Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: GeneralRamos on December 09, 2015, 06:55:17 pm
-
The combination of eHalcyon's thread about endgame parameters and one of the cards dropped from the Enterprise expansion got me thinking further about playing around with the starting conditions. LastFootnote's Domain attempted to do this by replacing a starting copper with a
- Treasure-Victory. I'd like to think more about alt-copper starters, perhaps akin to the Shelter setup from Dark Ages. Some initial ideas:
- Treasure-Reaction: Gives $1; when you buy a treasure, you may reveal this from your hand and trash it
- Treasure: Gives $1; while this is in play, Action cards cost +$1
- Treasure-Action: If you play this in your Action phase: You may put your deck in your discard pile; If you play this in you buy phase, gives $1
- Treasure-Victory: Gives $1, put this on top of the Estate pile when you play it; worth 2VP for every 2 Domains in your deck. You must buy it from Estate pile before estates can be bought.
- Treasure-Reserve: Gives $1, put this on your Tavern mat; At the beginning of your buy phase, you may call this into play
- Treasure: $1; at the end of your Buy phase, if you have at least $1 unspent, you may put this on top of your deck
The idea is still half baked. But it would probably involve a new starting rule that you can randomly choose one or two alt-coppers to use this game. Each player replaces one of their starting coppers with it/them. All players start with the same setup of starting alt-coppers.
Thoughts? Other alt-copper ideas? Potentially interesting starting buy ramifications?
-
I've tested a Lucky Charm before:
Treasure Victory 4*c
Worth 1c
At the end of the game, your Curses are worth 1vp instead of -1. (replaces one of your starting Coppers)
It's pretty fun, if not a cataclismatic change. It used to be worth 2 points per curse but that was broken-ish because of Graverobber and Rogue. Blam! Free Duchies!
And you can always remodel it for profit.
-
NoMoreFun had this idea way back when:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7903.0
I use his trinkets idea sometimes except that each player gets one copper replaced by the same trinket (instead of each player getting a different one).
My favorite of your ideas is this one:
Treasure: $1; at the end of your Buy phase, if you have at least $1 unspent, you may put this on top of your deck
I'll add it to my trinkets.
EDIT: You could also word it with "When you discard this from your hand, you may put it on top of your deck" And I would make this change:
Treasure: $1
When you discard this from your hand, you may set it aside. If you do, put it in your hand at the start of next turn.
(That way if you don't use it on the first turn, it'll be your sixth card in hand on the 2nd turn.)
-
- Treasure-Reserve: Gives $1, put this on your Tavern mat; At the beginning of your buy phase, you may call this into play
I think this is most interesting one. One way to make it weaker would be to put it on your Tavern mat before it generates money such that it becomes a mere "savable" Copper instead of a Copper which you can transfer after having played it.
-
My set Dominion: Pandemonium had the idea of replacing one of each player's starting coppers with a "Trinket". These are chosen in reverse order of the players, and have the goal of giving each player something unique to build their deck around.
They were:
Bell
Action/Trinket - $0*
+2 Actions
+$1
Chain
Treasure/Trinket - $0*
Worth $0
---
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less (to a minimum of $0)
Dagger
Treasure/Reaction/Trinket - $0*
Worth $1
When another player plays an attack card, you may trash this from your hand. If you do, you are unaffected by the attack.
Locket
Treasure/Victory/Trinket - $0*
Worth 1VP for each name of a Treasure you have in your deck other than Gold, Silver or Copper.
---
Worth $1
Rare Coin
Treasure/Trinket – $4*
Worth $1
Sigil
Treasure/Trinket - $0*
Worth $1, +$2 for each empty supply pile
-
Savings
(http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/GeneralRamos/Dominion%20cards/savings_1.jpg) (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/GeneralRamos/media/Dominion%20cards/savings_1.jpg.html)
A copper that, if not initially spent, is retained on your Reserve mat until such a time as you need it. I initially worded at beginning of your Buy phase, but I could probably loosen that. My wife and I tried it and often forgot to call it until other Treasures were already played. It never hurts to call it every Buy phase though, because if unspent it returns to the Tavern mat. Note that this cannot be called in the Action phase for, say, Black Market.
