Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: GendoIkari on February 01, 2016, 10:28:21 am
-
India-Panther: Action-Reaction, (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png).
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more than it.
If the gained card is an action, play it.
_______________________________________________________________________
When any player gains a Victory card, you may reveal this from your hand.
If you do, the player gaining the card puts it on top of his deck.
So here's our card as of now. Up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more might be really strong. Of course sometimes "up to" makes a trasher weaker, but this one isn't really meant for thinning out Coppers anyway. This one is really an upgraded version of Remodel (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Remodel). Anyway, let's tweak the remodel effect (or not).
One consideration for this is the Fortress effect. As written, if you have a single India and a single Fortress in hand, you immediately drain the India pile, unless this ends up being a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png) cost card anyway. And aside from the power of emptying a whole pile for end game stuff, a hand of 5 Indias isn't too bad, especially not with Fortress around.
Anyway, there's multiple ways this could be addressed, or we could decide it doesn't need to be addressed. But one way would simply be to not allow the upgrade amount to fit the cost difference between Fortress and this. We don't know what this costs, of course. If it does cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), then the only set of options that would work would be "exactly (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more". Just some things to think about; I don't know what will work best.
Poll closes Saturday in case anyone is only around on the weekends. After that we'll vote on price. And then that's probably all except for name and art. Feel free to discuss other ideas or tweaks that might need to be made.
-
I want to change my vote from up to $2 -> exactly $2 more.
So if that was to be the tiebreaker, there you have it.
-
I want to change my vote from up to $2 -> exactly $2 more.
So if that was to be the tiebreaker, there you have it.
No problem. unlikely to come down to a single vote, but you never know!
-
I want to change my vote from up to $2 -> exactly $2 more.
So if that was to be the tiebreaker, there you have it.
No problem. unlikely to come down to a single vote, but you never know!
I also changed my mind on the vote; originally, I said "either $1 or $2 more," but I want to change it to "exactly $2 more."
-
As no one else is replying the current vote is 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0. :)
-
I am trying to come up with reasons to vote for something different. If I don't, then I am okay with that result.
-
I'm for exactly $2 more. Eliminates the Fortress issue and makes it more unique compared to Remodel. Lowers the power a bit for a card that already has a lot going on.
-
I don't like fortress being a consideration for this. Fun should always be the biggest consideration.
Exactly 2 more means you often can't remodel something costing $4 or more into an action card. Many of the cards you buy mainly for the early game and then want to tfb later cost $4.
I voted up to $1 more.
-
I don't like fortress being a consideration for this. Fun should always be the biggest consideration.
Exactly 2 more means you often can't remodel something costing $4 or more into an action card.
The problem is, many people find two-card combos that can just instantly run out a pile to be anti-fun.
-
I don't like fortress being a consideration for this. Fun should always be the biggest consideration.
Exactly 2 more means you often can't remodel something costing $4 or more into an action card.
The problem is, many people find two-card combos that can just instantly run out a pile to be anti-fun.
Don't play with india panther and fortress together. How easy is that? It's not like we can use this in the online game where (for some reason) everyone wants to play full random.
Or we can nullify the interaction some other way if people insist on it (which it seems they probably will).
-
I don't like fortress being a consideration for this. Fun should always be the biggest consideration.
Exactly 2 more means you often can't remodel something costing $4 or more into an action card.
The problem is, many people find two-card combos that can just instantly run out a pile to be anti-fun.
Don't play with india panther and fortress together. How easy is that? It's not like we can use this in the online game where (for some reason) everyone wants to play full random.
Or we can nullify the interaction some other way if people insist on it (which it seems they probably will).
People find it fun to play full random, even IRL. Most of us want to treat this (and other fan cards) as if they were actual cards being designed for the actual game, even if they would never actually be published. So having to exclude Fortress is a non-starter.
-
I'm for exactly $2 more. Eliminates the Fortress issue and makes it more unique compared to Remodel. Lowers the power a bit for a card that already has a lot going on.
The reason I'm for exactly $2 more has nothing to do with Fortress; I just think up to $2 more is too strong.
-
I'm for exactly $2 more. Eliminates the Fortress issue and makes it more unique compared to Remodel. Lowers the power a bit for a card that already has a lot going on.
The reason I'm for exactly $2 more has nothing to do with Fortress; I just think up to $2 more is too strong.
That is among the reasons I listed for why I think it's a good idea. :)
-
So how different is "1 or 2 more" from "up to 2 more"? Mostly it means you can't use it to empty out the Province pile when you're winning, right?
-
So how different is "1 or 2 more" from "up to 2 more"? Mostly it means you can't use it to empty out the Province pile when you're winning, right?
It's worth noting (for those who care) that allowing $1 more does not address the Fortress problem if IndiaPanther costs $5. Hmm, I just realized that, likewise, exactly $2 more doesn't help if IP costs $6. I've just been thinking of it as a $5 card though. "1 or 2" doesn't help unless the card costs $7+.
