| (http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/alchemy/possession.jpg) | 206. Possession Possession is one of two entries in a list of cards that I truly hate. It is also one of the most disliked cards by the community, and rightfully so. Possession sucks, and this is regardless of the fact that it's a very high skill card. There are countless assets to dislike about this card, and I will list a few. It's luck dependent how fast you get it, and your potion is useless if you don't draw it with enough coin. (This kind of applies to Province aswell, but at least if you don't hit 8$, you can use all treasures for something else). It makes your opponent use your deck's strength against you, which is just a terrible feeling, and that's really the worst crime a card can even be guilty of. It makes you have to degrade your own deck, sometimes to the point where it can't buy or gain good cards anymore. It counters itself, forcing you to buy even more Possessions once both Players started with it. It kills coin tokens. It makes TfB stupidly powerful. It causes the most retarded combination in the game, with masquerade, amb, or island. And, as we hear now, it also destroys combos with Prince. The concept behind Possession is of course that it's a sort of super workshop that just happens to work with another Player's deck, but is ultimately a gainer, which is why it's not labeled as an attack. Now, even if we ignore the synergy with Attacks, Bishop, Possession itself, and other cards that break this logic, the fact still remains that you can absolutely hurt your opponent by controlling his deck. If he has a nice engine with storeroom in it, it can even be a pin. Draw deck, play Storeroom, discard 0/6, play storeroom, discard 1/0, and voilá, the next hand consists of 5 useless cards. The fundamental problem here is really that, in order to execute the logic that Possession is trying to follow, you'd have to include a lot more edge cases on the card, which is impossible because there isn't enough space. I really, really hate this card. I can't really overstate how much I hate it. Every other dominion card - hell, even every fanmade card - is exponentially better than Possession in my book. This card does not need to exist. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/intrigue/masquerade.jpg) | 205. Masquerade Masquerade is entry #2 in the previously mentioned list. For a while, I thought this card was actually worse than Possession, but it's absolutely not. Really, it's not even close. The only reason I ever thought so was that I had forgotten how bad Possession really is. I probably was lucky not to play with it for a while. That said, I still hate it, and the reason for that is that pass mechanic is not designed to hurt your opponent, so when it does, it feels unjustified and unfair quite similar to possession. They are my cards. Not yours. *sigh* Why is this different from playing Rogue twice? Because Rogue is a card designed to trash my opponents cards, it's reasonably strong, priced at 5$ where it belongs, and it has the proper attack type. I'm okay with it hitting my cards, and I'm happy if it hits cards from my opponent (plus Rogue is mostly a gainer anyway). When my opponent passes me a good card with Masquerade though, I am not happy. In fact, it makes me sad. I feel the need to apologize in the chat. I didn't want this card. I don't deserve it. I also don't need it. It doesn't belong to me. It's just an unfair advantage. My fix for this card is, cut the passing. "+2 cards, you may trash a card from your hand" is a card I'd have no problem with. It'd still be super strong, and it'd be different enough from other trashers to be worth doing. Of course, I'm the only person on the planet who dislikes this card, so that's pretty redundant. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/darkages/rebuild.jpg) | 204. Rebuild Everyone knows what's wrong with rebuild, do I even have to say anything? Just read this post (http://boardgamegeek.com/article/14094365#14094365), Donald says it all. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/alchemy/scryingpool.jpg) | 203. Scrying Pool Scrying pool is, by all means, really not a bad concept. Provide +1 Card per Action card you flip, and a cantrip bonus to back it up. Draw a non-Action card, and you get a cantrip. One Action, a Lab, two Actions, two Labs, and so forth. Sounds strong, but cool. The problem really is that the card does too much. Why does it attack? Dunno, but the fact that it does causes two bad things. One, what I'm saying for the next card. Two, the card is too strong. Yes, being strong can be okay, but Scrying Pool is not chapel. Scrying Pool is supposed to be good in decks where you reach high action density, like Herald. But in reality, it's almost always a must-buy (SCSN was absolutely right here). I vaguely recall Donald X saying the attack on Scrying Pool was his biggest regret on any published card (dunno if that's still the case). Well, I can say that, if it didn't have the attack, it'd jump several hundred ranks upwards. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/base/spy.jpg) | 202. Spy There are four different attacks that are meant to mess with your opponent's draw pile in Dominion: Rabble, Oracle, Fortune Teller, and Spy (and Sea Hag, but let's forget about that for the moment). Four problems come to mind for these kinds of attacks: they could be swingy, they could be weak, they could be tedious, and they could become pointless upon repeated play. Rabble, to give an example of a well-designed card, largely avoids all of these problems. Spy, on the other hand, has all four of them, and the only reason that he's not even lower on this list is that, by being so weak, he's usually just a non-factor. It's worth noting that Scrying Pool is not only the exact same attack as Spy, it's also almost the same card. Both cards are non-terminal, both card draw +1 card minimum, and both cards spy on all decks. The only differences are, Scrying Pool can draw additional cards, and Scrying Pool spies before drawing. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/seaside/pirateship.jpg) | 201. Pirate Ship The first thing I want to say here is that I don't consider 3+ player games in these rankings. So, if I say that Pirate Ship is weak, I mean it's weak in 2 player. Unfortunately, unlike other weak cards, I don't like what Pirate Ship does, even on boards where it's strong. In addition to being super swingy, it can also lead to really weird situations, that you may or may not enjoy depending on your taste. Maybe if, after pumping the card for the entire game, the reward you get was not in the form of coins, I would like it more. But as is, I find games where it's good mostly boring and/or frustrating. |
Masquerade is just fine... What's so bad about having to pass cards ? It really only makes you feel bad when comined with discarding attacks, which is a thing but it's not like it happens every game Masquerade is on the board, not even close.How do you know what cards should be high on silverspawn's list?
I mean it certainly shouldn't be high on this list, but second to last ?
By the way you know what I want number 1 to be. I'll understand if it's not, but outside of the top ten and you're dead to me.actually, i have no idea :P e: I thought you meant worst cards. so, real top10. it it's tactician, that might happen.
What's so bad about having to pass cards ?if it's a bad card, nothing. But if you have to pass engine components... urg. it's somewhat similar to minion, I look at my hand, make great plans, and then I have to pass a village or something
By the way you know what I want number 1 to be. I'll understand if it's not, but outside of the top ten and you're dead to me.is it Tactician?
In this thread, heavily inspired by jsh's art rankings (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11525.0), I will rate all official Kingdom cards by their design. This is most closely related to how fun I find them to play with, and may or may not include other aspects as well. The purpose of this thread is to spawn discussion, promote good cards, and generally as an excuse to talk about dominion. And, of course, this is all just my personal opinion, and it's even more subjective than power level.
I won't do ruins, individual knights, and prizes, because they're really impossible to rank. Is ruined library a better card than followers? Well yea, probably. But that's silly. Oh and, I will of course start with the worst cards, so there'll be a lot of negativity, but only in the beginning.
Onto the list.
if it's a bad card, nothing. But if you have to pass engine components... urg. it's somewhat similar to minion, I look at my hand, make great plans, and then I have to pass a village or something
@Awaclus : This is not "silverspawn's favorite cards" it's a design ranking, and I'm pretty sure I can give my opinion on that.
@Awaclus : This is not "silverspawn's favorite cards" it's a design ranking, and I'm pretty sure I can give my opinion on that.
From the OP, I get the picture that this is more or less "silverspawn's favorite cards".
where is the difference between "my design rankings" and "my favorite cards"? the only difference that I see is that "favorite cards" doesn't imply that can explain your feelings, which I tried to do here.Well there is a huge gulf between "well-designed" and "my favorites." The cards are well-designed or not, but different things appeal to different people. In fact to design well, you need to make things that aren't "for" you, that aren't your favorites but that other people will adore.
where is the difference between "my design rankings" and "my favorite cards"? the only difference that I see is that "favorite cards" doesn't imply that can explain your feelings, which I tried to do here.Well there is a huge gulf between "well-designed" and "my favorites." The cards are well-designed or not, but different things appeal to different people. In fact to design well, you need to make things that aren't "for" you, that aren't your favorites but that other people will adore.
Is ruined library a better card than followers? Well yea, probably. But that's silly.
Is ruined library a better card than followers? Well yea, probably. But that's silly.
I'm having a hard time even coming up with an edge case where one would choose Ruined Library over Followers. Pretty certain Followers >>> Ruined Library :)
Did you mean Survivors? I like RL > Survivors.
Scout probably deserves to be towards the bottom.
| (http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/intrigue/scout.jpg) | 200. Scout Scout is widely considered to be the weakest card in Dominion, and while this is kind of a boring conclusion, I think that's exactly what he is. I also think that being weak is his only problem - the idea of taking victory cards from your deck into your hand is something I really like - but fact is, a card that's ignored in approximately 98% of the times when it shows up is just a waste of space, good idea or not. We're out of cards that I dislike, so a 9-card Kingdom enabler is the next worst thing. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/base/adventurer.jpg) | 199. Adventurer Adventurer is the same as Scout, really. It costs 6$, even though it could easily cost 3$, making it probably the second weakest card in the game. Digging for Treasure cards as a concept is okay, but again, that doesn't help if the card is too weak to ever get bought. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/seaside/pearldiver.jpg) | 198. Pearl Diver Pearldiver is, in many ways, even more useless than Scout or Adventurer. It's a little bit stronger, because it's a cantrip and you will usually buy it for 2$ if you don't want anything else, but that's really the only reason. The sad thing here is that even a cantrip without bonus would be bought more often than Scout. The actual pearl diving is extremely weak, and the only combo I know of that wouldn't also work with a plain cantrip is Pearl Diver/Mystic, which really is just a Conspirator variant. And yes, sometimes it will salvage a dead turn by getting you to the village one turn faster. But for the most part, this is another wasted slot. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/hinterlands/duchess.jpg) | 197. Duchess Here we have a somewhat different case. Duchess is still weak, but not the point where that's a problem in itself. The reason why it's so low is simply that it's boring. I cannot recall a single occasion when I have gained Duchess, but would not have gained a terminal silver without bonus instead. I really don't think it has ever happened. There is no interaction here, even the idea of enabling Mystics remains fantasy, because unlike Pearldiver, Duchess is terminal. Hell, it's more likely to work for your opponent. So, we're left with a terminal silver for 2$. You pretty much only buy this if, a) you need virtual coin (in which case every other terminal silver also does the job), or b) you have enough actions anyway, and can just treat it as a silver that costs one coin less. Neither of that is common, and both is fairly uninteresting. The only strategic depth I see here is that it sometimes makes you buy a Duchy that you would not have bought if it weren't for Duchess. Is that exciting, or does it happen a lot? Nope. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/alchemy/familiar.jpg) | 196. Familiar Familiar is clearly an outlier in this list, since it's really strong and a huge factor in many games. My problem with it primarily lies in the fact that it costs P3$. Maybe this is just me, but I cannot see any reason why the Potion cards that cost P3$ don't cost P2$ instead. By far the biggest difference it makes is that, if you open Potion, there is a reasonable chance that you miss it in T3/4. Now, I don't inherently dislike luck based cards (some of them are pretty high on my list), but this is a luck factor that serves no purpose. I can't imagine anyone who isn't annoyed by not getting to buy familiar in turn 3 or 4. Other than the unfortunate pricing, this card is fine. The most fun I have is while skipping it, as it is the case for most junkers. But by being a cantrip, it is sufficiently different from other junkers to be a solid card. I just wished it'd cost 2$P. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/prosperity/talisman.jpg) | 195. Talisman Talisman is the weakest version on a list of Workshop Variants, that is cards that can gain cards costing 4$ or less. Other than Talisman, this list consists of Workshop, Ironworks, Armory, and you could make a case for Hermit, but let's not. So, even ignoring the Victory card restriction, when is this card ever better than Ironworks? Well, if you a) draw it with 3$ and want two 4$'s, or b) draw it with 4$, want a 5$, and either don't want a silver, or don't have Actions left. I'm sure both cases have happened plenty of times, but still, there is no way I ever buy this card over Ironworks, because you can't plan ahead for either of those cases. The far more common and relevant case is that you draw it with 5$+ and want both a 5$ and a 4$, and here Ironworks is clearly better. And then there is the restriction. Why is it there? I honestly have no idea. This card is clearly worse than Ironworks without it. I guess if it was there, a hand of multiple talismans could get one victory card each, which none of the other variants can, so maybe that's the reason. Whatever the case, the fact that it does have it means that it's not usable for garden/silk road rushes, which just cuts about half of its utility. There are still situations where you buy it, and on its own this wouldn't be that low, but the problem is really that it's being overshadowed. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/darkages/cultist.jpg) | 194. Cultist Here we have outlier #2, and a card that is hated by many. Cultist is clearly not too weak, in fact it might be too strong, but the main problem is rather how it synergizes with other Action cards. If your only Action card is Cultist, all Cultists are junking Labs. If you have other Action cards, there is a high chance that you draw them dead. Every terminal draw can draw dead Actions, but with Cultists, you often draw 5+ non-cultist cards in a row, which means it's almost 50% for every other Action card to be drawn dead. Consequently, Cultist+BM is often the right choice on a Cultist board, and I'll even say that including other Action cards into a Cultist deck is a very common mistake, and that Cultist+BM might be the best strategy over half the time. Which, of course, is not that great. And this is all in addition to the fact that it's super swingy, and has a huge first Player advantage. So, why isn't it even lower? Because I really like the games where you do buy Cultist and do clean up your deck, even if they are a minority. Likewise, The on-trash effect is neat whenever it's relevant. So, while the good mostly outweights the bad here, there is still enough of the good left to put it on #194. |
No, I think Donald got it right. The point is basically that "favorites" is subjective, and "well-designed" is not, and I agree that strictly speaking, it should be titled "my favorite cards". If I tried to be objective, I'd have masquerade higher, because I know that very few people share my problems here, but I'd still have Spy really low, because I legitimately believe that there are flaws in its design that later cards fixed. I guess this is "my favorite designs". I don't really like just calling it my favorites, because for me that sounds like I don't really have reasons for it, I just like or don't like a card, and I don't think that's true.Well there's something to be said for being clear. I mean you're even judging that here, you're being unclear while judging clarity.
