Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: dominator 123 on January 20, 2018, 09:32:14 am
-
Something I've been thinking about is that if some old cards had been made now, they may be made more elegantly with the new mechanics introduced in newer sets, which weren't present in older sets.
One example that comes to mind immediately is Horn of Plenty. It would make much more sense as a Night card than a $0 Treasure.
Another one is perhaps Trader. I'll say the reaction part would be better written with "exchange", as "When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand to exchange it for a Silver". This eliminates all the wonky "would gain" interactions.
What do you think? Are there any other cards that can be similarly made better?
-
Some cards cost 7$ or more, because at 5$, they would be too swingy if one player opens 5$ and the other doesn‘t. This risk can be solved by debt. Example given, Forge could be priced 7 debt. Similarly, Prince would be more interesting as a debt card.
-
It’s not a “newer mechanic”, but Distant Lands could easily (and arguably more straightforwardly) have been “trash this; if you do +4 VP” in Empires rather than a Reserve card in Adventures.
-
I don't really see any problem with HoP being a Treasure. It's not the only Treasure that doesn't provide any money.
-
Nomad camp could easily have used Save/Gear technology and it wouldn't have been close to being op. Heck, even autosummoning Nomad Camps wouldn't be broken.
Some of the very expensive, snowballing cards could have had a less swingy price, had debt been available. I'm mostly thinking of King's Court.
Scheme could have been a Night card and it would have been much simpler (but weaker).
HoP is definitely a Night card from before Night cards existed. Of course you get the nice "gain a treasure" interactions. But it's much easier to explain as Night.
A lot of one-shots and on-gains could've been Events, and a lot of them got similar Event versions. Embargo (Tax), Cache (Banquet), Nomad Camp (see Travelling Fair), Ill-Gotten Gains (albeit with much less 3-pile potential)...
-
One example that comes to mind immediately is Horn of Plenty. It would make much more sense as a Night card than a $0 Treasure.
How does that make it better?
Night should only be used, when it MUST be used, because i'm really getting tired of telling people "wait, you can't play that card until after your buy phase"...
...and having people say it to me.
There are probably a lot of cards that DX would have made as events if they had been in the game day 1.
the secret histories of events are full of "this was a kingdom card..."
but i can't think of any cards for which there is a smooth transition.
i think it's more likely that if events were always a thing, some of the kingdom cards would have morphed into elegant but different events/landmarks.
-
Bear in mind that there are still differences between how these cards are, and the fixes being proposed. You can Crown Horn of Plenty. Distant Lands counts for Vineyards. Forge and Prince can be gained by Workshop variants (given enough cost reduction). Trader as-is has the infinite VP trick with Forum and Goons and Highway.
-
I've seen a few people complain that they forgot about Scheme's end of turn effect. I think that's reason enough to make it a Night.
Horn of Plenty would be less confusing as Night. That +$0 just makes it look weird, and also the $ symbol takes tons of space.
Hermit and Urchin could exchange themselves for their upgrades. And maybe Madman could return to a Hermit after playing him.
I also feel like it would be less confusing if the coin tokens in Guilds were named Copper tokens. It makes sense, each token gives +$1.
-
Oh, and of course debt and the -coin token do the same thing, except one doesn't stack.
Every player without debt takes one debt works almost exactly like bridge troll, and ball could cost 4 coins and one debt and be just a tad weaker.
-
Oh, and of course debt and the -coin token do the same thing, except one doesn't stack.
Every player without debt takes one debt works almost exactly like bridge troll, and ball could cost 4 coins and one debt and be just a tad weaker.
No, Ball could cost 5 coins and one debt.
-
For the most part any of this later technology really doesn't want to be in the main set. But we can posit a spin-off game that includes whatever it is, and then say yes, certain cards would be different. We can also imagine that some particular card could have not happened on cue, and later appeared in whatever set. And of course any edge cases are moot, the cards want to be the best versions of themselves possible and even things like "you can Crown a Horn of Plenty" just wouldn't matter to me.
Night: Obv. Horn of Plenty would be a Night card, the example I have endlessly given already, and sure maybe Scheme.
Exchange: I think of this as, well not exactly a failed experiment, but something that was better constrained to the Travellers. I think it confuses people and the move is not to use it. Trader, as I've said in the past, either it should not have the reaction, or the reaction should let you trash a when-gained non-silver card to gain a silver. Of course a spin-off could have exchange but not when-gain, or could just really require that people learn all about exchanging day one, as a basic part of the rules.
Debt: Yes this is better-to-use than the -$1 token, though Ball would be $5 and D, not $4. I don't imagine Debt would find a lot of other use; those 8D cards were tricky. However the Engineer trick could come in handy elsewhere (since it costs Debt, it can't gain itself).
