Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: LastFootnote on March 03, 2014, 03:54:24 pm
-
So I had an idea the other day for a new type of card: Activation. I even wrote a quick blurb:
These cards say Activation on the bottom line, i.e. "Action Activation. In addition to any effects these cards have when played or while in play, an Activation card has another effect that you can use by spending an Action. During your Action phase, instead of spending an Action to play an Action card from your hand, you may spend an Action to get the activation effect of an Activation card you already have in play.
Activation cards in play that have not yet been activated are not discarded during your Clean-up phase. They stay in play until activated and are discarded from play during the Clean-up phase of that turn.
Activation cards can only be activated once per time they are played. Once activated, they cannot be activated again until they have been removed from play and played again. Even if another card plays a single Activation card more than once, the activation effect can only be used once before the Activation card leaves play. Hence, if an Activation card is played twice by Throne Room, the Throne Room will be discarded from play normally during the Clean-up phase of that turn, whether or not the card it played has been activated.
In order to keep track of which Activation cards have been activated and which ones havent, when you play an Activation card from your hand, turn it 90° to the right. When you activate an Activation card, turn it right-side up. During your Clean-up phase, remember to only discard cards from play which are right-side up.
Examples
Patron
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $2
While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack card, +1 Card then discard a card.
When you activate this, +$4.
Hidden Passage
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $3
+2 Actions.
When you activate this, discard any number of cards. +$1 per card discarded.
Balcony
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action.
When you activate this, you may play an Action card from your hand twice.
Boomtown
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. +2 Actions. +1 Buy.
When you activate this, discard a card.
-
Interesting concept. It's almost like a little Native Village that keeps a single card (with a particular power) that can be retrieved at any time for 1 action. I like that some of the activation powers are good, and some are "bad", but balanced by the on-play effect. When I first saw Boomtown, I wondered why you'd ever want to activate it, but you have to in order to shuffle it back in and get the excellent on-play effect again.
I imagine you'll usually want to use an activation power as soon as possible, so you can play and activate many times. Otherwise, you could run into the Seaside issue where the duration cards get played quite a bit less than other cards, since they're staying out and missing the shuffle.
-
Tactician+Hidden Passage seems kind of cool.. well, two of each. Would let you consistently Province for a turn for a bit.
-
This offers some cool design space and I think your examples illustrate that. Patron you deliberately don't activate so you can keep the attack defense. Hidden passage is just an effect that's good to save until later. Balcony does nothing when you play it, but fixes the dead throne room problem. Boomtown (don't we already have a card with that name?) has a penalty so you can't play it as often.
I think one good way to make sure they aren't overpowered is to just subtract 1 action from each and look at the effect + the activation effect, since that's always an option at least.
Patron becomes two terminal silvers in one card. So it takes two actions to play and gives +$4. With the attack defense that actually seems pretty good for $2. Maybe not though.
Hidden Passage becomes a non-terminal secret chamber without the reaction. That seems fine
Balcony becomes TR+1 card. Definitely not OP for $5. The real power is in never having no action to play it on though.
Boomtown becomes +2 cards. +1 action. +1 Buy. Discard a card. So a cycling cantrip +buy. That doesn't seem OP either.
These all seem good.
-
Very neat concept. I think it's going to be pretty hard to balance cards with this mechanic, but it would be well worth the effort. The difficulty is due to how different it is from anything currently in the game.
At first, Patron seems like two terminal silvers with a minor reaction to attacks built in. Certainly nothing exciting for $2. However, it's also worth considering its similarity to cards that weaken the current turn in order to strengthen a future turn. Patron is actually pretty similar to Tactician. You sacrifice the current turn -- Patron does nothing when you first play it while Tactician tosses your whole hand -- but you get a strong turn later on -- Patron gives you the option for a terminal +$4 every turn after until you use it while Tactician gives you an extra 5 cards and +1 action on the next turn. The sacrifice is smaller with Patron. The bonus is debatable. I think Patron's is weaker than Tactician, especially in terms of potential (Patron is a fixed bonus while Tactician can be huge depending on your deck composition) but it does have a coin token-like flexibility in that you can save it until you want it. Add to that the optionally permanent reaction (which can stack with multiple Patrons in play, right?)... I do think Patron is worth more than $2. It seems more powerful to me than just "two terminal silvers".
Hidden Passage is pretty interesting as well. It actually provides actions which can be used to activate itself. If you do activate it right away, it's pretty much a non-terminal Secret Chamber, which seems reasonable for $3. But if you wait before using the activation, it can actually get close to Vault in power. If you wait until the next turn, you can discard 5 cards instead of just the 4 you'd get from Secret Chamber. Not quite as good as Vault, which discards 6, but there also isn't any benefit to you opponents. Moreover, Hidden Passage combos better with other cards because it is non-terminal. A key difference between Hidden Passage and a non-terminal SC is that you are more easily able to play draw cards before discarding for coin. You could play Hidden Passage and then Smithy before activating, a trick that wouldn't be possible with a non-terminal SC without some other village support. I think $3 is still a good price for it, but it is more powerful than it first appears.
I don't have any particular thoughts on Balcony other than the general notion that the ability to save these activation effects for the ideal time makes them more powerful, in the same way that coin tokens are better than virtual coin.
Boomtown is very neat in that the activation is a penalty which must be paid if you ever want to play that card again. This kind of penalty is really interesting -- you can wait to pay it at a time where it hurts less (in this case, waiting until you have a junk card in hand and actions to spare), but you need to be wary of missing the reshuffle. I think Boomtown is nice as is, but other cards could have an activation that is even milder than "discard a card". Even if the activation efffect was entirely neutral, it could still be a penalty in that it uses up an action.
I think an interesting activation penalty would be "discard your hand and draw 5 new cards". It is neutral on the surface (minus the action cost), but can be used to your benefit to mulligan a bad hand. However, waiting on activation can cause the power card to miss the reshuffle, a danger which is made more likely because it draws cards itself.
Anyway, this is a really cool concept. I'm sure many different things could be done with this. It opens up a lot of design space without adding a lot of complexity. Maybe this could be used as the basis for a future community-created fan expansion that has an actual focused theme. We still gotta finish up the Treasure Chest first though. ;)
-
Boomtown
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. +2 Actions. +1 Buy.
When you activate this, discard a card.
This is a nice take on City's predecessor.
-
I think the concept is cool and Boomtown shows why: Everything else on the card is vanilla, and yet the card is interesting enough for me (and apparently others) to doubt to judge its balance.
I think Patron is too powerful. The permanent reaction is really good. Even better for the Attacked than Vault's penalty, for example. The fact that the "Reaction" is mandatory is strange, because it makes reshuffles get totally out of control. I think I would like it better with a "you may" to reduce crazyness, and possibly making it more expensive, or tweaking something else.
Another nice concept could be to put the penalty on the "while this is in play" part:
Mighty Smitty
Action - Activation
+3 Cards
---
When you activate this, +3 Cards.
---
At the start of your turn, if this is in play, discard a card.
-
I think this is the first new mechanic I've seen on the forums that I've really been excited about. I would love to see an expansion with an activation theme.
-
I think this is the first new mechanic I've seen on the forums that I've really been excited about. I would love to see an expansion with an activation theme.
Could not agree with this more. I don't always check the new variants threads these days, but this mechanic seems extremely original and full of potential. Very exciting stuff.
