Dominion Strategy Forum
Archive => Archive => Dominion: Adventures Previews => Topic started by: Psyduck on April 05, 2015, 09:18:58 am
-
As the previews are finished, I think they have left most people excited and looking forward to actually playing with the new expansion. Like other expansions have done before, Adventures will introduce a couple of new game mechanics. In fact, I believe no expansion before has had such a huge impact on gameplay as Adventures will have.
Let's have a look at the new mechanics:
- Exchangeable cards: So there are two lines of related cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12879.0), where you can only buy the cheapest. After playing one, you may exchange it for the next better one, which is not in the supply. This concept of levelling up may be familiar from many computer and card games. What I like about it is that it adds variety. If you go for the cards in one line, you don't play one type of card again and again, but rather different cards belonging to the same line. You'll need to prepare your deck accordingly to get the most of the different cards at different times during the game. On the other hand, getting to the final cards, Champion and Teacher, will take some time, so the whole concept seems to be rather slow.
- Reserves: I love reserves! :) At least that's what I expect when actually playing with them. Setting cards aside for usage in the right moment (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12865.0) adds a whole level of complexity, both in a strategical and a tactical context. You may prepare to attacks your opponent may play, or prepare some kind of strong turn. When assessing what your deck and - even more difficult - your opponent's deck can do, you'll have to consider the possibilities the reserves offer. I guess there'll be even more reserve cards and I'm definitely looking forward to them. This is my favourite new mechanic by quite a margin. :)
- Duration attacks: Well, this isn't the most game-warping mechanic ever. I like to think of it as playing a Wharf that has a built-in Militia effect. So that's two existing things combined, nothing that makes my brain hurt. I like the actual cards (Swamp Hag (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12880.0), Haunted Woods (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12879.0)), though.
- Events: Just wow. We knew there would be something we could buy that isn't a card (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12894.0). But events change everything. It very much feels like using actions during the buy phase. The only thing we could do in the buy phase before was: buying cards (to be fair, some cards allowed some interesting stuff like gaining other cards, trashing cards, messing up the draw pile, or even dealing out curses). But events go much further. They let you do awesome things like adding an additional turn. I guess they will play an important role on many boards they are present. There are, however, two rules which lower the complexity: The number of events is limited, so you won't use all of them all of the time. And, even more important, events aren't cards. This means they don't conflict with any existing cards that refer to other cards.
- Card tokens: Prosperity introduced VP tokens, Guilds brought us Coin tokens, and Adventures contains a new type of tokens (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1290), which are placed on cards. And there are even 10 of them! They allow to modify the kingdom cards for certain players only. This adds individualization and customization to the game. I'm quite happy that we won't play with all of the tokens all the time. Just imagine a game with four players, where everyone has 10 tokens in play. It would be impossible to track the game state and quite hard to reach a good decision. While I really like the vanilla tokens (also the negative ones), I'm not yet convinced by the traveller token. I guess there will be several cards interacting with it, so proper appreciation may appear later on.
So, what do you think about the mechanics introduced by Adventures? Which one do you like or dislike in particular?
-
I'm quite happy that we won't play with all of the tokens all the time. Just imagine a game with four players, where everyone has 10 tokens in play.
We don't know this, though. With 10 Kingdom cards, plus 2 events, you could definitely be using every token type at once. Though I doubt it would often be a good strategy to go for all the token cards in the same game (because it's rarely a good strategy to get so many different cards anyway).
And of course you can play with more than 2 events at once as well.
-
We know eight of the ten tokens: the four + tokens, the two - tokens, the Estate token, and the Journey token. It sounds like of those eight, the Journey token will be the only one used by regular cards rather than Events. So rather than depending on the cards in the Supply, token availability will likely depend more on the available Events, requiring at least seven Events for all the tokens from how things currently work and quite possibly requiring as many as nine.
-
We know eight of the ten tokens: the four + tokens, the two - tokens, the Estate token, and the Journey token. It sounds like of those eight, the Journey token will be the only one used by regular cards rather than Events. So rather than depending on the cards in the Supply, token availability will likely depend more on the available Events, requiring at least seven Events for all the tokens from how things currently work and quite possibly requiring as many as nine.
I just don't see why you would assume that. We've only seen 14 out of 30 (I think) Kingdom cards. Plenty of room for cards to refer to tokens. At least, I think it's reasonable to think that tokens would be referred to by more than 1 thing. Or cards could refer to more than 1 token type. Not the Estate token I'd assume. Having another card refer to that one would be plain weird.
-
I'm a huge fan of the Exchangeable Cards. It's what I assumed Hermit/Urchin would be when Dark Ages was previewed, so I'm excited to see the idea of upgradable cards used in this set. I was hoping that each level would be a strictly better version of the previous one, but apparently they won't be (please correct me if I'm wrong). That'd be a cool mechanic for another deck builder, though.
-
I'm a huge fan of the Exchangeable Cards. It's what I assumed Hermit/Urchin would be when Dark Ages was previewed, so I'm excited to see the idea of upgradable cards used in this set. I was hoping that each level would be a strictly better version of the previous one, but apparently they won't be (please correct me if I'm wrong). That'd be a cool mechanic for another deck builder, though.
As far as I know, nothing has been specifically said about each version being (or not being) strictly better than the previous. But we do know that Hero is the 4th card in the line, so you'd need to find 3 other effects that are each strictly worse than "+$2, Gain a treasure". Seems quite unlikely. Possible, but probably redundant and boring.