-
So how different is "1 or 2 more" from "up to 2 more"? Mostly it means you can't use it to empty out the Province pile when you're winning, right?
It's worth noting (for those who care) that allowing $1 more does not address the Fortress problem if IndiaPanther costs $5. Hmm, I just realized that, likewise, exactly $2 more doesn't help if IP costs $6. I've just been thinking of it as a $5 card though. "1 or 2" doesn't help unless the card costs $7+.
Yup. It was a circular dependency... surely we can't fairly decide a price until we know what it lets you gain; but we can't prevent Fortress-issue with this poll without knowing for sure how much it costs.
-
I'm starting to think that having "if the gained card is an action card other than India-Panther, play it" might be best. So don't prevent gaining itself, but don't give the auto-play if you do. This way, the Fortress thing only works if you have a lot of free actions lying around (Lost Arts, Champion, many Villages); so it's still possible, but requiring a third condition should be enough to make it not a complaint.
-
I like "up to", because this makes the card more similar to Remodel, and easier to understand in the process. This could in fact have us end up with a decently streamlined card, not that three-headed monster i was fearing we'd get.
This way, the Fortress thing only works if you have a lot of free actions lying around (Lost Arts, Champion, many Villages)
Well, Fortresses are Villages, and cheap enough to gain a lot of them, especially with a tfb card. Probably IP favours the lucky too much on a Fortress board without this rule, but it seems really lackluster in all other situations.
-
I suggest we stop trying to solve the Fortress issue, can't we just accept that only 1 in every 40.000 games will have this combo?
-
I suggest we stop trying to solve the Fortress issue, can't we just accept that only 1 in every 40.000 games will have this combo?
First, I'm not sure where you get 40000. I got only 1 out of 616 (10*9/(236*235)). But the much more relevant measure is how often the combo appears given that India Panther appears, since it doesn't matter what India Panther does in the games where it's not available. And that is just 9/235, which is nearly 4% of the time. So 4% of the time India Panther is available, we have a potentially game-breaking combo. I think that's significant enough that we should try to work around it.
-
Agreed we should solve the Fortress issue, but hobbling the card to do so seems like a poor choice, given that we have other ways of doing so. 'Exactly $2' seems very limiting, to the point that $4 might be more appropriate, and then we're breaking our original vote.
-
Agreed we should solve the Fortress issue, but hobbling the card to do so seems like a poor choice, given that we have other ways of doing so. 'Exactly $2' seems very limiting, to the point that $4 might be more appropriate, and then we're breaking our original vote.
It would require play testing, but I think the ability to immediately play the action cards you gain makes up for that, not even considering the reaction.
-
Huh, I voted exactly $1 more (assuming we can raise the price to $6 later) because I thought exactly $2 more for $5 would be way too strong. That's like a super upgrade, basically, plus it has a reaction. I can't decide whether it's more or less flexible than Upgrade overall, but I think it will still compare too favorably to Upgrade at $5. On the other hand, exactly $1 more at $6 might be too weak, but Upgrade is a strong $5 and this would probably be a little better than that, so I could see myself getting it reasonably often.
-
Upgrade at $5 means that, worst-case scenario, you can upgrade Upgrades into Golds. Exactly +2 at $5 means that it's usually a dead end, which seems substantially weaker.
-
Upgrade at $5 means that, worst-case scenario, you can upgrade Upgrades into Golds. Exactly +2 at $5 means that it's usually a dead end, which seems substantially weaker.
I think with this card you would much prefer to upgrade Estates into $4 action cards and Silvers into $5 action cards, to get the immediate play benefit.
If we make it exactly $1, then you're going for Estates into $3 actions and Silvers into $4 actions, which typically means weaker actions. And if we price it to avoid the Fortress issue, then the card will cost $6 and trashing itself will hit $7 just like with the $5-cost "exactly $2" option, so that's no better. I don't think Upgrading Upgrades is a great comparison anyway, since this isn't a cantrip and isn't even fully non-terminal.
-
Up to $1 more!
I want to turn $4s into $5s and $6s into $3s! We could price it at $6, so it won't be fortressable.
-
To avoid the Fortress problem, could the initial wording be rendered as, 'Trash a card from your hand that has not already been trashed this turn?' Or would that be too complex?
This would also solve issues with Graverobber on megaturns, though that's probably not an issue.
-
To avoid the Fortress problem, could the initial wording be rendered as, 'Trash a card from your hand that has not already been trashed this turn?' Or would that be too complex?
This would also solve issues with Graverobber on megaturns, though that's probably not an issue.
I don't think that works since there's no way to make it accountable. It's the same reason why reactions are designed to be idempotent or else remove themselves from your hand when used, instead of it just being a general rule that a Reaction can only be revealed once per trigger. You could just say "this is a different copy of the reaction", or "I am now trashing a different copy of Fortress".
