strong trashing is Hermit). Fast trashing to the point that Curses can be fully removed from players' decks is actually fairly rare. Rat Catcher and Hermit are probably the safest bets to give the precision necessary to trash all Curses. Feel free to grab 4 or 5 Idols and lose more than a Duchy's worth of points from that one lingering Curse though. 2 Idols have proven sufficient in most games to win the Curse split and come out ahead in points, though we have not seen anyone think rushing Idols would be particularly effective in playing with it.
In games without trashing, this will most likely create a horrible slog. It's a junker, it's a treasure in your deck, so it discourages engines. But it also discourages buying Golds. So you'll play a game where each of you just gets Silvers and some Action cards, hoping to spike $8. That doesn't spell fun to me.I am confused by this argument. Idol is a junker\treasure, so it discourages engines? The way Idol has played, it has been even better in engines because players don't have to have +Actions to play them. If you decide to ignore an engine or whatever combination of Actions are available then you are just buying Silvers and hoping to spike $8, which is why Big Money is so awful in Idol games and you have to play an Action centric deck and (in the case of slow trashing) likely work to toss out Idols and Golds before the game ends.
I like some of your ideas (Countess's on-play effect is cool), but your implementations are plagued with all these little exceptions. I would strongly prefer Countess's bottom to just read "In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more" and Inquisitor's bottom to read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card, put it on top of your deck". Much simpler to remember.
Countess has not been tested with a simpler "in games using this." I am remorse to see fun $4 alternate Victory cards become useless on boards with Countess, even if there are a limited number of them. I do not believe that it is hard to remember, but for the simplicity garnered from the rules of the card (namely in the event that a $4 Victory\Attack card is created), it may be worth making Feodum, Gardens, Island, and Silk Road useless in those rare events that they appear with Countess.
Inquisitor on the other hand originally had the suggested simpler "in games using this." The problem was that playing from behind became completely impossible with it, especially because gaining Estates was such a losing proposition. Also, Ambassador games were hell. Seeing as the effect was mostly changed so that it would not top-deck Estates, would it be sufficiently semantically simpler if Inquisitor's effect read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card that is not an Estate, put it on top of your deck"?
But now it costs $4!
Why not just change Countess's text below the line to "in games using this, Victory cards that cost more than this cost $1 more?"I would argue that takes more processing than its current form, since you have to read it and then ask how much Countess itself costs. It also plays strangely with Ferry. Finally, it loses fun interactions with trash-for-benefits on your starting Estates.
Idol's under-script is super confusing.How so? It replaces the VP worth of Curse (which is normally -1VP) with something else.
The other problem with singling [$4 Victory cards] out is that it creates rules confusion. Let's say you played Bridge, so Island costs $3. That means it doesn't cost $4, so it costs $1 more. But now it costs $4! Even if you have a clear ruling on this, I don't see the "benefit" of this exception being worth it.As for the rules confusion, "In Games Using This" effects are state based effects so they always apply before any other effect due to cards being played or being in play-- which is not an exception, only an explicit declaration of timing. The only time this gets confusing is if the order in which the "in games using this" effects apply matters (which is why Countess\Fletcher is problematic for $4 or $5 Victory-Attack cards like Dame
I really don't see how the $4 Victory cards specifically are made "useless" by costing $5. Yes it's a big price hike, but Duchies costing $6 and Provinces costing $9 is big, too. Why should the $4 cards get special treatment?The difficulty of getting $6 and $9 are incrementally harder than $5 or $8, but getting to $5 is much more difficult than getting to $4 because of players' hand sizes. I wrote up about a paragraph of text arguing why the exception was necessary on top of the previous sentence, but halfway through agreed with you. The cost of complexity here on Countess is greater than the benefit. Away goes the exception.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that playing from behind became impossible. How so?Often a player overcomes a leading player by building a deck to acquire more than 6VP per turn. Even gaining 7VP per turn can be enough to overtake a player. However, if Victory cards go on top of your deck, when you gain multiple Victory cards in a turn then you next turn is likely forfeit, meaning Estates are now totally unviable. Slowing down after a 12VP+ turn is probably not as big a deal. The way Inquisitor is worded now, a Province\Duchy purchase will (usually) only result in 1 Victory card going to the top of your deck.
I do think the Ambassador interaction is worth fixing, along with the similar Messenger interaction.Nice catch on Messenger, though I am not as bothered by its interaction since every player has to be hit by it.
How about, "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card during your turn, put it on top of your deck"?Now that you give that lovely suggestion, the answer seems to be staring me straight in the face. How about "In games using this, put the first Victory card you gain during each of your turns on top of your deck"? Solves the problem of gaining multiple Victory cards per turn destroying your next turn, the problems with gaining Victory cards off turn, while maintaining blanket applicability to the effect.
I would argue that takes more processing than its current form, since you have to read it and then ask how much Countess itself costs. It also plays strangely with Ferry. Finally, it loses fun interactions with trash-for-benefits on your starting Estates.
But that's not a problem; Border Village and Band of Misfits both use this type of wording.Border Village and Band of Misfits are evaluated at distinct times while Countess is always in effect. If Countess alters cards with respect to its own cost and applies those changes before any other changes (by my ruling regarding the timing of "in games using this" effects), then a Ferried $2 Countess will still only alter cards that cost more than $4 (its original cost)... I think.