-
As far as I know, nothing has been specifically said about each version being (or not being) strictly better than the previous. But we do know that Hero is the 4th card in the line, so you'd need to find 3 other effects that are each strictly worse than "+$2, Gain a treasure". Seems quite unlikely. Possible, but probably redundant and boring.
The lowest one could just be a cantrip or something. But Hero does seem pretty weak for a card that has to be upgraded from Page, Treasure Hunter, and Warrior.
-
As far as I know, nothing has been specifically said about each version being (or not being) strictly better than the previous. But we do know that Hero is the 4th card in the line, so you'd need to find 3 other effects that are each strictly worse than "+$2, Gain a treasure". Seems quite unlikely. Possible, but probably redundant and boring.
The lowest one could just be a cantrip or something. But Hero does seem pretty weak for a card that has to be upgraded from Page, Treasure Hunter, and Warrior.
Of course, each one may not be better than the previous. Warrior sounds like it should have a pretty strong attack. Maybe in some games you keep your Warriors as Warriors, and sometimes you exchange for a Hero just so you can get a Champion.
-
Even more so, perhaps they evolve with the game based on early-mid-late needs?
-
As far as I know, nothing has been specifically said about each version being (or not being) strictly better than the previous. But we do know that Hero is the 4th card in the line, so you'd need to find 3 other effects that are each strictly worse than "+$2, Gain a treasure". Seems quite unlikely. Possible, but probably redundant and boring.
The lowest one could just be a cantrip or something. But Hero does seem pretty weak for a card that has to be upgraded from Page, Treasure Hunter, and Warrior.
Donald said that they gradually get better.
Of course, each one may not be better than the previous. Warrior sounds like it should have a pretty strong attack. Maybe in some games you keep your Warriors as Warriors, and sometimes you exchange for a Hero just so you can get a Champion.
-
As far as I know, nothing has been specifically said about each version being (or not being) strictly better than the previous. But we do know that Hero is the 4th card in the line, so you'd need to find 3 other effects that are each strictly worse than "+$2, Gain a treasure". Seems quite unlikely. Possible, but probably redundant and boring.
The lowest one could just be a cantrip or something. But Hero does seem pretty weak for a card that has to be upgraded from Page, Treasure Hunter, and Warrior.
Of course, each one may not be better than the previous. Warrior sounds like it should have a pretty strong attack. Maybe in some games you keep your Warriors as Warriors, and sometimes you exchange for a Hero just so you can get a Champion.
Donald said that they gradually get better.
It's also been said that they weren't straight upgrades of each other. We don't know how different they are from each other though.
On tokens: more than one card/event might use the same token. We already sorta know that some other card than Giant will use the journey token, and someone mentioned using the -1 card token as some sort of attack.
-
So far I'm not a big fan of the new tokens. Inheritance in particular feels overly convoluted. The other token stuff looks alright but none of it seems exciting enough to me to warrant introducing a completely new mechanic. But I have no idea how any of this stuff is actually going to work in practice, so hopefully I'm completely wrong.
I really love the Reserves. They have a neat design and I imagine they'll really enhance the gameplay. Events look cool, and I think the exchangeable cards could be really sweet (though I imagine they'll be really hard to play).
Overall I'd say I like the new mechanics. This feels like the most game-breaking expansion so far, but I don't mean that in a bad way. I just expect it to be a while before the community really knows what they're doing with some of these cards. And I think that's a good thing.
-
There will be a reserve moat
-
There will be a reserve moat
"I play Torturer."
"Huzzah! My ReserveMoat protects me! I call it!"
"I play another Torturer."
"Shit."
-
There will be a reserve moat
"I play Torturer."
"Huzzah! My ReserveMoat protects me! I call it!"
"I play another Torturer."
"Shit."
But then you reveal nothing, you insufferable fool. You thought I'd say moat?
-
There will be a reserve moat
"I play Torturer."
"Huzzah! My ReserveMoat protects me! I call it!"
"I play another Torturer."
"Shit."
Yet another situation where you should just have avoided all of the heartache by having Watchtower in hand.
-
There will be a reserve moat
"I play Torturer."
"Huzzah! My ReserveMoat protects me! I call it!"
"I play another Torturer."
"S***."
Actually, ReserveMoat would be a cool card.
-
I think a Moat Reserve would be more like a Lighthouse Reserve protecting you when it is in play after you called it. The first version of Moat only protected you for one attack if I recall correctly, and obviously it was just much weaker and really made you cry if you were attacked multiple times just as werothegreat said. Just imagine playing that one time Moat Reserve on Goko: JUST STOP ASKING ME TO CALL THE RESERVE MOAT ON SPIES, OK, I CALL IT. DAMN, HIS MOUNTEBANK.
-
The thing about standard Reserves is that they get called on your own turn, when they can go into play as usual. A Reserve you could call on opponents' turns would probably have to be classified as an Action-Reserve-Duration or Action-Reserve-Reaction.
-
Reserves get called when they say they can. A Reserve that could be called on an opponent's turn wouldn't necessarily be any stranger than setting aside Horse Traders.
-
The thing about standard Reserves is that they get called on your own turn, when they can go into play as usual. A Reserve you could call on opponents' turns would probably have to be classified as an Action-Reserve-Duration or Action-Reserve-Reaction.
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
-
The thing about standard Reserves is that they get called on your own turn, when they can go into play as usual. A Reserve you could call on opponents' turns would probably have to be classified as an Action-Reserve-Duration or Action-Reserve-Reaction.
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Oh, I guess it is. So in this situation, you discard it from play during your opponent's cleanup phase?
-
Also, a Moat Reserve would only be called when an opponent played an Attack, so there would be some games where it just sit sadly on your Tavern mat, or not be bought at all. At least Moat can draw you cards.
