Dominion Strategy Forum
Archive => Archive => Dominion: Dark Ages Previews => Topic started by: Beyond Awesome on August 16, 2012, 04:26:39 pm
-
So, something seems off.
First, we have one Knight that costs $4 and the randomizer says $5. Then, Catacombs has a weird wording, and I think a couple other cards as well do. But, what really makes me think that the first printing of DA might be a misprint is that Rebuild let's you name any card including a non-Victory card which just seems weird. This is how Rebuild is worded:
Rebuild
$5
+1 Action
Name a card. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Victory card that is not the named card. Trash it. Gain a Victory card costing up to $3 more than it. Discard the other cards.
Action
So, what do you think. Is something fishy going on?
-
Knight is probably intentional.
You can name any order card if you want to hit ANY victory i.e. not ban anything - Just name Copper. You probably want to namebad Estate so that you trash duchy->Prov or Prov->Colony.
-
So, something seems off.
First, we have one Knight that costs $4 and the randomizer says $5. Then, Catacombs has a weird wording, and I think a couple other cards as well do. But, what really makes me think that the first printing of DA might be a misprint is that Rebuild let's you name any card including a non-Victory card which just seems weird. This is how Rebuild is worded:
Rebuild
$5
+1 Action
Name a card. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Victory card that is not the named card. Trash it. Gain a Victory card costing up to $3 more than it. Discard the other cards.
Action
So, what do you think. Is something fishy going on?
I don't see a real problem with Rebuild. It gives you the ability to just trash / expand the first victory card you find, no matter what it is.
I didn't notice that Sir Martin costs $4, but given his ability, it makes sense that he would I think. The randomizer has to say $5, because it applies to all the Knights. Catacombs is indeed a weird choice of words, but I don't see how that could be a misprint, rather than a choice Donald made.
-
Knight is probably intentional.
You can name any order card if you want to hit ANY victory i.e. not ban anything - Just name Copper. You probably want to namebad Estate so that you trash duchy->Prov or Prov->Colony.
You're probably right.
-
Knight is probably intentional.
You can name any order card if you want to hit ANY victory i.e. not ban anything - Just name Copper. You probably want to namebad Estate so that you trash duchy->Prov or Prov->Colony.
I just realized the best use of naming a card... Ruined Overgrown Estate. You really wouldn't want to hit that with Rebuild, unless it's a Gardens/Silk Road/Feodum game.
-
You mean Overgrown Estate?
-
I guess the best card to name is colony/province if you have one already, since those cant be improved.
-
+2 Buys is such a weaker bonus compared to the others that it makes sense that Martin gets an extra boost. His $4 cost makes Knight openings easier (though he'd have to be on top when your $4 turn comes along), but Knight openings can already happen with a 5/2 split anyway.
It does rather seem like a Knight trashing an opening buy on Turn 3 could decide the game then and there. But those can happen anyway. I kind of like how Knight openings can happen in different ways: usually only on a 5/2 split, but sometimes on a 4/3.
-
First, we have one Knight that costs $4 and the randomizer says $5. Then, Catacombs has a weird wording, and I think a couple other cards as well do. But, what really makes me think that the first printing of DA might be a misprint is that Rebuild let's you name any card including a non-Victory card which just seems weird. This is how Rebuild is worded:
Rebuild
$5
+1 Action
Name a card. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Victory card that is not the named card. Trash it. Gain a Victory card costing up to $3 more than it. Discard the other cards.
Action
So, what do you think. Is something fishy going on?
You actually have the wrong wording of Rebuild there; however the correct wording does say "Name a card" at the start (what's wrong here is that the discarding actually happens before the trashing/gaining).
I am going to guess that my reasoning was, here is a really wordy card, it doesn't need to also say "Victory" here does it. Name whatever card you want; if you want to actually avoiding trading in a particular victory card, name one of those, and if you don't want to, I don't need to make you think of a victory card that isn't being used this game.
Edit: Okay it's not quite like that because I wasn't thinking about what the card actually is here, but you know. If you want to hit any victory card, name Curse or whatever you want; nothing is gained by forcing you to name a victory card not in your deck, which you would almost always be able to do anyway.
-
You mean Overgrown Estate?
Indeed, lol.
-
+2 Buys is such a weaker bonus compared to the others that it makes sense that Martin gets an extra boost. His $4 cost makes Knight openings easier (though he'd have to be on top when your $4 turn comes along), but Knight openings can already happen with a 5/2 split anyway.