Quote Architect | Quote Prospector |
Architect: I would make it reveal x cards from your hand (3?) and drop the 5$ condition, which is just super awkward.
I would also make coppers cost 1$ more only during your action phase, just in case a player reaches a degenerate gamestate where s/he can't produce coins anymore.
The Prospector "in games using this" effect is just what is this I don't even. Gaining to hand might be too much? Anyway, I would make the revealing compulsory. There really isn't much difference, and it makes the card text shorter, which it needs.
Architect: I would make it reveal x cards from your hand (3?) and drop the 5$ condition, which is just super awkward.Strongly agree.
The Prospector "in games using this" effect is just what is this I don't even. Gaining to hand might be too much? Anyway, I would make the revealing compulsory. There really isn't much difference, and it makes the card text shorter, which it needs.
Strongly agree on both counts.
Are you guys allergic to costs? This check is not complicated, does not create any rules ambiguity, improves the play patterns of the card, and makes play of the card simpler since it reduces decision making for the player of it as the player to his left has to only make one decision instead of X decisions (and is making decisions with full information which makes the choice easier). Allowing the Architect player to reveal X cards from hand makes Architect significantly stronger because with a little bit of hand-size increasing one can basically choose which card he trashes which is not the point of Architect. Architect is played because you want to Remodel something, anything, and it hardly matters what.
Would you please elaborate more? I considered making the reveal compulsory, but it saves all of 5 words (19 characters) and 0 lines of text, so I went with what made the card more fun.
In an earlier version, Architect was a cantrip with its Advisor\Remodel effect (it also did not have the "in games using this" which was added to make its play patterns more varied). Obviously the card was a bit frustrating when you draw something you don't want to trash, but it was actually fairly strong and very fast, so we removed the +1 Card.Are you guys allergic to costs? This check is not complicated, does not create any rules ambiguity, improves the play patterns of the card, and makes play of the card simpler since it reduces decision making for the player of it as the player to his left has to only make one decision instead of X decisions (and is making decisions with full information which makes the choice easier). Allowing the Architect player to reveal X cards from hand makes Architect significantly stronger because with a little bit of hand-size increasing one can basically choose which card he trashes which is not the point of Architect. Architect is played because you want to Remodel something, anything, and it hardly matters what.
Well, it's new tech, so we are naturally weary. If it's not strictly necessary to get the card to do what you want, I would do without it. What would you say is the point of preventing 5$ cards from being remodeled?
5 words is quite a bit. It removes one "if", which makes the card easier to parse. It's not a huge deal, but it's there.Technically, it removes a "may," not an "if." That "if" is stuck there. I can shorten it to "If there are no Treasures in your hand, you may reveal it and gain a Gold" which is the same number of words but a few characters shorter. It does have fewer clauses which might make it easier to parse.
Gaining a 4$ card to hand is crazy strong. Making all other players gain a 4$ card to hand for free is a crazy strong penalty. Sure, maybe they won't want to, but it's still crazy. The card would have to be playtested a lot to see if it works or not. Maybe people will simply avoid buying Gold or Prospectors in games using the latter, whether that happens to be the right decision or not? It's sort of a game of chicken here. Hard to predict.It's really just cute. In many cases you are adding +$1 to another player's turn as well as another terminal Action to their deck. Sometimes it lets players get +$2, but that might just lead them to buy a Gold which will return the favor of gaining a Prospector yourself.
I guess my concern with things is more logistical than anything else, and you can probably speak best to this having playtested these cards quite a bit: How do you find it is to manage all of the "In games using this" effects? A couple of people earlier posted suggestions about tokens or a new card color. I suppose that could be helpful but even so, with just nine of the cards you've revealed so far, if I'm playing with all of them in the same Kingdom I have to remember:Your assumption of the effects becoming second nature is accurate, but more than anything else the effects are easy to remember because of how drastically they change the strategy of the board and are thus so constantly considered. When you start out plotting out how to get to $9 per turn (Countess) or you ask every turn if you want to use your extra Buy (Street) or trash Coppers from your hand (Slave Trade), the effects get engrained quickly. Inquisitor is the trickiest one to remember because its effect only applies once players are gaining Victory cards, and to that end I recommend placing the Inquisitor randomizer onto the Province pile to remind players of its effect.
Quote Scholar | Quote Marquis |
Ritter leads to an easy pin. Discard 6 cards; each other player discards their whole hand. Or is the "4 or more" evaluated after each discard?
Scholar is very cool. One of the only $0 cards that I think makes sense.
I think Scholar is a very clever idea.I feel vindicated.
Ritter is also cool, albeit political. If everybody except the player to your right already has 3 cards in hand, you get to decide whether it's worth attacking him/her. Donald has rejected this kind of optional discard-based attack for this very reason.Actually, since each other player draws a card first, the only way a player would have 3 cards in hand is if he had fewer than 3 already. True enough that it hits the player to your right harder when multiple cards are discarded, but the discard remains an Attack on all players except in extenuating circumstances.
Maybe [Ritter] should be phrasedI think I will use "... For each card discarded, each other player discards a card to a minimum of 3 cards in hand" unless someone has a better one. Thank you.
"Each other player draws a card. Discard any number of cards from your hand. For each card discarded, each other player discards a card, down to a minimum of 3 cards in hand."
It's not consistent with existent phrasings but it should lead to no misunderstandings.
Quote Patrol | Quote Historian |
Idol's under-script is super confusing.How so? It replaces the VP worth of Curse (which is normally -1VP) with something else.