VP tokens: Well you don't really get anything changing Distant Lands, I mean it's one thing or another. You might be able to get a little use of VP tokens though, other than completely new cards; Harem for example could be an Event with "+2 VP, gain a Silver."
Events: Yes some one-shots and when-gain-style one-shots could be Events instead. And a few other cards, like Harem. I don't think Events would eliminate either one-shots or when-gain cards, but there would be fewer of them. It's tricky because, when you convert the card to an Event, you lose some specific fun that you notice that you're losing. I enjoyed using TFB cards on the thing that became Banquet, for example. But this is always up against "but the Event just takes one slot in the set, and the kingdom card takes eleven."
I think Events are easily the winner, in terms of what you get out of having them.
-
I really like Trader for what it is. HoP is not overcomplicated, unlike how many Night cards would be if they were Treasures, so that is also fine as it is.
The only thing I don't like is how some cards don't take newer mechanics (or just mechanics from other expansions) into consideration. This being:
* Explorer: Why doesn't this interact with Colonies? (actually, I think it should give Gold with any Victory card that costs $5+; provinces are just too narrow)
* Salvager: pretty dumb how it doesn't give Potion cost back, even if it is fairly irrelevant in practice.
* Haunted Woods: Shouldn't Night cards be immune to the attack (also makes sense flavor wise)?
-
I really like Trader for what it is. HoP is not overcomplicated, unlike how many Night cards would be if they were Treasures, so that is also fine as it is.
The only thing I don't like is how some cards don't take newer mechanics (or just mechanics from other expansions) into consideration. This being:
* Explorer: Why doesn't this interact with Colonies? (actually, I think it should give Gold with any Victory card that costs $5+; provinces are just too narrow)
* Salvager: pretty dumb how it doesn't give Potion cost back, even if it is fairly irrelevant in practice.
* Haunted Woods: Shouldn't Night cards be immune to the attack (also makes sense flavor wise)?
I super super disagree. Trader and Horn of Plenty are definitely too complicated, it would be bad if Explorer tried to get in Colonies, it would suck hard if Salvager referred to Potions. Those are just all bad bad things. Haunted Woods came out ahead of Nocturne, of course it doesn't refer to Night cards. They couldn't desperately try to account for it either.
It can be hard to see how bad complexity is. What's the harm? The harm is fewer people playing the game. I would like more people to play. My big regrets in Dominion cards are exactly the kind of thing you're in favor of here.
-
It’s not a “newer mechanic”, but Distant Lands could easily (and arguably more straightforwardly) have been “trash this; if you do +4 VP” in Empires rather than a Reserve card in Adventures.
This is similar like Harem -> Conquest.
It is important for Distant Lands that there are some edge cases with Gardens, Market Square, Tomb and Courtier.
However, I think that Island just should say "set aside", similar to Inheritance or Prince. There is no requirement for a separate Island mat.
-
Oh, and of course debt and the -coin token do the same thing, except one doesn't stack.
Every player without debt takes one debt works almost exactly like bridge troll, and ball could cost 4 coins and one debt and be just a tad weaker.
No, Ball could cost 5 coins and one debt.
Yeah, of course. I wasn't paying attention.
-
Another thing worth noting is that self-trashing Distant Lands (or Island) would enable some endless loops with Rogue, Lurker, and Graverobber. The potential for that sort of things is already there, though.
-
My main changes would be taking the old, 1E cards, and instead of making them either completely different, or removing them outright with no "spiritual successors"... to just make some tweaks to them. For example, Thief typically helps your opponents since it strips out their Coppers. Have Thief ignore Coppers, and keep everything else the same. Give Scout +1 coin and/or +1 card as well.
-
Given I've seen this thread just after the one discussing the Seaside mats...
...Island could easily use the Tavern mat instead of another of its own, couldn't it?
-
...Island could easily use the Tavern mat instead of another of its own, couldn't it?
Yes, that would be fine.
-
...Island could easily use the Tavern mat instead of another of its own, couldn't it?
Yes, that would be fine.
And it would have a cute interaction with Reserve cards. Not necessarily a useful one. Oh, except with Miser. And Distant Lands.
-
...Island could easily use the Tavern mat instead of another of its own, couldn't it?
Yes, that would be fine.
And it would have a cute interaction with Reserve cards. Not necessarily a useful one. Oh, except with Miser. And Distant Lands.
I really don’t think this is what was meant. Or are you joking?
-
...Island could easily use the Tavern mat instead of another of its own, couldn't it?
Yes, that would be fine.
And it would have a cute interaction with Reserve cards. Not necessarily a useful one. Oh, except with Miser. And Distant Lands.
I really don’t think this is what was meant. Or are you joking?
I am not joking. What was meant?