Planchet
(http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/GeneralRamos/Dominion%20cards/planchet_1.jpg) (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/GeneralRamos/media/Dominion%20cards/planchet_1.jpg.html)
A copper that can be made into any coin another player gained while this was in your hand. May alter the strategy of buying silver or not in the first couple turns. Do you risk giving the other players a free silver while retaining their buy to get another card? Do you trash this for silver and take the -$1 available for your own buy? Do you hang on to this in the hopes of turning it into a Gold, Platinum, or something else more useful down the line?
Heirlooms
(http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/GeneralRamos/Dominion%20cards/heirlooms_1.jpg) (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/GeneralRamos/media/Dominion%20cards/heirlooms_1.jpg.html)
Perhaps the most game-changing. It gives you a 9-card starting setup, which means only your first turn buy will make the first shuffle, and means you may potentially play an action card or a silver on turn 2. It gives you the possibility of hitting 6 on the first two turns. But this silver disappears if you do hit that critical 5 or 6 buy, so make it good. If you want to keep it around, it may incentivize multiple buys of $4 cards.
Barter
(http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/GeneralRamos/Dominion%20cards/barter_2.jpg) (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/GeneralRamos/media/Dominion%20cards/barter_2.jpg.html)
This one is a "worse than copper" coin. While in play, it is more expensive to buy Treasures. And so it incentivizes buying Actions or Victories-with-benefits.
Wage
(http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/GeneralRamos/Dominion%20cards/wage_1.jpg) (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/GeneralRamos/media/Dominion%20cards/wage_1.jpg.html)
A fairly fringe benefit on this. You may play it as an action to discard your deck. Like heirlooms, this can be used to get a first turn buy into circulation perhaps for turn 2. But you'll only be able to do this for a $4 or less, because it produces no $ when played as an Action.
Fiefdom
(http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/GeneralRamos/Dominion%20cards/Fiefdom_1.jpg) (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/GeneralRamos/media/Dominion%20cards/Fiefdom_1.jpg.html)
A Copper that leaves your deck when you play it. Sort of elf-trashing. But at a certain point they're quite valuable to retain, since two of them gives you a total of 4VP, 3 gives 6VP, and 4 would give 12VP. Of course, there's only one per player in the game. They go on top of Estate supply when played, and must be bought or gained before you can buy an Estate. You can still gain an estate as normal with cards that specifically call for them (Baron). Maybe with other gainers as well. I'm leaving that open for now.
-
Oh Savings is actually supposed to give +$1 when called? That needs to be explicitly mentioned in the call text. Coin of the Realm doesn't produce any money when called.
You'd need to word it like "call this, to get +$1". As far as I know, "get" is never used like that anywhere else in Dominion but it should be fine.
You can also just leave it on the Tavern Mat forever right?
Edit: I took a closer look at the cards and overall I like them. There's no need to play with all of them at once right?
-
Good point on the wording, it should probably specify that. Alternately, in the FAQ. It isn't exactly in parity with CotR, since you call that in that Action phase for a specified benefit different from the treasure ability. Call it into play might generally suggest +$1. I'll make the adjustment later. And you can just leave it on the Tavern forever, if you've got a thinned deck full of Golds or some other scenario where it's a liability.
There's no need to play with all of them at once right?
Correct. I'm imagining, and play-testing, with the advice that you use no more than two in any given game. Playing with all at once is probably too much, though I suppose it'd be worth trying out a game like that and see how it goes.
