Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: NoMoreFun on August 28, 2016, 06:58:39 am
-
I am in the process of making an expansion that's a sequel to Alchemy .
One of the mechanics is dual cost cards (cards with 2 different costs). Most of them will have one normal cost and one potion cost, and the main goal is so you aren't forced to buy potion to use those cards.
Does the following set of rules work?:
- Both costs are "present". If either of the costs satisfy a condition you must count the card, so if you are required to gain a card with one of the costs (eg upgrade), you must gain it.
- If a task cares about the cost of a card (eg gaining a card based on the cost of the card you trashed with Remodel), the player doing the task in question chooses which of the two costs to work with.
- You may buy the card by paying either of the listed costs
- However you may choose either cost for the card you just bought when referring to any cards that care about the cost of a card you just bought (eg Talisman, Haggler)
- If either of the costs has $P, include Potion in the kingdom.
Specific Interactions (in decreasing order of sureness): - You can gain a card with a dual cost with Smugglers even if the player to your left paid more than $6 for it (similar to Bridge, Highway)
- If a dual cost card is trashed with Swindler, the player who played the Swindler decides which of the two costs they wish to use for the card's effect (as the card specifies "you choose") but a copy of the card they just trashed is always available as one of the options to replace the trashed card (as long as it's in the supply).
- Saboteur and Sage will stop revealing cards if it reveals a dual cost card with a cost higher than $3. With Saboteur the player can gain a card costing up to $2 less than either cost.
- If the card is revealed with Knights or Rogue and one of the costs is between $3 and $6, it is one of the cards the player is able to trash (falling under the "both costs are present" rule), and they must trash it if the other revealed card does not have a cost between $3 and $6. Similarly Rogue gains it if it's in the trash and you can't choose to attack instead if it's the only card costing between $3 and $6 in the trash.
- Giant and Warrior are asking the player being attacked what the cost of the revealed card is (as it's in the "each other player" portion of the card), so they get to choose what happens
- The player who played Chariot Race chooses the cost of all the revealed cards
Is this all right? Are there any other cards where it's not clear what to do?
2 examples of cards that play with the mechanic:
Arbitrage
Action - $1/$4
+1 Action
Return a card to the supply from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.
Stock
Action - $2/$5
+1 Action
+$2
---
When you buy this, gain a card costing less than the cost you paid to buy this card.
Clarification: You can use the when buy effect of a $5 Stock to gain a $2 Stock
-
You can gain a card with a dual cost with Smugglers even if the player to your left paid less than $3 for it (similar to Bridge, Highway).
You can normally gain cards costing less than $3 with Smugglers. It's "up to $6."
Giant and Treasure Hunter are asking the player being attacked what the cost of the revealed card is (as it's in the "each other player" portion of the card), so they get to choose what happens.
Um, Treasure Hunter neither attacks, refers to card costs, nor contains the text "each other player." I don't know which card you're trying to talk about...
-
You can gain a card with a dual cost with Smugglers even if the player to your left paid less than $3 for it (similar
Giant and Treasure Hunter are asking the player being attacked what the cost of the revealed card is (as it's in the "each other player" portion of the card), so they get to choose what happens.
Um, Treasure Hunter neither attacks, refers to card costs, nor contains the text "each other player." I don't know which card you're trying to talk about...
Warrior (Op has been updated)
-
I don't get the point of having multupe costs on arbitrage. I like how it works on stock as overpay but with a fixed increase in price, but, correct me if I am wrong, that isvalready possible within the existing rules for overpay.
-
I don't get the point of having multupe costs on arbitrage.
I suppose the point of Arbitrage is to buy it for $1 then use some trash-for-benefit card (Remodel, Salvager, Arbitrage itself...) to "sell" it for $4.
-
I think the mechanic is good, and I don't see any serious rules confusion or issues with it. The simplest way to deal with "who chooses" might be something like "whoever's turn it currently is", instead of "the player doing the task". Maybe your way is still obvious, but the other is super-obvious. It would have different implications with things like Governor, but that's about all.
Stock sounds super weak. Buying it for $2 is a terrible move in all but very rare edge cases. It's just an action-Silver, and if you have to get a Copper along with it, you really don't want that. Buying it for $5 just means you get a $4 and a Silver instead of a $5, which is sometimes but not often a good idea.
-
So, do the cards have both costs or always just one at a time? I would argue they have both, because why else would both the Swindler-playing and the Saboteur-hit player be able to choose. But if a card has both costs, why would the Chariot-Race-playing player choose? In fact, that card interaction is really weird. What if i trash a $6/P card to Apprentice? Can i draw 6 cards and then look at the next sentence, which says "If it has Potion in its cost" and choose the other cost for that one, to draw 8 cards total? Obviously the more cards you make with this mechanic, the smaller the "new rules overhead" becomes in comparison. But for the two cards given, you could easily do Arbitage with a "if it is an Arbitage/otherwise" wording and approach Stocks very closely by using overpay.
-
So, do the cards have both costs or always just one at a time? I would argue they have both, because why else would both the Swindler-playing and the Saboteur-hit player be able to choose. But if a card has both costs, why would the Chariot-Race-playing player choose? In fact, that card interaction is really weird. What if i trash a $6/P card to Apprentice? Can i draw 6 cards and then look at the next sentence, which says "If it has Potion in its cost" and choose the other cost for that one, to draw 8 cards total? Obviously the more cards you make with this mechanic, the smaller the "new rules overhead" becomes in comparison. But for the two cards given, you could easily do Arbitage with a "if it is an Arbitage/otherwise" wording and approach Stocks very closely by using overpay.
With Apprentice you can choose a cost to draw that many cards, then you see whether potion is in its cost to see whether you draw the extra 2 cards or not, so you can trash a $6/P for either 8 cards or 2 cards.
Chariot Race is the one I'm least sure about, but it is the player who played it doing something based on the cost.
Most of the cards will be "Pure coin cost/Potion cost" but I thought I'd post ones that deliberately play with the mechanic more.
The point of Arbitrage is to turn Coppers into Arbitrages, then Arbitrages into $5s.
Stock is a variant of Border Village, and it also has interactions with $2 Silver that you can't get from Delve. It's an Action so Stock/Stock is different to Stock/Silver. If I had the means to playtest I'd also playtest Stock at $1/$5