New:This was Idol's original wording, but more than one player has believed that the effect was adding to the value of Curses instead of replacing it. It seemed to me to be totally clear, but evidently it wasn't, so we are using the explicit version.
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP for every Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck.
Anyway, I could be full of it, but I'm definitely feeling like that's really strong. Have you experimented with it at other price points?While there is a lot that might be worth chucking to dig for a Gold or exactly what you need, but whatever you trash likely had a value of at least +$2, so your macro gain is much more limited than it sounds. Usually you would dig because it is something that will produce at least +$4 of value. If Patrol proves too strong the best nerf would be to increase that cost requirement for triggering the dig to be trashing cards costing $3 or more as LibraryAdventurer suggests, but it has not proven to be problematic in current testing. I will keep an eye on this.
Quote Frontier | Quote War Flag |
CountessNow it doesn't hurt $4 cost alt-VP cards as much. Also, the bottom half has a neat side effect that hasn't been mentioned: it makes trash for benefit on estates better. Remodeling estates into $5 cards will be really nice.
Cost $4 Action
+2 Cards. At the start of Clean-Up, if you did not buy any cards this turn, gain a Victory card costing up to $6.
-
In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more.
StreetThis should make it not turn people off so much. If they hate to lose their second buy, they can be careful not to play more than one street in a turn (or buy only one). Added discard a card in the suggestion, because otherwise playing just one in a turn would be too strong for a $3 cost.
Cost: $3 Action
+2 Cards. Discard a card. Cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0. If this is not the first time you played a street this turn, -1 Buy (to a minimum of 0).
-
In game using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
The concept of Winery is genius! What a cool idea! No, really, I like it a lot. It's simple but game changing and very intriguing. It might have balancing issues, though, since how many Wineries one player can get, if they gain as many as possible, will be very dependent on shuffle luck. That's a little problematic, I'd say. Have you considered making the trashing of Wineries from the Supply conditional on something that players can influence (e. g. it only happens after each turn by the last player if no Victory cards have been bought during the last round)?I do not like the amount of complexity added to tracking the effect when making it conditional. In 2 and 3 player, players realistically expect to split the Wineries into 3 for each player. If Wineries can be easily worked around, players tend to try to maximize their early economy so they can get 3 Wineries. In many cases one player ends up with one extra Winery in comparison to other players.
I bet there will be people saying how confusing the "in games using this" part is but if one just thinks for a moment there should be no misunderstanding, even with Outpost and Mission. Although... how exactly does this interact with Possession? :PA Possession turn is still called an extra turn. "The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one..."
War Flag is brutal but cool. It's more expensive than Gold but will only net you $3 if you forfeit the attack. But you won't do that because it's so brutal so it seems balanced. I can easily see players being frustrated by it, though. What were your experiences? The game changing mechanic is interesting and offers a lot of possibilities but also raises opportunity cost which seems like a fine balance.In my experience, the Attack is quite expensive to use. Players will usually only use the Attack when it will not stop them from buying what they want (whether or not that is proper play). The "in games using this" further incentivizes not using the Attack since players will be running low on Coppers and will often have to play the only Copper from their hand in order to trash it when they buy a $5+ card. By the end of the game, players are usually trashing Silvers and other $3 cards because they have run out of playable junk to trash.
I have a couple suggestions:I really like this idea in theory, but I think that in practice this will make Countess too much of a rush card. I had one of my testers pose, "Why shouldn't I just gain Duchies every time I play Countess?" and the reason is because Countess cannot end the game that way. It will empty the Duchy pile which is good, but then what? You flounder until other players pass you by building up an economy to buy $9 Provinces. If Countess could gain other Victory cards, I think draining multiple Victory card piles into your deck would be far too effective.QuoteCountessNow it doesn't hurt $4 cost alt-VP cards as much. Also, the bottom half has a neat side effect that hasn't been mentioned: it makes trash for benefit on estates better. Remodeling estates into $5 cards will be really nice.
Cost $4 Action
+2 Cards. At the start of Clean-Up, if you did not buy any cards this turn, gain a Victory card costing up to $6.
-
In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more.
My other suggestion:Street already has a bunch of little parts to it (draw, buy loss, cost reduction, and "in games using this"), and adding another will make the card visually and (more importantly) mentally crowded. Making Street discard a card also means that Street would only maintain hand size when played, which would reduce the effectiveness of its combo with Workshop types.QuoteStreetThis should make it not turn people off so much. If they hate to lose their second buy, they can be careful not to play more than one street in a turn (or buy only one). Added discard a card in the suggestion, because otherwise playing just one in a turn would be too strong for a $3 cost.
Cost: $3 Action
+2 Cards. Discard a card. Cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0. If this is not the first time you played a street this turn, -1 Buy (to a minimum of 0).
-
In game using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
Quote Tanner | Quote Inventor |
There's a rather alarming interaction between Scholar and Trader. Since Trader replaces and nullifies any card gain for a gain of Silver instead, I believe that the following is possible:
- Play an action
- Try to gain a Scholar
- Reveal a Trader from your hand
- Gain a Silver instead
- Try to gain a Scholar (check: have you gained a Scholar so far this turn? No.)
- Reveal a Trader
- Continue gaining Silvers until the entire pile is depleted
Workshop/Ironworks/etc are different in that it only does its thing once. You can't replay them later in the turn if they didn't work right. Scholar, as worded, you can.