198. Pearl Diver
Pearldiver is, in many ways, even more useless than Scout or Adventurer. It's a little bit stronger, because it's a cantrip and you will usually buy it for 2$ if you don't want anything else, but that's really the only reason. The sad thing here is that even a cantrip without bonus would be bought more often than Scout. The actual pearl diving is extremely weak, and the only combo I know of that wouldn't also work with a plain cantrip is Pearl Diver/Mystic, which really is just a Conspirator variant. And yes, sometimes it will salvage a dead turn by getting you to the village one turn faster. But for the most part, this is another wasted slot.
Duchess
I'm not sure Duchess is a poor designed card.What does that have to do with this thread though, which is about how much silverspawn likes things but he doesn't want to call it that? Stick to the topic, Beyond Awesome.
I don't know if I should come in and say something sensible, or stay outside and go get me some popcorn.Yes, you should.
I'll even say that including other Action cards into a Cultist deck is a very common mistake
You mean like ruins?I'll even say that including other Action cards into a Cultist deck is a very common mistake
Man, I know, right? But you know, somehow every Cultist game I play, I end up getting other Action cards anyway. It's like I can't help myself.
No, I think Donald got it right. The point is basically that "favorites" is subjective, and "well-designed" is not, and I agree that strictly speaking, it should be titled "my favorite cards". If I tried to be objective, I'd have masquerade higher, because I know that very few people share my problems here, but I'd still have Spy really low, because I legitimately believe that there are flaws in its design that later cards fixed. I guess this is "my favorite designs". I don't really like just calling it my favorites, because for me that sounds like I don't really have reasons for it, I just like or don't like a card, and I don't think that's true.You know I appreciate that you say this, and I appreciate that in the OP you say how it's all your opinion.
Well, I like the fact that there's a card that can screw up my opponent's plan even when he has seven million Lighthouses in his deck. Might have something to do with the fact that I'm not particularly fond of Lighthouse. Maybe it doesn't have to be Masquerade, it could be another card instead, but it's certainly nice that it exists and it also fits well with the +2 cards and the trashing.
What are the other cards? I'm dying to know!Well, I like the fact that there's a card that can screw up my opponent's plan even when he has seven million Lighthouses in his deck. Might have something to do with the fact that I'm not particularly fond of Lighthouse. Maybe it doesn't have to be Masquerade, it could be another card instead, but it's certainly nice that it exists and it also fits well with the +2 cards and the trashing.
Awaclus's Design Rankings
206. Lighthouse
...
No, I think Donald got it right. The point is basically that "favorites" is subjective, and "well-designed" is not, and I agree that strictly speaking, it should be titled "my favorite cards". If I tried to be objective, I'd have masquerade higher, because I know that very few people share my problems here, but I'd still have Spy really low, because I legitimately believe that there are flaws in its design that later cards fixed. I guess this is "my favorite designs". I don't really like just calling it my favorites, because for me that sounds like I don't really have reasons for it, I just like or don't like a card, and I don't think that's true.You know I appreciate that you say this, and I appreciate that in the OP you say how it's all your opinion.
But when you cast how much you like a card as how well-designed it is, well it's pretty insulting to me. The epitome of good game design is not maximizing how much fun silverspawn has. It's probably more annoying on the low end, but I don't imagine I will like it on the high end either.
I don't mind people singling out hated/loved cards, and I've chimed in on some of those threads. I don't mind you talking about how well-designed you think things are, and I will try to stay out of such discussions. But pretending one is the other, well, yuck. I mean imagine we all discussed how much we liked you, yikes, but wait, we're going to pretend that what we're talking about is, how smart you are, objectively.
There are four different attacks that are meant to mess with your opponent's draw pile in Dominion: Rabble, Oracle, Fortune Teller, and Spy (and Sea Hag, but let's forget about that for the moment). Four problems come to mind for these kinds of attacks: they could be swingy, they could be weak, they could be tedious, and they could become pointless upon repeated play.
d) Possession and Outpost turn sequences are just too complicated.
Whoever said Outpost turns get confusing, I disagree. You only get 1 outpost turn and the card stays out, so I don't really see what is confusing about it.
Scout is widely considered to be the weakest card in Dominion, and while this is kind of a boring conclusion, I think that's exactly what he is. I also think that being weak is his only problem - the idea of taking victory cards from your deck into your hand is something I really like - but fact is, a card that's ignored in approximately 98% of the times when it shows up is just a waste of space, good idea or not. We're out of cards that I dislike, so a 9-card Kingdom enabler is the next worst thing.
Adventurer is the same as Scout, really. It costs 6$, even though it could easily cost 3$, making it probably the second weakest card in the game. Digging for Treasure cards as a concept is okay, but again, that doesn't help if the card is too weak to ever get bought.There is no way Adventurer would be fairly priced at $3. On average, it will be about a terminal Gold, so should probably cost 5. It is actually a pretty good card in a money deck (if no strong terminal draw) even at 6. Most people here (and most boards) favor engine to big money, and Adventurer is weak in an engine, so that is part of the reason for the reputation. The only real problem is the opportunity cost of passing up Gold. When you get a "free" Adventurer for some reason (perhaps a swindled Gold), it is normally helpful, albeit somewhat less so than Gold in most decks. At $3, Adventurer would make big money crazy good, which I doubt many people want.
Talisman is the weakest version on a list of Workshop Variants, that is cards that can gain cards costing 4$ or less. Other than Talisman, this list consists of Workshop, Ironworks, Armory, and you could make a case for Hermit, but let's not.
So, even ignoring the Victory card restriction, when is this card ever better than Ironworks? Well, if you
a) draw it with 3$ and want two 4$'s, or
b) draw it with 4$, want a 5$, and either don't want a silver, or don't have Actions left.
I'm sure both cases have happened plenty of times, but still, there is no way I ever buy this card over Ironworks, because you can't plan ahead for either of those cases. The far more common and relevant case is that you draw it with 5$+ and want both a 5$ and a 4$, and here Ironworks is clearly better.
And then there is the restriction. Why is it there? I honestly have no idea. This card is clearly worse than Ironworks without it. I guess if it was there, a hand of multiple talismans could get one victory card each, which none of the other variants can, so maybe that's the reason. Whatever the case, the fact that it does have it means that it's not usable for garden/silk road rushes, which just cuts about half of its utility. There are still situations where you buy it, and on its own this wouldn't be that low, but the problem is really that it's being overshadowed.
You know I appreciate that you say this, and I appreciate that in the OP you say how it's all your opinion.
But when you cast how much you like a card as how well-designed it is, well it's pretty insulting to me. The epitome of good game design is not maximizing how much fun silverspawn has. It's probably more annoying on the low end, but I don't imagine I will like it on the high end either.
I don't mind people singling out hated/loved cards, and I've chimed in on some of those threads. I don't mind you talking about how well-designed you think things are, and I will try to stay out of such discussions. But pretending one is the other, well, yuck. I mean imagine we all discussed how much we liked you, yikes, but wait, we're going to pretend that what we're talking about is, how smart you are, objectively.
I will rate all official Kingdom cards by their design.to
I will rate all official Kingdom cards by how much I like their design.
considering Transmute handily won the worst card poll, I'm not so sure how wide that conclusion is. If it weren't for the existence of the forum meme, I doubt there would be much consensus. I mean Scout is obviously a weak card, but it's not obviously the weakest. I certainly would take a free Scout over a free Thief on most boards - at minimum it can provide useful ordering ahead of a terminal draw and never helps the opponent.The Poll (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1692.0) ended 61-57 in favor of Transmute, and I voted for Transmute, so if anything it's 60-58, which is basically a tie. But I dare saying that, if we made a new Poll, Scout would win, because people have gotten better at the game, and Transmute is just way stronger than Scout.
There is no way Adventurer would be fairly priced at $3. On average, it will be about a terminal Gold, so should probably cost 5.I disagree, I think it would be very weak at 5$, and fine at 3$. Probably a strong 3$, but I'm not even sure. I think it's worse than Smithy, and 3$ and 4$ is really close, especially for terminal draw, because you don't want to open with two of them anyway.
Seems this is true to some degree with all times of attacks. I fail to see how that is a problem - maybe even a plus.I was more talking about multiple plays in one turn. Whether that's a problem probably depends on the context of the card. Margrave even anti-stacks, though that's not a very popular card. But I'll say that it's bad for cantrips at least, which includes scout.
In regards to Duchess, I think silverspawn was only complaining about the friendly spy effect. The on-duchy-gain effect is much more relevant, I think.I wasn't so much complaining about a specific aspect, as I was saying that there's just not enough for me to like it.
I would rather take Scout than Thief on must boards too, but that's not what matters. The powerlevel of a card isn't based on how often it's better than nothing, it's based on how often it's the best card at it's price level. The utility of Thief is negative in the majority of games, which means that, even if Scout only looked at 2 cards, you'd likely take it over thief on the majority of boards (at least early), because the utility of Scout is (almost) never negative. But thief is sometimes really good, and that makes it better than Scout.I assume that with the "utility of Scout", you mean just the ability, and not the whole thing including the fact that it takes up a card slot in your hand?
I assume that with the "utility of Scout", you mean just the ability, and not the whole thing including the fact that it takes up a card slot in your hand?
Cultist is also one of way overpowered cards, IMHO. Consider Laboratory and Witch, both strong $5 cards from base set. Now consider Cultist, which (pseudo)combines their abilities, and then adds on trash benefit. It suffers from the same problem as Rebuild (also rightfully on the list) - it's so powerful that simple BM+Cultist is dominant strategy on many, if not most, boards it appears in (and so is Rebuild or Rebuild+X). This significantly reduces variety and enjoyability in Cultist-containing kingdoms.BM+Cultist isn't that good if there's a splitter in the kingdom, and even if there isn't and BM+Cultist is the dominant strategy, it's definitely not "simple". You have to know when you want Gold over Cultist, and that depends on everything and very often is a non-trivial decision.
BM+Cultist isn't that good if there's a splitter in the kingdom, and even if there isn't and BM+Cultist is the dominant strategy, it's definitely not "simple". You have to know when you want Gold over Cultist, and that depends on everything and very often is a non-trivial decision.
