Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: JW on October 08, 2015, 09:52:04 am
-
Bag of Holding (variant on Bag of Gold)
Action – Prize
+1 Action. Gain a card costing up to $6 that is not a Victory card. Put it on top of your deck.
Bag of Gold is an uninteresting Prize. So I attempted to make a more interesting version that still has the functionality of the original. It can’t gain victory cards because Tournament can already gain Duchies, and to keep Princess's +buy more unique among prizes. Thoughts appreciated!
Original version:
(same as current)
-
I'd point out that this actually helps make Trusty Steed's silver gain more unique.
What about letting it gain Potion costers?
"+1 Action. Gain a card costing 6$, or gain a card if 6$ is more than the cost of that card and it is not a Victory card. Put the gained card on top of your deck".
But then it has to allow Farmland/Nobles/Fairgrounds/Harem gains just to reclaim some real estate on the card. Probably fine though? Since Farmlands and Harem gains are super weak, Nobles will pile out early before the spirit of the restriction is in full force, so Fairgrounds is the only offender.
-
"+1 Action. Gain a card costing 6$, or gain a card if 6$ is more than the cost of that card in coins and it is not a Victory card. Put the gained card on top of your deck".
Must be worded like this (I hope this works), because Potion cost cards all cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) more than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).
-
If you're going to go that far, you might as well make it truly unique and simpler at the same time:
"Gain a card that is not a victory card."
It's more powerful in terms of card gain, but puts the card in the discard (unless you have liopoil in hand). But gaining anything up to a cost of $6P and topdecking it is pretty powerful.
Or with the above you could just use "Gain a card costing up to $6P" and topdeck, rather than deal with crazy wording.
-
Donald had talked about giving it +3 Actions (instead of +1 Action), and removing the +2 Actions on Trusty Steed (replacing it with something else). I think you could do that and leave Trusty Steed as-is, though.
-
"+1 Action. Gain a card costing 6$, or gain a card if 6$ is more than the cost of that card in coins and it is not a Victory card. Put the gained card on top of your deck".
Must be worded like this (I hope this works), because Potion cost cards all cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) more than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).
Pops' original wording is fine. $3P is more than $6, but $6 is also more than $3P.
-
"+1 Action. Gain a card costing 6$, or gain a card if 6$ is more than the cost of that card in coins and it is not a Victory card. Put the gained card on top of your deck".
Must be worded like this (I hope this works), because Potion cost cards all cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) more than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).
Pops' original wording is fine. $3P is more than $6, but $6 is also more than $3P.
Wrong. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) is NOT more than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), nor is it less than it.
-
Wrong. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) is NOT more than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), nor is it less than it.
It is P more and $3 less.
-
I don't see any reason to let this gain Potion cards. That just seems like a lot of extra complexity for a very rare situation. In general I'd say that allowing it to gain any non-Victory card would be ok, however, it fails to account for future design space. If a card allowed you to gain without cost restriction, what happens in the future when there's a weird card that costs $20 or something?
-
Wrong. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) is NOT more than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), nor is it less than it.
It is P more and $3 less.
No... to be (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) more than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), you need to cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png).
-
I don't see any reason to let this gain Potion cards. That just seems like a lot of extra complexity for a very rare situation. In general I'd say that allowing it to gain any non-Victory card would be ok, however, it fails to account for future design space. If a card allowed you to gain without cost restriction, what happens in the future when there's a weird card that costs $20 or something?
Well for what it's worth, there are some cards that can gain without regard to cost. Jester and Disciple come to mind. But Jester is usually up to luck, and it takes a long time to get Disciple. It might be fine if a Prize just gained you any non-Victory card.
-
I don't see any reason to let this gain Potion cards. That just seems like a lot of extra complexity for a very rare situation. In general I'd say that allowing it to gain any non-Victory card would be ok, however, it fails to account for future design space. If a card allowed you to gain without cost restriction, what happens in the future when there's a weird card that costs $20 or something?
Well for what it's worth, there are some cards that can gain without regard to cost. Jester and Disciple come to mind. But Jester is usually up to luck, and it takes a long time to get Disciple. It might be fine if a Prize just gained you any non-Victory card.
Well both of those require that the card was already gained in another way before they can gain it.