No, playing an action sets up the condition "has resolved an action". Scholar as written can then be invoked at any point after that for the rest of the turn, provided another Scholar hasn't been gained. Which it hasn't, because Trader gains a Silver instead.
Hmm, but adding "Directly" doesn't fix the problem. You can call in multiple Coins of the Realm off of one action as far as I'm aware, so there's no reason you couldn't keep calling in Scholar until you actually gain one.
While it's not strictly necessary for just this card, if you're planning on having similar triggers on several cards, it might be worth defining the rule term "round" in an imaginary rulebook and using that for shorthand.It would be worthwhile if there was more than one card that needed the wording, but Winery is the only card that can use it.
There's a potential definition issue in that the wording doesn't clarify whether the trashing is actually an action performed by the player in last turn order (potentially triggering their Market Squares). "Move a Winery from the Supply to the Trash" would sidestep the issue at the expense of wordiness. I'm not sure it's necessary to change it, but I thought it worth mentioning in case you ever want to knock up Rulebook-style descriptions of how these cards work.Market Square is triggered when "When one of your cards is trashed," meaning trashing a card from the Supply would not trigger it, making the player performing the trashing irrelevant.
"Frontier" might be a more fitting name for the card given its effects, but I suppose it's out of flavour with the Tanners and Blacksmiths of the set.We might consider renaming it, but a Frontier is much harder to depict than a Winery (and the art I have for Winery is so pretty). Winery's primary thematic connections right now are Vineyard and Cellar.
You don't have an "Immediately" or "Directly" before the "after resolving an action". There's a reason that Coin of the Realm and Royal Carriage include that word.Granted and corrected.
Still, "Gain a silver every time you play an action" is a pretty strong interaction with Trader.This interaction is a feature (note also that Blacksmith has a similar interaction), and is why Scholar checks for itself being successfully gained before playing itself.
Quote Missionary | Quote Informant |
Let's say I have a bunch of spare actions, which I easily could with Missionary. Or maybe I have my +1 action token on Mint. I play Mint, trashing Silver. Gain a Silver and Mint in hand. I play Mint, trashing Silver, gain a Silver and Mint in hand. I play Mint, trashing...You trashed all of those Silvers gaining the Mines. You end this chain with a Gold (much like if you played only one Mine) and a bunch of Mines in your deck. Even with Missionary, getting all the +actions necessary to play all those Mines would be an ask, otherwise you are looking at a 3 card combo. Even then, you are merely filling your deck up with Mines: A deck full of Mines is hardly a winning deck all on its own.
Gain all Mints and a bunch of the Silvers.
Could also work with Explorer and Watchtower, or Trading Post.Explorer doesn't trash anything. You could play Missionary trashing a Silver to gain an Explorer to hand to gain a Silver to hand, but that won't then help you trash that Silver.
The Silver gaining on Informant isn't completely clear... I would assume that "at the start of the game" is before players shuffle their initial deck, meaning that they are simply shuffling an 11 card deck. But one might also think that they gain a Silver to the discard pile after they've done their initial shuffle. If you mean the former, then to avoid confusion I would use Baker's wording: "Setup: Players start with an extra Silver in their deck."In games with Informant--after taking their starting decks, shuffling them, and drawing their starting hand of 5 cards (as this is part of the setup of the game as defined on pages 4 and 5 of the Dominion rulebook)--players gain a Silver to their discard piles. If the Silver was shuffled into players' initial decks it would be a Setup instruction.
The attack is also ambiguous. If there's multiple cards tied for the highest cost, what gets discarded? Instead of "the card", it should say "a card", and then probably specify who is choosing.Knights do not specify who chooses in the event that multiple cards apply because the owner of the card always chooses unless the effect states otherwise (which is why Spy, Swindler, and Pillage specify). Informant should read "a card" rather than "the card." Silly me.
Explorer doesn't trash anything. You could play Missionary trashing a Silver to gain an Explorer to hand to gain a Silver to hand, but that won't then help you trash that Silver
In games with Informant--after taking their starting decks, shuffling them, and drawing their starting hand of 5 cards (as this is part of the setup of the game as defined on pages 4 and 5 of the Dominion rulebook)--players gain a Silver to their discard piles. If the Silver was shuffled into players' initial decks it would be a Setup instruction.
Just thought of one other potentially breaking combo with Missionary.. Trader/Watchtower. Trader a high-cost card like Peddler or Province. Trash all 8 incoming Silvers... gain an entire pile of any $5 you want (City, Duchy, Duke). And again it's not as much an issue of being able to have a whole pile of cards, but to be able to drain an entire pile. Could be very easy to 3-pile if you want to.
Just thought of one other potentially breaking combo with Missionary.. Trader/Watchtower. Trader a high-cost card like Peddler or Province. Trash all 8 incoming Silvers... gain an entire pile of any $5 you want (City, Duchy, Duke). And again it's not as much an issue of being able to have a whole pile of cards, but to be able to drain an entire pile. Could be very easy to 3-pile if you want to.
With Trader/Watchtower, you can actually empty the Silver pile with a single buy/gain. Just alternate revealing Trader to gain a Silver instead of what you'd get and Watchtower to trash the Silver you just got. I think that's much worse.