Building engines is extremely straightforward. Trash your bad cards, gain splitters and +cards and that's it. There are some decisions involved, but they are hardly relevant. The difficult decisions in engine games are choosing between continuing to make your engine stronger, adding a payload into your deck and greening. You also have to do essentially the same choices in Cultist+BM games (where making your engine stronger = buying a Cultist, adding a payload = buying a Gold and greening = greening), but there are more factors involved because of the Ruins, and because you're not going to get into a state where you can buy all of your payload in one turn and end the game in a couple of your next turns, you are also more likely to have to make a decision like that more often than in a typical engine game.BM+Cultist isn't that good if there's a splitter in the kingdom, and even if there isn't and BM+Cultist is the dominant strategy, it's definitely not "simple". You have to know when you want Gold over Cultist, and that depends on everything and very often is a non-trivial decision.
Which is why I said many/most kingdoms, but not all. As for simplicity, I believe that Cultist-BM deck (and BM+X decks in general) where your main concern if whether to buy another Cultist or Gold pale in complexity compared to engine-making or even certain types or slogs, where much more choices are available and room for mistake is way bigger.
But that's not relevant, you got a point. If you want, I will edit the thread name and/or the OP. How about "silverspawn's card list" as the name, andYes please, hooray, the system works.QuoteI will rate all official Kingdom cards by their design.toQuoteI will rate all official Kingdom cards by how much I like their design.
would that be okay?
Quoteconsidering Transmute handily won the worst card poll, I'm not so sure how wide that conclusion is. If it weren't for the existence of the forum meme, I doubt there would be much consensus. I mean Scout is obviously a weak card, but it's not obviously the weakest. I certainly would take a free Scout over a free Thief on most boards - at minimum it can provide useful ordering ahead of a terminal draw and never helps the opponent.The Poll (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1692.0) ended 61-57 in favor of Transmute, and I voted for Transmute, so if anything it's 60-58, which is basically a tie. But I dare saying that, if we made a new Poll, Scout would win, because people have gotten better at the game, and Transmute is just way stronger than Scout.
I would rather take Scout than Thief on must boards too, but that's not what matters. The powerlevel of a card isn't based on how often it's better than nothing, it's based on how often it's the best card at it's price level. The utility of Thief is negative in the majority of games, which means that, even if Scout only looked at 2 cards, you'd likely take it over thief on the majority of boards (at least early), because the utility of Scout is (almost) never negative. But thief is sometimes really good, and that makes it better than Scout.
QuoteSeems this is true to some degree with all times of attacks. I fail to see how that is a problem - maybe even a plus.I was more talking about multiple plays in one turn. Whether that's a problem probably depends on the context of the card. Margrave even anti-stacks, though that's not a very popular card. But I'll say that it's bad for cantrips at least, which includes scout.
I certainly would take a free Scout over a free Thief on most boards
I certainly would take a free Scout over a free Thief on most boards
(Mini-puzzle: under what gameplay circumstances would you make this decision?)
I certainly would take a free Scout over a free Thief on most boards
(Mini-puzzle: under what gameplay circumstances would you make this decision?)
It's main problem is the opportunity cost - at 2 or maybe even 3 it would be a perfectly fine card - there is nothing wrong with the design. Thief, however, is worse than a wasted slot often and wouldn't be bought for 0 with extra buys. Since this is a "design" thread, I'd say the card often helps the opponent should be the one lower ranked. (Incidentally, the fix for Thief is simple - make both the trash and the gain optional instead of just the gain.) The point here is it is debatable which card is the weakest, not that Scout is strong.No, its main problem is that it literally hurts your deck unless like 30% of it is green cards, which should never be the case, or you really need to know the top card of your deck (and Mystic/Wishing Well combos aren't worth it, because Scout, by being in your hand, negates the effect of getting one extra card), or you have to have a deck that naturally results in all of your green cards being on top of your deck (Apothecary engine).
QuoteSeems this is true to some degree with all times of attacks. I fail to see how that is a problem - maybe even a plus.I was more talking about multiple plays in one turn. Whether that's a problem probably depends on the context of the card. Margrave even anti-stacks, though that's not a very popular card. But I'll say that it's bad for cantrips at least, which includes scout.
Scout anti-synergies with itself is certainly a valid point - not a desirable effect in a non-terminal I'd think.
The first certainly is not true outside this forumokay, probably not. so maybe I think the forum is the most relevant place for this kind of stuff and was talking about the forum by saying "widely" in a totally elitist and inappropriate way :P
and when Thief is actually useful, it's much more useful than Scout is when Scout is useful. It is pointless to look at which card hurts you more in a game where you want to buy neither anywayyes, that's the point. it's not about which card is better on average, it's about how often the card is good enough for you to buy it.
It's main problem is the opportunity cost - at 2 or maybe even 3 it would be a perfectly fine card - there is nothing wrong with the design. Thief, however, is worse than a wasted slot often and wouldn't be bought for 0 with extra buys. Since this is a "design" thread, I'd say the card often helps the opponent should be the one lower ranked. (Incidentally, the fix for Thief is simple - make both the trash and the gain optional instead of just the gain.) The point here is it is debatable which card is the weakest, not that Scout is strong.No, its main problem is that it literally hurts your deck unless like 30% of it is green cards, which should never be the case, or you really need to know the top card of your deck (and Mystic/Wishing Well combos aren't worth it, because Scout, by being in your hand, negates the effect of getting one extra card), or you have to have a deck that naturally results in all of your green cards being on top of your deck (Apothecary engine).
It's true that in a normal game, Thief hurts you more than Scout does. But the games where Scout hurts you and Thief doesn't are much more common than the games where Thief hurts you and Scout doesn't, and when Thief is actually useful, it's much more useful than Scout is when Scout is useful. It is pointless to look at which card hurts you more in a game where you want to buy neither anyway, unless we just want to find out which card to give your opponent with Swindler.
Thief is only useful in IGG games and can sometimes work against thinned decks w/o virtual coin. I don't think it is a higher % of games, although yes probably better in its best uses than Scout in its best uses. It also takes an action. Maybe it is more powerful on average, maybe it isn't. However, as a design question, I think a card that is weak and more often than not helps the opponent is worse than a card that is simply very weak.This is an experienced-player perspective though. I mean the whole business of judging weakness.
I really, really hate [Possession]. I can't really overstate how much I hate it. Every other dominion card - hell, even every fanmade card - is exponentially better than Possession in my book. This card does not need to exist.In these rankings a really under-appreciated aspect of Possession and Masquerade's design is how much variety they add to the game.
That said, I still hate [Masquerade], and the reason for that is that pass mechanic is not designed to hurt your opponent, so when it does, it feels unjustified and unfair quite similar to possession. They are my cards. Not yours. *sigh*There are strategic decisions to be made about not overtrashing junk when Masquerades are in play.
In these rankings a really under-appreciated aspect of Possession and Masquerade's design is how much variety they add to the game.Well, maybe I do underappreciate it, but the variety of Possession just isn't doing much for me. Same goes for the strategic depth that comes from additional decisions, like not trashing all of your junk. They absolutely exist, but I don't care about them/don't like them. It's not unusual that I leave copper in my deck because of Masquerade, but that's not an aspect I can appreciate.
Well you may not like those two and I'm often not excited to see Possession either, but there is no "design" reason to not like them. You just don't like what they do.
Well you may not like those two and I'm often not excited to see Possession either, but there is no "design" reason to not like them. You just don't like what they do. (I actually like Masquerade, because I think to myself that I can probably play it with more skill than my opponent)Possession is unreasonably complex; that's a design issue for sure. The FAQ mostly just says "yes, really," but it's a gigantic FAQ. It has a "would" ability; arguably the game should have avoided having any of those (the other of course is Trader).
Spy should cost $3, or spy before drawing
By the way, I'm not sure I understand why silverspawn and DXV think Spy's effect is so terrible to resolve. Is anyone complaining about Oracle? Granted Oracle isn't the greatest thing ever but people seem to find it fine
By the way, I'm not sure I understand why silverspawn and DXV think Spy's effect is so terrible to resolve. Is anyone complaining about Oracle? Granted Oracle isn't the greatest thing ever but people seem to find it fine
Oracle is terminal draw, spy is a cantrip. It's important for cantrips to be quick to resolve, because you tend to buy/play them more often.
Design refers to the intent behind the card and how it relates to other cards, not just the trivial "if a card has this aspect, that aspect was designed"
Adventurer needs an action at that price
Adventurer needs an action at that price
Eh, I think +buy.
MTG makes a distinction between design and development, which are roughly "make it fun" and "make it balanced", though I don't know MTG super well so I may be a little off. (Edit: Well, now that I look up these terms, I'm pretty wrong, so maybe somebody who knows how MTG R&D works could help clarify.)Magic design is about coming up with ideas and building an environment, and development is about balancing multiple environments that include that environment, and solving problems. I don't use the term "development" for Dominion because Valerie and Dale were credited as developers but did not balance cards at all. For most games people do not make the distinction that Magic makes, probably because it tends to be the same guy. For a Magic card, there's the idea, and then there's what it looks like after the various knobs are fiddled with, the cost and power/toughness and evergreen abilities and sometimes other numbers or even just any change, any change at all can be made to "develop" the card. Power level is entirely a development thing; something weak or strong isn't "poorly designed." For Dominion, there are way fewer knobs and it was all up to me anyway.
I think adventurer should dig for 3 instead of 2. I don't think a buy, or an action, is enough.Adventurer needs an action at that price
Eh, I think +buy.
| (http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/base/thief.jpg) | 193. Thief There is something to be said about how a low powerlevel increases the variance of different player's experiences with a certain card. If a card is strong, and everyone has lots of games with it, most players will come to similar understandings of how the card works. For cards like Thief or Pirate Ship, you might only have played a hand full of games where the card was good, and how much you like it will depend heavily on these few games. Me, I remember two types of games where I went for Thief, so that's all I really have to go on. One, games with strong engines, strong trashing, but no virtual $, no gain, and limited trash-for-benefit. Both players only have a couple of high-value treasure cards in their decks, replacing them takes at least one turn each, and stealing one of them is huge. Two, games with weak trashing, weak draw, no apparent payload for an engine, but Thief and KC (or at least TR). Here, it really gets interesting if one Player goes for BM, and the other one builds the engine. Even if doing so takes a very long time, as long as your opponent doesn't have 50% of all VP's, you can still win, by removing every last treasure card from his deck. Theoretically, this should also be possible with Pirate Ship, but because of how Pirate Ship works, it's more likely that both players will go for pirate ship right away on such a baord, and then you really have virtual coin in the form of Pirate Ship, and it plays out very differently. I have positive memories of my few Thief games, which is why I kind of like the card, even though it's obviously too weak. And man, the image looks awesome, I never noticed that before. That almost makes me want to move it another rank upwards. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/prosperity/contraband.jpg) | 192. Contraband The idea behind Contraband is probably to make you gain unconventional cards, kind of like Swindler, rewarding your creativity, and causing you to have a different type of game. I can appreciate this intention, but like many cards on this list, it fails due to the fact that it's just too weak. For this one, I can't help thinking that an extra coin would solve everything. As is, it's just not a factor in most games. I find that, what Contraband needs in order to be viable (aside from multiple cheap engine components), is a way to remodel it into a better card, because it's just so weak in the end game. Upgrade is ideal here; play Contraband to build your engine, then upgrade it into a gold, and profit. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/cornucopia/harvest.jpg) | 191. Harvest When I look at Harvest, I can't help thinking that the way in which it works makes unusable for exactly the type of deck in which it would otherwise be pretty good. I'm of course talking about treasure-less decks that draw itself every turn. Harvest could be nice here, especially when throned, but it stops doing anything once you have your whole deck in hand. With that, all we have left is a support card for BM, which is rarely what you want, because there are so many better alternatives. Aside from that, I found that it's sometimes useful to trigger tunnels. It looks at 4 cards, so you'll hit tunnels just as often as you do with Horse Traders, and it'll also provide a similar amount of money on average. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/alchemy/transmute.jpg) | 190. Transmute I will say right away that I think Transmute is underrated, at least among good players. Does that mean it's strong? Well no, it's pretty weak. In fact it's so weak that it's #190 on this list. It's just not as weak as some people think. Going into any detail here would be more suited for a strategy article, but really, whenever Transmute is usable, it's pretty cute. What bothers me about this card is the lack of a +Action. Alchemy makes a point to have most cards be non-terminal, so why make Transmute of all cards the exception? Being non-terminal would both solve some of it's powerlevel issues, and stop it from being an outlier. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/seaside/seahag.jpg) | 189. Sea Hag Sea Hag is, for me, by far the least exciting Junker in the game. Part of that is the fact that it doesn't produce any resources, which causes games to drag out longer than they have to, and then there's the discard effect. There is a reason why it's there: to prevent you from piling multiple curses on top of your deck in 3+ player, and that's certainly a good thing, but it's still game ending if it hits another Player's Hag. I don't like Spy, so I naturally don't like a forced discard either. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/alchemy/herbalist.jpg) | 188. Herbalist If a strong potion card and Herbalist are on the same board, I'll often open Herbalist/Potion over Silver/Potion. If I'm playing an Alchemist stack, I'll sometimes use Herbalist to ensure I can topdeck my Potion, and in extension my Alchemists. But aside from that, I almost never use the Scheming ability. Is that just me? Well, maybe. Topdecking treasures sounds really nice, but when is it really useful? In an engine, you don't want treasures on top of your deck. In BM, you rather have other support cards. For the most part, Herbalist is just a far inferior version of CSM. If the ability was useful more often, I'd also like the card more. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/hinterlands/cache.jpg) | 187. Cache Cache, just like Talisman, is guilty of being almost strictly worse than another card, and in both cases, I also like the other card a lot more. For Cache, that card is Masterpiece. Buy a Cache, have 5$ in 3 cards. Buy a Masterpiece for 5$, have 5$ in 3 cards. There is a difference in money variety, but really, it's not that significant. And yes, Cache combos with both Trader and Watchtower, more so than Masterpiece. It's not enough. Prior to Guilds, I didn't mind Cache, but now, I think it has been utterly outclassed. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/intrigue/secretchamber.jpg) | 186. Secret Chamber I don't really know what to say about Secret Chamber, except that it's not very good. The reaction doesn't usually defend against attacks, but I think that's okay. It's low for being weak and not very interesting, and that's really it. |
I think Contraband is actually designed pretty well. The +buy helps to ensure you can pick up two cards you need as long as you need at least three. It just doesn't work in monolithic strategies, but that's okay. It makes alternate VP better.