-
Good point on the wording, it should probably specify that. Alternately, in the FAQ. It isn't exactly in parity with CotR, since you call that in that Action phase for a specified benefit different from the treasure ability. Call it into play might generally suggest +$1. I'll make the adjustment later. And you can just leave it on the Tavern forever, if you've got a thinned deck full of Golds or some other scenario where it's a liability.
There's no need to play with all of them at once right?
Correct. I'm imagining, and play-testing, with the advice that you use no more than two in any given game. Playing with all at once is probably too much, though I suppose it'd be worth trying out a game like that and see how it goes.
"Call this to play it" might work well actually. By having the card explicitly replayed on call, you can reuse the reserve ability if you didn't spend the additional $1 it produced that turn. This means you can generally call it every buy phase without penalty to potentially reduce analysis paralysis and get into a rhythm with calling it every buy phase.
Edit: I see you already call Saving every buy phase when you play with it, but you wouldn't be able to do that without explicitly replaying the card because the option to reserve the card is only given on play.
-
A couple observations.
Wage is odd with Black Market/Storyteller, but it probably doesn't matter.
I don't think technically, by the rules, Fiefdom can work the way you describe with Estates. If there isn't an Estate at the top of a supply pile nothing can gain one. You can't gain Sir Martin out of the middle of the Knights pile with Ironworks. If I gain a Ruin, and then Ambassador it and another one back to the pile while my opponent has Lighthouse in play I'm pretty sure my opponent cannot gain it with Smugglers.
-
A couple observations.
Wage is odd with Black Market/Storyteller, but it probably doesn't matter.
I don't think technically, by the rules, Fiefdom can work the way you describe with Estates. If there isn't an Estate at the top of a supply pile nothing can gain one. You can't gain Sir Martin out of the middle of the Knights pile with Ironworks. If I gain a Ruin, and then Ambassador it and another one back to the pile while my opponent has Lighthouse in play I'm pretty sure my opponent cannot gain it with Smugglers.
I believe this is correct. So Baron, Followers, and Hunting Grounds cannot gain Estates with a Fiefdom on top. Not a big loss either way.
Oh but you can't have Ambassador send back two differently named Ruins in the first place. Okay you can on two different plays. Not any different from just revealing a differently named Ruin below the gained one though.
-
I believe this is correct. So Baron, Followers, and Hunting Grounds cannot gain Estates with a Fiefdom on top. Not a big loss either way.
Good point. And yeah, no love lost.
-
A couple observations.
Wage is odd with Black Market/Storyteller, but it probably doesn't matter.
I don't think technically, by the rules, Fiefdom can work the way you describe with Estates. If there isn't an Estate at the top of a supply pile nothing can gain one. You can't gain Sir Martin out of the middle of the Knights pile with Ironworks. If I gain a Ruin, and then Ambassador it and another one back to the pile while my opponent has Lighthouse in play I'm pretty sure my opponent cannot gain it with Smugglers.
I believe this is correct. So Baron, Followers, and Hunting Grounds cannot gain Estates with a Fiefdom on top. Not a big loss either way.
Oh but you can't have Ambassador send back two differently named Ruins in the first place. Okay you can on two different plays. Not any different from just revealing a differently named Ruin below the gained one though.
Oh yeah, I should have been clearer that I meant two separate Ambassador returns. I was just trying to highlight a situation where you know the card is there under another differently named one, but you can't gain it.
-
You'd need to word it like "call this, to get +$1". As far as I know, "get" is never used like that anywhere else in Dominion but it should be fine.
"You may call this; if you do, +$1" should also be fine. But I think "get" is used in this way on Governor, sorta?
-
Savings
(http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/GeneralRamos/Dominion%20cards/savings_1.jpg) (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/GeneralRamos/media/Dominion%20cards/savings_1.jpg.html)
A copper that, if not initially spent, is retained on your Reserve mat until such a time as you need it. I initially worded at beginning of your Buy phase, but I could probably loosen that. My wife and I tried it and often forgot to call it until other Treasures were already played. It never hurts to call it every Buy phase though, because if unspent it returns to the Tavern mat. Note that this cannot be called in the Action phase for, say, Black Market.