It does rather seem like a Knight trashing an opening buy on Turn 3 could decide the game then and there. But those can happen anyway. I kind of like how Knight openings can happen in different ways: usually only on a 5/2 split, but sometimes on a 4/3.
Having a single $4 knight seems weird though. I would've expected a few of each cost, if that's the idea. But clearly I'm wrong. :)
-
Is it significant that Market Square's reaction triggers on 'When one of your cards is trashed' rather than 'When you trash a card'?
-
It's the Wishing Well clause which lets you name Uno, Bridge and Magic cards as well, although you won't find them in your deck.
But sometimes you might NOT want to be right with Wishing Well for whatever edge reason.
I can understand why he put "name a card" there; the card is a bit wordy though.
-
Is it significant that Market Square's reaction triggers on 'When one of your cards is trashed' rather than 'When you trash a card'?
No, I don't think so. So far all the trashers instruct you to trash your own card, rather than forcibly trashing someone else's cards.
-
Having a single $4 knight seems weird though. I would've expected a few of each cost, if that's the idea. But clearly I'm wrong. :)
He is younger than the other guys.
-
Is it significant that Market Square's reaction triggers on 'When one of your cards is trashed' rather than 'When you trash a card'?
Another odd/inconsistant wording. I'm pretty sure that there's still no card in the game that allows you to trash an opponent's card, rather than forcing an opponent to trash his card.
-
Is it significant that Market Square's reaction triggers on 'When one of your cards is trashed' rather than 'When you trash a card'?
Only in that it has gotten this question asked.
-
But sometimes you might NOT want to be right with Wishing Well for whatever edge reason.
That one's easy; you don't want a reshuffle. We like challenges! ;D
-
Is it significant that Market Square's reaction triggers on 'When one of your cards is trashed' rather than 'When you trash a card'?
Only in that it has gotten this question asked.
Well, alrighty then.
-
But sometimes you might NOT want to be right with Wishing Well for whatever edge reason.
That one's easy; you don't want a reshuffle. We like challenges! ;D
You, sir, fail, and: haha, smirk!
Whether you wish wrong or right, you need to reveal the card anyway!
-
But sometimes you might NOT want to be right with Wishing Well for whatever edge reason.
That one's easy; you don't want a reshuffle. We like challenges! ;D
You, sir, fail, and: haha, smirk!
Whether you wish wrong or right, you need to reveal the card anyway!
You want to go "gain a Copper, trash your hand" with Count, but don't want to trash the second card down because it's a good one or something.
-
But sometimes you might NOT want to be right with Wishing Well for whatever edge reason.
That one's easy; you don't want a reshuffle. We like challenges! ;D
You, sir, fail, and: haha, smirk!
Whether you wish wrong or right, you need to reveal the card anyway!
Crap!! :-[
-
But sometimes you might NOT want to be right with Wishing Well for whatever edge reason.
That one's easy; you don't want a reshuffle. We like challenges! ;D
You, sir, fail, and: haha, smirk!
Whether you wish wrong or right, you need to reveal the card anyway!
You want to go "gain a Copper, trash your hand" with Count, but don't want to trash the second card down because it's a good one or something.
You can probably find a simple example with TR or Golem and a forced trasher like that.
-
Or you just draw a Gold with your +1 Card, and don't want another one which is behind it as it will make you overplay for Province.
-
Or you just draw a Gold with your +1 Card, and don't want another one which is behind it as it will make you overplay for Province.
The best example of this would be treasure map. You know that the next 4 cards of your deck are golds. You may only want one of those golds, and intentionally guessing Curse will result in a guaranteed province next turn.
-
with the insane amount of play testing that Donald X and others do, i think it is insulting to say that there is a misprint. i dont think it's possible with the thousands of hours they put in
-
Or you just draw a Gold with your +1 Card, and don't want another one which is behind it as it will make you overplay for Province.
The best example of this would be treasure map. You know that the next 4 cards of your deck are golds. You may only want one of those golds, and intentionally guessing Curse will result in a guaranteed province next turn.
Or leaving a copper there with Cartographer so that Loan will trash it.
-
Is it significant that Market Square's reaction triggers on 'When one of your cards is trashed' rather than 'When you trash a card'?
Maybe not the intention, but I think this wording will help alleviate confusion from people playing Swindler. "I played Swindler and trashed your card, so I can reveal Market Square now, right?" Nope, not right.