-
At first, Patron seems like two terminal silvers with a minor reaction to attacks built in. Certainly nothing exciting for $2. However, it's also worth considering its similarity to cards that weaken the current turn in order to strengthen a future turn. Patron is actually pretty similar to Tactician. You sacrifice the current turn -- Patron does nothing when you first play it while Tactician tosses your whole hand -- but you get a strong turn later on -- Patron gives you the option for a terminal +$4 every turn after until you use it while Tactician gives you an extra 5 cards and +1 action on the next turn. The sacrifice is smaller with Patron. The bonus is debatable. I think Patron's is weaker than Tactician, especially in terms of potential (Patron is a fixed bonus while Tactician can be huge depending on your deck composition) but it does have a coin token-like flexibility in that you can save it until you want it. Add to that the optionally permanent reaction (which can stack with multiple Patrons in play, right?)... I do think Patron is worth more than $2. It seems more powerful to me than just "two terminal silvers".
I didn't mean to imply that Patron was just two terminal silvers. Rather, it is, at minimum two terminal silvers. I was just doing a quick sanity check on whether these cards were terribly OP by assuming that you activate immediately. Unsurprisingly, none of LF's cards failed this pretty cursory check. I think I agree that it's probably too powerful for $2 though.
-
At first, Patron seems like two terminal silvers with a minor reaction to attacks built in. Certainly nothing exciting for $2. However, it's also worth considering its similarity to cards that weaken the current turn in order to strengthen a future turn. Patron is actually pretty similar to Tactician. You sacrifice the current turn -- Patron does nothing when you first play it while Tactician tosses your whole hand -- but you get a strong turn later on -- Patron gives you the option for a terminal +$4 every turn after until you use it while Tactician gives you an extra 5 cards and +1 action on the next turn. The sacrifice is smaller with Patron. The bonus is debatable. I think Patron's is weaker than Tactician, especially in terms of potential (Patron is a fixed bonus while Tactician can be huge depending on your deck composition) but it does have a coin token-like flexibility in that you can save it until you want it. Add to that the optionally permanent reaction (which can stack with multiple Patrons in play, right?)... I do think Patron is worth more than $2. It seems more powerful to me than just "two terminal silvers".
I didn't mean to imply that Patron was just two terminal silvers. Rather, it is, at minimum two terminal silvers. I was just doing a quick sanity check on whether these cards were terribly OP by assuming that you activate immediately. Unsurprisingly, none of LF's cards failed this pretty cursory check. I think I agree that it's probably too powerful for $2 though.
Wasn't criticizing your analysis/sanity-check! It's definitely a good method for the initial look at the cards' effects. My post was written as my thoughts just on LF's concepts, not on the comments made by you or others.
-
At first, Patron seems like two terminal silvers with a minor reaction to attacks built in. Certainly nothing exciting for $2. However, it's also worth considering its similarity to cards that weaken the current turn in order to strengthen a future turn. Patron is actually pretty similar to Tactician. You sacrifice the current turn -- Patron does nothing when you first play it while Tactician tosses your whole hand -- but you get a strong turn later on -- Patron gives you the option for a terminal +$4 every turn after until you use it while Tactician gives you an extra 5 cards and +1 action on the next turn. The sacrifice is smaller with Patron. The bonus is debatable. I think Patron's is weaker than Tactician, especially in terms of potential (Patron is a fixed bonus while Tactician can be huge depending on your deck composition) but it does have a coin token-like flexibility in that you can save it until you want it. Add to that the optionally permanent reaction (which can stack with multiple Patrons in play, right?)... I do think Patron is worth more than $2. It seems more powerful to me than just "two terminal silvers".
I didn't mean to imply that Patron was just two terminal silvers. Rather, it is, at minimum two terminal silvers. I was just doing a quick sanity check on whether these cards were terribly OP by assuming that you activate immediately. Unsurprisingly, none of LF's cards failed this pretty cursory check. I think I agree that it's probably too powerful for $2 though.
Wasn't criticizing your analysis/sanity-check! It's definitely a good method for the initial look at the cards' effects. My post was written as my thoughts just on LF's concepts, not on the comments made by you or others.
I didn't feel criticized. Just wanted to make sure that my meaning was clear :)
-
The Activation card type is a really cool idea. Patron would need some clarification, though.
Patron
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $2
While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack card, +1 Card then discard a card.
When you activate this, +$4.
The text above the dash needs to be reworded to avoid confusion - unless you want the player to be able to cycle through their deck as often as they want. If this should only happen once per attack or turn, make it clear this is a rule to this card. Or have the player discard it upon using its reaction ability. Furthermore, I think +$4 is a little too much for a $2-card. +$3 seems more accurate.
The other cards could be tweaked a little as well. There have already been made good suggestions to that here. But overall, a very interesting concept for Dominion that might potentially be the theme of a whole set. I might think of some Activation cards on my own and credit you for it ;)
-
I don't think that clarification needs to be on Patron. It is the same as lots of effects, like when-gain, when-buy, when-trash, etc. I imagine that you are comparing it with reactions, but there the rule book states you may reveal multiple times.
-
I don't think that clarification needs to be on Patron. It is the same as lots of effects, like when-gain, when-buy, when-trash, etc. I imagine that you are comparing it with reactions, but there the rule book states you may reveal multiple times.
You can reveal Moat, Secret Chamber or Trader to the same action as often as you want but the outcome will always be the same. Now think why this isn't the case with Beggar (your own avatar) - in order to gain two Silvers, you have to discard it. Otherwise you could reveal it infinitely and gain all the Silvers from the supply. It's the same principle with Patron; with no restriction clause, you could cycle through your deck when a single card is played. The trivia part of the wiki article on Outpost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Outpost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Outpost)) is a good example of how much thought Donald X. sometimes has to put on the correct wording of a card to avoid open questions and prevent abuse of a card's abilities.
-
I don't think that clarification needs to be on Patron. It is the same as lots of effects, like when-gain, when-buy, when-trash, etc. I imagine that you are comparing it with reactions, but there the rule book states you may reveal multiple times.
You can reveal Moat, Secret Chamber or Trader to the same action as often as you want but the outcome will always be the same. Now think why this isn't the case with Beggar (your own avatar) - in order to gain two Silvers, you have to discard it. Otherwise you could reveal it infinitely and gain all the Silvers from the supply. It's the same principle with Patron; with no restriction clause, you could cycle through your deck when a single card is played. The trivia part of the wiki article on Outpost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Outpost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Outpost)) is a good example of how much thought Donald X. sometimes has to put on the correct wording of a card to avoid open questions and prevent abuse of a card's abilities.
I think Peebles was referring to, e.g.,
Haggler:
"While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a card costing less than it that is not a victory card."
You wouldn't argue that you can empty out a pile by initiating Hagglers "reaction" many times.
-
I think Peebles was referring to, e.g.,
Haggler:
"While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a card costing less than it that is not a victory card."
You wouldn't argue that you can empty out a pile by initiating Hagglers "reaction" many times.
This. You are confusing the interpretation of Patron's text. Outpost is there to avoid stacking with more copies of itself, not because you could use a single Outpost to have an unbounded number of turns. Possession does not have such clause and you cannot use a single play of a single Possession to possess an arbitrary large number of your opponent's turns.
In this case, several copies of Patron in play would let you draw and discard several cards, the same as several copies of Beggar would give you several Silvers as Reaction to Attacks or several Horse Traders can be set aside and give you extra cards when reacting to the same Attack. Each copy of Patron will only let you sift one card per Attack.
Maybe you were referring to Patron's "reacting" to several Attacks with a single card. That is in fact what happens, but it is the same as Secret Chamber, Lighthouse, Moat and Trader.
The point is, as is, the Patron's text "only" sifts one card per copy of Patron in play and per Attack an opponent plays.
-
With activations, there is a new notion of "semi-non-terminal" or even "semi-village". You could have clauses like "You may choose an Activation in play and activate it." which is like a limited "+1 Action". You can also have a TR for Activations, although it is hard to make it work without ensuring other Activations:
$4 - Cortege
Action - Activation
You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
---
When you activate this, you may choose an Activation card from play and activate it twice.
Maybe something better would be if it worked better on itself.
$4 - Cortege
Action - Activation
You may choose an Activation card from play and activate it twice.