I think Contraband is actually designed pretty well. The +buy helps to ensure you can pick up two cards you need as long as you need at least three. It just doesn't work in monolithic strategies, but that's okay. It makes alternate VP better.
doesn't it make alt VP worse? as if you are going for it they will just stop you? Or do you mean you can choose between fairgrounds or provinces when they take one of them away.
(I tried contraband with gardens and it totally failed as he just said I couldn't buy gardens... I'm so bad at this game)
I think Contraband is actually designed pretty well. The +buy helps to ensure you can pick up two cards you need as long as you need at least three. It just doesn't work in monolithic strategies, but that's okay. It makes alternate VP better.
Secret Chamber -- You didn't mention the huge problem with Secret Chamber, which is the analysis paralysis from the reaction. Picking 2 cards to put back out of 7 in your hand, and the order, is up to 7*6 = 42 possibilities, maybe the worst AP of any Dominion card. I think the idea was to provide defense against Swindler and Saboteur, which are in the same set. In that sense, I consider Beggar's reaction to be a fixed version of Secret Chamber's reaction, since it also defends against trashing attacks, with far less AP.
Chapter I: The Bad CardsIn my experience, it is very rare that a good card is stolen with Masquerade. The cards I mostly see changing hands are copper/estate - and, later in the game, silver/$3 actions.
205. Masquerade
Masquerade is entry #2 in the previously mentioned list. For a while, I thought this card was actually worse than Possession, but it's absolutely not. Really, it's not even close. The only reason I ever thought so was that I had forgotten how bad Possession really is. I probably was lucky not to play with it for a while.
That said, I still hate it, and the reason for that is that pass mechanic is not designed to hurt your opponent, so when it does, it feels unjustified and unfair quite similar to possession. They are my cards. Not yours. *sigh*
Chapter 2: The Weak Cards (And Outliers) - Part oneI know I'm in the clear minority here, but I believe Adventurer gets to really shine if not outright dominate on some boards - which should at least rank it above Duchess.
199. Adventurer
Adventurer is the same as Scout, really. It costs 6$, even though it could easily cost 3$, making it probably the second weakest card in the game. Digging for Treasure cards as a concept is okay, but again, that doesn't help if the card is too weak to ever get bought.
Chapter 2: The Weak Cards (And Outliers) - Part two
192. Contraband
The idea behind Contraband is probably to make you gain unconventional cards, kind of like Swindler, rewarding your creativity, and causing you to have a different type of game. I can appreciate this intention, but like many cards on this list, it fails due to the fact that it's just too weak. For this one, I can't help thinking that an extra coin would solve everything. As is, it's just not a factor in most games. I find that, what Contraband needs in order to be viable (aside from multiple cheap engine components), is a way to remodel it into a better card, because it's just so weak in the end game. Upgrade is ideal here; play Contraband to build your engine, then upgrade it into a gold, and profit.
Oh, this is tedious. I'm not so much interested in the bottom of this list, because well, most of us know about the flaws some of the cards have, there won't be many surprises. I'm much more interested in the top part of this list - which cards are best designed? That's a discussion I look forward to. But that's still a long way to go.
I'm also surprised you didn't mention Chancellor/Feast/Saboteur. Maybe in the next list?Ranking Chancellor pretty low is reasonable because Scavenger exists, but why Feast and Saboteur?
Oh, this is tedious. I'm not so much interested in the bottom of this list, because well, most of us know about the flaws some of the cards have, there won't be many surprises. I'm much more interested in the top part of this list - which cards are best designed? That's a discussion I look forward to. But that's still a long way to go.
I'd be interesting in your ranking of how well designed the various ranking lists are.
9. Goko Casual Ranking List
8. Goko Pro Ranking List
7. silverspawn's overpowered/underpowered ranking
6. JSH's art rankings
5. silverspawn's card list
4. WW's power rankings
3. Qvist's Dominion Card List
2. Isotropish rankings
1. SirPeebles' Dominion Top Ten: Facial Hair
WW's power rankingsthe one where forager was above fishing village?
9. Goko Casual Ranking List
8. Goko Pro Ranking List
7. silverspawn's overpowered/underpowered ranking
6. JSH's art rankings
5. silverspawn's card list
4. WW's power rankings
3. Qvist's Dominion Card List
2. Isotropish rankings
1. SirPeebles' Dominion Top Ten: Facial Hair
You forgot to rank faust's raking's ranking.
9. Goko Casual Ranking List
8. Goko Pro Ranking List
7. silverspawn's overpowered/underpowered ranking
6. JSH's art rankings
5. silverspawn's card list
4. WW's power rankings
3. Qvist's Dominion Card List
2. Isotropish rankings
1. SirPeebles' Dominion Top Ten: Facial Hair
You forgot to rank faust's raking's ranking.
You can't have a ranking of all rankings.9. Goko Casual Ranking List
8. Goko Pro Ranking List
7. silverspawn's overpowered/underpowered ranking
6. JSH's art rankings
5. silverspawn's card list
4. WW's power rankings
3. Qvist's Dominion Card List
2. Isotropish rankings
1. SirPeebles' Dominion Top Ten: Facial Hair
You forgot to rank faust's raking's ranking.
QuoteWW's power rankingsthe one where forager was above fishing village?
And chess.QuoteWW's power rankingsthe one where forager was above fishing village?
No, the possessive there is a typo. This is a ranking of how powerful the various WWs on this forum are, in terms of who would win in a gauntlet of events, including, but not limited to, a bare-knuckle boxing match, Soduko, Dominion, Twister, and interpretive dance.
You can't have a ranking of all rankings.
I'm also surprised you didn't mention Chancellor/Feast/Saboteur. Maybe in the next list?all three of them, actually.
You can't have a ranking of all rankings.
Thief is only useful in IGG games and can sometimes work against thinned decks w/o virtual coin. I don't think it is a higher % of games, although yes probably better in its best uses than Scout in its best uses. It also takes an action. Maybe it is more powerful on average, maybe it isn't. However, as a design question, I think a card that is weak and more often than not helps the opponent is worse than a card that is simply very weak.This is an experienced-player perspective though. I mean the whole business of judging weakness.
Thief as you may know is one of the "pillars" of providing game variety in the main set - Chapel, Thief, Witch, Gardens. They send the game in different directions.
In one conversation with Richard Garfield I was lamenting how thief didn't hold up its end. Richard felt otherwise; he thought there was significant value in, first we think, yeeha, steal your treasures, then we notice, hey I don't mind when you take my coppers, how good can that be, and then at least we realize it's bad. Now I think it's fair to argue, and I personally argue, that, okay sure fine, but the card that fills this role of providing gameplay via this learning experience can be something that ends up in a better place for long-term players. People initially overrate say Moat, but it doesn't end up an utter dud at the end of it. Anyway the point is, a card can provide value, not just despite being weak, but specifically because of it. And I am just presenting that argument because I know about it; I personally think you should nevertheless do better than Thief.
Scout gets used the most in all-Intrigue games. There I often wouldn't mind a Scout, I just don't have time to get it. If you have an Ironworks then one turn it will be like, oh yeah, Ironworks a Scout. I don't think costing $2 goes far enough; it wants to be different functionally.Adding +1 card would make it like a "super Vagrant" (well minus the Curse+Ruins bits) and Vagrant is pretty decent for $2, so maybe it would be OK at $4 then. I like the idea of Scout - clean up your next hand - it just doesn't quite work of course. While on the subject, any particular reason it doesn't pick up Curses? Just not something you thought of, or was the idea not really to clean up your next hand but pull in dull-type cards mostly?
Adventurer by contrast is a card I'd often be happy to have, if only I had time to get it. When they Swindle a card into Thief, it's like getting a Curse; when they give you a Scout, well that hurt but it will produce some marginal benefit. When they give you an Adventurer, man, the only thing you are worried about is having enough actions, and when you draw it with other terminals, Adventurer may end up being what you play.
I like the idea of Scout - clean up your next hand - it just doesn't quite work of course. While on the subject, any particular reason it doesn't pick up Curses? Just not something you thought of, or was the idea not really to clean up your next hand but pull in dull-type cards mostly?
While on the subject, any particular reason it doesn't pick up Curses? Just not something you thought of, or was the idea not really to clean up your next hand but pull in dull-type cards mostly?It just wasn't part of the concept for the card.
While on the subject, any particular reason it doesn't pick up Curses? Just not something you thought of, or was the idea not really to clean up your next hand but pull in dull-type cards mostly?It just wasn't part of the concept for the card.
In general it is not a good idea to try to satisfy every demand anyone could ever have of a card, until all cards are unplayably complex. It's fine that Scout doesn't get Curses. It has no obligation to get them. It's not making the difference any which way. No regrets there.
QuoteWW's power rankingsthe one where forager was above fishing village?
Well, he's a scout. He's looking for trails, exploring lands, including Colonies, Provinces, Duchies and even private Estates. He's clearly too focussed on geography to even bother about abstract things like curses.While on the subject, any particular reason it doesn't pick up Curses? Just not something you thought of, or was the idea not really to clean up your next hand but pull in dull-type cards mostly?It just wasn't part of the concept for the card.
In general it is not a good idea to try to satisfy every demand anyone could ever have of a card, until all cards are unplayably complex. It's fine that Scout doesn't get Curses. It has no obligation to get them. It's not making the difference any which way. No regrets there.
I guess I was asking what the concept of the card was. I guess since it doesn't pick up curses ( which would only add two words) the idea wasn't "clean up your next hand", but probably "build a deck around dual type cards".
Well, he's a scout. He's looking for trails, exploring lands, including Colonies, Provinces, Duchies and even private Estates. He's clearly too focussed on geography to even bother about abstract things like curses.While on the subject, any particular reason it doesn't pick up Curses? Just not something you thought of, or was the idea not really to clean up your next hand but pull in dull-type cards mostly?It just wasn't part of the concept for the card.