-
with the insane amount of play testing that Donald X and others do, i think it is insulting to say that there is a misprint. i dont think it's possible with the thousands of hours they put in
O rly.
How about the TR/KC + duration brouhaha.
noob.
-
with the insane amount of play testing that Donald X and others do, i think it is insulting to say that there is a misprint. i dont think it's possible with the thousands of hours they put in
'Misprinted' does not mean 'badly designed'. Printing errors happen. Even if Donald and the playtesters perfected a card, it could conceivably be misprinted. You can stop feeling offended now.
-
re wishing well intentional failure: you are down to 6 cards in your deck. You know that you have not played your counting house. You need one more card from wishing well to hit $8 this turn. If you guess correctly, you'll force a reshuffle when you draw your next hand, and your coppers won't be in the discard anymore.
-
'Misprinted' does not mean 'badly designed'. Printing errors happen. Even if Donald and the playtesters perfected a card, it could conceivably be misprinted. You can stop feeling offended now.
Really you were insulting my ability to proofread. And hey there was an error caught at the last minute by Georg, the German translator (Hunting Grounds said "when this is trashed" rather than "when you trash this").
-
Is it significant that Market Square's reaction triggers on 'When one of your cards is trashed' rather than 'When you trash a card'?
Maybe not the intention, but I think this wording will help alleviate confusion from people playing Swindler. "I played Swindler and trashed your card, so I can reveal Market Square now, right?" Nope, not right.
I think that's specifically that each other player reveals the top card and trashes it- the victim does the trashing anyway.
-
'Misprinted' does not mean 'badly designed'. Printing errors happen. Even if Donald and the playtesters perfected a card, it could conceivably be misprinted. You can stop feeling offended now.
Really you were insulting my ability to proofread. And hey there was an error caught at the last minute by Georg, the German translator (Hunting Grounds said "when this is trashed" rather than "when you trash this").
Hey dude, I didn't start this thread. Also, I have no idea how the proofreading/printing process works. For all I knew, you OKed a bunch of lines of text and they got added onto the actual cards later. All I knew is that the thread said 'misprint' and some dude thought it meant 'badly designed'. So I clarified. Sorry you felt insulted.
-
'Misprinted' does not mean 'badly designed'. Printing errors happen. Even if Donald and the playtesters perfected a card, it could conceivably be misprinted. You can stop feeling offended now.
Really you were insulting my ability to proofread. And hey there was an error caught at the last minute by Georg, the German translator (Hunting Grounds said "when this is trashed" rather than "when you trash this").
Hey dude, I didn't start this thread. Also, I have no idea how the proofreading/printing process works. For all I knew, you OKed a bunch of lines of text and they got added onto the actual cards later. All I knew is that the thread said 'misprint' and some dude thought it meant 'badly designed'.
I think that was the trademark DXV "humor"...
-
'Misprinted' does not mean 'badly designed'. Printing errors happen. Even if Donald and the playtesters perfected a card, it could conceivably be misprinted. You can stop feeling offended now.
Really you were insulting my ability to proofread. And hey there was an error caught at the last minute by Georg, the German translator (Hunting Grounds said "when this is trashed" rather than "when you trash this").
Hey dude, I didn't start this thread. Also, I have no idea how the proofreading/printing process works. For all I knew, you OKed a bunch of lines of text and they got added onto the actual cards later. All I knew is that the thread said 'misprint' and some dude thought it meant 'badly designed'. So I clarified. Sorry you felt insulted.
I actually read his post as saying "you're not insulting my design skills, you're insulting my proof-reading skills, and proof-reading errors do happen".
FWIW, I made an off-hand "misprint" comment in another thread (about the $4 Knight), but I didn't mean much by it. Just was a surprise, is all.
-
'Misprinted' does not mean 'badly designed'. Printing errors happen. Even if Donald and the playtesters perfected a card, it could conceivably be misprinted. You can stop feeling offended now.
Really you were insulting my ability to proofread. And hey there was an error caught at the last minute by Georg, the German translator (Hunting Grounds said "when this is trashed" rather than "when you trash this").
Hey dude, I didn't start this thread. Also, I have no idea how the proofreading/printing process works. For all I knew, you OKed a bunch of lines of text and they got added onto the actual cards later. All I knew is that the thread said 'misprint' and some dude thought it meant 'badly designed'. So I clarified. Sorry you felt insulted.
Oops, when I said "you" I meant Beyond Awesome. I do not feel insulted, man, Beyond Awesome will have to work harder than that.