-
Up to $1 more!
I want to turn $4s into $5s and $6s into $3s! We could price it at $6, so it won't be fortressable.
Wait you're right. I don't know why I was thinking it had to be exactly $1 more to not be Fortressable. Can I change my vote to up to $1 more?
-
If so many people are changing their votes, it might be better to just re-poll for the sake of accountability.
Edit: FWIW, I think "up to $1 more" at $6 cost could be OK too. I was thinking "exactly $1 more" would be too weak for $6; it slipped my mind that "up to $1 more" would be sufficient to address the Fortress issue. I think I still prefer "exactly $2 more" though.
-
Or we can just open discussion on the subject, and make a declaration when we reach agreement?
-
I think neither option is satisfactory. Up to $1 more is bad if you use it to trash junk, and not strong enough for $6. I mean, Transmogrify does this as a Reserve and is arguably better at it. Exactly $1is fine for junk, but will fail often, and you won't be able to downgrade to get something better. Still too bad for $6. Up to $2 and not allowing IP seems okay, but a tad clunky. "Exactly $2 more" is just weird, and makes the card's use very limited. You'll make $4s out of Estates, and that's usually it. We could also drop the price to $4 and say "exactly $1 more" or "$1 or $2 more", but, alas, we voted for the price before that.
I'm in favour of "up to $2" and excluding the card itself.
-
If so many people are changing their votes, it might be better to just re-poll for the sake of accountability.
Gets my vote.
-
To prevent the Fortress problem, what about instead:
"Put a card on your Reserve mat. Gain a card costing [X more than it.]. If the gained card is an Action, play it'
This will make this a pseudo-trasher for most cards, but the interaction with Reserve cards (including Coin of the Realm and Distant Lands), Miser, Gardens, and Silk Roads could be a feature rather than a bug. And it would avoid the Fortress problem.
-
To prevent the Fortress problem, what about instead:
"Put a card on your Reserve mat. Gain a card costing [X more than it.]. If the gained card is an Action, play it'
This will make this a pseudo-trasher for most cards, but the interaction with Reserve cards (including Coin of the Realm and Distant Lands), Miser, Gardens, and Silk Roads could be a feature rather than a bug. And it would avoid the Fortress problem.
I like it, but is it too strong for being able to mill Provinces and Colonies without actually trashing the card?
-
To prevent the Fortress problem, what about instead:
"Put a card on your Reserve mat. Gain a card costing [X more than it.]. If the gained card is an Action, play it'
This will make this a pseudo-trasher for most cards, but the interaction with Reserve cards (including Coin of the Realm and Distant Lands), Miser, Gardens, and Silk Roads could be a feature rather than a bug. And it would avoid the Fortress problem.
I like it, but is it too strong for being able to mill Provinces and Colonies without actually trashing the card?
This won't be a problem with a gain costing exactly X more. Also, I keep forgetting that it's a Tavern mat, not a Reserve mat.
-
To prevent the Fortress problem, what about instead:
"Put a card on your Reserve mat. Gain a card costing [X more than it.]. If the gained card is an Action, play it'
This will make this a pseudo-trasher for most cards, but the interaction with Reserve cards (including Coin of the Realm and Distant Lands), Miser, Gardens, and Silk Roads could be a feature rather than a bug. And it would avoid the Fortress problem.
I like it, but is it too strong for being able to mill Provinces and Colonies without actually trashing the card?
This won't be a problem with a gain costing exactly X more.
Oh, I thought it was a suggestion for avoiding the Fortress problem with "up to $2". Yeah, that still sounds good. It gains added functionality of being able to Island stuff.
-
If you gain X costing exactly $1 more, this allows for Province->Platinum, but I don't think that's game-breaking, especially because doing so costs you the +1 Action.
-
To prevent the Fortress problem, what about instead:
"Put a card on your Reserve mat. Gain a card costing [X more than it.]. If the gained card is an Action, play it'
This will make this a pseudo-trasher for most cards, but the interaction with Reserve cards (including Coin of the Realm and Distant Lands), Miser, Gardens, and Silk Roads could be a feature rather than a bug. And it would avoid the Fortress problem.
I like it, but is it too strong for being able to mill Provinces and Colonies without actually trashing the card?
This won't be a problem with a gain costing exactly X more. Also, I keep forgetting that it's a Tavern mat, not a Reserve mat.
I think it should go on your Island Mat, a India-Panther mat or just get set aside. There's absolutely no need for having this interact with Reserves, and the Island Mat does the job nicely.
Also, making it able to Islands away VP cards could actually be the buff this needs to cost $6 and still go with some "exactly" stuff.
Not a fan of what the majority voted for, actually.