---
You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
or
$5 - Cortege
Action - Activation
You may play an Action card from your hand twice. You may choose an Activation card from play and activate it twice.
---
When you activate this, +$1.
-
Thanks a lot for all the encouraging words, everyone! I'm glad you like the mechanic.
Hidden Passage is pretty interesting as well. It actually provides actions which can be used to activate itself. If you do activate it right away, it's pretty much a non-terminal Secret Chamber, which seems reasonable for $3. But if you wait before using the activation, it can actually get close to Vault in power. If you wait until the next turn, you can discard 5 cards instead of just the 4 you'd get from Secret Chamber. Not quite as good as Vault, which discards 6, but there also isn't any benefit to you opponents. Moreover, Hidden Passage combos better with other cards because it is non-terminal. A key difference between Hidden Passage and a non-terminal SC is that you are more easily able to play draw cards before discarding for coin. You could play Hidden Passage and then Smithy before activating, a trick that wouldn't be possible with a non-terminal SC without some other village support. I think $3 is still a good price for it, but it is more powerful than it first appears.
I am incredibly pleased that you 100% nailed the concept of the card, including the "Play Hidden Passage, play Smithy, activate Hidden Passage" combo.
Boomtown is very neat in that the activation is a penalty which must be paid if you ever want to play that card again. This kind of penalty is really interesting -- you can wait to pay it at a time where it hurts less (in this case, waiting until you have a junk card in hand and actions to spare), but you need to be wary of missing the reshuffle. I think Boomtown is nice as is, but other cards could have an activation that is even milder than "discard a card". Even if the activation efffect was entirely neutral, it could still be a penalty in that it uses up an action.
Funny enough, I was considering this for Boomtown. Right before I posted this thread, I had penciled in "something weak" for its activation effect. I thought about just +1 Card or +1 Buy, etc. Then I thought of just, "When you activate this, do nothing." But then I (luckily) did GeoLib's sanity check and realized that would make it strictly better than Lab at $5. So I posted the version you see above.
I think an interesting activation penalty would be "discard your hand and draw 5 new cards". It is neutral on the surface (minus the action cost), but can be used to your benefit to mulligan a bad hand. However, waiting on activation can cause the power card to miss the reshuffle, a danger which is made more likely because it draws cards itself.
Huh. I would consider that to be a bonus way more often than a penalty, although the lack of +1 Action somewhat limits its usefulness. I am definitely interested in making a card with a mulligan effect. The problem is making it not suck when you don't want to mulligan. At one point I was considering this card:
Corridor
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Action. +$1. Look at a card from your deck per card in your hand. Either discard those cards or discard your hand and put them into your hand.
I never actually printed it for testing, though. Knowing what I know now, it would be a bear to resolve with larger hand sizes. Right now I have Terrace in Enterprise:
Terrace
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card. +2 Actions. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, discard your hand and +5 Cards.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
It's working out great so far, so I already have one good mulligan card. I really the idea of an Activation mulligan, though. It ensures that you have it when you need it, like Balcony does for playing a card twice. Chances are that if I make such a card, it will be different enough from Terrace that I can do both.
As for Patron being worth more than $2, perhaps that's true. I take that criticism with a grain of salt, though. Often it seems that any $2 card worth buying seems "too powerful for $2" to most people. There's this perception that $2 cards need to be weak, but that's a fallacy. Cards that are weak ideally don't get published at all. In playtesting, they don't get bought.
Anyhow, the upshot is that I'll probably test it at $2 first and keep an open mind. Either I am overestimating or several others are underestimating how harsh having a double-terminal is. Really I think it'll come down to how useful it is to just leave them in play until game end. I'm hoping that the +$4 will be enough to entice players to sometimes activate them even in the face of Attacks being played.
In other news, I've been trying to come up with a good Activation Attack. The challenge is that, ideally, the attack effect should be blockable with Moat, etc. So I'd rather not do a card where the attack itself is on the Activation portion. Here's an idea that uses an ancillary Activation card (because I'm a big proponent of Attack cards using ancillary cards).
Cannoneer
Types: Action Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Activate all your deactivated Cannons. For each one, each other player trashes the top card of his deck and gains a cheaper card that shares a type with it. If he didn't, he gains a Curse.
When you gain this, gain a Cannon.
Cannon
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $0*
+2 Cards.
When you activate this, +1 Card. (This is not in the Supply.)
Maybe a bit wordy. Still, seems promising as a mechanic.
-
Ha, cannon is a cool idea thematically. Lay out a bunch of cannons and then light them all in one big go. Of course, you have to get a cannoneer to get each cannon, and setting them all up would take a while, so it wouldn't work like that in practice.
But I like to imagine it.
-
Ha, cannon is a cool idea thematically. Lay out a bunch of cannons and then light them all in one big go. Of course, you have to get a cannoneer to get each cannon, and setting them all up would take a while, so it wouldn't work like that in practice.
But I like to imagine it.
Yeah, you've got the general thematic idea. On some boards, you could remodel a bunch of your Cannoneers and then just have one firing off your Cannons. The issue is that both Cannoneers and Cannons can be trashed by opponents' Cannoneers. If you have multiple Cannoneers and some get trashed, woohoo! If your Cannons get trashed instead, d'awww. I could change the Attack such that Cannoneers could only trash cards costing from $3 to $6, I suppose. If I did so, I'd probably change it from downgrading to pure trashing.
On the other hand, I could change Cannon's cost to $5*, allowing you to gain another Cannoneer when a Cannon gets trashed.
EDIT: On the other other hand, the fact that Cannons are spending more time in play means they're less likely to get trashed anyway.
-
I don't think that clarification needs to be on Patron. It is the same as lots of effects, like when-gain, when-buy, when-trash, etc. I imagine that you are comparing it with reactions, but there the rule book states you may reveal multiple times.
You can reveal Moat, Secret Chamber or Trader to the same action as often as you want but the outcome will always be the same. Now think why this isn't the case with Beggar (your own avatar) - in order to gain two Silvers, you have to discard it. Otherwise you could reveal it infinitely and gain all the Silvers from the supply. It's the same principle with Patron; with no restriction clause, you could cycle through your deck when a single card is played. The trivia part of the wiki article on Outpost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Outpost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Outpost)) is a good example of how much thought Donald X. sometimes has to put on the correct wording of a card to avoid open questions and prevent abuse of a card's abilities.
People have responded to this and even provided counter-examples like Haggler, but I don't think it's been spelled out explicitly. The reason why Patron is not problematic is that it is NOT a Reaction. Reactions can be revealed multiple times but are idempotent (or else they discard themselves or set themselves aside or something), but conditional "while in play" effects do not trigger repeatedly. "While in play" effects can resemble reactions (Lighthouse protects like Moat; cards like Haggler and Goons are triggered by events that might also trigger reactions) but they are distinct.
In other news, I've been trying to come up with a good Activation Attack. The challenge is that, ideally, the attack effect should be blockable with Moat, etc. So I'd rather not do a card where the attack itself is on the Activation portion.
Perhaps not the best idea, but an option is to have an activation along the lines of:
When you activate this, each other player discards down to 3 cards in his hand. (Treat this activation as an attack being played.)
If the primary action is not attack-y at all, then the attack type could be left off the card. I'm not sure if this would create any weird situations though. Right now, the weirdest thing I can come up with is that Squire would be unable to gain this card because it isn't normally an Attack.
Mighty Smitty
Action - Activation
+3 Cards
---
When you activate this, +3 Cards.
---
At the start of your turn, if this is in play, discard a card.
I missed this idea earlier. Even without the penalty, it's interesting to consider how it's different from a regular Smithy. Or, perhaps it would be more relevant to consider how it's different from TWO regular Smithy cards.