-
I don't see any reason to let this gain Potion cards. That just seems like a lot of extra complexity for a very rare situation. In general I'd say that allowing it to gain any non-Victory card would be ok, however, it fails to account for future design space. If a card allowed you to gain without cost restriction, what happens in the future when there's a weird card that costs $20 or something?
Well for what it's worth, there are some cards that can gain without regard to cost. Jester and Disciple come to mind. But Jester is usually up to luck, and it takes a long time to get Disciple. It might be fine if a Prize just gained you any non-Victory card.
Well both of those require that the card was already gained in another way before they can gain it.
Yes, good point.
-
I don't see any reason to let this gain Potion cards. That just seems like a lot of extra complexity for a very rare situation. In general I'd say that allowing it to gain any non-Victory card would be ok, however, it fails to account for future design space. If a card allowed you to gain without cost restriction, what happens in the future when there's a weird card that costs $20 or something?
Well for what it's worth, there are some cards that can gain without regard to cost. Jester and Disciple come to mind. But Jester is usually up to luck, and it takes a long time to get Disciple. It might be fine if a Prize just gained you any non-Victory card.
Well both of those require that the card was already gained in another way before they can gain it.
Squire doesn't.
-
6$ is more than the cost of Golem. 6$ is not more than the cost of Possession.
-
Platinum is the only reason I'd dislike an open ended "gain a card that is not a victory card".
-
6$ is more than the cost of Golem. 6$ is not more than the cost of Possession.
This simply isn't true... if it were, then "Gain a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)" would allow you to gain a Golem (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Golem).
-
That's because 4P is more than 6$.
6$ is also more than 4P.
-
If you're going to go that far, you might as well make it truly unique and simpler at the same time:
"Gain a card that is not a victory card."
It's more powerful in terms of card gain, but puts the card in the discard (unless you have liopoil in hand). But gaining anything up to a cost of $6P and topdecking it is pretty powerful.
If you want it to be able to gain Potion-cost cards, then this idea (gain anything that is not a victory card) looks good. But then the card loses the ability to topdeck a gold, its original function. And Potion cost or >6 cost cards may completely outclass Gold leading the card even further from the original function (e.g., Possession, Platinum, or King's Court).
Donald had talked about giving it +3 Actions (instead of +1 Action), and removing the +2 Actions on Trusty Steed (replacing it with something else). I think you could do that and leave Trusty Steed as-is, though.
On some boards it would be nice if there was more than one +Actions Prize but +3 Actions and topdeck a gold don't go together thematically, and I think that version would be gained more for the actions than for the Gold. It would certainly make the card stronger and more interesting, though.
-
That's because 4P is more than 6$.
6$ is also more than 4P.
No... this is a mathematical contradiction. Neither is more than the other because they cannot directly be compared. You can't say A>B AND B>A.
-
If you're going to go that far, you might as well make it truly unique and simpler at the same time:
"Gain a card that is not a victory card."
It's more powerful in terms of card gain, but puts the card in the discard (unless you have liopoil in hand). But gaining anything up to a cost of $6P and topdecking it is pretty powerful.
If you want it to be able to gain Potion-cost cards, then this idea (gain anything that is not a victory card) looks good. But then the card loses the ability to topdeck a gold, its original function. And Potion cost or >6 cost cards may completely outclass Gold leading the card even further from the original function (e.g., Possession, Platinum, or King's Court).
Donald had talked about giving it +3 Actions (instead of +1 Action), and removing the +2 Actions on Trusty Steed (replacing it with something else). I think you could do that and leave Trusty Steed as-is, though.
On some boards it would be nice if there was more than one +Actions Prize but +3 Actions and topdeck a gold don't go together thematically, and I think that version would be gained more for the actions than for the Gold. It would certainly make the card stronger and more interesting, though.
The original function of the card kinda sucks. That's the thing.
-
That's because 4P is more than 6$.
6$ is also more than 4P.
No. Neither of those is greater or less than the other. Someone from the math thread explain the terminology here. Something about directed graphs?
-
Guys, guys... we've talked about this :(
-
The original function of the card kinda sucks. That's the thing.
That's true, it's most useful when you have a trash for benefit that needs Golds (Apprentice is an example), or when you know you are going to play terminal draw with your last action and want the 3 coins.
Also, can we please move discussion of "greater than" and what wordings would or wouldn't work to a different thread? Thanks.