Makes sense, but I don't think the wording on [Informant] is clear about that. Why should "start of the game" be after the initial draw? What about "In games using this, at the start of each player's first turn, he gains a Silver." Or "In games using this, each player gains a Silver at the start of his first turn."The start of the game is after the initial draw because the game's instructions put the start of the game there. The set up instructions on pages 4 and 5 of the Dominion rulebook describe shuffling players' decks of 3 Estates and 7 Coppers and drawing their 5-card hands as part of setting up the game before it begins. The rules on page 6 start with determining the start player and then defines the structure of a turn but never outline deck composition nor the shuffling of that deck and drawing of the starting hand. The more explicit wording fits so I will use it, but the old wording was serviceable.
"A card with the highest cost in coins"... there is no card with the highest cost in coins. Just a bunch that are tied for highest. None of them is "the highest cost".Fair enough. "...discards a card tied for or with the highest cost in coins he revealed..."
With Trader/Watchtower, you can actually empty the Silver pile with a single buy/gain. Just alternate revealing Trader to gain a Silver instead of what you'd get and Watchtower to trash the Silver you just got. I think that's much worse.That is a problem. This will fix it: "In games using this, the first 2 times you trash a Silver each turn, gain an Action costing exactly $5, putting it into your hand."
Trash all 8 incoming Silvers... gain an entire pile of any $5 you want (City, Duchy, Duke).Missionary's "In games using this" can only gain Actions. Your comment does draw my attention to Distant Lands which might be worth stopping regardless of the number of times it could be done in a turn. I could limit the card to gaining non-Victory Actions that cost exactly $5. Does that take too much parsing? I think the case of gaining any $5 Treasure is too abusive in the case of terminally trashing Silvers. Is stopping Distant Lands even worth this complication?
Quote Leper Village | Quote Hideout |
Also, I think its reaction should be "When you discard this when it isn't your turn", otherwise, you can easily set yourself up for a big hand next turn and the card looks strong enough without that ability.
Having tried out quite a few of these, most are pretty fun and change the game in interesting ways - especially Countess and Tanner. Historian is a great Library variant.
The only issue my group has run into is with War Flag. Specifically, the rare interaction between itself and Swindler (or Saboteur) when there are also duration cards around. Turning someone's Laboratory into a Duchy is already pretty nice; being able to trash a Hireling or Wharf on top of that when they gain the replacement card turns already player-annoying cards into table-flippers.
Leper Village looks very strong. It's possible that +2 Actions +1 Buy +$1 would alone be an ok $3 card. Probably weaker than normal Village most of the time, but not all of the time. It would be a really good $2 anyway. Here you have that plus a discard attack. While it's only discarding 1 card, you should be expecting to play 3 of these every turn before too long, assuming some sort of draw engine is available.I think you drastically overestimate its strength.
And at that point it's stronger than Militia's discard, because it discards 3 cards instead of 2. I'd think it would at least need to be $4. With the built-in buy you don't want it to be that easy to buy up a bunch of these.This is patently untrue. Leper Village hits thrice, but you have not taken into account that players have larger hands. Even if you play a full suite of 3 Leper Villages, you have rendered other players to the best 3 of 6 cards which is quite a bit better than the best 3 of 5. Don't forget that Militia would have knocked players down to the best 3 of 6 cards immediately rather than costing 3 slots in your hand.
Seems to me the main problem with Hideout is how wordy & complex it is (then again, my fan cards are often guilty of the same thing).It reads as complex, but boils down quickly because it is semantically simple. "Take your choice of benefits from a fixed discard, which are trashing and the vanilla benefits other than +card. Discard this to draw a card and ready your Hideout in your deck." It is not insignificant, but in the hands of experienced players (i.e. players who can process Dominion: Adventures) it has not proven to be much of a problem.
I think Hideout's "put this anywhere in your deck" isn't great. You're allowed to count your deck, but not allowed to look through your deck. So I guess you can spend time counting and putting it exactly 6 cards from the top; or 2 cards from the top, etc, but that seems like some unnecessary analysis paralysis. I think it would be better if it just automatically went on top of your deck or something.Usually players do put Hideout on top of their deck. The exception is when a player has terminal draw in their hand and don't want to draw the Hideout with it, which is trivial to avoid and makes discarding Hideout feel less bad. You are discarding a $5 buy after all.
And I wouldn't think it's a card you can just buy as many as you want of, because immediately after playing it you can't have more than a 4 card hand, which makes it bad for some things.You would not think, but my recent testing has put Hideout/Big Money in reasonable contention with Wharf/Big Money.
Also, I think its reaction should be "When you discard this when it isn't your turn", otherwise, you can easily set yourself up for a big hand next turn and the card looks strong enough without that ability.The above would make Hideout significantly weaker and might be worth doing, though I worry that would increase its not insignificant processing since you have to remember its Reaction only triggers on other players' turns. I only recently have been testing Hideout in Big Money and its effectiveness is undeniable seeing as it is basically better than Vault until it starts choking on Victory cards, but can get +Buys when it needs to pick up Estates.
For most of these effects, i feel there should be a special card type. Like Events, just for effect affecting the entire game, without the need to put some card effect on them.The only cards that could have their "in games using this" effects hard coded onto them are:
I think many of the cards are extemely complex, and some make it far too obvious that the "in games using this" effect is mostly for the card itself (and possibly a few other cards). Actually, i feel a lot of them are mostly meant to interact with specific cards existing, and while i tried to make that kind of cards myself in the past (with the main idea being to push or harm existing cards) it's not a very good design guideline.