If you buy one Smithy, you get to play one Smithy per shuffle. But if you buy Mighty Smithy, you get TWO Smithy plays per shuffle. In a case like this, the Activation is giving you a lot more bang for your buy. Another positive is that there is no risk of terminal collision with Mighty Smithy. And of course, there is the "wait until the right time" aspect that adds some power to all activation cards.
With all that in mind, how much would Mighty Smithy have to cost? It's arguably better than two individual Smithy cards, which would cost a total of $8 and 2 Buys. However, you could buy each Smithy on a separate turn whereas you need to pony up the full cost for Mighty Smithy up front. Right now I'm thinking it should be $6 or $7.
Note that the above is without considering the start of turn penalty, which is an interesting exercise. With the penalty, it is only equivalent to double Smithy if you have village support. If you wait until the next turn to activate it, the second play is Moat with a bit of filtering. It hurts even more if you wait longer. The start-of-turn penalty is interesting because it disincentivizes waiting for the best time, instead putting pressure on you to use it sooner rather than later.
All in all, this is another neat thing to do with the activation mechanic. My biggest concern here is how ugly it is to have two lines on a card. Unfortunately, this may be a necessary evil. :P
-
All in all, this is another neat thing to do with the activation mechanic. My biggest concern here is how ugly it is to have two lines on a card. Unfortunately, this may be a necessary evil. :P
"When you play or activate this, +3 Cards." Boom, no need for a second line. Which is good, because I will personally never make a card with two dividing lines.
-
All in all, this is another neat thing to do with the activation mechanic. My biggest concern here is how ugly it is to have two lines on a card. Unfortunately, this may be a necessary evil. :P
"When you play or activate this, +3 Cards." Boom, no need for a second line. Which is good, because I will personally never make a card with two dividing lines.
OK, but what if you want a while-in-play or start-of-turn effect but don't want the activation to be the same as the on-play, e.g. +2 Cards initially, +4 cards on activation? I guess that just has to summarily ruled out?
-
Perhaps not the best idea, but an option is to have an activation along the lines of:
When you activate this, each other player discards down to 3 cards in his hand. (Treat this activation as an attack being played.)
Or you could play a card from a non-supply pile, like Spoils.
EDIT: This could be used for a card that gives +1 action and makes the opponents reveal their hands on play and has a hand attack on activation, that would be pretty cool. If they currently have a hand that you want to attack, you can activate it immediately, or you can wait for next turn when they possibly have a better hand.
-
"When you play or activate this, +3 Cards." Boom, no need for a second line. Which is good, because I will personally never make a card with two dividing lines.
OK, but what if you want a while-in-play or start-of-turn effect but don't want the activation to be the same as the on-play, e.g. +2 Cards initially, +4 cards on activation? I guess that just has to summarily ruled out?
For any cards I personally make, yes. Or rather, mostly. I might do:
[Vanilla bonus]. When you play or activate this, [some effect].
[Trigger], [some other effect].
So they don't have to be exactly identical. But my opinion is that if your card needs two dividing lines, it's too complex. I guess if there were some really compelling reason to have three completely different effects on a card, yet all three were really simple, I might do it. But in general I don't. That's just how I roll.
EDIT: This could be used for a card that gives +1 action and makes the opponents reveal their hands on play and has a hand attack on activation, that would be pretty cool. If they currently have a hand that you want to attack, you can activate it immediately, or you can wait for next turn when they possibly have a better hand.
With 2 players, that sounds cool. With more players, that sounds political.
-
With 2 players, that sounds cool. With more players, that sounds political.
Right. Damn those who play Dominion with more than two players.
-
Perhaps not the best idea, but an option is to have an activation along the lines of:
When you activate this, each other player discards down to 3 cards in his hand. (Treat this activation as an attack being played.)
Or you could play a card from a non-supply pile, like Spoils.
Good idea. It might be a bit tricky to word properly, but it would probably be easier to understand and have less potential for strange complications with other cards.
-
There seems to be quite a lot that could be done with this type of card because it just stays out. You could start modifying rules significantly.
You could consider a card that makes all other players play with their hand exposed as long as it stays out. Perhaps try to balance it by giving it a huge negative as long as it's deactivated.
Or maybe have something that increases the price of everything.. you could play it during a turn where you know you're not buying anything (Tactician, other Activation cards that let you set up for next turn), have your opponent suffer through their buy phase, and then activate it on your next turn. Or the reverse.. play it, play a bunch of trash-for-benefit cards, then activate it.
Or have everyone draw an extra card during their cleanup phase.. those sorts of things.
-
Interestingly, activation is a way to implement the popular fan concept of permanent durations. I think it's actually more elegant and flexible than using the actual Duration type.
-
Interestingly, activation is a way to implement the popular fan concept of permanent durations. I think it's actually more elegant and flexible than using the actual Duration type.
Yeah, that's more or less what I tried to do with Patron. It's tough coming up with such effects that wouldn't be overpowered.
-
Great Idea, these Activation cards !
Of course I couldn't resist to test them ... (because of a benign accident, I'm immobilized at home with Dominion [poor of me !!!])
So I had a mock play really fun. Allow me to write some comments, questions and propositions :
- Hidden Passage and Boomtown work preaty well. We agree that the 2nd action can be the Activation ? (I think I read something like that...). They renew very well the "classics"
- I didn't have "time" to test really Balcony. Perhaps less "evident" to use it; I have to study!
- Patron goes well, too. I had an interesting interaction with a Reaction card (the Attack was Torturer, but could be Militia of course). The player had both Patron in play and Secret Chamber in hand. Well , do you thik there might be an order to do the effects ?
2 ideas now :
1. One could imagine an "Action-Activation-Attack card" (the famous AAA ! ;D), where the Activation would be to discard the Activation cards of other players that are not yet activated ! Swingy, isn't it ? (and very badly worded... :-[)
2. Couldn't we imagine a penalty for players that have inactivated cards in ply when the game ends ? For example -1VP for each of these cards. It could add problems of strategy in endgames.
Have a good day!
Abel
-
"When you play or activate this, +3 Cards." Boom, no need for a second line. Which is good, because I will personally never make a card with two dividing lines.
I agree that the Noble Brigand trick is better than the dividing line in this case, but, why not make cards with two dividing lines? Even a vainilla "Action-Reaction-Victory" seems reasonable.
-
"When you play or activate this, +3 Cards." Boom, no need for a second line. Which is good, because I will personally never make a card with two dividing lines.
I agree that the Noble Brigand trick is better than the dividing line in this case, but, why not make cards with two dividing lines? Even a vainilla "Action-Reaction-Victory" seems reasonable.
The three reasons are:
There's only so much space on the card.
I think having two dividing lines looks ugly.
Even if the three bits are simple, the resulting card seems very complex.
I'm not even sure how you'd color a Action Reaction Victory. The reasoning for having white so that you remember you can play it still holds, so you'd probably want to use all three colors. Eugh.
I challenge you to create a card with all three of those types that wouldn't be made better by cutting out one or more of the parts.
-
Would there be a need for two lines? Can't you just do this?
Mighty Smitty
Action - Activation
+3 Cards
---
When you activate this, +3 Cards.
At the start of your turn, if this is in play, discard a card.
From the current official cards, we can tell that you need the line between victory points and other stuff and between the Action's/Treasures on-play effects and other stuff. There isn't a card that has two "triggered abilities", but if there was one, it arguably wouldn't need a line between them. Doesn't solve the complexity issue, though.
-
Question: would it be a good idea to replace "when you would activate this" with a simpley keyword, "Activate"?
Example:
Balcony
$5 Action - Activation
+1 Card
+1 Action
Activate: discard a card.
Pros:
- Saves space by cutting out extra words.
- Can work without a separating line, thus opening up more designs space for those who don't like having cards with multiple separating lines. ;)
Cons:
- Makes it more difficult to do a "when you would activate" effect.