-
Also, a Moat Reserve would only be called when an opponent played an Attack, so there would be some games where it just sit sadly on your Tavern mat, or not be bought at all. At least Moat can draw you cards.
It could be a Victory card.
-
Also, a Moat Reserve would only be called when an opponent played an Attack, so there would be some games where it just sit sadly on your Tavern mat, or not be bought at all. At least Moat can draw you cards.
It could be a Victory card.
But then how would it get onto your mat?
-
Also, a Moat Reserve would only be called when an opponent played an Attack, so there would be some games where it just sit sadly on your Tavern mat, or not be bought at all. At least Moat can draw you cards.
It could be a Victory card.
But then how would it get onto your mat?
In addition to being an Action card and a Reserve card.
-
Also, a Moat Reserve would only be called when an opponent played an Attack, so there would be some games where it just sit sadly on your Tavern mat, or not be bought at all. At least Moat can draw you cards.
It could be a Victory card.
But then how would it get onto your mat?
In addition to being an Action card and a Reserve card.
That's three kinds of timing, requiring two dividing lines. Not gonna happen.
-
Also, a Moat Reserve would only be called when an opponent played an Attack, so there would be some games where it just sit sadly on your Tavern mat, or not be bought at all. At least Moat can draw you cards.
It could be a Victory card.
But then how would it get onto your mat?
In addition to being an Action card and a Reserve card.
That's three kinds of timing, requiring two dividing lines. Not gonna happen.
Then it can be a Treasure instead of Action.
-
The thing about standard Reserves is that they get called on your own turn, when they can go into play as usual. A Reserve you could call on opponents' turns would probably have to be classified as an Action-Reserve-Duration or Action-Reserve-Reaction.
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Oh, I guess it is. So in this situation, you discard it from play during your opponent's cleanup phase?
Hmm, this is actually a good question. Never came up in my Duplicate games. I'm thinking that it will stay in play until the end of your own turn, because I think in general the cleanup phase only affects the player whose turn it currently is. I mean, obviously the other players don't discard their hand and draw 5 new cards, so why would they discard stuff from play?
-
Also, a Moat Reserve would only be called when an opponent played an Attack, so there would be some games where it just sit sadly on your Tavern mat, or not be bought at all. At least Moat can draw you cards.
It could be a Victory card.
But then how would it get onto your mat?
In addition to being an Action card and a Reserve card.
That's three kinds of timing, requiring two dividing lines. Not gonna happen.
Then it can be a Treasure instead of Action.
??? That's still three kinds of timing.
-
Also, a Moat Reserve would only be called when an opponent played an Attack, so there would be some games where it just sit sadly on your Tavern mat, or not be bought at all. At least Moat can draw you cards.
It could be a Victory card.
But then how would it get onto your mat?
In addition to being an Action card and a Reserve card.
That's three kinds of timing, requiring two dividing lines. Not gonna happen.
Then it can be a Treasure instead of Action.
??? That's still three kinds of timing.
Harem doesn't have a dividing line.
-
Also, a Moat Reserve would only be called when an opponent played an Attack, so there would be some games where it just sit sadly on your Tavern mat, or not be bought at all. At least Moat can draw you cards.
It could be a Victory card.
But then how would it get onto your mat?
In addition to being an Action card and a Reserve card.
That's three kinds of timing, requiring two dividing lines. Not gonna happen.
Then it can be a Treasure instead of Action.
??? That's still three kinds of timing.
Harem doesn't have a dividing line.
It's supposed to.
-
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Oh, I guess it is. So in this situation, you discard it from play during your opponent's cleanup phase?
Yes.
-
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Oh, I guess it is. So in this situation, you discard it from play during your opponent's cleanup phase?
Yes.
Is this a new rule that will be introduced in Adventures, or is it supposed to follow from the base rules? Because it seems to me that the base rules' description of the cleanup phase sound like only the current player performs any cleanup.
-
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Oh, I guess it is. So in this situation, you discard it from play during your opponent's cleanup phase?
Yes.
Is this a new rule that will be introduced in Adventures, or is it supposed to follow from the base rules? Because it seems to me that the base rules' description of the cleanup phase sound like only the current player performs any cleanup.
My guess is it follows from the generalization of the Duration rule—the card is being cleaned up on the last turn on which it does something. But that generalization hasn't per se been stated in a rule book yet.
-
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Oh, I guess it is. So in this situation, you discard it from play during your opponent's cleanup phase?
Yes.
Is this a new rule that will be introduced in Adventures, or is it supposed to follow from the base rules? Because it seems to me that the base rules' description of the cleanup phase sound like only the current player performs any cleanup.
My guess is it follows from the generalization of the Duration rule—the card is being cleaned up on the last turn on which it does something. But that generalization hasn't per se been stated in a rule book yet.
It has been stated in an online ruling, though. (See: multiple Outposts in one turn)
-
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Oh, I guess it is. So in this situation, you discard it from play during your opponent's cleanup phase?
Yes.
Is this a new rule that will be introduced in Adventures, or is it supposed to follow from the base rules? Because it seems to me that the base rules' description of the cleanup phase sound like only the current player performs any cleanup.
My guess is it follows from the generalization of the Duration rule—the card is being cleaned up on the last turn on which it does something. But that generalization hasn't per se been stated in a rule book yet.
It has been stated in an online ruling, though. (See: multiple Outposts in one turn)
But that rule has always only applied to Duration cards. The rule for all other cards has been simply that at the end of your turn, you clean up all cards you played that turn (See Possession, which does something next turn, but is cleaned up this turn).
