Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: rinkworks on November 22, 2011, 04:56:49 pm
-
I've been experimenting with this card:
Royal Scepter
$? - Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an action card other than Royal Scepter. Discard the other revealed cards and play the revealed action card twice.
I suspect that $4 is the right cost, because it's roughly as good as Throne Room. The primary differences seem to balance each other out:
(1) Throne Room can be drawn in a hand with no other action cards. When it does, it's a dead card. Royal Scepter is never dead unless there are no other action cards in your deck. This can happen if you draw all your other action cards in the same hand as Royal Scepter, but this is a much more preventable situation. By and large, Royal Scepter is stronger in this case: it fails much less often, even in action-light decks.
(2) You have greater choice over what action Throne Room doubles. If you have Throne Room in hand with multiple action cards, you can pick the action card that will do the most for you when it's played twice. This includes being able to play it on another Throne Room. Additionally, you can choose not to play the Throne Room if there aren't any action cards you want to play twice (e.g., Remake). With Royal Scepter, you usually have no control over what action gets played twice.
Allowing Royal Scepter to work on other Royal Scepters is an option, of course. I've tried it that way, and it requires a whole lot less bookkeeping than Golem would, if it could work on itself. But it's still kind of a mess to untangle, so I think it's better not to allow it.
Regardless of that, though, $4 feels right. But I'm not confident about this conclusion, even after playtesting, so I thought I'd throw this out there to see if anybody had any thoughts about it.
-
I have a somewhat similar card at four dollars (minus the throne room feature).
The card was EXTREMELY effective at spamming a curse attack. This is both the real strength of a card like this, but it also highlights the weakness, without a singular strong action card, it often gets annoying and random.
Still, you'll find (I think) that buying this with Witch is a delight. Your only problem is a collision of the two on the same draw.
My similar card rated pretty neutral, meaning it wasn't that broken, but was fairly popular and at times enabled some nice combinations. I expect you'll likely find the same kind of result.
Also watch out for Reaction cards that are not Action cards, obviously the "Tunnel" effect is substantially strong here.
-
I should also add that it is better than Throne Room, because it can mill to that harsh attack card, allowing you to ensure (practically anyway) that you can attack on almost every hand. So it does more than spam a card twice, it also mills to your best "feature" action card and gets it out there every time. The trick is to buy just one action, and then you can rely on getting it out there often (and twice).
You mitigate what the card doubles, by ensuring there's only one other card different (and that this card is a really strong card of course). It's not substantially better than Throne Room of course.
Again, a similar type of tutor card was play tested by me, it was popular and it worked best when it was part of a Kingdom with a strong attack card as its companion. My card was also 4$, so your pricing might be about right.
Hope that helps.
-
I agree with ChaosRed. It seems this would be much stronger than throne room, because while throne room lets you sometimes double-play an action, this cards additionally lets you play it more *often*, which is usually a much bigger deal. This makes it much more like golem than like throne room, and golem is harder to buy than gold. The downside of potentially playing unwanted actions can be mitigated in much the same way as it is with golem -- just don't buy the extra actions. I would be shocked if $4 was actually an appropriate cost for this card. My gut tells me it probably has to cost closer to $6 or have some sort of buy restriction or penalty (like opponent chooses another action card for you to gain), if for no other reason than to force you to buy extra actions (which block it from hitting your best action every time) to help you get up to the point where you can be sure to be able to buy it.
-
This could be seriously combotastic in a deck with Apothecary, Scout, or anything else that lets you decide what the next Action in your deck is going to be.
-
Strangely enough the golem is already one of the throne variants (along with scheme and king's court). Is there a need to create a fan variant card that tries to imitate existing cards?
-
It seems pretty well priced. What happens when you open Scepter and [terminal silver equivalent $3 action] and try a Big Money strategy? Every time you get a scepter in hand you dig for +$4. The combination of good deck cycling and cash would speed up BM pretty quick. I'd try that in solitaire just to see how quickly it gets to 4 provinces. But even then thats a pretty rare scenario (there are only 2 $3 silver equivalents) and it might not warrant pushing the cost to $5.
-
Strangely enough the golem is already one of the throne variants (along with scheme and king's court). Is there a need to create a fan variant card that tries to imitate existing cards?
This is a strange question to me. No, there's not a need per se, but is there a need for any fan card, or indeed most of the official cards? The beauty of many if not most cards comes from subtly different details. Otherwise you'd only need or want one type of Village, one type of Lab, and one type of Peddler. Maybe the kind of custom cards you're interested in are only those with wholly new ideas, but my own interest isn't so narrow.
As to why I was particularly interested in a Throne Room variant, it's because Throne Room/King's Court is such a great and interesting mechanic which is getting scarcer and scarcer as expansions come out without their own variations. (I don't consider Golem or Scheme to be either, as the gameplay is totally different, though I see where you're going with that.) When I play my own games, I'd love to be able to increase the frequency with which action-doubling stuff is possible but without having the exact same details every time.