- Arguably inconsistent with other Dominion mechanics. For example, on-gain effects could have been written with a keyword too: "On-gain: gain a card costing less than this."
- Arguably looks clunky, especially on cards that have plenty of room for the extra text.
Side question -- what do you guys think of a "when you would activate this, do X instead" effect? From how I imagine it would work, this would basically force the card to be a permanent-duration while also giving you an effect that you would be able to play as many times as you want, so long as you have the actions to support it. The rules would have to specify that the action is still used up even though the card is not actually activated.
Would this be too crazy? IIRC, Donald said that Diadem was incredibly OP on some boards and so would simply not work as a regular supply card. A would-activate effect would be a lot like Diadem.
2 ideas now :
2. Couldn't we imagine a penalty for players that have inactivated cards in ply when the game ends ? For example -1VP for each of these cards. It could add problems of strategy in endgames.
That's pretty interesting. I like it.
-
Side question -- what do you guys think of a "when you would activate this, do X instead" effect? From how I imagine it would work, this would basically force the card to be a permanent-duration while also giving you an effect that you would be able to play as many times as you want, so long as you have the actions to support it. The rules would have to specify that the action is still used up even though the card is not actually activated.
If you want to just avoid the card getting discarded, then you can simply "When you activate this, do X and then put the card in play again." (notice the "put in play" instead of "play", although the precise wording may be changed and probably needs FAQ). This is almost the same effect but without would-weirdness. This works in place of would-activate for the card with the text and also others, as replaying them or reputting them into play works in other cards as well.
Come to think about it, Trader could just say "When you gain a card, you may reveal this. If you do, return the gained card to the supply and gain a Silver." It would work differently with on-gain effects and non-supply cards, but be mostly equivalent and avoid the would-weirdness.
It seems to me that most "would" effects can be replaced be leaving the effect and "rewinding" it afterwards.
-
Come to think about it, Trader could just say "When you gain a card, you may reveal this. If you do, return the gained card to the supply and gain a Silver." It would work differently with on-gain effects and non-supply cards, but be mostly equivalent and avoid the would-weirdness.
It seems to me that most "would" effects can be replaced be leaving the effect and "rewinding" it afterwards.
I think having a "would-less" trader and watchtower may allow one to gain and trash/top-deck the entire pile of silver.
-
Come to think about it, Trader could just say "When you gain a card, you may reveal this. If you do, return the gained card to the supply and gain a Silver." It would work differently with on-gain effects and non-supply cards, but be mostly equivalent and avoid the would-weirdness.
It seems to me that most "would" effects can be replaced be leaving the effect and "rewinding" it afterwards.
I think having a "would-less" trader and watchtower may allow one to gain and trash/top-deck the entire pile of silver.
Good catch. We can add another if you do clause so you can only gain Silver if you did return the gained card.
-
Question: would it be a good idea to replace "when you would activate this" with a simpley keyword, "Activate"?
Example:
Balcony
$5 Action - Activation
+1 Card
+1 Action
Activate: discard a card.
Pros:
- Saves space by cutting out extra words.
- Can work without a separating line, thus opening up more designs space for those who don't like having cards with multiple separating lines. ;)
Cons:
- Makes it more difficult to do a "when you would activate" effect.
- Arguably inconsistent with other Dominion mechanics. For example, on-gain effects could have been written with a keyword too: "On-gain: gain a card costing less than this."
- Arguably looks clunky, especially on cards that have plenty of room for the extra text.
In my opinion, the cons outweigh the pros here. I'm for defining some terms in the rules as a shorthand, especially if they're used often. In would have been nice if "dig" were defined, for instance. "Activate" is already such a term, though, and I think having the rest written out makes the game more user-friendly (and, as you say, is consistent with other similar effects).
Side question -- what do you guys think of a "when you would activate this, do X instead" effect? From how I imagine it would work, this would basically force the card to be a permanent-duration while also giving you an effect that you would be able to play as many times as you want, so long as you have the actions to support it. The rules would have to specify that the action is still used up even though the card is not actually activated.
Would this be too crazy? IIRC, Donald said that Diadem was incredibly OP on some boards and so would simply not work as a regular supply card. A would-activate effect would be a lot like Diadem.
I would not necessarily rule out a card that you could activate as many times as you want, but for sure I am not doing one just to do it. It would have to be the best way to do some compelling thing, and even in that case, an Action that puts itself back into your hand is arguably better.
2 ideas now :
2. Couldn't we imagine a penalty for players that have inactivated cards in ply when the game ends ? For example -1VP for each of these cards. It could add problems of strategy in endgames.
That's pretty interesting. I like it.
I see no good reason to do this and lots of reasons not to. For one thing it's another rule in the rulebook, because it's definitely not being printed on each Activation card. It's also an easy rule to forget, which isn't a deal breaker, but also isn't great. If every card were like Boomtown, where the Activation effect is just a buyback ability, I could maybe see using this rule (and rebalancing the cards around it). But for other Activation cards you're already being penalized for not getting around to activating them. This rule would just exacerbate that penalty. Why?
I guess I understand the "increases endgame strategy" argument, but Dominion already strongly rewards endgame control, and I don't think it needs another push in that direction. If I did specifically want to favor endgame strategy, I would do it with some sort of bonus, as opposed to a penalty. A penalty is likely to make players not buy the card in the first place. But I don't think Activation cards specifically need an endgame bonus either.
Speaking of Boomtown and penalties, I'm thinking that perhaps "When you activate this, discard a card" should be replaced with "When you activate this, put a card from your hand on top of your deck." I think in general it might weaken the card, but overall I think it's a good change that adds another strategic element. I've learned to be wary of nonterminal cards that put cards back on your deck because it's really annoying to draw two cards, put one back, draw two cards, put one back, draw two cards, put one back, etc. But I think Boomtown would probably be fine because you're usually doing all your drawing first and then put cards back on your deck at the end of your turn, depending on how many cards and Actions you're willing to spend.
-
For the endgame, I feel like if you want to do the bonus/penalty for leaving a card deactivated at the end, it is better to do it on a card designed for that, instead of tacking that on the entire type. You can have a VP Activation that is worth different amounts depending on whether it ends the game activated or not, for instance.
LF, I find your comment about putting cards back with drawing non-terminals quite strange. If you are putting a card back and drawing right after, I would say that simplifies anything, because you do not have a decision to make, and IRL you can even not put the card on the deck properly, just say you do or mimic that without actually doing it carefully, leaving the card, and then putting your hand back on the deck to draw.
-
Finally mocked up the four cards in the OP for testing.
(https://i.imgur.com/jj8Cv7C.png) (https://i.imgur.com/VUFBfLV.png) (https://i.imgur.com/qI93R0o.png) (https://i.imgur.com/iSbTKUq.png)
-
Nice colour choice!
-
I thought they were Victory cards at first.
-
I thought they were Victory cards at first.
yea me too. I guess once you're used to it it won't be a problem, they look plenty different
-
New iteration of Cannoneer:
Catapult
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $4
When you play or activate this: +2 Cards.
When you gain this, you may gain an Engineer from the Engineer pile.
Engineer
Types: Action Attack
Cost: $0*
Activate all your dormant Catapults. For each one, each other player trashes the top card of his deck and gains a cheaper card that shares a type with it. If he didn't, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
EDIT: I meant to respond to this a while ago, but forgot:
- Patron goes well, too. I had an interesting interaction with a Reaction card (the Attack was Torturer, but could be Militia of course). The player had both Patron in play and Secret Chamber in hand. Well , do you thik there might be an order to do the effects ?
In this case, you may choose the order to resolve the effects. To maximize your advantage, you'd normally reveal your Secret Chamber first, then do the Patron effect, then reveal your Secret Chamber again. Hopefully it doesn't come up that often, because that sounds time consuming.