-
Is islanding close enough to trashing to be the thing we voted for (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14488.0)?
-
Is islanding close enough to trashing to be the thing we voted for (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14488.0)?
Closer than the Reserve Mat. Which still means no.
On the other hand, "Costing $1 or $2 more" isn't the same as "up to $2 more", either. And i really don't see why this even was an option. If it was to solve the Fortress issue, well, it doesn't solve it. We could have just gone with "up to $2 more", like the card i voted for, and solved the issue another way. For example using the Island Mat. This way we'd have the same number of differences from the original, but actually solved a problem.
Edit: This last part is nonsense. Still, just changing it to "exactly" doesn't solve the Fortress issue on its own - it does only when combined with yet another change or a price for India-Panther that's too high to gain this way.
Edit: Wow, just realized that my last three posts before this one bagan with "i think" (thought in one case). Am i really saying this that often? Also: C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!
-
I think you are.
Islanding/Reserving does nerf the interaction with at least 8 cards:
Overgrown Estate
Squire
Feodum
Fortress (our current concern)
Catacombs
Cultist
Sir Vander
Hunting Grounds
-
I think you are.
Islanding/Reserving does nerf the interaction with at least 8 cards:
Overgrown Estate
Squire
Feodum
Fortress (our current concern)
Catacombs
Cultist
Sir Vander
Hunting Grounds
It also nerfs the interaction with Curse, while strengthening the Interaction with every Victory card (except Distand Lands which stays the same - edit: and Feodum).
Oh, i didn't think enough last post, no wonder i didn't write that there... Obviously you can't have "up to" and Islands, or you'd just be gaining Provinces all the time. So, when advocating Islands, i assumed an "exactly" wording, but forgot about it and wrote against it... Derp.
-
I might be missing something, but it seems to me think you're underestimating the power of repeatedly (vs one-shot) islanding victory cards. I think that power alone might be worth 6$, really. It essentially makes your Engine go on forever.
I also would like to change my vote, I'm afraid. :-\
exactly 2 -> up to 1 more
-
I might be missing something, but it seems to me think you're underestimating the power of repeatedly (vs one-shot) islanding victory cards. I think that power alone might be worth 6$, really. It essentially makes your Engine go on forever.
I also would like to change my vote, I'm afraid. :-\
exactly 2 -> up to 1 more
Actually, i'm well aware of that, though i wasn't thinking about what kind of strategy it leads us to. If this card costs $6 and makes you gain cards costing $1 more than what you Islanded, (which i made out to be a good idea before), it becomes a very strong use case to Island Duchies for more copies of Island-Panther - probably to the degree of being broken. The fact that the card itself interacts with opponent's VP cards in that respect is also a bit weird, as it might help or harm them depending on whether they go for a mirror or not. So, basically, the card forces you to go with it, and i don't like that. All in all, this isn't as good a solution as i believed.
-
Replies/opinions!
1. I'm happy to see so much discussion around this. :)
2. I would say that "set aside permanently" fits within the category of "trash" (so would "return to the supply"). But I don't like it here. I agree with Accatitippi that it boosts the power too much. I don't think it was suggested that it would be combined with an "up to" wording, but if it were, then it becomes "gain a Province" when you can line it up with a Province. Or Colony! Using the Island Mat seems bad because outside of the card named "Island", what's an Island Mat? Same for Tavern. India-Panther Mat would be better, but who wants a new Mat? Just plain set-aside could work, but I think it would be confusing as to why it's getting set aside.
All that aside, eHalcyon said it "gains added functionality", which is true, but I think that's a bad thing. The card does enough without it. It's a big change to fix a specific problem.
Returning to the supply would fix Fortress without adding to the power level; the only real reason I wouldn't like that much is because it feels like people would say "why isn't this just being trashed instead?" Plus, it means you can't remodel any non-Supply cards.
3. For voting, none of the "I change my vote" posts seem like they would change this fact: "Exactly $2 more" and "Either $1 or $2 more" got more votes than the others by a good bit. My "vote" would be for just a runoff between those 2.
As for why "Either (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)$2 more" is an option, no, it's not to fix Fortress. It was suggested because it's something that hasn't been done yet. Something that's stronger than the "exactly" options, while still being weaker than "up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)"
4. As for fixing Fortress, as said somewhere else, my vote would be for not auto-playing if the gained action is India-Panther. This would make draining the pile require other conditions aside from colliding 2 cards. And that should be fine, under the right conditions you can instantly drain Rats as well. But we can take a separate vote for how to fix fortress, with those types of options. Unless "Exactly (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more" wins the runoff, in which case it's not a problem unless we choose to cost it at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) (which seems less likely if it's an exactly).
-
I honestly never considered the "$1 or $2 More" as an option. It doesn't seem different enough from "Up to $2 More" to be worth the extra rules text. So my vote between those two would automatically go to "Exactly $2 More".