Anyway, thanks to all with feedback on this card. I'm intrigued by the arguments that this is stronger than I think and will playtest some more with that hypothesis in mind.
-
in fact, i wonder with the drawback of not being able to choose your doubled action, if this could go for 3$ ??
even at 4$, it will defintiely be bought in a game that doesn't include Throne Room. i think anybody would agree that with both at 4$, Throne Room would be chosen over this... and that makes me wonder if you could lower the price.
-
in fact, i wonder with the drawback of not being able to choose your doubled action, if this could go for 3$ ??
even at 4$, it will defintiely be bought in a game that doesn't include Throne Room. i think anybody would agree that with both at 4$, Throne Room would be chosen over this... and that makes me wonder if you could lower the price.
Try thinking of what happens if you open with this and Sea Hag, or Bridge, or Young Witch, or Moneylender. Still sound good at $3?
-
I'm with HME and Jack Rudd here. Way too powerful at $4, mainly because of the possibility of spamming a single other action card over and over, and faster, and Chancellorizing your deck over and over. $6 feels right here.
-
even at 4$, it will defintiely be bought in a game that doesn't include Throne Room. i think anybody would agree that with both at 4$, Throne Room would be chosen over this... and that makes me wonder if you could lower the price.
There are many situations I would buy this over TR, at $4, maybe even at $5. TR is not such a great card. For your hand, it nets you +1Action over having the throned card twice in your hand, given you have a card you want to throne. This one additionally digs for the action.
In an $5 attack game (Witch/Mountebank), after you bought a Witch, this is basically a doubleWitch. For every time you buy it. Open Silver/Silver, buy Szepters at $4 until you have many of them, buy a Witch at $5 and than play two Witches basically every turn. In such a game, I would never buy a TR. But I would buy a Szepter even at $5 (after the first Witch). Because it's not a downside (compared to the second Witch) if they collide, but if they don't collide it's a doubleWitch.
-
Consider that at $4P, Golem is worth the equivalent of $6 if you had bought a Silver instead of a Potion, and it is more punishing to miss a $4P than it is to miss a $6, since if there's nothing good at $3P, the best you can get is a $3, whereas if you draw $5, you'll likely have other good options.
Then, consider the differences between this and Golem. This is like Golem if the 2 action cards that you drew were the same. Now, I can think of circumstances where playing 2 different actions is better than playing 1 action 2 times (if you really want to combo the actions), but there are also circumstances where you might as well just play 1 action 2 times. So I don't think there's enough of a power difference between these 2 cards to justify a significant cost difference, and Golem itself is already very expensive. I'm very much not inclined to believe that $4 is an appropriate cost.
-
For comparism:
Adventurer costs $6 and is searching the deck for 2 treasure cards.
Golem costs ~$6.5 and is searching the deck for 2 action cards.
Venture costs $5 and is searching for 1 treasure card.
So: A card searching for one action card playing it twice seems like $6 for me.
I think the biggest problem with Throne Room is having an action card to play twice in your hand (be one of your 4 other cards in hand).
So, buying Throne Room in the first, let's say, 5 turns is mostly no good idea or very luck-dependant.
But Royal Scepter would be great from the start. So you buy a curser or another strong attack in turn 1/2 and then a Royal Scepter in turn 3. This could crush the opponent. Let it cost $6 would fix that.
-
I think Throne Room will be better in a very action-heavy deck when you're unlikely to draw it dead, but Royal Scepter (not Seal) will clearly excel in a BMX-type deck. For example, BM + Witch + Royal Scepter will be strictly better than BM + 2*Witch, since the former is essentially BM + Witch + "Grand Witch" with less chance of conflicting. Since BMX decks are probably more often better than action decks, I'd tentatively say Royal Scepter should probably be $5, although depending on playtesting could be as low as $4 or as high as $6.
-
You're all right. I tried a RS/Witch game, buying only one Witch and a few RS's, and indeed I could play a single- or double-Witch every turn starting around turn 7. Not that I doubted your theories on this, but I guess I just didn't try this kind of strategy in my preliminary testing. I was playing it like Throne Room, buying several different actions (though I knew enough to avoid weak actions), and it wasn't working as well. I think the weakness wasn't so much the unpredictability of what it would hit as the fact that I didn't have the density of RS's that would allow me to play one every turn.
I'll try it at $6 and see how that benchmarks. Thank you, all!
-
Based on a all the feedback it sounds that a simple 'dig for an action card, play it' card could even be $3/$4.
-
Grail
Cost: $3
+$1
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action. Discard the other revealed cards. Play the revealed Action.
---------------------------
When you buy this, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Treasure. Discard the other revealed cards. Play the revealed Treasure.
-
Too cheap. Compare the other card semi-cloner, Scheme.
-
Grail
Cost: $3
+$1
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action. Discard the other revealed cards. Play the revealed Action.
---------------------------
When you buy this, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Treasure. Discard the other revealed cards. Play the revealed Treasure.