-
New iteration of Cannoneer:
Catapult
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $4
When you play or activate this: +2 Cards.
When you gain this, you may gain an Engineer
Engineer
Types: Action Attack
Cost: $0*
Activate all your dormant Catapults. For each one, each other player trashes the top card of his deck and gains a cheaper card that shares a type with it. If he didn't, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
EDIT: I meant to respond to this a while ago, but forgot:
- Patron goes well, too. I had an interesting interaction with a Reaction card (the Attack was Torturer, but could be Militia of course). The player had both Patron in play and Secret Chamber in hand. Well , do you thik there might be an order to do the effects ?
In this case, you may choose the order to resolve the effects. To maximize your advantage, you'd normally reveal your Secret Chamber first, then do the Patron effect, then reveal your Secret Chamber again. Hopefully it doesn't come up that often, because that sounds time consuming.
you swapped them. that's interesting... so, catapult is a moat on play. engineer is a moat with an attack if it hits one catapult, or hunting grounds with a double attack if it hits two. the attack is a swindler for coppers, a negative rebuild/mine for victory cards/treasures and a slight downgrade for actions. How good it is probably depends on how many action cards there are, if there's no 2$ and you hit a fishing village or sth, it's really strong, but if you just turn a $4 into a $3 not so much. Hitting Coppers is good. Hitting estates is less good, but at least not as bad as with swindler. Hitting curses is just like with swindler, but worse if there aren't any left. Hitting shelters is decent though. Hitting provinces near the end is pretty good, but still reasonable.
Overall it seems strong, but not necssarily op. I imagine it playing similar to swindler, but the fact that it draws makes it different. it's also harder to set up, but more rewarding
-
New iteration of Cannoneer:
Catapult
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $4
When you play or activate this: +2 Cards.
When you gain this, you may gain an Engineer
Engineer
Types: Action Attack
Cost: $0*
Activate all your dormant Catapults. For each one, each other player trashes the top card of his deck and gains a cheaper card that shares a type with it. If he didn't, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
you swapped them. that's interesting... so, catapult is a moat on play. engineer is a moat with an attack if it hits one catapult, or hunting grounds with a double attack if it hits two. the attack is a swindler for coppers, a negative rebuild/mine for victory cards/treasures and a slight downgrade for actions. How good it is probably depends on how many action cards there are, if there's no 2$ and you hit a fishing village or sth, it's really strong, but if you just turn a $4 into a $3 not so much. Hitting Coppers is good. Hitting estates is less good, but at least not as bad as with swindler. Hitting curses is just like with swindler, but worse if there aren't any left. Hitting shelters is decent though. Hitting provinces near the end is pretty good, but still reasonable.
Overall it seems strong, but not necssarily op. I imagine it playing similar to swindler, but the fact that it draws makes it different. it's also harder to set up, but more rewarding
The reason I swapped them is that in general you want more Catapults than Engineers. So now you have the option of gaining an Engineer when you gain a Catapult, but it's not mandatory. You may want to pick up a spare in case one gets hit by a Catapult. Worst case scenario, if there are no more Catapults in the Supply and all your Engineers are trashed, you can just leave your Catapults in play so that they don't clog your deck.
-
Dormant? I mean, it works, but I think "unactivated" would be better.
-
Dormant? I mean, it works, but I think "unactivated" would be better.
OK, fair enough. I'm just playing around with different terms. I was using "deactivated" earlier. Obviously "unactivated" is more correct, so I'll go with that.
In other news, here are some ideas I had for other Activation cards. I haven't yet given these as much thought as the ones in the OP, so feedback would be great.
Sawmill
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $3
+1 Buy. +$2.
------------------------------------------------------------
When you activate this, +1 Action per Sawmill you have in play.
Citadel
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $6
When you activate this, look through your discard pile. Set aside up to 3 Action cards from it and play them in any order.
Usually I dislike Tutor-style cards, but the fact that this only looks in your discard pile might be OK.
-
Dormant? I mean, it works, but I think "unactivated" would be better.
OK, fair enough. I'm just playing around with different terms. I was using "deactivated" earlier. Obviously "unactivated" is more correct, so I'll go with that.
In other news, here are some ideas I had for other Activation cards. I haven't yet given these as much thought as the ones in the OP, so feedback would be great.
Sawmill
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $3
+1 Buy. +$2.
------------------------------------------------------------
When you activate this, +1 Action per Sawmill you have in play.
So, I assume what you're trying to do with this is to have an alt-village, because otherwise a woodcutter variant doesn't seem all that exciting. That might work... but I think you should choose a different on-play effect. As is, it's almost strictly superior to woodcutter, since you get at least +1 Action back when activating this. The only thing that makes it worse is that it'll miss the reshuffle if you play it as your last action right before a reshuffle.
Citadel
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $6
When you activate this, look through your discard pile. Set aside up to 3 Action cards from it and play them in any order.
A strategy that comes to mind is: have 2 Citadels and 2 action cards with +2$ in your deck. Whenever you have at least 4$ in your hand, activate the citadel. Play the two +2$'s and your other citadel, buy province.
The concept is kind of weird because it synergizes with action cards, but it doesn't want engines that draw your deck. I think it's similar to Golem, but it seemes to be a lot better, mainly because it can play other Citadels. It seems op to me, but I'm not sure.
-
Boomtown seems overpowered. The activation isn't much of a drawback when you get to choose when it happens. Sometimes putting a card back on your deck is a good thing.
And the attack on Engineer seems too nasty. You could have 2-3 or possibly even more cards trashed all at once. Gaining a cheaper card of the same cost doesn't weaken the attack much. If it hits duchies or silver, it's usually worse than just trashing the card and not getting anything in return. It does help you if it hits copper or estates, but I still think the attack is nasty. The knight attack is already one of the harshest attacks in the game. (Engineer's attack is more like knight's than swindler's. Swindler gives you a card of the same cost and often that means getting another copy of the same card.)
-
Dormant? I mean, it works, but I think "unactivated" would be better.
OK, fair enough. I'm just playing around with different terms. I was using "deactivated" earlier. Obviously "unactivated" is more correct, so I'll go with that.
In other news, here are some ideas I had for other Activation cards. I haven't yet given these as much thought as the ones in the OP, so feedback would be great.
Sawmill
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $3
+1 Buy. +$2.
------------------------------------------------------------
When you activate this, +1 Action per Sawmill you have in play.
So, I assume what you're trying to do with this is to have an alt-village, because otherwise a woodcutter variant doesn't seem all that exciting. That might work... but I think you should choose a different on-play effect. As is, it's almost strictly superior to woodcutter, since you get at least +1 Action back when activating this. The only thing that makes it worse is that it'll miss the reshuffle if you play it as your last action right before a reshuffle.
Citadel
Types: Action Activation
Cost: $6
When you activate this, look through your discard pile. Set aside up to 3 Action cards from it and play them in any order.
A strategy that comes to mind is: have 2 Citadels and 2 action cards with +2$ in your deck. Whenever you have at least 4$ in your hand, activate the citadel. Play the two +2$'s and your other citadel, buy province.
The concept is kind of weird because it synergizes with action cards, but it doesn't want engines that draw your deck. I think it's similar to Golem, but it seemes to be a lot better, mainly because it can play other Citadels. It seems op to me, but I'm not sure.
I think you may have missed that activation uses up an action all on its own. Sawmill is certainly not strictly superior to Woodcutter. If you only have a single Sawmill, it is actually strictly worse. If you want Sawmill to be equivalent to a Woodcutter, you need to have played a village beforehand so that you can activate it on the turn it is played. If you don't have the extra action, then Sawmill is stuck in play for at least one turn before you can activate it and get it back into your deck. Activating it doesn't even give you anything if you don't have a second Sawmill in play.