So, a Coin token?
-
Savings
(http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/GeneralRamos/Dominion%20cards/savings_1.jpg) (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/GeneralRamos/media/Dominion%20cards/savings_1.jpg.html)
A copper that, if not initially spent, is retained on your Reserve mat until such a time as you need it. I initially worded at beginning of your Buy phase, but I could probably loosen that. My wife and I tried it and often forgot to call it until other Treasures were already played. It never hurts to call it every Buy phase though, because if unspent it returns to the Tavern mat. Note that this cannot be called in the Action phase for, say, Black Market.
So, a Coin token?
It has a lot of similarities to a coin token, but it certainly doesn't function exactly the same way.
-
Savings
(http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/GeneralRamos/Dominion%20cards/savings_1.jpg) (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/GeneralRamos/media/Dominion%20cards/savings_1.jpg.html)
Thanks for following up with my idea of nerfing it slightly. I still think that this is your best card in this set.
Fiefdom
(http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/GeneralRamos/Dominion%20cards/Fiefdom_1.jpg) (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/GeneralRamos/media/Dominion%20cards/Fiefdom_1.jpg.html)
A Copper that leaves your deck when you play it. Sort of elf-trashing. But at a certain point they're quite valuable to retain, since two of them gives you a total of 4VP, 3 gives 6VP, and 4 would give 12VP. Of course, there's only one per player in the game. They go on top of Estate supply when played, and must be bought or gained before you can buy an Estate. You can still gain an estate as normal with cards that specifically call for them (Baron). Maybe with other gainers as well. I'm leaving that open for now.
The way you worded it 4 Fiefdoms would provide 16VP.
-
The way you worded it 4 Fiefdoms would provide 16VP.
Correct, that's a typo. I think the reward is warranted if one can manage to get all four in 4 player.
-
The way you worded it 4 Fiefdoms would provide 16VP.
Correct, that's a typo. I think the reward is warranted if one can manage to get all four in 4 player.
I agree. Furthermore a lot of people do not play Dominion with 4 players anyway.
-
Savings
(http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/GeneralRamos/Dominion%20cards/savings_1.jpg) (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/GeneralRamos/media/Dominion%20cards/savings_1.jpg.html)
A copper that, if not initially spent, is retained on your Reserve mat until such a time as you need it. I initially worded at beginning of your Buy phase, but I could probably loosen that. My wife and I tried it and often forgot to call it until other Treasures were already played. It never hurts to call it every Buy phase though, because if unspent it returns to the Tavern mat. Note that this cannot be called in the Action phase for, say, Black Market.
Just realized something broken about this one. As worded, you only need $1 unspent to put them all on your Tavern mat, no matter how many you have, effectively making all but the first one Coin Hirelings, which would probably cost $6! As it is now, I'd say it's way too strong for $1.
Based on what you said in your post, I'm guessing that your intention was that you would need $2 unspent to put two on top, $3 to put 3 on top, etc. In that case, you'll just need to change the wording (I know my first paragraph is true because of the rulebook explanation for Wine Merchant). Here's my suggestion:
Savings:
$1
When you play this, you may put this on your Tavern mat. If you do, this is worth $0.
At the start of your buy phase, you may call this, to play it.
-
About how Savings changes the opening, it can convert a 2-5 into a 1-6 opening which is only strong if there are no (good) 2$ cards. In the presence of Baker and 7$ cards a 1-7 opening is possible. Sounds pretty strong but then again the chance to have Baker, a 7$ card and a 2-5 opening are fairly small so this is an edge case.
Savings can also convert 3-4 into 2-5.
I don't think that this is more than a slight volatility increase so it should not be much of an issue but the card definitely needs to get tested.