-
I actually read his post as saying "you're not insulting my design skills, you're insulting my proof-reading skills, and proof-reading errors do happen".
Yeah, good call. I need to lighten up. It's been a stressful week.
Oops, when I said "you" I meant Beyond Awesome. I do not feel insulted, man, Beyond Awesome will have to work harder than that.
Thanks for clarifying!
-
'Misprinted' does not mean 'badly designed'. Printing errors happen. Even if Donald and the playtesters perfected a card, it could conceivably be misprinted. You can stop feeling offended now.
Really you were insulting my ability to proofread. And hey there was an error caught at the last minute by Georg, the German translator (Hunting Grounds said "when this is trashed" rather than "when you trash this").
Hey dude, I didn't start this thread. Also, I have no idea how the proofreading/printing process works. For all I knew, you OKed a bunch of lines of text and they got added onto the actual cards later. All I knew is that the thread said 'misprint' and some dude thought it meant 'badly designed'. So I clarified. Sorry you felt insulted.
Oops, when I said "you" I meant Beyond Awesome. I do not feel insulted, man, Beyond Awesome will have to work harder than that.
No insult meant. Misprints happen all the time. It happens with other games--see the Underground River in Betrayal on House on the Hill. Even Magic has misprints here and there. In Zendikar block, a card had the Artifact type accidentally left off. That's a big misprint. Also, Donald, I have heard stories of where edits are okayed, but then they reverted back to a pre-edit version, which would actually be the publisher fault or someone else's fault.
-
No insult meant. Misprints happen all the time. It happens with other games--see the Underground River in Betrayal on House on the Hill. Even Magic has misprints here and there. In Zendikar block, a card had the Artifact type accidentally left off. That's a big misprint. Also, Donald, I have heard stories of where edits are okayed, but then they reverted back to a pre-edit version, which would actually be the publisher fault or someone else's fault.
Oh the Dark Ages rulebook does have a misprint. Two coin symbols are missing in some examples. It was caught too late to fix. It had been correct and I didn't catch it when it changed.
We have had a few things over the years but have done well misprint-wise.
Anyway Rebuild is as intended, I really did say to put "cheaper" on Catacombs, and one of the Knights costs $4 somehow, even though that means the randomizer doesn't match it (also true for the Knight that's a Victory card).
-
One of the definitions of "cheap" is "of inferior quality" (at least, according to m-w.com), so I think when you trash Catacombs you can gain any card that is recognizable as being of lower quality, even if it costs the same or more.
Ok, not really. But it seems ultra-imprecise to use cheap there.
-
Is $4P cheaper than $5?
-
Is $4P cheaper than $5?
Money wise? Yes
Potion wise? No
Potion scale on a different ladder than regular cards, but people refer to a Potion Cost as being ~$2.
So usually, no
-
Is $4P cheaper than $5?
Money wise? Yes
Potion wise? No
Potion scale on a different ladder than regular cards, but people refer to a Potion Cost as being ~$2.
So usually, mo
Wait, so then is $0P cheaper than $5? Can I get a transmute when I chuck my catacombs?
-
I'm assuming no, but you're going to have to ask Donald about that one.
-
And, this is why I don't like the word cheaper, because cheaper doesn't necessarily mean costing less.
-
I'm assuming no, but you're going to have to ask Donald about that one.
No, he doesn't. It is clearly not lower-costing. 3<3p, but nothing with a potion is ever less than anything with. As is quite clear from the alchemy rulebook.
-
Well, I'm sure that's in the FAQ. I do agree that "cheaper" is a bit imprecise, though it has the advantage of being less wordy. I respect Donald's oft-maligned desire to prize clarity and simplicity in the card text. This one seems like a push to me.
-
Anyway Rebuild is as intended, I really did say to put "cheaper" on Catacombs, and one of the Knights costs $4 somehow, even though that means the randomizer doesn't match it (also true for the Knight that's a Victory card).
Is there a mechanics reason why the "cheaper" wording is preferred over "costing less than?"
-
I'm assuming no, but you're going to have to ask Donald about that one.
No, he doesn't. It is clearly not lower-costing. 3<3p, but nothing with a potion is ever less than anything with. As is quite clear from the alchemy rulebook.
Huh, yeah that makes sense. I actually dont own Alchemy, so I was going off of what the ruling would most likely be :P
-
Anyway Rebuild is as intended, I really did say to put "cheaper" on Catacombs, and one of the Knights costs $4 somehow, even though that means the randomizer doesn't match it (also true for the Knight that's a Victory card).