To get any sort of advantage, you need to buy at least two Sawmills. That in itself is an opportunity cost. Then you need to play both, which may take a full shuffle to do. Then you still need to wait until the effect is even useful, i.e. you have two terminals in hand that you want to play. Meanwhile, any extra unplayed Sawmills you have are just more terminals clogging up your deck.
Given the amount of work needed to get anything useful out of Sawmill, $3 seems entirely appropriate. I would actually criticize that it's probably too weak most of the time, except that there is some potential for it to fuel a megaturn combo.
But from an "excitement" standpoint, I do agree. Woodcutter variants are a bit boring. OTOH, the same can be said for pretty much any combination of vanilla bonuses, and not every card can do something entirely novel. This is why ideas like the "Activation" typing are important -- they allow us to come up with interesting new cards without resorting to especially complex ideas. The vanilla bonus on Sawmill isn't that important. The question is whether the activation is interesting enough. Is "finnicky village" compelling? I'm not sure. I think a pure village activation might be better, but maybe that's too easy... or, actually, too similar to Walled Village.
As for Citadel, it can only take cards from the discard pile so you would need $4 in hand AND the three other action cards to be in the discard for this to work. Even when that works out, the chain does not last forever because you will reshuffle eventually. Moreover, this only gets you one Province a turn, which can be strong but is not at all broken, especially considering that Citadel costs $6 and doesn't do anything when you first play. For comparison, a Bishop-Chapel Golden Deck is easier to set up and far more reliable. It is an interesting combo idea and shows how a card like Citadel has potential to add new strategy to the game.
Is it stronger than Golem? Maybe. But it does have drawbacks -- the extra action needed to activate it, and the fact that it ONLY looks in the discard pile.
At a glance, I don't think there's anything broken with Citadel. My main concern is that it's potentially very swingy. There are probably boards where Citadel would be an important part of an engine, but it's mostly luck that determines how early you can pull the trigger on it. One player cycles through key actions early in their shuffle and also plays Citadels early, giving them an early activation. Another player doesn't draw Citadel until the end of the shuffle and has no spare action to activate it, which means they have to wait through their NEXT shuffle until key actions go into the discard... it could be a difference of many, many turns advantage to one player just from shuffle luck.
-
I think you may have missed that activation uses up an action all on its own. Sawmill is certainly not strictly superior to Woodcutter. If you only have a single Sawmill, it is actually strictly worse. If you want Sawmill to be equivalent to a Woodcutter, you need to have played a village beforehand so that you can activate it on the turn it is played. If you don't have the extra action, then Sawmill is stuck in play for at least one turn before you can activate it and get it back into your deck. Activating it doesn't even give you anything if you don't have a second Sawmill in play.
no, i didnt' miss that. but samwill itself is in play when you activate it, so you get the +1action that you need to activate it right back when activating it. in other words, you can just activate it for no cost whenever you have at least one action left. so, the only scenario in which it's worse than woodcutter is if you reshuffle after the turn you played it, and you don't have any actions left. that's exactly what i said
The only thing that makes it worse is that it'll miss the reshuffle if you play it as your last action right before a reshuffle.
you need at least two of them to have a village effect. I didn't say it was strong, I just said its almost strictly superior to woodcutter. This card:
"+2$, +1buy, you may look at the bottom card of your deck" for $3 is also strictly superior to woodcutter, but it's not strong.
You're right about citadel though. the combo isn't that good.
-
You say it's almost strictly superior because the only case it's worse is when you reshuffle right after playing. LFN says it's almost strictly worse because the only case it's better is when you get at least two in play and need the +2 actions from discarding both.
I say it's too similar to Woodcutter too often and maybe might be worth making a little different therefore.
-
You say it's almost strictly superior because the only case it's worse is when you reshuffle right after playing. LFN says it's almost strictly worse because the only case it's better is when you get at least two in play and need the +2 actions from discarding both.
I say it's too similar to Woodcutter too often and maybe might be worth making a little different therefore.
I'm not LFN! I do agree that it's too similar to Woodcutter though. Scavenger uses the same vanilla bonuses, but it has an immediate ability that differentiates it clearly. Sawmill takes a lot of effort to get something different out of it. I expect that, when purchased, it will more often than not be just for the +Buy rather than for the village possibility. In order words, I think its primary use would be near-identical to Woodcutter, so it would be worth changing in some way.
@silverspawn, you are underestimating the disadvantage of missing the reshuffle. It is a significant drawback, and the chance of it happening with a card like Sawmill is non-trivial. I meant to mention this earlier but I got sidetracked in my rambling -- it doesn't only miss the reshuffle if you reshuffle on the turn it's played. It will also happen if you cause a reshuffle during the next turn, which is very possible with draw cards and all the more likely if it's non-terminal draw. It can happen even on the opponent's turn. Off the top of my head -- Minion, Margrave, Possession, Governor, Council Room, Oracle, Scrying Pool.
Yes, in the big picture, you can consider the disadvantage of Sawmill vs. Woodcutter to be minor. But the advantage is also small. There is virtually no advantage* if you only purchase one, which adds significant opportunity cost if you want to make use of the activation effect. The key point is that Woodcutter is not strictly superior nor strictly inferior to Woodcutter. It would be overcosted at $4, but it is likely fine at $3.
*edge case: Sawmill can pseudo-trash itself if you simply never activate it. This can actually be useful on some boards.
-
You say it's almost strictly superior because the only case it's worse is when you reshuffle right after playing. LFN says it's almost strictly worse because the only case it's better is when you get at least two in play and need the +2 actions from discarding both.
I say it's too similar to Woodcutter too often and maybe might be worth making a little different therefore.
What? I didn't say anything of the sort! :D I agree that it's similar to Woodcutter, though. At first I was going to make the on-play effect +2 Cards. Then I decided that +$2 would be better. Then I came up with the name Sawmill and tacked +1 Buy on there as a cute Woodcutter reference.
I agree that it could be more interesting. I like the fact that your first couple Sawmills jumpstart your economy, then can stay in play and act as village-helpers for future Sawmills. I may just raise the price, since the card does look better than Woodcutter. Then if it needs buffing, I'll try to buff it in an interesting way. The obvious buff is +1 Card on activation (along with however many Actions), but I'm not sure how I feel about that, as it's basically a Lab effect in your next hand. Maybe $4 is a fine cost for the card as it is now. Or maybe $2 is! I have no idea, as I have yet to playtest any Activations.
EDIT: Ninja'd be eHalcyon
-
Well you can both blame having such similar avatars (all black and orange with a little bright patch just above the middle)!
-
The key point is that Woodcutter is not strictly superior nor strictly inferior to Woodcutter.
Indeed. Woodcutter is strictly equal to Woodcutter.
-
The key point is that Woodcutter is not strictly superior nor strictly inferior to Woodcutter.
Indeed. Woodcutter is strictly equal to Woodcutter.
Edge case -- not when one of them is actually a Band of Misfits.
-
I also really like that idea for opening a huge new design space.
There have been some alike versions in the German forums, but it's a genious idea that it takes up an action to activate. Those similar types often had the problem to be too strong with Tactician or Minion (which we know from Black Market).
Why don't you use orange as colour for it? There are only so many distinguishable colours. The Activation type shares some basic features with the Duration type. Then, orange would mean "don't discard this in Cleanup if the card has yet something to do" and the difference between Duration and Activation could either be found in the card text or in the type line.
Some more ideas, spontaneously:
Walled Hamlet
Types: Action - Activation
Cost: $2
+2 Cards.
When you activate this, +2 Actions.
Jewelry Trader
Types: Action - Activation
Cost: $2
+$3.
When you activate this, put it into your hand.
Silver Merchant
Types: Action - Activation
Cost: $4
While this is in play, when you gain a Silver, you may put it back to the supply and gain a card costing up to $5 that is not a Victory card.