-
Just realized something broken about this one. As worded, you only need $1 unspent to put them all on your Tavern mat, no matter how many you have, effectively making all but the first one Coin Hirelings, which would probably cost $6! As it is now, I'd say it's way too strong for $1.
Based on what you said in your post, I'm guessing that your intention was that you would need $2 unspent to put two on top, $3 to put 3 on top, etc. In that case, you'll just need to change the wording (I know my first paragraph is true because of the rulebook explanation for Wine Merchant). Here's my suggestion:
Savings:
$1
When you play this, you may put this on your Tavern mat. If you do, this is worth $0.
At the start of your buy phase, you may call this, to play it.
So the case you describe it pretty fringe, since each player starts with only one of these, max. It doesn't replace all their coppers, just one of them. The only way another player would get a second Savings is from Masquerade or Thief, really. As for the cost, since you can't buy them, it's not as big a deal--it matters most for interaction with trashing cards that care about cost. With one exception, they're all priced to be un-gainable from the trash.
About how Savings changes the opening, it can convert a 2-5 into a 1-6 opening which is only strong if there are no (good) 2$ cards. In the presence of Baker and 7$ cards a 1-7 opening is possible. Sounds pretty strong but then again the chance to have Baker, a 7$ card and a 2-5 opening are fairly small so this is an edge case.
Savings can also convert 3-4 into 2-5.
I don't think that this is more than a slight volatility increase so it should not be much of an issue but the card definitely needs to get tested.
Yeah, I think the difference can be significant in some cases, but will rarely be that volatile. Plus, to get such a 1-6 opening you do have to pull Savings on turn 1, not turn 2. Heirlooms could give you 6 on turn 1 as well, but shuffles before your second turn.
-
About the wording, I think you should change it. In decks with Masquerade, Thief and Ambassador you can end up with two Savings.
About Heirlooms, I do not like it as it changes the opening too much. It is not just that the coin range is increased to 6$ but that you can draw the card you purchased on turn 1 with a probability of 1/6 on turn 2.
-
Just realized something broken about this one. As worded, you only need $1 unspent to put them all on your Tavern mat, no matter how many you have, effectively making all but the first one Coin Hirelings, which would probably cost $6! As it is now, I'd say it's way too strong for $1.
Based on what you said in your post, I'm guessing that your intention was that you would need $2 unspent to put two on top, $3 to put 3 on top, etc. In that case, you'll just need to change the wording (I know my first paragraph is true because of the rulebook explanation for Wine Merchant). Here's my suggestion:
Savings:
$1
When you play this, you may put this on your Tavern mat. If you do, this is worth $0.
At the start of your buy phase, you may call this, to play it.
So the case you describe it pretty fringe, since each player starts with only one of these, max. It doesn't replace all their coppers, just one of them. The only way another player would get a second Savings is from Masquerade or Thief, really. As for the cost, since you can't buy them, it's not as big a deal--it matters most for interaction with trashing cards that care about cost. With one exception, they're all priced to be un-gainable from the trash.
About how Savings changes the opening, it can convert a 2-5 into a 1-6 opening which is only strong if there are no (good) 2$ cards. In the presence of Baker and 7$ cards a 1-7 opening is possible. Sounds pretty strong but then again the chance to have Baker, a 7$ card and a 2-5 opening are fairly small so this is an edge case.
Savings can also convert 3-4 into 2-5.
I don't think that this is more than a slight volatility increase so it should not be much of an issue but the card definitely needs to get tested.
Yeah, I think the difference can be significant in some cases, but will rarely be that volatile. Plus, to get such a 1-6 opening you do have to pull Savings on turn 1, not turn 2. Heirlooms could give you 6 on turn 1 as well, but shuffles before your second turn.
*Facepalms.* I'm an idiot. Apparently, I didn't think about what this thread is called, so I thought that savings was a kingdom supply pile. Forget what I said, nothing to see here.
-
About the wording, I think you should change it. In decks with Masquerade, Thief and Ambassador you can end up with two Savings.