Either way, i like the 6 card hand idea, for example. I just think such grave effects should rather be on their own cards, well visible and besides the supply, so you're less likely to miss out on them. This would also make a good test for whether the effect is too specific: If i wouldn't want it to be a, let's say, "Circumstance" card, because there are too few cards to interact with it, maybe it's not worth being printed the way you do it, either. Because, hey, you could just as well hardcode the interaction in the play effect directly.
Another idea that you might like more: How about having the "game-altering" effect on a single cards and mention using that card in the kingdom card's setup? This way it's easier to see and memorize the effect, the kingdom card becomes more simple, and you could even use the same "circumstance" on more than one kingdom card. It takes up a single slot, and admittedly, you'd have to design something for this new kind of card, but as your effects are far more complex than Duchess' simple gaining question, i think they should get their own spot in the kingdom. I think it's natural to go the same way events went for on-buy.The card does not actually become more simple, it just means you have to look somewhere else to see its full effect. This idea I think is slightly better than the Circumstance cards, but it is very different than what Dominion: Greed is currently doing. Leper Village and Street are likely the only "in games using this" effects that would be reasonable to see on multiple cards.
Having tried out quite a few of these, most are pretty fun and change the game in interesting ways - especially Countess and Tanner. Historian is a great Library variant.Glad you are enjoying them.
The only issue my group has run into is with War Flag. Specifically, the rare interaction between itself and Swindler (or Saboteur) when there are also duration cards around. Turning someone's Laboratory into a Duchy is already pretty nice; being able to trash a Hireling or Wharf on top of that when they gain the replacement card turns already player-annoying cards into table-flippers.Firstly, Duration cards remain in play in order to remind players of their effects: The presence of the Duration has no baring on whether or not the effect occurs. You could choose to trash your own Wharf from play the turn you played it and will still get the +2 Cards, +1 Buy your next turn.
Co0kieL0rd and i played a game some time ago where we used Scholar. It was a lot of fun and very interesting, even though Scholar's ability to make any terminal nonterminal warps the game. As Scholars are usually useless, this comes at a price, so we didn't feel it broke something. It was really fun. It works especially nice with trashers, since those are usually terminal, reduce your handsize and can get rid of Scholars you don't want.
It is such a game-warping card, I am glad people here on the forum have taken to it so well.Co0kieL0rd and i played a game some time ago where we used Scholar. It was a lot of fun and very interesting, even though Scholar's ability to make any terminal nonterminal warps the game. As Scholars are usually useless, this comes at a price, so we didn't feel it broke something. It was really fun. It works especially nice with trashers, since those are usually terminal, reduce your handsize and can get rid of Scholars you don't want.
I was in the same game, what a coincidence! And I also enjoyed Scholar very much. Interesting how such a simple card can change the game and how you think about terminal space. It's probably my favourite card in your set.
Quote Usurer | Quote Sculptor |
Usurer's wording seems problematic. When you have Usurers in play you could just buy cards until you have no money left and then say, I'm not able to buy a Usurer. It could say instead, "The first card you buy this turn must be an Usurer", to prevent any loopholes."...must be an Usurer if possible." I think that addition is necessary; I don't think the intended behaviour is to stop you buying 5s if you have exactly 5.
See, I do think that is the intended behaviour. Our differing opinions point up the need to clarify Usurer's wording.Usurer's wording seems problematic. When you have Usurers in play you could just buy cards until you have no money left and then say, I'm not able to buy a Usurer. It could say instead, "The first card you buy this turn must be an Usurer", to prevent any loopholes."...must be an Usurer if possible." I think that addition is necessary; I don't think the intended behaviour is to stop you buying 5s if you have exactly 5.
What if next cards are released with "You must buy a X if possible" ? What if it conflicts ?The wording is very tough, especially when, as Co0kieL0rd notes, we're not 100% on the intended behaviour. I'm not convinced by any wording so far, particularly in the possible case of conflict, as you point out. How about this:
(assume there's another card X that costs $2 and grants you $3 and forces you to buy ; you play a village -> Usurer ($4) -> StoryTeller ($0) -> X ($3) : you'd have to buy an Usurer and a X for $3)
EDIT :
I suggest that :
"At the start of your buy phase, gain an Usurer" or "before you buy anything, spend 1 buy and $2. If you do, gain an Usurer", but it's pretty tough wording in fact...
By the way I don't see the difference between this and Woodcutter except that you've 1 more buy and it's complicated while Woodcutter is terrible, but simple ! (at least you can buy it for only $2 if you have $6 and several buys)
A reasonable solution would be that you choose the order of cards you have to buy until you bought every card you have to buy or you can't buy such a card due to the lack of money or buys first, after that you can buy cards as usual.I agree that this is the best thing, but I don't see a way of getting it on the card. If we had a separate rulebook to resolve the issue it would be great, but ideally we want everything on the card.
So in your example you could either decide to buy Usurer first and would fail to buy the other card for 3$, or you decide the other card first and you would fail to buy Usurer.
"At the end of your buy phase this turn, if you did not buy an Usurer, return all bought cards to the supply."
That's with Co0kieL0rd's interpretation of not allowing 5s if you collect exactly 5.
With my interpretation:
"If you have $6 at any point during your buy phase this turn, then at the end of your buy phase, if you did not buy an Usurer this turn, return all bought cards to the supply."
"At the end of your buy phase this turn, if you did not buy an Usurer, return all bought cards to the supply."