In general it is not a good idea to try to satisfy every demand anyone could ever have of a card, until all cards are unplayably complex. It's fine that Scout doesn't get Curses. It has no obligation to get them. It's not making the difference any which way. No regrets there.
I guess I was asking what the concept of the card was. I guess since it doesn't pick up curses ( which would only add two words) the idea wasn't "clean up your next hand", but probably "build a deck around dual type cards".
Well, he's a scout. He's looking for trails, exploring lands, including Colonies, Provinces, Duchies and even private Estates. He's clearly too focussed on geography to even bother about abstract things like curses.While on the subject, any particular reason it doesn't pick up Curses? Just not something you thought of, or was the idea not really to clean up your next hand but pull in dull-type cards mostly?It just wasn't part of the concept for the card.
In general it is not a good idea to try to satisfy every demand anyone could ever have of a card, until all cards are unplayably complex. It's fine that Scout doesn't get Curses. It has no obligation to get them. It's not making the difference any which way. No regrets there.
I guess I was asking what the concept of the card was. I guess since it doesn't pick up curses ( which would only add two words) the idea wasn't "clean up your next hand", but probably "build a deck around dual type cards".
...and Harems?
man forget you guys and your meta-rankings, I'm gonna work on ranking the sets by how well-designed the females are per capita accounting for cost of the expansion
Thanks for the heads up. Be prepared to have it trashed, or possibly just discarded. Sorry, I just doubt that I'd topdeck it.man forget you guys and your meta-rankings, I'm gonna work on ranking the sets by how well-designed the females are per capita accounting for cost of the expansion
I'll be posting my rankings list of rankings lists soon. Keep a lookout for it!
Thanks for the heads up. Be prepared to have it trashed, or possibly just discarded. Sorry, I just doubt that I'd topdeck it.man forget you guys and your meta-rankings, I'm gonna work on ranking the sets by how well-designed the females are per capita accounting for cost of the expansion
I'll be posting my rankings list of rankings lists soon. Keep a lookout for it!
| (http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/base/woodcutter.jpg) | 185. Woodcutter Hey, it's a terminal silver with a buy. It's good if you........................................ really need buys? |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/base/feast.jpg) | 184. Feast Don't get me wrong, Feast doesn't add very much to the game. But it doesn't bother me either. If you don't want a second silver, you can open silver/feast instead, and then you get the fuzz, and the things, and the probabilities, and the 5$'s, but you don't keep the silver. That, and the interaction with KC/Procession can be pretty cute. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/intrigue/swindler.jpg) | 183. Swindler I feel like so much has already been said about Swindler, I don't need to add much. It's strong, unpredictable, high skill, and swingy. Depending on what's important to you, both love, hate, and everything in between is a possible attitude here. One minor thing that I really dislike is how he can turn non-Kingdom cards into curses, like Madmen, or even Prizes. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/alchemy/philosophersstone.jpg) | 182. Philosopher's Stone Just like Familiar, the aspect I dislike most about Philosopher's Stone is it's price. It should cost P2$. It really should. I mean, is there a reason why it shouldn't? Well in any case, just like Familiar, I like the card otherwise. It's certainly weak, but not so much that it becomes a problem. I actually I find myself buying it quite often lately. There is probably a counting issue with large decks, but since I play almost exclusively online, I have no reason to care, so PS gets a lucky pass here. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/intrigue/saboteur.jpg) | 181. Saboteur In January 2011, Donald X has stated that Saboteur is the weakest card relative to its cost (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=63.msg1027#msg1027). While I don't think that's true, it's certainly up there (or down there, all depending on your perspective). And it's not very satisfying and that fuzz... but that doesn't really matter if you understand it, because it's so weak that you only buy it in very specific situations anyway, and then it can be super good. Like, if your opponent thinks he can skip the engine because it has no payload, you can punish him with a KC-Saboteur monster. Seven Province Lead? No problem, I'll just turn all of your Provinces into Estates, and get a point lead with Duchies. It's kind of like Thief here. Aside from that though, buying Saboteur is rarely a good idea. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/intrigue/minion.jpg) | 180. Minion Minion is similar to Swindler in how there are both plenty of reasons to love and to hate it, but it has a little bit more going for it. Well, for one it can't turn Followers into a curse, but it also combos with a lot of other cards, which tends to be pretty interesting. Something that does bother me though, is how a deck with 5 Minion's isn't actually that good, and I'd often rather do something else, but you have to go for Minions to prevent your opponent from getting all 10. So, you both take half of a thing that works best as a hole, and in the end noone is truly happy. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/prosperity/loan.jpg) | 179. Loan A nice copper trasher... except when it hits silver. I think I'd like this better if it just dug for a copper. At least the fact that it can skip over Action cards never bothered me, I mean they really manage to miss reshuffles without Loan anyway. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/base/chancellor.jpg) | 178. Chancellor Hey, it's a terminal silver that discards your deck. It's good if you........................................ don't have anything else to buy? Actually, that's exactly when it's good. The problem with Chancellor is not that the effect is useless, it's that every other terminal silver is so much stronger. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/seaside/lookout.jpg) | 177. Lookout Lookout is by far the strongest card in the game. Why is that? Why is this card so ludicrously amazing? Why is it so good? Well, it's all because it's not very good. Okay, so the problem here is of course that it can force you to trash good cards. And as much as I like cards that reward deck-tracking, I can't pretend like this isn't a problem. Even if you know exactly what's in your draw pile, it's often the right choice to take a small risk, and sometimes you'll pay for that by losing a precious village... or a colony. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/hinterlands/margrave.jpg) | 176. Margrave Margrave is an interesting case, because it's not that clear what's even wrong with it. So, first of all, what is it? Well, it's a terminal draw with an attack that anti-stacks upon repeated play, meaning that if you play it once, it attacks, but every consequent play helps your opponent. This is not inherently bad though. I made a comment about how it's bad for Spy that his attack doesn't stack, but Margrave isn't a cantrip, and I think a diminishing attack is fine for a terminal. The problems that I do have with it can be summarized in three points:
|
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/alchemy/alchemist.jpg) | 175. Alchemist Alchemist is the last potion card that costs P3$ (they're all pretty far down for some reason), so this is the last time I have to complain about the price. Aside from that though, Alchemist is a cool card. It's pretty neat how it's just a lab with a conditional topdecking ability, but it really gets an entirely new strategic value. Another minor complaint is how it takes ages to topdeck just some of your alchemists when playing online, though that's of course not a design flaw, it's a goko flaw. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/prosperity/royalseal.jpg) | 174. Royal Seal A non-terminal silver that lets you topdeck new cards. How excitin'. Well, there is nothing wrong with simple cards. It's just that RS doesn't really add very many difficult decisions to the game, partly because it's really weak. But at least it never did anything to annoy me, so that's good. |
Something that does bother me though, is how a deck with 5 Minion's isn't actually that good, and I'd often rather do something else, but you have to go for Minions to prevent your opponent from getting all 10. So, you both take half of a thing that works best as a hole, and in the end noone is truly happy.This is IMO one of the more annoying things about certain cards in high level 2-player Dominion play: the split problem. As both players become better, they tend to agree more often on the best strategy, resulting in a mirror where they contend for the same pile(s). This sometimes makes an otherwise fun-to-play deck unfun (e.g. Minion, Highway), and with certain cards can lead to huge swings from winning a split (e.g. Duke, Knights).
A nice copper trasher... except when it hits silver. I think I'd like this better if it just dug for a copper. At least the fact that it can skip over Action cards never bothered me, I mean they really manage to miss reshuffles without Loan anyway.I think of Loan as an example of an anti-lottery: usually you get a small benefit, and rarely you pay a large penalty. (A lottery is where usually you pay a small penalty, and rarely you get a large benefit.) Human beings are naturally predisposed to like lotteries and hate anti-lotteries, even if mathematically the expected value is the same. For that reason, I consider an anti-lottery in a card to be a (small) design flaw, because it makes the card less fun to play. (By the way, missing the shuffle is also an example of an anti-lottery.)
If I were to try to "fix" this problem in a Dominion variant, one thing to try would be to give each players their own supply piles to buy from. That way, both players can get 10 Minions if they really want to. Obviously this has some big downsides, like removing end-game tactics related to opportunistic 3-piling and split-winning tactics. It still might be more fun overall for some players.
Probably works better for fewer players. The danger is when there is just one key card, which may create a first player disadvantage for being last to pick. But this variant could be very interesting for hand-designed kingdoms.you will all suffocate in green cards as only I get to use scout. muahaha
Pretty sure that I'll almost always want to be last player. Even in a deck where I want lots of different cards, I probably really need one of them. It also leads to boring games. There was an engine, but then one player took chapel and the other took village. Oh well, no more engine for anyone.If I were to try to "fix" this problem in a Dominion variant, one thing to try would be to give each players their own supply piles to buy from. That way, both players can get 10 Minions if they really want to. Obviously this has some big downsides, like removing end-game tactics related to opportunistic 3-piling and split-winning tactics. It still might be more fun overall for some players.
How about this for a gameplay variant:
Select 9+x kingdom cards, where x is the number of players. In reverse player order, each player chooses one pile that becomes exclusively theirs to use.
Probably works better for fewer players. The danger is when there is just one key card, which may create a first player disadvantage for being last to pick. But this variant could be very interesting for hand-designed kingdoms.
Pretty sure that I'll almost always want to be last player. Even in a deck where I want lots of different cards, I probably really need one of them. It also leads to boring games. There was an engine, but then one player took chapel and the other took village. Oh well, no more engine for anyone.If I were to try to "fix" this problem in a Dominion variant, one thing to try would be to give each players their own supply piles to buy from. That way, both players can get 10 Minions if they really want to. Obviously this has some big downsides, like removing end-game tactics related to opportunistic 3-piling and split-winning tactics. It still might be more fun overall for some players.
How about this for a gameplay variant:
Select 9+x kingdom cards, where x is the number of players. In reverse player order, each player chooses one pile that becomes exclusively theirs to use.
Probably works better for fewer players. The danger is when there is just one key card, which may create a first player disadvantage for being last to pick. But this variant could be very interesting for hand-designed kingdoms.
If I were to try to "fix" this problem in a Dominion variant, one thing to try would be to give each players their own supply piles to buy from. That way, both players can get 10 Minions if they really want to. Obviously this has some big downsides, like removing end-game tactics related to opportunistic 3-piling and split-winning tactics. It still might be more fun overall for some players.There is already not that much interaction in Dominion, especially in 1 vs 1. With your change it would become a glorified solitaire.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of ideal examples of lotteries in Dominion. Treasure Map and Tunnel are both kinda close, although in both cases, if you play a good strategy including either of these cards, you're more likely to succeed than to not, so it comes out more like an anti-lottery at high levels of play. Venture is a better example: usually hits a Copper (not bad, but basically a $5 Silver), but occasionally something better (yay, a Gold-or-more for $5).I'd consider Tournament to be a classic example on some boards.
There is already not that much interaction in Dominion, especially in 1 vs 1. With your change it would become a glorified solitaire.
Minion is similar to Swindler in how there are both plenty of reasons to love and to hate it, but it has a little bit more going for it. Well, for one it can't turn Followers into a curse, but it also combos with a lot of other cards, which tends to be pretty interesting. Something that does bother me though, is how a deck with 5 Minion's isn't actually that good, and I'd often rather do something else, but you have to go for Minions to prevent your opponent from getting all 10. So, you both take half of a thing that works best as a whole, and in the end noone is truly happy....except me.
Disagree! If there is no attack cards on the kingdom, or if they are weak / don't work well with the rest of the board, there will be almost no interaction beyond deciding when to start buying provinces - and even that will be more limited, given the elimination of 3-piling.There is already not that much interaction in Dominion, especially in 1 vs 1. With your change it would become a glorified solitaire.
There is a lot of interaction in Dominion. Especially in 1 vs 1.
Disagree! If there is no attack cards on the kingdom, or if they are weak / don't work well with the rest of the board, there will be almost no interaction beyond deciding when to start buying provinces - and even that will be more limited, given the elimination of 3-piling.There is already not that much interaction in Dominion, especially in 1 vs 1. With your change it would become a glorified solitaire.
There is a lot of interaction in Dominion. Especially in 1 vs 1.