-
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Oh, I guess it is. So in this situation, you discard it from play during your opponent's cleanup phase?
Yes.
Is this a new rule that will be introduced in Adventures, or is it supposed to follow from the base rules? Because it seems to me that the base rules' description of the cleanup phase sound like only the current player performs any cleanup.
My guess is it follows from the generalization of the Duration rule—the card is being cleaned up on the last turn on which it does something. But that generalization hasn't per se been stated in a rule book yet.
It has been stated in an online ruling, though. (See: multiple Outposts in one turn)
Man, don't quote Outpost rulings on the question of cleaning up a card on the last turn on which does something—Outpost is the exception to that rule, staying in play through a turn on which it doesn't do anything.
-
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Oh, I guess it is. So in this situation, you discard it from play during your opponent's cleanup phase?
Yes.
Is this a new rule that will be introduced in Adventures, or is it supposed to follow from the base rules? Because it seems to me that the base rules' description of the cleanup phase sound like only the current player performs any cleanup.
My guess is it follows from the generalization of the Duration rule—the card is being cleaned up on the last turn on which it does something. But that generalization hasn't per se been stated in a rule book yet.
It has been stated in an online ruling, though. (See: multiple Outposts in one turn)
But that rule has always only applied to Duration cards. The rule for all other cards has been simply that at the end of your turn, you clean up all cards you played that turn (See Possession, which does something next turn, but is cleaned up this turn).
I wouldn't be surprised if Possession is like this only because the rulebook says so. If it wasn't there I would think Donald would say it gets discarded at the end of the Possession turn.
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Oh, I guess it is. So in this situation, you discard it from play during your opponent's cleanup phase?
Yes.
Is this a new rule that will be introduced in Adventures, or is it supposed to follow from the base rules? Because it seems to me that the base rules' description of the cleanup phase sound like only the current player performs any cleanup.
My guess is it follows from the generalization of the Duration rule—the card is being cleaned up on the last turn on which it does something. But that generalization hasn't per se been stated in a rule book yet.
It has been stated in an online ruling, though. (See: multiple Outposts in one turn)
Man, don't quote Outpost rulings on the question of cleaning up a card on the last turn on which does something—Outpost is the exception to that rule, staying in play through a turn on which it doesn't do anything.
Outpost isn't done at the cleanup phase, so it's not an exception. Next turn it doesn't do anything, but the rule isn't if it's doing anything next turn, it's if it's doing anything still at cleanup.
-
Man, don't quote Outpost rulings on the question of cleaning up a card on the last turn on which does something—Outpost is the exception to that rule, staying in play through a turn on which it doesn't do anything.
Outpost isn't done at the cleanup phase, so it's not an exception. Next turn it doesn't do anything, but the rule isn't if it's doing anything next turn, it's if it's doing anything still at cleanup.
The rule in the rule book is that you discard Duration cards from play in "the Clean-up Phase of the last turn in which it does something".
-
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Oh, I guess it is. So in this situation, you discard it from play during your opponent's cleanup phase?
Yes.
Is this a new rule that will be introduced in Adventures, or is it supposed to follow from the base rules? Because it seems to me that the base rules' description of the cleanup phase sound like only the current player performs any cleanup.
It's in the FAQ for Duplicate. The intention was always that a card got discarded at the end of the last turn it did something, whether or not it was your turn. However discarding cards in other players' turns was intentionally dodged in Seaside. For Duplicate it was clear that it raised the question, and my feeling was, a typical player, Duplicating on someone else's turn, was not moving Duplicate into play, they were moving it straight to the discard pile. So I went with the ruling I already wanted.
-
Man, don't quote Outpost rulings on the question of cleaning up a card on the last turn on which does something—Outpost is the exception to that rule, staying in play through a turn on which it doesn't do anything.
Outpost isn't done at the cleanup phase, so it's not an exception. Next turn it doesn't do anything, but the rule isn't if it's doing anything next turn, it's if it's doing anything still at cleanup.
The rule in the rule book is that you discard Duration cards from play in "the Clean-up Phase of the last turn in which it does something".
Your Outposts that didn't give you the extra turn are still trying to give you an extra turn, so at clean-up they aren't done doing things. Then, at the end of your turn they try to give you an extra turn and fail. They get discarded at the end of the next cleanup (usually the other player's).
-
The thing about standard Reserves is that they get called on your own turn, when they can go into play as usual. A Reserve you could call on opponents' turns would probably have to be classified as an Action-Reserve-Duration or Action-Reserve-Reaction.
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Okay; I'll bit. Why isn't Duplicate an Action-Reserve-Reaction, then?
Also, I just realized that under circumstance that might not be so contrived you could have Duplicates in your Tavern that could be called and end up three-piling your opponent on his or her turn. Did that ever come up in play testing?
-
The thing about standard Reserves is that they get called on your own turn, when they can go into play as usual. A Reserve you could call on opponents' turns would probably have to be classified as an Action-Reserve-Duration or Action-Reserve-Reaction.
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Okay; I'll bit. Why isn't Duplicate an Action-Reserve-Reaction, then?
Because what defines Reactions isn't that they have effects on someone else's turn, but that they have effects when in your hand (or, in the case of Tunnel, when in your discard pile). Duplicate has an effect when it's on your Tavern mat, face-up for all the world to see.
-
The thing about standard Reserves is that they get called on your own turn, when they can go into play as usual. A Reserve you could call on opponents' turns would probably have to be classified as an Action-Reserve-Duration or Action-Reserve-Reaction.