Personally I wouldn't have a +$ on buy unless it either gives you another buy as well, or playing the card gives you a buy, otherwise it relies on other cards' buys to make the on-buy effect significant.
-
Also, Grail shouldn't combo with itself.
-
Why not? Would that make it too strong ala Venture? I don't really see an issue with it.
-
Why not? Would that make it too strong ala Venture? I don't really see an issue with it.
Open Grail with 3 or 4. Draw and play an extra Copper. End of T1, draw 4 (or fewer cards), reshuffle. You have the possibility of hitting Grail on T2. If you do: free Chancellor! Buy a Grail unless you're unlucky enough to hit $2.
The first person to get unlucky with $2 will only get 4 Grails to the other player's 6. The other player has a near-guarantee of +$4 to +$6 every turn thereafter, plus coin in hand, because every turn ends with "Chancellor" (for both players).
This looks like at least $5. Even then, Grail race beats Minion race because no trashing is required.
-
Thanks for the explanation. :)
-
Jimmmmm, Kirian: I see. Those are some good points. Try this on for size.
Grail
Cost: $3
+$1
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action. Discard the other revealed cards. Play the revealed Action.
---------------------------
When you buy this, each other player reveals cards from his deck until he reveals a Treasure, putting it into his hand. He discards the other revealed cards.
-
How does that make a difference? Still massively too powerful, probably even at $5.
-
How does that make a difference? Still massively too powerful, probably even at $5.
It's not intended to make it less powerful. It solves the fact which was pointed out earlier, that if your opponent buys Grail with their 3-4 opening split, and you have a 2-5 opening split, you're screwed. With this change, your opponents' opening Grail means you now you have $3 instead of $2, enough to buy Grail, plus your 2nd turn might draw it.
If you're really concerned with the card's power, I could make it this:
Grail
Cost: $3
+$1
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action. Discard the other revealed cards. Play the revealed Action.
---------------------------
In any cleanup phase when you clean up one or more Grails, each other player reveals cards from his deck until he reveals a Treasure, putting it into his hand. He discards the other revealed cards.
-
That might be balanced, but it's poor design. It heavily discourages sprinkling and limits the card to chaining strategies.
-
There are lots of cards out there that will screw one player or the other over if the splits don't match. I don't really think that is something that needs to be 'fixed' in the design of any card.
-
The earlier version was overpowered anyway. You buy four of them before the second reshuffle and you have 4 terminal golds in your deck already. It gets worse from there.
-
Yeah, I never really felt like speaking up in here before, but in my opinion, the originally proposed version of the card is enough different from Golem to justify existing, but I believe it is almost identical in power. It does not compare to Throne Room because Throneing an action takes up two cards from your hand and this takes only one, which is huge. I would price it at $4P ($6 if you really don't want the Potion, but I don't think it works as well there). I think it would be a reasonable card at that price point.
-
This card is way, way better than Throne Room. It's pretty much just like a Golem except that it plays the first action found twice instead of the first and the second once each.
I guess it's slightly inferior to Golem because you generally want a healthy variety of played actions over one played twice. I'd price it at $6.
What the OP missed in his original analysis is that Throne Room doesn't effectively increase the number of actions you get to play. If you play Throne Room with another action in your hand, then you've spent two action cards to play two actions. Throne Room basically just turns itself into a clone of another action card with a "+1 action" tacked on. Royal Scepter on the other hand turns itself into TWO clones of another action, since it's taking it from your deck, not your hand.
-
Tried some more playtests with Royal Scepter at $6, this time deliberately using a money strategy with only one or two key action cards for the Royal Scepters to find. Turns out, being able to play a double Torturer every 3 out of 4 turns is pretty powerful. Who'd have thought?
It's really weird how you may blind spots you can have with this game.
I still need to test some more, but it seems like $6 is probably good, with the caveat that on some boards it's a must-buy at $6 and others it's terrible. I don't suppose that's a bad thing, necessarily.
-
I think I fixed Grail.
GRAIL
Type: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a Copper, putting it in your hand.
You may trash any number of Treasures from your hand.
For each Treasure you trash this way: Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action. Play the Action. Discard the other revealed cards.
-
I doubt it. One play of it midgame, where you already accumulated some actions (for example 4 Bridges), in a hand with, let's say three Coppers, does not only trash 3 Coppers (plus the one you gained), a thing you gladly do with Chapel, but also lets you play every Action in your deck at the same time, which could be game-changing (curse attacks, said Bridges, etc.)
-
Sounds pretty awesome to me.
-
Sounds pretty awesome to me.
Sounds incredibly powerful to me. If it just said to dig for the next action and play it, it would be roughly as strong as scheme. As is, it's much, much better, and it barely costs more.
So yeah, it's pretty awesome, in the way that a 4-cost gold would be pretty awesome.
-
If there is anything you think it needs for improvement, I'm interested to hear it. Gains up to two Coppers and may only trash one. What have you. Etc, etc. Incremental improvement is not difficult to do-- go ahead, try it, you'll probably come up with something interesting.