I still don't think it's worth the wording. You can't Ambassador it because it's not in the supply.
Thieving it takes considerable luck (and an opponent willing to buy Thief in the first place :P). With Masquerade it's your own fault if you choose to pass that as your card. And besides, 2 Savings is essentially just an extra copper per turn, until you finally need both.
About Heirlooms, I do not like it as it changes the opening too much. It is not just that the coin range is increased to 6$ but that you can draw the card you purchased on turn 1 with a probability of 1/6 on turn 2.
Well, the dynamic of drawing the card you bought on turn one on turn two is the point. Both players are in that boat. I'm not committing to any changes to until problems turn up in testing. So far it's been fine.
-
What is the reason for heirlooms making you start with a 9-card deck?
-
What is the reason for heirlooms making you start with a 9-card deck?
Two of your Coppers are removed, but only one Heirlooms is added.
-
About the wording, I think you should change it. In decks with Masquerade, Thief and Ambassador you can end up with two Savings.
I still don't think it's worth the wording. You can't Ambassador it because it's not in the supply.
Thieving it takes considerable luck (and an opponent willing to buy Thief in the first place :P). With Masquerade it's your own fault if you choose to pass that as your card. And besides, 2 Savings is essentially just an extra copper per turn, until you finally need both.
You are of course right about Ambassador. About Masquerade, in the middlegame Savings can actually become a liability so it will be passed.
Furthermore there is Venture. With Gubump's version you have to decide immediately whether you wanna save or spend Savings whereas with your version you can postpone the decision.
I do not think that this makes much sense, from a thematic or mechanical perspective.
-
What is the reason for heirlooms making you start with a 9-card deck?
Two of your Coppers are removed, but only one Heirlooms is added.
um, yeah
What I was asking is why two coppers were removed when only one card was added...
-
What is the reason for heirlooms making you start with a 9-card deck?
Two of your Coppers are removed, but only one Heirlooms is added.
um, yeah
What I was asking is why two coppers were removed when only one card was added...
You're answering your own question. Because the point of this as an alt copper is to mess with the normal starting buy conditions. It keeps you at $7 total to spend, but alters the the shuffle placement.
-
What is the reason for heirlooms making you start with a 9-card deck?
Two of your Coppers are removed, but only one Heirlooms is added.
um, yeah
What I was asking is why two coppers were removed when only one card was added...
You're answering your own question. Because the point of this as an alt copper is to mess with the normal starting buy conditions. It keeps you at $7 total to spend, but alters the the shuffle placement.
No, it doesn't keep you at "$7 total to spend". Since you still draw 5 cards total each turn, it puts you significantly higher than $7 over two turns. Not only is it possible to draw this pseudo-Silver on both opening turns, you could also end up drawing your opening buy. This has been discussed already and I get that it's the point, but it makes the opening significantly swingier.
-
To illustrate eHalcyon's point, if Heirlooms just substituted one Copper you the possible opening moves would be 2-6, 3-5, 4-4. This is still too opening-changing for my taste but Heirlooms substituting two Coppers is even more radicall:
You could e.g. start with 6$, buy Gold and Heirlooms is trashed; draw 3 Estates, Copper and Gold on your second turn and thus have 4$. The probability to open 6-4 is pretty small (1/42: chance to open with 6$ is only 5/42 and chance to draw the Gold on turn 2 is 1/5) but it illustrates the increased opening volatility.
It is most likely to open with 4-4.
If you open with 5 Coppers (1/21) you could draw (1/6) and play that 5$ card as well as Heirlooms on turn 2 .
If you open with Heirloom, three Coppers and an Estate which is not that unlikely you have to trash the Heirlooms but have a chance to play the 5$ card on turn 2. If you did not draw it chances are high that you draw a Copper so you can at least buy a Silver.
I find it hard to imagine a situation in which you would not wanna trash Heirlooms for a 5$ Action card.