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Okay; I'll bit. Why isn't Duplicate an Action-Reserve-Reaction, then?
Because what defines Reactions isn't that they have effects on someone else's turn, but that they have effects when in your hand (or, in the case of Tunnel, when in your discard pile). Duplicate has an effect when it's on your Tavern mat, face-up for all the world to see.
Now I'm imagining someone with two Bridge Trolls in play playing a Swindler, hitting my Peddler, being forced to give me a Province, and then I call four Duplicates and end the game.
-
The thing about standard Reserves is that they get called on your own turn, when they can go into play as usual. A Reserve you could call on opponents' turns would probably have to be classified as an Action-Reserve-Duration or Action-Reserve-Reaction.
Duplicate is a Reserve you can call on your opponent's turn.
Okay; I'll bit. Why isn't Duplicate an Action-Reserve-Reaction, then?
Because what defines Reactions isn't that they have effects on someone else's turn, but that they have effects when in your hand (or, in the case of Tunnel, when in your discard pile). Duplicate has an effect when it's on your Tavern mat, face-up for all the world to see.
So that's a quality answer...except for the Tunnel waffling bit. So if a reaction can be triggered by a card that is being placed into your discard pile, it is not clear to me why this disallows something going into play from your Tavern mat being a reaction. That said...it being a Reserve might basically cover the case, anyway. And, to date, there are no cards that allow you to react to reactions specifically...I think?...so maybe it's just a metaphysical question, and metaphysics doesn't really pay.
-
Okay; I'll bit. Why isn't Duplicate an Action-Reserve-Reaction, then?
I'm going to go with this:
A "Reserve" is a "Duration-Reaction" that stays out until you choose to use the "Reaction" part.
In theory...
-
So that's a quality answer...except for the Tunnel waffling bit. So if a reaction can be triggered by a card that is being placed into your discard pile, it is not clear to me why this disallows something going into play from your Tavern mat being a reaction. That said...it being a Reserve might basically cover the case, anyway. And, to date, there are no cards that allow you to react to reactions specifically...I think?...so maybe it's just a metaphysical question, and metaphysics doesn't really pay.
"Reaction" isn't "this has an ability that functions other than when played." Obv. Mint, Catacombs, etc. have such abilities and are not Reactions.
Instead the idea to "Reaction" is to use color to help remind you that a card is usable at an unusual time. When-gain and when-trashed already involve the card, so we don't need to draw attention to the card. But Moat is just a bystander to the attack; we can help you out by calling attention to it.
Tunnel being discarded involves Tunnel, but it seemed good to call attention to it anyway.
Reserve cards as a group function at unusual times and are a special color. They've got this covered.
-
So that's a quality answer...except for the Tunnel waffling bit. So if a reaction can be triggered by a card that is being placed into your discard pile, it is not clear to me why this disallows something going into play from your Tavern mat being a reaction. That said...it being a Reserve might basically cover the case, anyway. And, to date, there are no cards that allow you to react to reactions specifically...I think?...so maybe it's just a metaphysical question, and metaphysics doesn't really pay.
"Reaction" isn't "this has an ability that functions other than when played." Obv. Mint, Catacombs, etc. have such abilities and are not Reactions.
Instead the idea to "Reaction" is to use color to help remind you that a card is usable at an unusual time. When-gain and when-trashed already involve the card, so we don't need to draw attention to the card. But Moat is just a bystander to the attack; we can help you out by calling attention to it.
Tunnel being discarded involves Tunnel, but it seemed good to call attention to it anyway.
Reserve cards as a group function at unusual times and are a special color. They've got this covered.
Was there ever a thought to not having reserve be a card type? Unless I've missed something in one of the new cards, there's nothing that makes reference to the type, nor do they have any special rules associated with them. So they would function just fine without the type. Even the different color isn't necessarily much of a necessary reminder, because those cards are sitting there on your Tavern Mat anyway; they aren't mixed in with other cards like reactions are (except perhaps some Coppers from Miser).
-
Okay; I'll bit. Why isn't Duplicate an Action-Reserve-Reaction, then?
Because what defines Reactions isn't that they have effects on someone else's turn, but that they have effects when in your hand (or, in the case of Tunnel, when in your discard pile). Duplicate has an effect when it's on your Tavern mat, face-up for all the world to see.
So that's a quality answer...except for the Tunnel waffling bit. So if a reaction can be triggered by a card that is being placed into your discard pile, it is not clear to me why this disallows something going into play from your Tavern mat being a reaction.
In addition to what Donald said: cards you discard, like cards in your hand, aren't automatically visible to your opponents. Cards on your Tavern mat are face-up and visible.
-
Did we ever get an answer on whether Duplicate is a noun or a verb?
-
Did we ever get an answer on whether Duplicate is a noun or a verb?
Because that totally changes how I pronounce the word. I mean, it is either duplicate or duplicate. I have to know.
-
It has to be duplicate because otherwise this is a problem:
"Oh man, I can't wait to play my first game of Adventures with Cornucopia!"
"Let's see, what's in my hand this turn… Duplicate, Transmogrify, Transmogrify, Menagerie, Fortune Teller. Okay, good thing Transmogrify is non-terminal! I'll play one of those, and then my Menagerie will hit!"
"Hey… why did my Menagerie only draw one card?"
(http://i.imgur.com/x90PIq7.jpg)
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/131/399/fry.PNG?1307468855)
-
It has to be a verb. It's not a duplicate (well there are 10 of them, but that's not unusual), it duplicates things.
-
Also, a Moat Reserve would only be called when an opponent played an Attack, so there would be some games where it just sit sadly on your Tavern mat, or not be bought at all. At least Moat can draw you cards.