When you activate this, gain a Silver.
Engineer
Types: Action - Activation
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. +1 Action.
When you activate this, discard your hand. If you do, +3 Cards, +1 Action.
-
I also really like that idea for opening a huge new design space.
There have been some alike versions in the German forums, but it's a genious idea that it takes up an action to activate. Those similar types often had the problem to be too strong with Tactician or Minion (which we know from Black Market).
This is interesting because when I came up with this concept, I was trying to decide whether or not Activation cards should take an Action to activate. The idea originally came from Donald's outtake Procession where you set aside it aside when you played it, then you could "activate" it when you played an Action card to play that Action card again. In order to duplicate that, I would have needed activation effects not to take up an Action (and indeed be playable when you had zero Actions left). However, when I tried to come up with other cards that used the mechanic, they all looked really bad. They had versatility, but the actual on-play and on-activate effects had to be weak in order for the cards not to be overpowered.
Conversely, making the activation effect take an Action let me make cards that looked much more powerful. I'm hoping there are some crazy effects that you can balance by making them "double terminals". Citadel (above) is an attempt at that.
Why don't you use orange as colour for it? There are only so many distinguishable colours. The Activation type shares some basic features with the Duration type. Then, orange would mean "don't discard this in Cleanup if the card has yet something to do" and the difference between Duration and Activation could either be found in the card text or in the type line.
I had considered using orange again for exactly this reason. I may still do that, but I feel like some people will say, "Orange? That's Duration's color."
Some more ideas, spontaneously:
Walled Hamlet
Types: Action - Activation
Cost: $2
+2 Cards.
When you activate this, +2 Actions.
Jewelry Trader
Types: Action - Activation
Cost: $2
+$3.
When you activate this, put it into your hand.
Silver Merchant
Types: Action - Activation
Cost: $4
While this is in play, when you gain a Silver, you may put it back to the supply and gain a card costing up to $5 that is not a Victory card.
When you activate this, gain a Silver.
Engineer
Types: Action - Activation
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. +1 Action.
When you activate this, discard your hand. If you do, +3 Cards, +1 Action.
I think it would be cool to have at least one card that's terminal on play, but gives you Actions when you activate it, like Walled Hamlet. Sawmill (above) is my first attempt at that. I don't love Jewelry Trader, mostly because you need a village in the kingdom for the putting-into-hand to matter. Silver Merchant is a cool combination of effects, but I think the while-in-play effect is probably way too powerful in any kingdom with +Buy and/or ways to flood Silver. Engineer seems like a decent way to do a mulligan effect (like eHalcyon suggested).
-
Jewelry Trader is just a more powerful Diadem, which was already so variable that it was made a prize instead of a regular Kingdom card.
-
Jewelry Trader is just a more powerful Diadem, which was already so variable that it was made a prize instead of a regular Kingdom card.
Well, Jewelry Trader doesn't overcome Diadem until you have at least 3 actions remaining. But yeah it scales as $1.5/action instead of $1/action.
-
Conversely, making the activation effect take an Action let me make cards that looked much more powerful. I'm hoping there are some crazy effects that you can balance by making them "double terminals". Citadel (above) is an attempt at that.
That is also a good answer to those "-1 Action" ideas.I had considered using orange again for exactly this reason. I may still do that, but I feel like some people will say, "Orange? That's Duration's color."
Green? That's Victory's color.
Jewelry Trader could also be:
Jewelry Trader
Types: Action - Activation
Cost: $2
+$3.
When you activate this, put it on top of your deck.
What about a Tactician variant?
Grand Warehouse
Types: Action - Activation
Cost: $5
Discard two cards from your hand.
When you activate this, +3 Cards +1 Action.
-
Green? That's Victory's color.
I was trying to get a sort of olive color. It ended up lime green. Ah well.
-
A potential idea for an Activation card would be a card with an Activation effect that benefits everyone. The reason it's better than a wash is that you're in control of when it happens, so you're likely to get the most benefit proportionally (eg you'll get just enough money to make a key purchase, or sift only when your hand is junk).
I try to explore that with my fan card "Scribe" (put "Events" that effect everyone on a secret mat that you can activate at the start of any turn), but this can be more pronounced.
-
I am also very intrigued by this mechanic! I think these may be more similar to Duration cards than I noticed on first blush; they are essentially Duration cards where you pay an action to resolve the "next turn" ability on any next turn you like. I'm excited to volunteer myself as free playtesting and see how different they feel from Duration cards.
Also, because of the similarity, I recommend they be orange. Possibly they could even have type Duration; the rules say Duration cards stay in play until the last turn in which they do something, which seems to describe Activation cards. They could be potentially be rephrased to be pure Duration cards, e.g., "During the Action phase of a future turn, you may spend an action. If you do..." Definitely clunky and "spending actions" would have to be defined.
(But your Activation cards differ from Duration cards in their interaction with TR/KC, so maybe not Duration. Urrrgh. I still probably recommend orange.)
-
I am also very intrigued by this mechanic! I think these may be more similar to Duration cards than I noticed on first blush; they are essentially Duration cards where you pay an action to resolve the "next turn" ability on any next turn you like. I'm excited to volunteer myself as free playtesting and see how different they feel from Duration cards.
Also, because of the similarity, I recommend they be orange. Possibly they could even have type Duration; the rules say Duration cards stay in play until the last turn in which they do something, which seems to describe Activation cards. They could be potentially be rephrased to be pure Duration cards, e.g., "During the Action phase of a future turn, you may spend an action. If you do..." Definitely clunky and "spending actions" would have to be defined.
(But your Activation cards differ from Duration cards in their interaction with TR/KC, so maybe not Duration. Urrrgh. I still probably recommend orange.)
I don't think it would work. The Activation cards don't have any on-play effects after the turn you play them, so they would be discarded anyway. Also, it's worth noting that you can play and activate an Activation on the same turn.
-
Duration and Activation mechanics are similar in some ways, but are different enough that I felt a new type was warranted. And in Dominion, types have unique colors. Some types (Attack, Looter, Knight) are colorless, but among the colored types, no two types share the same color. Perhaps the lime green wasn't the best choice, but I have no regrets about using a different color than the Duration orange.
-
The rules don't seem to stipulate the Duration effects need to be on-play... And certainly a new type shouldn't be the same color as another; I was just suggesting you could get away with calling them "Action - Duration - Activation" and piggy-backing off Duration's orange color (because we're kinda running out of colors!). But ultimately the color is cosmetic, so as long as you like it, that's good enough for me!
Also, great job as always with the card mock ups!
-
The rules don't seem to stipulate the Duration effects need to be on-play...
But they do. If they didn't, Lighthouse would never leave play.
-
The rules don't seem to stipulate the Duration effects need to be on-play...
But they do. If they didn't, Lighthouse would never leave play.
Well... dang. Just when I thought I'd thought everything through. Makes me appreciate the subtleties of Duration cards.
-
It's been quite some time since I last posted on this thread but I still think it's a cool idea and it's good to see that you are continuously working on the concept. What are your plans with Activation cards? Do you want to include some in Enterprise? (Boomtown seems like it fits the one-shot theme best.)
The images you made for the cards look good as always. Where do you get those illustrations from, if I may ask? I like the colour choice but I can see people confusing it with Action-Victory cards or something... and orange seems to similar to Durations. What about purple? If you chose a nice shade of purple it should different enough from Reactions and all other card types.
I would like to say more about the cards themselves but I don't feel comfortable enough with the whole concept in realtion to the meta-game in order to evaluate the cards properly.
-
What about purple?
Curses are purple.
-
I like that Durations are bright orange, so they really stand out and remind us not to discard them during clean-up. For Activations, I would suggest a color that really "pops" and sets them apart from other cards. How about having the banners be black (or really dark grey) with white text?
-
What about purple?
Curses are purple.
oops :O