That's with Co0kieL0rd's interpretation of not allowing 5s if you collect exactly 5.
With my interpretation:
"If you have $6 at any point during your buy phase this turn, then at the end of your buy phase, if you did not buy an Usurer this turn, return all bought cards to the supply."
These wordings cause problems with cards that put bought or gained cards somewhere else than the discard pile: Nomad Camp, Watchtower, Royal Seal and, most of all, Inn. Even if it wasn't for these cards, the phrases you suggested are awkward as hell. To be fair, Usurer is awkward per se.
Fragasnap, could you help us understand what Usurer is about? Right now all i can make out is that the card creates a lot of complicated rules.Mechanically: After playing a Usurer and going into your Buy phase, you must buy a Usurer if you produce $6 or more and the can spend the rest of your coins and buys however you please. If you fail to produce $6 (by holding back Treasures or if you spent most or all of your coins with a Storyteller or Black Market), you can buy whatever you want. If you lost all your buys by playing Streets, you can't buy anything, so you obviously cannot re-buy Usurer.
To make clear what i'm asking of you, when i looked at Caravan Guard's Reaction, for example, i first didn't get it. But when Donald explained the concept, it all became clear: It's a cheap Peddler that produces coins only in your next turn - unless you get attacked, where it becomes a normal Peddler.
I'm sadly failing to get a similar "point" in Usurer. Obviously it has a new mechanic ("a card that forces you to buy it"), but that on its own isn't really exciting to me.
Usurer in the Black Market seems pretty swingy.
Perhaps the exception being Knights, but then it's still only slightly stronger.
Perhaps the exception being Knights, but then it's still only slightly stronger.
Another exception is Rats, which is very much stronger.
Countess
Will often be just a Moat so you actually don't want it often or early. The question is, when do you get it, if you get it all. It's probably best in slogs, although even there its vanilla bonus and Duchy-gaining seem to contradict each other.
Inquisitor
The top part seems boring. The fact that its it provides strong trashing makes me wonder why I would ever choose the cursing option. The bottom part has nothing to do with it and just makes games slower and annoying. What’s the deal?
Missionary
Wouldn’t Missionary be just fine without the bottom part? At least make the gaining optional when you trash a Silver so you don’t have to keep this clause in mind. Why can’t the whole bottom part take place when you play Missionary? That would be even better. This way, it’s just more to memorise, and a very unorthodox thing on top of that.
Slave Trade
Another card that would be fine without the IGUT part, although I can see the point of it being there. Otherwise, Slave Trade would be such a pain in the butt in games without trashers. The condition for Copper trashing seems a little arbitrary but I guess it proved balanced this way.
Street
I can easily see this being ignored in a Kingdom while players happily enjoy their extra buy. The cost reduction obviously becomes a deal with (non-terminal) +buy in the Kingdom but I doubt there will be any worthwhile combos with Street as it is such a weak card.
I can make a rewording of it to trash it and then return it to the Supply (and hey, it doesn't even add a line of text!), but is it worth that complexity to fix its interaction with what is likely the most luck-based card in Dominion anyway?Usurer in the Black Market seems pretty swingy.
This is something that should be carefully considered. Other cards that are swingy in the Black Market (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Black_Market) (Tournament (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Tournament), Goons (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Goons)) are so because they are simply strong cards in general, and it's just part of the swinginess of Black Market itself. But here, you have a card that actually functions differently if it came from the Black Market; and it's much stronger than normal, due to both the one-shot nature of it (which is no longer one-shot when bought from Black Market), and due to the fact that you aren't forced to buy more of them.
Other cards that don't work the same when they come from the Black Market are weaker, not stronger (Fool's Gold (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Fool's_Gold), Treasure Map (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Treasure_Map), Page (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Page). Perhaps the exception being Knights, but then it's still only slightly stronger.
Countess: you usually want to get it at some point since Victory cards are so expensive. The +2 cards just seemed to be the vanilla effect that made the most sense to use as giving coins or actions could easily lead to having better options than gaining a Duchy.Keeping in theme with Count, Countess gives you options: Keep going with your turn or discard your hand for a Duchy. The +2 Cards vanilla benefit also makes it easier to stack Countesses than any other benefit would. You can definitely gain more than one Duchy at once by playing multiple Countesses.
FletcherAttack cards were the most fun thing to reduce in cost since Actions make the game too engine friendly, Treasures make the game too Big Money centric, and Victory cards make the game end too quickly. By reducing the cost of Attack cards, the first card I thought would go from being pretty bad to actually pretty decent was Spy, so gaining Estates combos with that. Fletcher is otherwise pretty good in sloggy games and basically any alternative Victory strategy since it can gain Silvers so fast. It is also quite good in any instance when having an Estate in your deck is not the worst thing in the world (likely because of cards like Crossroads or Baron).
Why attack cards? Why an Estate? It all seems weirdly welded together. Fletcher seems weak, it probably isn't though, but it's confusing and I don't know when I would ever want it. With good $4-attacks and a village in the kingdom?
HideoutThe Reaction does not take long to resolve since the only consideration of where it goes in your deck is whether or not you will draw it this turn (and whether or not you want to). Now that you point it out though, the trashing can probably be removed. I put trashing onto it in fear of the rest being too weak, but the trashing has proven so weak (since it has to be from a hand of 4) as to practically be a non-option. I will remove that. It should clean up the text quite nicely.