It could be a Victory card.
But then how would it get onto your mat?
In addition to being an Action card and a Reserve card.
That's three kinds of timing, requiring two dividing lines. Not gonna happen.
"Hello!"
--Distant Lands
-
Also, a Moat Reserve would only be called when an opponent played an Attack, so there would be some games where it just sit sadly on your Tavern mat, or not be bought at all. At least Moat can draw you cards.
It could be a Victory card.
But then how would it get onto your mat?
In addition to being an Action card and a Reserve card.
That's three kinds of timing, requiring two dividing lines. Not gonna happen.
"Hello!"
--Distant Lands
Distant Lands does not have Moat functionality and it does not have 3 kinds of timing. Note how it can't be called at all.
-
Was there ever a thought to not having reserve be a card type? Unless I've missed something in one of the new cards, there's nothing that makes reference to the type, nor do they have any special rules associated with them. So they would function just fine without the type. Even the different color isn't necessarily much of a necessary reminder, because those cards are sitting there on your Tavern Mat anyway; they aren't mixed in with other cards like reactions are (except perhaps some Coppers from Miser).
No, I wanted them to have a different color, which meant having a new card type. It's nice to connect them that way too.
-
It has to be a verb. It's not a duplicate (well there are 10 of them, but that's not unusual), it duplicates things.
Well, Wharf is not a wharf either. You could argue when you buy a card it gives you a duplicate; as you point out the duplicates are already there.
But I also tend toward calling it a verb. While most card names are nouns, the ones that say what they actually do (Remodel, Remake, Rebuild, Transmogrify) seem mostly to be verbs. Actually just realized the same question exists with Remake (which I've always pronounced as a noun), though the difference is less... pronounced if you will - and somehow we've all survived.
-
I am feeling a strong urge to share my opinions on the difference between Grant Beige and Manchester Tan.
-
Did we ever get an answer on whether Duplicate is a noun or a verb?
Because that totally changes how I pronounce the word. I mean, it is either duplicate or duplicate. I have to know.
So I was all going to insist on "duplicate" as noun because all cards have a noun reading even where a verb was possible, and that seemed intentional. But then I actually looked at the actual data...and that's not right. In the English language version, anyway, at least the following cards essentially have to be verbs:
Expand
Develop
Rebuild
Raze
Transmogrify
Borrow
(Okay, so "Rebuild" could just barely be a noun, as could Remodel, Remake and Save except for the context.) So I have decided to call it whatever I feel like on the spur of the moment, but probably "duplicate" as verb. Still, it's interesting that the Dominion author did at one point appear to have a strong preference for giving cards names that where the noun reading was strongly favored. And now my inner Medievalist will shut up.
-
To be honest, I consider all cards to be nouns which I know goes against grammar, but here me out. A card is a physical thing. It does something in the game, therefore, any card in Dominion is a noun despite its name.
-
No, that's absolutely right, the card name, capitalized, becomes a noun whatever it is as a normal word. When you play Expand, it's obviously a noun and a direct object. Just like when I say you are Beyond Awesome, Beyond Awesome is a noun (phrase) because it's the name of something, you, as opposed to a prepositional phrase, or adverbial phrase, or whatever the hell it would be uncapitalized.
The issue with Duplicate is just how to pronounce it, 'as if' it were a verb, or a noun.
-
No, that's absolutely right, the card name, capitalized, becomes a noun whatever it is as a normal word. When you play Expand, it's obviously a noun and a direct object. Just like when I say you are Beyond Awesome, Beyond Awesome is a noun (phrase) because it's the name of something, you, as opposed to a prepositional phrase, or adverbial phrase, or whatever the hell it would be uncapitalized.
The issue with Duplicate is just how to pronounce it, 'as if' it were a verb, or a noun.
I pronounce it as a verb, and use it as a noun, except when I'm using it as a verb.
-
I play mostly IRL so we all announce what we're doing on our turns. Any card that involves me choosing something I say as a verb and use it as a verb, even if it's not. For all remodelers, trashers, etc. when I play it I say, "I Remodel Gold into a Province" or, "I'm going to Stonemason a Peddler into two Nobles". Heck, I even use it for other cards like, "I Cellar three cards" or "I Workshop a Gardens". Using them as verbs is a fast way to convey what was played and what I choose to do with it when I played it. So Duplicate is gonna be a verb in my lexicon.
-
I use card names as nouns when I'm referring to the card itself, and as verbs when I'm referring to what the card does.
Funny how that works.
--
Duplicate is unusual because Duplicate-as-noun may refer to the duplicate created, not the duplicator. So in this instance you may wish to pronounce duplicate-as-verb in reference to the card. It should be clear from context anyway so it doesn't matter.
-
It has to be a verb. It's not a duplicate (well there are 10 of them, but that's not unusual), it duplicates things.
Well, Wharf is not a wharf either. You could argue when you buy a card it gives you a duplicate; as you point out the duplicates are already there.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/MagrittePipe.jpg/300px-MagrittePipe.jpg)
-
It has to be a verb. It's not a duplicate (well there are 10 of them, but that's not unusual), it duplicates things.
Well, Wharf is not a wharf either. You could argue when you buy a card it gives you a duplicate; as you point out the duplicates are already there.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/MagrittePipe.jpg/300px-MagrittePipe.jpg)
Thank you! I knew there was a meme I wanted to make for the "Best card" thread but I couldn't remember what it was. Now if I can remember how to make it ...
-
Actually just realized the same question exists with Remake (which I've always pronounced as a noun), though the difference is less... pronounced if you will - and somehow we've all survived.