-
...Island could easily use the Tavern mat instead of another of its own, couldn't it?
Yes, that would be fine.
And it would have a cute interaction with Reserve cards. Not necessarily a useful one. Oh, except with Miser. And Distant Lands.
I really don’t think this is what was meant. Or are you joking?
I am not joking. What was meant?
Maybe I’m wrong, but I understood this as just using the tavern mat as a physical place to put island and the cards that go with it instead of using a separate island mat, but not that you would actually consider such cards to be “on your tavern mat” for the purposes of cards that say such things like Miser.
-
...Island could easily use the Tavern mat instead of another of its own, couldn't it?
Yes, that would be fine.
And it would have a cute interaction with Reserve cards. Not necessarily a useful one. Oh, except with Miser. And Distant Lands.
I really don’t think this is what was meant. Or are you joking?
I am not joking. What was meant?
Maybe I’m wrong, but I understood this as just using the tavern mat as a physical place to put island and the cards that go with it instead of using a separate island mat, but not that you would actually consider such cards to be “on your tavern mat” for the purposes of cards that say such things like Miser.
You would, though. They'd be on your Tavern mat, for all purposes. It would be bad for there to be a distinction between cards that were "really" on your Tavern mat and those that weren't.
-
Some cards cost 7$ or more, because at 5$, they would be too swingy if one player opens 5$ and the other doesn‘t. This risk can be solved by debt. Example given, Forge could be priced 7 debt. Similarly, Prince would be more interesting as a debt card.
My fear is that Forge would be an autobuy, at least in kingdoms sans Chapel. This would render the second turn uninteresting. The elegance about Royal Blacksmith and City Quarter is that you could open with them, it is just very ineffectual. Whereas Forge is exactly what you need at the start of the game.
-
Some cards cost 7$ or more, because at 5$, they would be too swingy if one player opens 5$ and the other doesn‘t. This risk can be solved by debt. Example given, Forge could be priced 7 debt. Similarly, Prince would be more interesting as a debt card.
My fear is that Forge would be an autobuy, at least in kingdoms sans Chapel. This would render the second turn uninteresting. The elegance about Royal Blacksmith and City Quarter is that you could open with them, it is just very ineffectual. Whereas Forge is exactly what you need at the start of the game.
OTOH we have Overlord, which is often a very good opener.
-
What I intended was just making Island an Action-Victory-Reserve that put itself on your tavern mat with another card underneath. I hadn't intended that the other card then be in Reserve, though actually that would be more amusing than significant: doesn't every Reserve card already have an easier way to get it onto the Tavern mat than playing ReserveIsland?
-
Example given, Forge could be priced 7 debt.
My fear is that Forge would be an autobuy, at least in kingdoms sans Chapel. This would render the second turn uninteresting.
Hasn't Donate demonstrated that good trashing with a high Debt cost is far from uninteresting? Indeed, the bigger risk might be that a Debt-cost Forge would be seen as an inferior Donate rather than a fiddly mid-to-late-game trash for benefit.
-
Example given, Forge could be priced 7 debt.
My fear is that Forge would be an autobuy, at least in kingdoms sans Chapel. This would render the second turn uninteresting.
Hasn't Donate demonstrated that good trashing with a high Debt cost is far from uninteresting? Indeed, the bigger risk might be that a Debt-cost Forge would be seen as an inferior Donate rather than a fiddly mid-to-late-game trash for benefit.
But Donate is also an autobuy, just not an instabuy. The interesting part is its timing. While trashers like Chapel and Forge (should it be available at early game) take some turns to complete their trashing, allowing some alternate economy to build. Other than the one shot Donate, Forge would still be a late trash-for-benefit in the late game (and, admittedly, be a dead card for some turns in the mid-game). I may still buy Chapel over Debt-Forge, but then I buy Chapel over current Forge too.
-
But Donate is also an autobuy, just not an instabuy. The interesting part is its timing. While trashers like Chapel and Forge (should it be available at early game) take some turns to complete their trashing, allowing some alternate economy to build. Other than the one shot Donate, Forge would still be a late trash-for-benefit in the late game (and, admittedly, be a dead card for some turns in the mid-game). I may still buy Chapel over Debt-Forge, but then I buy Chapel over current Forge too.
Buying Donate on turn 1 to trash three Estates and two Coppers is damn near an automatic decision in every game.
-
Buying Donate on turn 1 to trash three Estates and two Coppers is damn near an automatic decision in every game.
even on a 2/5 opening?
-
Buying Donate on turn 1 to trash three Estates and two Coppers is damn near an automatic decision in every game.
even on a 2/5 opening?
That depends on the situation, but assuming there's a powerful $5 on the board, it's probably better to donate t3. Either way, you're at a severe disadvantage though.