-
One discussion was around here (I think there was a separate thread too):
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9621.msg307220#msg307220
Tables' helpful diagram was here:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9621.msg307002#msg307002
-
So there is no wording that works :(
-
So there is no wording that works :(
Just "Gain a card costing up to $6P."
-
Tables' helpful diagram was here:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9621.msg307002#msg307002
let's be honest. You just linked there because you wanted us to read how you explained a joke ;)
-
So there is no wording that works :(
Just "Gain a card costing up to $6P."
Or "Gain a card costing less than $6P that is not a victory card". This allows Gold and Potion costs, excluding Possession, which I think is what pops was going for.
-
Holy #%^$ eHalcyon is a genius!
-
So there is no wording that works :(
Just "Gain a card costing up to $6P."
Or "Gain a card costing less than $6P that is not a victory card". This allows Gold and Potion costs, excluding Possession, which I think is what pops was going for.
I figured the "that is not a victory card" part was implied.
Edit: But, oh, I didn't know Possession was intended to be excluded.
-
You can still gain Possession though. Every game with Bag of Holding also includes Princess.
-
You can still gain Possession though. Every game with Bag of Holding also includes Princess.
Hahaha, true. If they play both in one turn, they've earned it.
-
Or "Gain a card costing less than $6P that is not a victory card". This allows Gold and Potion costs, excluding Possession, which I think is what pops was going for.
"Up to $5P" would match existing cards more closely, right? I think "less than" is only used in reference to another card's cost, not in reference to a set cost.
-
"Up to 5P" doesn't allow you to gain a Gold. "Less than 6P" does. That's what Ehalcyon's hack was unexpected and clever to me.
It sticks with the convention, "Use 'up to' unless you have a reason to use 'less than'", because there's a reason to use "less than" here.
-
Potions are Peas, coins are Coconuts. Six Coconuts are not more than four Coconuts and a Pea. Neither are they less. Because neither is a real subset of the other.
The whole Potion-comparison thing is in the rulebook. Why are people still getting this wrong?
-
Because I haven't bought a physical copy of Alchemy
-
Also, out of peas.
-
Potions are Peas, coins are Coconuts. Six Coconuts are not more than four Coconuts and a Pea. Neither are they less. Because neither is a real subset of the other.
The whole Potion-comparison thing is in the rulebook. Why are people still getting this wrong?
Because imaginary numbers are hard.
-
Potions are Peas, coins are Coconuts. Six Coconuts are not more than four Coconuts and a Pea. Neither are they less. Because neither is a real subset of the other.
The whole Potion-comparison thing is in the rulebook. Why are people still getting this wrong?
Because imaginary numbers are complex.
Fixed that for you.
(But I'm guessing that was the joke.)
-
Potions are Peas, coins are Coconuts. Six Coconuts are not more than four Coconuts and a Pea. Neither are they less. Because neither is a real subset of the other.
The whole Potion-comparison thing is in the rulebook. Why are people still getting this wrong?
Because imaginary numbers are hard.
So are Coconuts. Allthough i don't see why either statement is relevant to understanding Potion costs. If you need imaginary numbers, i get the feeling you are overthinking this a bit.
-
Potions are Peas, coins are Coconuts. Six Coconuts are not more than four Coconuts and a Pea. Neither are they less. Because neither is a real subset of the other.
The whole Potion-comparison thing is in the rulebook. Why are people still getting this wrong?
Because imaginary numbers are hard.
So are Coconuts. Allthough i don't see why either statement is relevant to understanding Potion costs. If you need imaginary numbers, i get the feeling you are overthinking this a bit.
Imaginary numbers are simply another example of a situation where you have numbers that are counted along 2 separate axis, just like coins + potions.
-
Potions are Peas, coins are Coconuts. Six Coconuts are not more than four Coconuts and a Pea. Neither are they less. Because neither is a real subset of the other.
The whole Potion-comparison thing is in the rulebook. Why are people still getting this wrong?
Because imaginary numbers are hard.
So are Coconuts. Allthough i don't see why either statement is relevant to understanding Potion costs. If you need imaginary numbers, i get the feeling you are overthinking this a bit.
Imaginary numbers are simply another example of a situation where you have numbers that are counted along 2 separate axis, just like coins + potions.
I see. Thank you for explaining it. Makes sense, then.
-
I remembered this thread recently because Nocturne brought us a card with the text "gain a card costing up to $6" in Wish. Magic Lamp is taken, but maybe this card should now be called "Genie On-Demand?"