Granted, the timing of provinces buys is a very interesting decision - but it's certainly not what I'd consider "lot of interaction".
Disagree! If there is no attack cards on the kingdom, or if they are weak / don't work well with the rest of the board, there will be almost no interaction beyond deciding when to start buying provinces - and even that will be more limited, given the elimination of 3-piling.There is already not that much interaction in Dominion, especially in 1 vs 1. With your change it would become a glorified solitaire.
There is a lot of interaction in Dominion. Especially in 1 vs 1.
Granted, the timing of provinces buys is a very interesting decision - but it's certainly not what I'd consider "lot of interaction".
[...] And good players will often adjust their strategy to their opponent's.What about the rest of us?
I'm not sure it's right to say that you usually adapt your play to your opponent. sure, you sometimes do it, but often you just play the best strategy, regardless of what your opponent does
the most amount of interaction is probably in the late stages, you often have to react when your opponent starts to green. so, if that counts, i guess you have interaction in the majority of games.
What are the reasons one would like Minion? Definitely my last favorite card.It's strong, it's action packed, it's pretty high skill, and it combos with a million different cards. I think playing a strong minion deck can be pretty fun, especially if you have good support. if you just have 5 minions, then there's the split problem, and it doesn't really work that well.
I'm not sure it's right to say that you usually adapt your play to your opponent. sure, you sometimes do it, but often you just play the best strategy, regardless of what your opponent does
the most amount of interaction is probably in the late stages, you often have to react when your opponent starts to green. so, if that counts, i guess you have interaction in the majority of games.
uh oh... time for an article againI usually feel like this aspect is overstated/overrated, because it sounds so good. Hey, you have to adapt your play to your opponent. what a skilled thing to say. it's just that you... often don't? I feel similar things when people say stuff like, you almost always have to play an engine. that also sounds good, because playing engines is the skilled thing to do, but it's just not true.
Quoteuh oh... time for an article againI usually feel like this aspect is overstated/overrated, because it sounds so good. Hey, you have to adapt your play to your opponent. what a skilled thing to say. it's just that you... often don't? I feel similar things when people say stuff like, you almost always have to play an engine. that also sounds good, because playing engines is the skilled thing to do, but it's just not true.
but maybe I'm wrong. an article about this would be cool. your article about black market was great.
I think the biggest adaptation thing is how long you want the game to go. Say you are playing an engine, against a rebuild rush, you can't play for the long game, because rebuild has no problem ending the game on you, whereas against almost any money based strategy, you want to prolong the game as much as possible because they'll stall and you can catch up. Recognizing when different decks peak, how they peak and if they are able to end the game is pretty important I think. That's why engines are good, they have the most control over ending the game.Quoteuh oh... time for an article againI usually feel like this aspect is overstated/overrated, because it sounds so good. Hey, you have to adapt your play to your opponent. what a skilled thing to say. it's just that you... often don't? I feel similar things when people say stuff like, you almost always have to play an engine. that also sounds good, because playing engines is the skilled thing to do, but it's just not true.
but maybe I'm wrong. an article about this would be cool. your article about black market was great.
Quoteuh oh... time for an article againI usually feel like this aspect is overstated/overrated, because it sounds so good. Hey, you have to adapt your play to your opponent. what a skilled thing to say. it's just that you... often don't? I feel similar things when people say stuff like, you almost always have to play an engine. that also sounds good, because playing engines is the skilled thing to do, but it's just not true.
but maybe I'm wrong. an article about this would be cool. your article about black market was great.
180. Minion
Minion is similar to Swindler in how there are both plenty of reasons to love and to hate it, but it has a little bit more going for it. Well, for one it can't turn Followers into a curse, but it also combos with a lot of other cards, which tends to be pretty interesting. Something that does bother me though, is how a deck with 5 Minion's isn't actually that good, and I'd often rather do something else, but you have to go for Minions to prevent your opponent from getting all 10. So, you both take half of a thing that works best as a hole, and in the end noone is truly happy.
184. Feast
Don't get me wrong, Feast doesn't add very much to the game. But it doesn't bother me either. If you don't want a second silver, you can open silver/feast instead, and then you get the fuzz, and the things, and the probabilities, and the 5$'s, but you don't keep the silver. That, and the interaction with KC/Procession can be pretty cute.
178. Chancellor
Hey, it's a terminal silver that discards your deck. It's good if you........................................ don't have anything else to buy? Actually, that's exactly when it's good. The problem with Chancellor is not that the effect is useless, it's that every other terminal silver is so much stronger.
175. Alchemist
Alchemist is the last potion card that costs P3$ (they're all pretty far down for some reason), so this is the last time I have to complain about the price. Aside from that though, Alchemist is a cool card. It's pretty neat how it's just a lab with a conditional topdecking ability, but it really gets an entirely new strategic value. Another minor complaint is how it takes ages to topdeck just some of your alchemists when playing online, though that's of course not a design flaw, it's a goko flaw.
Chancellor is actually among my favorites. Why? Because it is the only card in the main set that most makes you go "hun? why does this exist".
I do not understand this obsession with 3P. Alchemist and Familiar are strong enough that they are rarely skippable even at 3P. Sure, it is possible for multiple players to go Potion/Silver and one to get an edge by the other missing 3P on the next shuffle. It is also possible to miss 5 when both players open Silver/Silver. Do you complain that Laboratory and Witch cost 5? Indeed, that is even more of an "unfair" price as you can open 5/2 and possibly can a TWO shuffle edge with Witch over Silver\Silver. The generally accepted rule of thumb is that potion converts to 2-2.5 coins. At 4-4.5, Alchemist and Familiar would be even more unskippable than they already are. I'd rather the game not force all (good) players down the same path.
Chancellor is actually among my favorites. Why? Because it is the only card in the main set that most makes you go "hun? why does this exist".
The only one? Chapel, Moneylender, and Feast (as you mentioned in the next paragraph) all spring immediately to mind).
I am glad Minions finally made the list - it is easily my least favorite card in the game. First, it is very swingy - the attack can range anywhere from devastating to quite helpful. Second, as stated, a few Minions is not very strong. Yet, if the opponent goes for it you are pretty much forced to do so as well, as getting them all is extremely strong. So most games turn into mirrors with the winner often decided by who has better luck hitting good hands with the attacks and stacking Minions in one hand (as just 1 in a hand is weak). Third, and most importantly, it is painful to me to see my good hands discarded and have zero control over it. Then when I get a bad hand and actually want it discarded, inevitably the opponent has no Minions for once.I agree with all these bad things about the Minion attack and the need to counter-buy if the opponent goes for it. What's sad is that I love everything else about the card. It's a unique drawing effect that's not always good, but in the right kingdom with the right play, can be as good as +4 cards non-terminal. And the money option gives it a nice self-synergy and makes it okay when you draw several at once. You have to work to get the most out of it, and I love cards like that. If the attack wasn't so damn swingy, it would be among my favorite cards, no question. I'd love it if it just said to discard down to 4 or even 3 (victim chooses what to keep). It would even be pretty good if the attack were simply removed. Cards like Minion make me wish it were feasible to fork the online game and make retroactive changes, but I doubt DXV, RGG or MF have any desire or reason to do something like that.
Possible buff for Dominion 2nd Ed Scout - make it a green card - so basically the scout exactly as is but green and worth 1VP.Heck make it 0VP like one of the Shelter, so that it combo somewhat with itself.
I tend to think the interaction thing is very important, and I don't usually buy the importance of other "high skill" behavior like deck tracking or always play engine. It's hard to measure any of this stuff. In 2p, the big thing is that you want to maximize your chances of ending the game with more points than your opponent, not try to maximize your points per turn or (minimize) turns to 4-5 Provinces or whatever. This automatically links your choices to what your opponent is doing, and it's usually correct to sacrifice some speed in favor of consistency if you have the lead. Lowering your odds of getting points quickly while increasing your chance of winning. Which I'm sure you're doing anyway since you're a good player. I think the percentages you can squeeze out of "interactive" thinking varies a lot depending on the kingdom/game, but it can be significant.
2p player Dominion is a game of chicken, not a race, except when it's a race.
Third, and most importantly, it is painful to me to see my good hands discarded and have zero control over it. Then when I get a bad hand and actually want it discarded, inevitably the opponent has no Minions for once.Oh yea, I didn't even mention that. But, that's why everyone hates minions. Swindler kills good cards, minion kills good hands.
Chancellor is actually among my favorites. Why? Because it is the only card in the main set that most makes you go "hun? why does this exist". If this motivates you to look into it (like it did me), it teaches you there is a lot of depth to the game.
I do not understand this obsession with 3P. Alchemist and Familiar are strong enough that they are rarely skippable even at 3P. Sure, it is possible for multiple players to go Potion/Silver and one to get an edge by the other missing 3P on the next shuffle. It is also possible to miss 5 when both players open Silver/Silver. Do you complain that Laboratory and Witch cost 5? Indeed, that is even more of an "unfair" price as you can open 5/2 and possibly can a TWO shuffle edge with Witch over Silver\Silver. The generally accepted rule of thumb is that potion converts to 2-2.5 coins. At 4-4.5, Alchemist and Familiar would be even more unskippable than they already are. I'd rather the game not force all (good) players down the same path.man, it's different. there are reasons why these cards cost 5$. you need to build a deck that hits 5$ early/a lot in order to buy them, and they need to cost 5$ so you can't open with them. And balance is not for powerlevel anyway, it's for fun level.
Possible buff for Dominion 2nd Ed Scout - make it a green card - so basically the scout exactly as is but green and worth 1VP.Heck make it 0VP like one of the Shelter, so that it combo somewhat with itself.