Is there a mechanics reason why the "cheaper" wording is preferred over "costing less than?"
I'm 99% certain there is not, and that the card just had a metric fuckton of words on it, so Donald decided to save a few words. At any rate, we'll see the Secret History soon enough :)
(Also, I don't see how “cheaper than” is any less precise than “costing less than.” There's really no other sensible interpretation, and any confusion about Potions is no better or worse either way.)
-
One of the definitions of "cheap" is "of inferior quality" (at least, according to m-w.com), so I think when you trash Catacombs you can gain any card that is recognizable as being of lower quality, even if it costs the same or more.
Ok, not really. But it seems ultra-imprecise to use cheap there.
You can always gain Counting House, Scout or Thief with it, then?
-
(Also, I don't see how “cheaper than” is any less precise than “costing less than.” There's really no other sensible interpretation, and any confusion about Potions is no better or worse either way.)
I agree, but we already had 2 Hinterlands cards that used the "costing less than" wording, and I'm a stickler for consistency.
-
Oh the Dark Ages rulebook does have a misprint. Two coin symbols are missing in some examples. It was caught too late to fix. It had been correct and I didn't catch it when it changed.
There are at least two other typos in the rule book. I imagine someone on your end has already found all of them, but in case not:
The table of contents says there should only be 10 Feodums, instead of 12.
In the FAQ about knights, it says that all but one cost $5 and the other costs $1 instead of "$1 less."
I didn't read the whole thing, but noticed those two upon first glance. Hope I can be of help to you.
-
One of the definitions of "cheap" is "of inferior quality" (at least, according to m-w.com), so I think when you trash Catacombs you can gain any card that is recognizable as being of lower quality, even if it costs the same or more.
Ok, not really. But it seems ultra-imprecise to use cheap there.
I gain a Possession, because according to a large number of butthurt players on Isotropic, playing Possession is totally cheap.
-
There are at least two other typos in the rule book. I imagine someone on your end has already found all of them, but in case not:
The table of contents says there should only be 10 Feodums, instead of 12.
In the FAQ about knights, it says that all but one cost $5 and the other costs $1 instead of "$1 less."
I didn't read the whole thing, but noticed those two upon first glance. Hope I can be of help to you.
Well that should have been $4, not "$1 less." I can report it to Jay for future printings.
"Cheaper" on Catacombs is probably just because I was also saying "cheaper" on another card that didn't make the cut. That card had "cheaper" because it had two clauses in one spot and shortening the one to "cheaper" seemed like an improvement. Wei-Hwa said, do we need to define cheaper, and I said, I think people will know what it means. Then the other card died but I never thought of rephrasing Catacombs.
In general I don't stick with old templates if I think I have better new ones. Like, originally the word "card" appeared more often. I can just say Silver, I don't need to say Silver card, that's what I think. But if I'm not intentionally changing something I do try to be consistent.
-
Donald, can you say something about Wandering Minstrel's phrase "Put the Actions back"? Yeah it's clear what it means, but still IMO Actions are still something different than Action cards and it should definitely read "Put the Action Cards back".
-
Donald, can you say something about Wandering Minstrel's phrase "Put the Actions back"? Yeah it's clear what it means, but still IMO Actions are still something different than Action cards and it should definitely read "Put the Action Cards back".
I normally say "action card" because the word "action" is overloaded in Dominion, yes. There's just nothing interesting to say here though. All such wording things are either intentional for boring reasons or unintentional for boring reasons.
-
Knight is probably intentional.
You can name any order card if you want to hit ANY victory i.e. not ban anything - Just name Copper. You probably want to namebad Estate so that you trash duchy->Prov or Prov->Colony.
Estate->Duchy = 2 VP. Duchy->Province = 3 VP. Province->Province = 0 VP, but ends game sooner.
Banning Estate will give you less VP but end the game sooner, while banning Province gives you more VP but removes less provinces from the supply. You may want to name Province if you're trying to win the Duchy split with another rebuild player - since neither of you are trying to get $8, whoever wins the duchy split is likely to win the overall VP split.
-
Can we change the thread title sometime? This title stopped being relevant about two posts in.
-
Banning Estate will give you less VP but end the game sooner
Not sure how you figure that. It depends on what is in your deck. Banning Estates will hit Duchies and Provinces, so whether it gives more or less VP depends on how many Duchies you have vs. Provinces.