Hmm... I think this must be a regional thing, because to me the verb remake and the noun remake have identical pronunciation. I can't work out where the difference would be. Do you say one with a shorter E sound?
-
Actually just realized the same question exists with Remake (which I've always pronounced as a noun), though the difference is less... pronounced if you will - and somehow we've all survived.
Hmm... I think this must be a regional thing, because to me the verb remake and the noun remake have identical pronunciation. I can't work out where the difference would be. Do you say one with a shorter E sound?
For my ear the difference is stress, RE-make for noun, re-MAKE for verb.
-
I play mostly IRL so we all announce what we're doing on our turns. Any card that involves me choosing something I say as a verb and use it as a verb, even if it's not. For all remodelers, trashers, etc. when I play it I say, "I Remodel Gold into a Province" or, "I'm going to Stonemason a Peddler into two Nobles". Heck, I even use it for other cards like, "I Cellar three cards" or "I Workshop a Gardens". Using them as verbs is a fast way to convey what was played and what I choose to do with it when I played it. So Duplicate is gonna be a verb in my lexicon.
Ah, good point, we do routinely verb card names when they affect other cards. (The fact that "I Remodel Gold" sounds like English and "I Stonemason a Peddler" doesn't is incidental.) I guess it would feel pretty weird to use 'Duplicate' as a verb and say it as a noun. So maybe you'll wind up saying "I University a Minion, and call Duplikit to Duplikate it."
-
Not unique to Dominion cards.
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Verb_9dc37f_2797166.jpg)
-
No, very much the rage.
(And you know what I'm referencing.)
-
It has to be a verb. It's not a duplicate (well there are 10 of them, but that's not unusual), it duplicates things.
Well, Wharf is not a wharf either. You could argue when you buy a card it gives you a duplicate; as you point out the duplicates are already there.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/MagrittePipe.jpg/300px-MagrittePipe.jpg)
(http://s16.postimg.org/yho69zqjp/Quai.jpg)
-
I play mostly IRL so we all announce what we're doing on our turns. Any card that involves me choosing something I say as a verb and use it as a verb, even if it's not. For all remodelers, trashers, etc. when I play it I say, "I Remodel Gold into a Province" or, "I'm going to Stonemason a Peddler into two Nobles". Heck, I even use it for other cards like, "I Cellar three cards" or "I Workshop a Gardens". Using them as verbs is a fast way to convey what was played and what I choose to do with it when I played it. So Duplicate is gonna be a verb in my lexicon.
Ah, good point, we do routinely verb card names when they affect other cards. (The fact that "I Remodel Gold" sounds like English and "I Stonemason a Peddler" doesn't is incidental.) I guess it would feel pretty weird to use 'Duplicate' as a verb and say it as a noun. So maybe you'll wind up saying "I University a Minion, and call Duplikit to Duplikate it."
I think I'd more simply say "I University a Minion, and Duplicate it." But I had never considered pronouncing Duplicate as a noun until it came up in the Preview thread. For me, I think all cards that can be verbs default to their verb pronunciation.
-
Actually just realized the same question exists with Remake (which I've always pronounced as a noun), though the difference is less... pronounced if you will - and somehow we've all survived.
Hmm... I think this must be a regional thing, because to me the verb remake and the noun remake have identical pronunciation. I can't work out where the difference would be. Do you say one with a shorter E sound?
For my ear the difference is stress, RE-make for noun, re-MAKE for verb.
It is a principle in English that for two-syllable words that could be nouns and verbs, the noun form takes stress on the first syllable and verb form takes stress on the second syllable. For example: rebel, record, contest, conflict, etc.
That being said, it may be somewhat dialectical or generational, because I pronounce nouns/verbs like remake, protest, import, etc. always with the emphasis on the first syllable, although I recognize some people stress the second when they're verbs.
-
Actually just realized the same question exists with Remake (which I've always pronounced as a noun), though the difference is less... pronounced if you will - and somehow we've all survived.
Hmm... I think this must be a regional thing, because to me the verb remake and the noun remake have identical pronunciation. I can't work out where the difference would be. Do you say one with a shorter E sound?
For my ear the difference is stress, RE-make for noun, re-MAKE for verb.
It is a principle in English that for two-syllable words that could be nouns and verbs, the noun form takes stress on the first syllable and verb form takes stress on the second syllable. For example: rebel, record, contest, conflict, etc.
That being said, it may be somewhat dialectical or generational, because I pronounce nouns/verbs like remake, protest, import, etc. always with the emphasis on the first syllable, although I recognize some people stress the second when they're verbs.
I can't even hear in my head different versions of remake, protest, or import. Things like "rehbel" and "reebel" or "rehcord" and "reecord" I can hear. How would "remake" be pronounced differently?
"They are going to remake that movie. The remake will come out next year."
-
Played my first Adventures games tonight! Teacher was insane. Absolutely insane. Ridiculous. (all in a good way).
Card tokens, man. Card tokens.
-
Treasure Trove is kind of a beast if you have good trashing. Like, say, two Amulets and a couple Ratcatchers. You get rid of all the Copper you intake, and your deck just floods with Gold.
-
Actually just realized the same question exists with Remake (which I've always pronounced as a noun), though the difference is less... pronounced if you will - and somehow we've all survived.
Hmm... I think this must be a regional thing, because to me the verb remake and the noun remake have identical pronunciation. I can't work out where the difference would be. Do you say one with a shorter E sound?
For my ear the difference is stress, RE-make for noun, re-MAKE for verb.