| (http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/seaside/smugglers.jpg) | 173. Smugglers It's hard for me to explain why I don't like smugglers that much. Objectively, the only thing I could really say is that it's swingy. I think what bothers me is the possession/masquerade-like aspect of it. I build an engine, my opponent is using it. I have good cards in hand, I have to pass them to my opponent. I buy a great card, my opponent smuggles it. Yea, that makes sense. Sometimes I just refuse to buy anything, if I know my opponent has smugglers in his hand. And then he gets nothing >:( |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/cornucopia/fortuneteller.jpg) | 172. Fortune Teller I think I've already addressed this card when talking about Spy, and I don't have much more to add. Lately, I feel like it either helps your opponent/does almost nothing, or it skips over his opening buy, which is huge. Sometimes I feel silly for opening with it, because I just discard some coppers, but then there are the games where I pretty much win with it on turn 3. The most interesting interactions with FT are cards that make your opponent draw. Minion+FT can reduce your opponent to an Outpost-hand, and CR/FT reduces the +1 card bonus to mostly nothing. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/prosperity/mountebank.jpg) | 171. Mountebank There is no agreement in this community about what is the strongest card in dominion, but Mountebank could be the one. If you asked me right now, I'd put him at #2. He is very, very strong. So strong that, unlike every other junker in the game, the presence of strong trashing is almost never a reason to skip him. And that aspect is even enhanced by the fact that trashing the curses stops the his penalty from triggering. That pretty much leaves us with two kinds of games. The first one is one where you just don't care about the junk, and then you don't buy him, and that's that. And the second, more common one, where both players go for it. This decision is mostly trivial, so you're left with playing a Mountebank slog. And well, that's not the worst kind of game, but I think Mount suffers slightly from his ridiculous powerlevel. Weaker Junkers also cause slogs sometimes, but they also tend to bring more variety to the game. And, of course, the penalty makes him extra swingy. I like the vanilla bonus over the traditional +cards though. Getting money is generally more satisfying in a slog, and you can't draw a second mount dead. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/prosperity/venture.jpg) | 170. Venture Venture is a peddler variant, and not a very exciting one. I mean, it's different, and I guess it's interesting to think about how exactly it is different, but the conclusion is kind of that it's just a more boring version. I'm sure most players try the deck with 8 ventures and no other treasures at some point, and then they realize that it's too slow. But, at least there's nothing to hate here. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/promo/stash.jpg) | 169. Stash Stash/Scavenger is one of the strongest two-card combos in the game, but aside from that, Stash is guilty of not doing a lot, similar to Royal Seal. It's just a minor bonus added to a silver, which is almost never enough to buy it over gold. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/hinterlands/foolsgold.jpg) | 168. Fool's Gold ---------- silverspawn: turn 1 ---------- silverspawn - plays 4 Copper silverspawn - buys Fool's Gold silverspawn - gains Fool's Gold silverspawn - draws Copper, Estate, Copper, Estate, Copper ---------- HvBoedefeld: turn 1 ---------- HvBoedefeld - plays 4 Copper HvBoedefeld - buys Fool's Gold HvBoedefeld - gains Fool's Gold HvBoedefeld - draws Estate, Copper, Estate, Copper, Copper ---------- silverspawn: turn 2 ---------- silverspawn - plays 3 Copper silverspawn - buys Fool's Gold silverspawn - gains Fool's Gold silverspawn - shuffles deck silverspawn - draws Copper, Copper, Copper, Estate, Copper ---------- HvBoedefeld: turn 2 ---------- HvBoedefeld - plays 3 Copper HvBoedefeld - buys Fool's Gold HvBoedefeld - gains Fool's Gold HvBoedefeld - shuffles deck HvBoedefeld - draws Copper, Fool's Gold, Copper, Copper, Copper ---------- silverspawn: turn 3 ---------- silverspawn - plays 4 Copper silverspawn - buys Fool's Gold silverspawn - gains Fool's Gold silverspawn - draws Copper, Copper, Fool's Gold, Estate, Fool's Gold ---------- HvBoedefeld: turn 3 ---------- HvBoedefeld - plays 4 Copper, 1 Fool's Gold HvBoedefeld - buys Fool's Gold HvBoedefeld - gains Fool's Gold HvBoedefeld - draws Fool's Gold, Estate, Estate, Copper, Estate ---------- silverspawn: turn 4 ---------- silverspawn - plays 2 Copper, 2 Fool's Gold silverspawn - buys Fool's Gold silverspawn - gains Fool's Gold silverspawn - draws Estate, Copper silverspawn - shuffles deck silverspawn - draws Copper, Estate, Copper ---------- HvBoedefeld: turn 4 ---------- HvBoedefeld - plays 1 Fool's Gold, 1 Copper HvBoedefeld - buys Fool's Gold HvBoedefeld - gains Fool's Gold HvBoedefeld - draws Copper, Copper HvBoedefeld - shuffles deck HvBoedefeld - draws Estate, Copper, Copper ---------- silverspawn: turn 5 ---------- silverspawn - plays 3 Copper silverspawn - buys Fool's Gold silverspawn - gains Fool's Gold silverspawn - draws Fool's Gold, Fool's Gold, Fool's Gold, Copper, Copper ---------- HvBoedefeld: turn 5 ---------- HvBoedefeld - plays 4 Copper HvBoedefeld - buys Fool's Gold HvBoedefeld - gains Fool's Gold HvBoedefeld - draws Copper, Copper, Fool's Gold, Fool's Gold, Estate (http://archive-dominionlogs.goko.com/20140506/log.509f94b5e4b0f0798a417ffa.1399405567211.txt) |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/darkages/deathcart.jpg) | 167. Death Cart Death cart can be neat as payload, but it's rarely doable. It's really fun if you just want to dig for the ruined market though. |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/intrigue/coppersmith.jpg) | 166. Coppersmith Coppersmith rewards you for getting a lot of Treasure cards into your hand, which is a good enough idea. But you also have to play a terminal, which makes it hard to use and largely skippable. Isn't there another card that does it better? |
(http://dominion.diehrstraits.com/scans/prosperity/traderoute.jpg) | 165. Trade Route The idea of a card that gets better later in the game is nice. If the original effect was a little bit more useful, it could be pretty high on this list. In some ways, city is a better take on this concept. |
Can you sum up that Fool's Gold log?
Also I think that the generally accepted rule of them is actually that costs form a partially-ordered set :PRight. But if you want to compare these costs anyway, Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to a price increase of $4 rather than $2-$2.5, at least in the cases of PS and Vineyard (which also worked at $7 resp. $4 according to the Secret Histories).
I do not understand this obsession with 3P. Alchemist and Familiar are strong enough that they are rarely skippable even at 3P. Sure, it is possible for multiple players to go Potion/Silver and one to get an edge by the other missing 3P on the next shuffle. It is also possible to miss 5 when both players open Silver/Silver. Do you complain that Laboratory and Witch cost 5? Indeed, that is even more of an "unfair" price as you can open 5/2 and possibly can a TWO shuffle edge with Witch over Silver\Silver. The generally accepted rule of thumb is that potion converts to 2-2.5 coins. At 4-4.5, Alchemist and Familiar would be even more unskippable than they already are. I'd rather the game not force all (good) players down the same path.
The probability of hitting 3P is about 65% on a S/P opening, compared to about 91% for hitting 5 on a S/S opening, so they're not really analogous.
man, it's different. there are reasons why these cards cost 5$. you need to build a deck that hits 5$ early/a lot in order to buy them, and they need to cost 5$ so you can't open with them. And balance is not for powerlevel anyway, it's for fun level.
Right. But if you want to compare these costs anyway, Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to a price increase of $4 rather than $2-$2.5, at least in the cases of PS and Vineyard (which also worked at $7 resp. $4 according to the Secret Histories).There is no amount of $ that P corresponds to. You can look at things in terms of how hard it is to get the cards on various turns, that's reasonable, but "Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to etc." is the bunk.
In terms of how fast you can get a card in the opening, $P is clearly harder than $4, while $2P and $3P are similar (but a little harder) than $5 - you usually get them on the second shuffle.
What boggles my mind is that someone could like IGG more than fool's goldIGG is fun.
Cards like Minion make me wish it were feasible to fork the online game and make retroactive changes, but I doubt DXV, RGG or MF have any desire or reason to do something like that.If the online version were different, there would be people enraged at having broken real-life versions. If we put out a fixed real-life version, there would be people enraged that they bought the old broken version. And we can't send them replacement cards.
People are just full of rage, waiting to spill out at game designers, that's how I see it.
I am always on the cusp of printing updated versions of a few cards and using them in my real-life set. Maybe giving them new names and/or art to try to avoid confusion. Really there are only a few cards that I feel need it. Scout and maybe Thief could have +$1. Scrying Pool drops the spy attack. Maybe replace Rebuild with the old version that remodeled one of the top 3 cards of your deck.
People are just full of rage, waiting to spill out at game designers, that's how I see it.
People are just full of rage, waiting to spill out at game designers, that's how I see it.
Do you really feel that way? I remember you saying earlier in the thread that you were a happy guy about what you did.
I mean, every semester I have students that complain about the tests being too hard, too different from the practice exercises, etc, and many times in a bad manner, and especially when writing anonymous evaluations online. But I would never say that students are full of rage waiting to spill out at the people who evaluate them.
When you have a (relatively) large audience, you are bound to have criticism, and you are bound to have heavy critics. It is too easy to just take those as representative because they work to be noticeable. You should divide by the total number of people evaluating (in privacy) your game(s).
I saw that change to rebuild, and I didn't even get it until I read that it was the previous card that would have been in the set if it weren't for Rebuild. But that's not a fix, it's a different card.
How about making transmute non-terminal, and making adventurer dig for 3 cards? I mean, you can't think that Adventurer is fine and thief isn't.
QuoteAlso I think that the generally accepted rule of them is actually that costs form a partially-ordered set :PRight. But if you want to compare these costs anyway, Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to a price increase of $4 rather than $2-$2.5, at least in the cases of PS and Vineyard (which also worked at $7 resp. $4 according to the Secret Histories).
In terms of how fast you can get a card in the opening, $P is clearly harder than $4, while $2P and $3P are similar (but a little harder) than $5 - you usually get them on the second shuffle.I do not understand this obsession with 3P. Alchemist and Familiar are strong enough that they are rarely skippable even at 3P. Sure, it is possible for multiple players to go Potion/Silver and one to get an edge by the other missing 3P on the next shuffle. It is also possible to miss 5 when both players open Silver/Silver. Do you complain that Laboratory and Witch cost 5? Indeed, that is even more of an "unfair" price as you can open 5/2 and possibly can a TWO shuffle edge with Witch over Silver\Silver. The generally accepted rule of thumb is that potion converts to 2-2.5 coins. At 4-4.5, Alchemist and Familiar would be even more unskippable than they already are. I'd rather the game not force all (good) players down the same path.
The probability of hitting 3P is about 65% on a S/P opening, compared to about 91% for hitting 5 on a S/S opening, so they're not really analogous.
For a fair comparison, you also have to consider the probability of (not) opening $5 in the latter case, since this also means that one player gains the $5 card a shuffle earlier due to pure shuffle luck. Instead of 91%, you'll get a percentage much closer to 65% for gaining a strong card one shuffle earlier.
Longtime Magic players either get used to buying new cards to replace old ones (if they want to play formats that require it), or ignore the new cards and play with what they have. Of course there's no guarantee Dominion players would do the same, but I don't think widespread rage is guaranteed either.Cards like Minion make me wish it were feasible to fork the online game and make retroactive changes, but I doubt DXV, RGG or MF have any desire or reason to do something like that.If the online version were different, there would be people enraged at having broken real-life versions. If we put out a fixed real-life version, there would be people enraged that they bought the old broken version. And we can't send them replacement cards.
People are just full of rage, waiting to spill out at game designers, that's how I see it.I think anonymous people on the internet will rage at just about anything. I guess maybe game designers happen to be convenient targets?
Do you really feel like I might feel like that? Man maybe you do. I had just said "enraged" a couple times, so I was being incredibly hilarious. In the future to avoid confusion I will mark such sentences by putting *H after them. *HPeople are just full of rage, waiting to spill out at game designers, that's how I see it.Do you really feel that way? I remember you saying earlier in the thread that you were a happy guy about what you did.
Right. But if you want to compare these costs anyway, Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to a price increase of $4 rather than $2-$2.5, at least in the cases of PS and Vineyard (which also worked at $7 resp. $4 according to the Secret Histories).There is no amount of $ that P corresponds to. You can look at things in terms of how hard it is to get the cards on various turns, that's reasonable, but "Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to etc." is the bunk.
In terms of how fast you can get a card in the opening, $P is clearly harder than $4, while $2P and $3P are similar (but a little harder) than $5 - you usually get them on the second shuffle.
QuoteI do not understand this obsession with 3P. Alchemist and Familiar are strong enough that they are rarely skippable even at 3P. Sure, it is possible for multiple players to go Potion/Silver and one to get an edge by the other missing 3P on the next shuffle. It is also possible to miss 5 when both players open Silver/Silver. Do you complain that Laboratory and Witch cost 5? Indeed, that is even more of an "unfair" price as you can open 5/2 and possibly can a TWO shuffle edge with Witch over Silver\Silver. The generally accepted rule of thumb is that potion converts to 2-2.5 coins. At 4-4.5, Alchemist and Familiar would be even more unskippable than they already are. I'd rather the game not force all (good) players down the same path.man, it's different. there are reasons why these cards cost 5$. you need to build a deck that hits 5$ early/a lot in order to buy them, and they need to cost 5$ so you can't open with them. And balance is not for powerlevel anyway, it's for fun level.
let's say Alchemist, Familiar, and Stone cost 2$P now. Does this make them considerably stronger? No. It makes them a little bit stronger, but not much, usually when Familiar is good, you just take the risk anyway. Does it change the way you build your deck in any way? Hell no. You just open potion/x anyway. and later, you usually expect to draw potion with 3$ regardless. Does it cause less frustration, because you almost always draw 2$ with your potion, but often not 3$? Yes. So, what's to talk about here?
And if you want to look at powerlevel, Scrying Pool and Apothecary cost 2P$. How does that make sense. If anything, scrying pool should cost 3P$ and Alchemist/Stone 2P$. You see, there is no excuse for the stupid extra coin on these cards.
Right. But if you want to compare these costs anyway, Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to a price increase of $4 rather than $2-$2.5, at least in the cases of PS and Vineyard (which also worked at $7 resp. $4 according to the Secret Histories).There is no amount of $ that P corresponds to. You can look at things in terms of how hard it is to get the cards on various turns, that's reasonable, but "Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to etc." is the bunk.
In terms of how fast you can get a card in the opening, $P is clearly harder than $4, while $2P and $3P are similar (but a little harder) than $5 - you usually get them on the second shuffle.