It just looks awful with so much text and I know the top part isn't that complicated if you think about it. It still seems more flexible than necessary. The part about trashing seems out of place and I dont like that you can put it anywhere in your deck when the top would be just fine. Otherwise it might take too long to resolve.
InformantIt had this wording for a while, but the coin symbol made the already crowded text look even worse even though it had the exact same effect. I will probably only reinstate the coin symbol if the amount becomes different than $2.
Seems fine and reasonably strong. I just dislike the fact that you play the Silver prior to trashing it. A lot of the time, people will forget they played an additional Silver. It would be simpler if it said “Trash a Silver from your hand. If you do, +$2 and each other player etc.”
Inquisitor: You can get it early to trash and use it later to discard Provinces/Duchies to hand out curses. The bottom effect gives you something to discard with your Inquisitors, but it is pretty much just tacked on.The bottom is tacked on primarily to give Inquisitor ammunition to fire out Curses earlier. It slows down the game a hair and makes the timing of Inquisitor trickier.
Missionary: It definitely needs the bonus for trashing Silver. Trashing for actions is usually weak without a bonus. The effect could be just attached to the card instead of being a game effect but then it wouldn't really fit into the rest of the set! Sure it's harder to remember to do, but that argument could be on a significant number of the cards in the set.We played around with a number of "trash for +Actions" effects, but without some incentive to trash a card with value, you pretty much never use it, so it definitely has to have some sort of benefit for trashing Silvers. Making the Silver trashing effect an "in games using this" both makes it fit better into Greed and also gives it fun considerations with Informant, War Flag, as well as other trash-for-benefits (as Silver is ordinarily a low priority target for trash-for-benefit). I will agree with co0kiel0rd that the "in games using this" can very easily be made optional, so it may as well be.
RitterI am on the lookout for better names. It needs to bring to mind the military purpose of a Margrave while still not being too legislative in nature. How does "Marquis" sound?
...Why did you use the German word for knight as the card’s name? Doesn’t this appear weird to non-Germans?
Street: I agree it's weak and is pretty much there just for the plus buy.I probably buy Street in about a third of games using it, but even when Street doesn't get its time to shine, it still changes the landscape of the game, so I do not believe there is much to complain about with it.
TannerTanner's Action effect is stupidly powerful without something putting cards it cannot draw into your deck. Of two options (either an "in games using this" that puts junk into your deck or making its draw more finicky), I liked this one better.
I like the action. The IGUT mechanic is uncalled-for, a nuisance. Again, why?
War FlagDonald X has talked about the Attack that is on War Flag and how incredibly powerful and unfun it is. The reason it is so miserable is partially because on a card costing $5 or less it is easy to play, but also because of the high variance of players' decks. Having the best 2 of 5 and 1 average is probably going to suck. War Flag costs $7 and requires the player of it to discard a Treasure, making the Attack harder to reach, but War Flag's "in games using this" is what subtly makes the card. The "In games using this" reduces decks' variance in the middle of the game since players are trashing their junk, so a random draw is probably not going to be nearly so bad as in a normal game, though certainly still bad. However, since players are trashing most of their Coppers to it, players will have a harder time using War Flag's powerful Attack since they might need that Copper to trash when they buy a $5+ card.
A brutal attack but it costs $7 so that may just be reasonable. It’s the kind of attack Margrave wants to be but can’t due to its cost. I don’t mind the IGUT mechanic here that much but it might as well not be there.
I am on the lookout for better names. It needs to bring to mind the military purpose of a Margrave while still not being too legislative in nature. How does "Marquis" sound?French? I mean, it sounds as weird as Ritter but at least Marquis is found in the English disctionary^^
Quote Friar | Quote Alehouse |
Q about Frontier, if you are still active?Absolutely.
So we played a 4 player game, so we had 12 Frontiers in supply. However: it felt like the first player has an advantage over the latter player, especially in the later rounds. I was third in line and was ultimately the only one buying frontiers (I had a card that has a similar mechanism like crossroads, so having green was incentivized). But we speculated that if others went that strategy, those higher up in the turn order were advantaged relative to those later in the turn order.Your assumptions are correct that the card favors players earlier in turn order in the instances where rushing the card is worthwhile, but my play experience has not shown this to be a significant problem to the card since it is so rare that players can afford to pick up more than 2 without crippling their decks. The possibility for wanting Frontiers becoming a problem will certainly be exacerbated in 4-player games. I might have to suggest that 4 be placed in the Supply per player.
Additionally: we also speculated that a clause being 'this doesn't count as an empty supply pile' might also be useful. Because this really decreased game length to an unsatisfactory short amount of time. Admittedly, you know this in advance, but it did slightly take the fun out of it, in our experience.I find "unsatisfactorily short" to be an apt descriptor to 4-player games of Dominion in general. I would recommend variants to fix the problems of the basic rules of 4-player Dominion first, to make it more similar to 3-player games.
This way, you move the first player advantage to turn 16, at which point regular greening could have started by then.Which defeats literally the entire purpose of the card. The bite of Frontier is that you have to buy it before you want it. It's a lot of points, but can your deck stomach buying a Frontier instead of any other better $5 card while they're still around? Players will go about winning without buying any Frontiers because it costs too much momentum to the players that did.
http://i.imgur.com/MBVhcXF.jpg
I recommend using the following as the card back:http://i.imgur.com/yzZJDcw.jpg