It is a principle in English that for two-syllable words that could be nouns and verbs, the noun form takes stress on the first syllable and verb form takes stress on the second syllable. For example: rebel, record, contest, conflict, etc.
That being said, it may be somewhat dialectical or generational, because I pronounce nouns/verbs like remake, protest, import, etc. always with the emphasis on the first syllable, although I recognize some people stress the second when they're verbs.
I can't even hear in my head different versions of remake, protest, or import. Things like "rehbel" and "reebel" or "rehcord" and "reecord" I can hear. How would "remake" be pronounced differently?
"They are going to remake that movie. The remake will come out next year."
I mean, I don't make a distinction between the pronunciations either. But it'd be something like "REE-make" vs "ruh-MAKE" (IPA: 'ri.meɪk vs rə.'meɪk), although I can't say I've heard anyone say this. But being from California my English is very different from the rest of the country, maybe it's an East Cost thing or something. "Protest" I think is the easiest of those to try to hear; imagine a theatrical British performer crying out, "I must protest!" Or just think "pruh-TEST" (IPA: pɹə.'tʰɛst).
It's likely that distinctions like this are dying off. Language is always changing!
EDIT: IPA
-
Actually just realized the same question exists with Remake (which I've always pronounced as a noun), though the difference is less... pronounced if you will - and somehow we've all survived.
Hmm... I think this must be a regional thing, because to me the verb remake and the noun remake have identical pronunciation. I can't work out where the difference would be. Do you say one with a shorter E sound?
For my ear the difference is stress, RE-make for noun, re-MAKE for verb.
It is a principle in English that for two-syllable words that could be nouns and verbs, the noun form takes stress on the first syllable and verb form takes stress on the second syllable. For example: rebel, record, contest, conflict, etc.
That being said, it may be somewhat dialectical or generational, because I pronounce nouns/verbs like remake, protest, import, etc. always with the emphasis on the first syllable, although I recognize some people stress the second when they're verbs.
I can't even hear in my head different versions of remake, protest, or import. Things like "rehbel" and "reebel" or "rehcord" and "reecord" I can hear. How would "remake" be pronounced differently?
"They are going to remake that movie. The remake will come out next year."
I mean, I don't make a distinction between the pronunciations either. But it'd be something like "REE-make" vs "ruh-MAKE" (IPA: 'ri.meɪk vs rə.'meɪk), although I can't say I've heard anyone say this. But being from California my English is very different from the rest of the country, maybe it's an East Cost thing or something. "Protest" I think is the easiest of those to try to hear; imagine a theatrical British performer crying out, "I must protest!" Or just think "pruh-TEST" (IPA: pɹə.'tʰɛst).
It's likely that distinctions like this are dying off. Language is always changing!
EDIT: IPA
I, also from California, have never heard ruh-MAKE with a schwa sound either, but I do say ree-MAKE when it's a verb. (My online dictionary has this distinction as well.)
I'd never stopped to think that it's actually a principle, that's really interesting and makes sense. And also your observation that there's some flexibility with the pronunciation of the verbs - import, protest, remake sound OK to me stressed either way as a verb - but only one way as a noun. Some like contest are more clear cut though. But as you say these things are always changing!
-
Played my first Adventures games tonight! Teacher was insane. Absolutely insane. Ridiculous. (all in a good way).
Card tokens, man. Card tokens.
Sounds amazing. So for Teacher you didn't feel like the game was almost over by the time you got and played one? That's the one thing I wonder just reading about the travellers without having played them...
-
Played my first Adventures games tonight! Teacher was insane. Absolutely insane. Ridiculous. (all in a good way).
Card tokens, man. Card tokens.
Burning with envy. My local online store expected to have Adventures may/june...
-
Played my first Adventures games tonight! Teacher was insane. Absolutely insane. Ridiculous. (all in a good way).
Card tokens, man. Card tokens.
Sounds amazing. So for Teacher you didn't feel like the game was almost over by the time you got and played one? That's the one thing I wonder just reading about the travellers without having played them...
Absolutely not. One of the games was the second recommended "pure Adventures" set from the rulebook, and it has Mission, so you cycle your deck super fast*. I think I lost that game 9-6, but you know how useless final score is in Dominion - it was a blowout. The second game with it featured Dungeon, and ditto - super-fast cycling. Teacher feels like Prince - takes a long time to build, but when it's worth it, it's really worth it.
*it's possible it's slow, but really, who's going to play BM against freakin' Peasant/Page? A soulless monster, that's who.
-
Played my first Adventures games tonight! Teacher was insane. Absolutely insane. Ridiculous. (all in a good way).
Card tokens, man. Card tokens.
Sounds amazing. So for Teacher you didn't feel like the game was almost over by the time you got and played one? That's the one thing I wonder just reading about the travellers without having played them...
I played three games last night, the first being the "Gentle Intro" suggested kingdom, which had the Peasant line (as well as Lost City). I was amazed at how fast I was able to get the Teacher. I didn't do much with it, but it didn't take long to get.
It helped that I got incredibly lucky at the start. I got a 2/5 split, bought a Peasant, the next player bought a Lost City, and I shuffled and drew the Peasant. So on my second turn, I was able to buy a hireling and promote the peasant.
-
Wow, cool. Guess that's also an example of how significant the Lost City on-buy penalty can be early on.
-
Wow, cool. Guess that's also an example of how significant the Lost City on-buy penalty can be early on.
yeah. That is something to remember. "you make your own shuffle luck" - well, if you are the 2nd player and you buy lost city T1, you just "made your opponent's shuffle luck". You guarantee that your opponent will have the card he purchased T1 possibly on T2, definitely T3.