That's not really true. There isn't an exact amount, but that doesn't mean we can't say anything about what a potion is worth. In all situations where you have X+Potion, you could have had X+Silver. Thus, the minimum value of a Potion is 2. Alchemist is also strictly better than Laboratory, again implying a minimum value of two. We can't fix an exact upper bound, but its value is clearly not infinite. If things are even remotely fairly priced, Potion shouldn't be worth more than it costs, so that puts the reasonable max at 4.
Potion costs a bit more than Silver. Additionally, you can't get one potion from 2 copper (or even 1 gold), so should be more valuable than 1 Silver. However, Potion costs less than 1 Gold. If Potion cards are fairly priced (and I believe they are), then 2.5 (>2 and <3) is a reasonable approximation.
Dollars are more flexible than Potions. With $2+$4, you can get anything from $0 to $6, but with $2P, you can't buy a Familiar, and you can't buy anything else either. Therefore, Potion is worse than a Treasure card that gives you dollars equal to Potion's "value in dollars", and it's reasonable to assume that it's also cheaper. It's not objectively unreasonable to say that its "value in dollars" should be more than 4.Right. But if you want to compare these costs anyway, Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to a price increase of $4 rather than $2-$2.5, at least in the cases of PS and Vineyard (which also worked at $7 resp. $4 according to the Secret Histories).There is no amount of $ that P corresponds to. You can look at things in terms of how hard it is to get the cards on various turns, that's reasonable, but "Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to etc." is the bunk.
In terms of how fast you can get a card in the opening, $P is clearly harder than $4, while $2P and $3P are similar (but a little harder) than $5 - you usually get them on the second shuffle.
That's not really true. There isn't an exact amount, but that doesn't mean we can't say anything about what a potion is worth. In all situations where you have X+Potion, you could have had X+Silver. Thus, the minimum value of a Potion is 2. Alchemist is also strictly better than Laboratory, again implying a minimum value of two. We can't fix an exact upper bound, but its value is clearly not infinite. If things are even remotely fairly priced, Potion shouldn't be worth more than it costs, so that puts the reasonable max at 4.
Next time I try to Expand an Alchemist into a Province I will let the computer know it should work because Alchemist is "strictly better" than Lab.Next time you try to Apprentice an Alchemist into +5 cards, it actually works!
Next time I try to Expand an Alchemist into a Province I will let the computer know it should work because Alchemist is "strictly better" than Lab.Next time you try to Apprentice an Alchemist into +5 cards, it actually works!
It should be 5.5 cards! Damn unbalanced game.Next time I try to Expand an Alchemist into a Province I will let the computer know it should work because Alchemist is "strictly better" than Lab.Next time you try to Apprentice an Alchemist into +5 cards, it actually works!
Right. But if you want to compare these costs anyway, Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to a price increase of $4 rather than $2-$2.5, at least in the cases of PS and Vineyard (which also worked at $7 resp. $4 according to the Secret Histories).There is no amount of $ that P corresponds to. You can look at things in terms of how hard it is to get the cards on various turns, that's reasonable, but "Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to etc." is the bunk.
In terms of how fast you can get a card in the opening, $P is clearly harder than $4, while $2P and $3P are similar (but a little harder) than $5 - you usually get them on the second shuffle.
That's not really true. There isn't an exact amount, but that doesn't mean we can't say anything about what a potion is worth. In all situations where you have X+Potion, you could have had X+Silver. Thus, the minimum value of a Potion is 2. Alchemist is also strictly better than Laboratory, again implying a minimum value of two. We can't fix an exact upper bound, but its value is clearly not infinite. If things are even remotely fairly priced, Potion shouldn't be worth more than it costs, so that puts the reasonable max at 4.
Potion costs a bit more than Silver. Additionally, you can't get one potion from 2 copper (or even 1 gold), so should be more valuable than 1 Silver. However, Potion costs less than 1 Gold. If Potion cards are fairly priced (and I believe they are), then 2.5 (>2 and <3) is a reasonable approximation.
We can also express the value of Potion in terms of Scouts. After careful evaluation, Potion is worth about 1 Scout. Where you have X+Potion, you could have had X+Scout. And of course they both cost $4, so they are basically equivalent. Therefore Familiar costs approximately $3+Scout. We also know that Scout is quite weak and worth very little, so we can conclude that the cost of Familiar is about $3.
In all seriousness though, I think you missed Donald's point. Trying to translate Potion cost into coin cost doesn't work because Potions are a different kind of gate on getting those cards.
...
Do you really feel like I might feel like that? Man maybe you do. I had just said "enraged" a couple times, so I was being incredibly hilarious. In the future to avoid confusion I will mark such sentences by putting *H after them. *H
What I said was really true. What you said is all nonsense, except the part where you quoted me.There is no amount of $ that P corresponds to. You can look at things in terms of how hard it is to get the cards on various turns, that's reasonable, but "Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to etc." is the bunk.
That's not really true. There isn't an exact amount, but that doesn't mean we can't say anything about what a potion is worth. In all situations where you have X+Potion, you could have had X+Silver. Thus, the minimum value of a Potion is 2. Alchemist is also strictly better than Laboratory, again implying a minimum value of two. We can't fix an exact upper bound, but its value is clearly not infinite. If things are even remotely fairly priced, Potion shouldn't be worth more than it costs, so that puts the reasonable max at 4.
Potion costs a bit more than Silver. Additionally, you can't get one potion from 2 copper (or even 1 gold), so should be more valuable than 1 Silver. However, Potion costs less than 1 Gold. If Potion cards are fairly priced (and I believe they are), then 2.5 (>2 and <3) is a reasonable approximation.
...
You are way off in your assessment of Potion cost cards. By no means is Familiar in the top two, and by no means is Scrying Pool crappy without trashing. The top 3 Potion costs is SP, Apothecary and Vineyards. Vineyards is hard to compare, but I am absolutely sure SP and Apothecary are better than Familiar and skippable way less often.
Regarding comparing Potion with $ in cost, it cannot be done because you can get $ from a number of sources, while P can only come from a Potion card. Moreover, your deck starts with $7 and no Potion, so you can buy KC without buying any card producing money, but you cannot buy a Potion-cost card without buying a Potion (and you can only gain one through a small number of tricks like Squire or Jester). That alone is reason enough not to equalize $P with $X for any X. I do agree that $P > $2 for pricing things, though, but that is as far as I am willing to go.
Right. But if you want to compare these costs anyway, Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to a price increase of $4 rather than $2-$2.5, at least in the cases of PS and Vineyard (which also worked at $7 resp. $4 according to the Secret Histories).There is no amount of $ that P corresponds to. You can look at things in terms of how hard it is to get the cards on various turns, that's reasonable, but "Donald's playtesting suggested that a potion should correspond to etc." is the bunk.
In terms of how fast you can get a card in the opening, $P is clearly harder than $4, while $2P and $3P are similar (but a little harder) than $5 - you usually get them on the second shuffle.
According to the community ranks (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11893.0), Familiar is #2 relative to cost (after being #1 for years). Number one is Scrying Pool. I wasn't trying to say it was crappy without trashing, just that it's value varies greatly, making it harder to fix a value. If the argument is that SP should cost 3P, I could buy that. I cannot buy into Familiar should cost 2P though, which was the actual argument made.
If the argument is that SP should cost 3P, I could buy that. I cannot buy into Familiar should cost 2P though, which was the actual argument made.
Why would you want SP to cost $3P? That would be so much more swingy. The problem of missing $3P isn't just limited to the first reshuffle - every time you draw your Potion in hand, you have a chance of missing $3P if your deck infrastructure isn't well-built, and if that happens to one player but not the other, then the player who misses $3P begins to fall behind on subsequent shuffles.
For example, if my opponent misses $3P on an Alchemist board but I don't, he's not simply down 1 Alchemist. His deck cycling will be slower than mine, he's less likely to draw Potion with Alchemist for the top-decking effect, and he's less likely to hit $3P again.
If equal access was the only concern, every card would cost 3.
If equal access was the only concern, every card would cost 3.
No, it wouldn't. This is an unfair misrepresentation of my point. King's Court costs $7 and it's usually a must-buy. Goons costs $6 and it's usually a must-buy. These cards are expensive, but they encourage the player to build his deck such that he can consistently hit these values. This is not the case with cards with Potion in the cost, because the only way to consistently draw more than $2P is to trash out cards that don't produce $ or draw the entire deck.
Balancing Potion-cost cards "in terms of cost" is bogus, anyway, for reasons already stated by numerous users. Why shouldn't Familiar cost $2P? If every Potion-cost card cost $1 less (barring the ones that already cost $0P), no one would complain about Familiar costing $2P, because it would still be more expensive than Apothecary, SP, and University.
If equal access was the only concern, every card would cost 3.
No, it wouldn't. This is an unfair misrepresentation of my point. King's Court costs $7 and it's usually a must-buy. Goons costs $6 and it's usually a must-buy. These cards are expensive, but they encourage the player to build his deck such that he can consistently hit these values. This is not the case with cards with Potion in the cost, because the only way to consistently draw more than $2P is to trash out cards that don't produce $ or draw the entire deck.
Balancing Potion-cost cards "in terms of cost" is bogus, anyway, for reasons already stated by numerous users. Why shouldn't Familiar cost $2P? If every Potion-cost card cost $1 less (barring the ones that already cost $0P), no one would complain about Familiar costing $2P, because it would still be more expensive than Apothecary, SP, and University.
No, you have totally misrepresented (or misunderstood) my point. To me, if Familiar is unskippable at 2P 95% of the time and at 3P just 80% of the time, then 3P is the better price. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether another card costs less. There is a HUGE difference between "usually a must buy" and "always a must buy". If a card is a must buy essentially 100% of the time, there is no strategic choice to make, and to me that makes the game less fun. I am perfectly wiling to accept that sometimes someone will get a large edge from early luck in exchange for interesting opening decisions more often.
The possibility of 5/2 openings sometimes creates a huge edge for one player, if the openings are different (not always for the 5/2 guy, of course). 3P cost cards can sometimes create a huge edge for one player. Both are OK in my book. A 4 cost Witch wouldn't be much fun though, as it would be a no-brainer opener nearly 100%. Likewise, a 2P Familiar would make Potion/x a no-brainer opener nearly 100%. If 3P is a bad price (and I don't agree it is), 4P would be preferable to 2P in my opinion. (Also there is very little difference between 1P and 2P; making all Potion cards cost 1 less would greatly distort power levels from where they are now.)
I just played a Familiar game where I got $2P three times in a row. So, yah, it should cost $2P.
I just played a Familiar game where I got $2P three times in a row. So, yah, it should cost $2P.
I don't believe the chance of missing $3P is usually a factor when skipping Familiar.It's hard to know optimal play, but I take it into consideration. From memory, the chance of missing $3P on T3/T4 is something like 30%. If I see a strategy that's way ahead if my opponent misses $3P and a little behind if they don't, then it's a decent choice to skip Familiar, and it wouldn't be if Familiar cost $2P. This comes up if you're trying to outrace the curses with trashing. If the Familiar player gets optimum draws, you may be swamped with curses before you can get your deck under control.
I don't believe the chance of missing $3P is usually a factor when skipping Familiar.It's hard to know optimal play, but I take it into consideration. From memory, the chance of missing $3P on T3/T4 is something like 30%. If I see a strategy that's way ahead if my opponent misses $3P and a little behind if they don't, then it's a decent choice to skip Familiar, and it wouldn't be if Familiar cost $2P. This comes up if you're trying to outrace the curses with trashing. If the Familiar player gets optimum draws, you may be swamped with curses before you can get your deck under control.
To me, if Familiar is unskippable at 2P 95% of the time and at 3P just 80% of the time, then 3P is the better price.That is a good reason, if it's true. I don't think it is, I think it's very rare that it makes a difference, but I can't prove it.
Silver is possibly the least skippable card in the gameWhat?
Silver is possibly the least skippable card in the gameWhat?
QuoteTo me, if Familiar is unskippable at 2P 95% of the time and at 3P just 80% of the time, then 3P is the better price.That is a good reason, if it's true. I don't think it is, I think it's very rare that it makes a difference, but I can't prove it.