Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Ritzy

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1]
1
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Sorcery
« on: July 17, 2024, 04:51:51 pm »
Ah gotcha! I misread what Invoke did (and didn't think hard enough about its name) so didn't spot that. Thanks for the explanation.

2
Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Playtesting: Soothsayer (Challenge #2)
« on: March 27, 2014, 04:07:22 pm »
This is the shortest I could tweak Inquisitor to. At slightly over 300 characters, it's still a fair bit longer than Native Village/Pirate Ship/etc, and longer than the original Soothsayer card. Extortionist is likely to compress even less. Ah well :)

Inquisitor ($4 Action-Attack)
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse and may discard a Treasure. Those who discarded set aside the Curse on their Inquisitor mat. Return cards on the mat to the player's deck at the end of the game.
---
After their Cleanup phase, players may trash a card from their Inquisitor mat.  If they do, they discard a card.

3
Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Playtesting: Soothsayer (Challenge #2)
« on: March 27, 2014, 02:48:39 pm »
BTW, here's slightly shorter wording for Witch Doctor (based on Island).

Witch Doctor ($4 Action-Attack)
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse, putting it in their hand. Any player that did may set aside a card from their hand. Return it to their deck at the end of the game.

4
Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Playtesting: Soothsayer (Challenge #2)
« on: March 27, 2014, 02:38:47 pm »
Inquisitor and Extortionist are way too wordy to fit on a card.

Native Village has a lot of wording. I'm sure you could tweak the wording to make it fit better.

Witch Doctor is about on par with NV. The other two have like twice as much text.

Oh, and that's ignoring the fact that none of these say whether you can look at the cards on your mat, which they  really should.

Very good point! Will have a think to figure out if the descriptions can be made significantly shorter, or if Inquisitor and Extortionist are just too complicated.

5
Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Playtesting: Soothsayer (Challenge #2)
« on: March 27, 2014, 04:32:42 am »
Nice card. Here are a few more non-playtested variations on the theme (with the last one being a potential alternative).

Witch Doctor ($4 Action-Attack)
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse, putting it in their hand. Any player that did may set aside a card from their hand onto their Witch Doctor mat. Return the set aside cards to the player's deck at the end of the game.

Summary: a Witch that doesn't clog up your deck. The victim may choose to set aside a non-Curse (or nothing) if they want to try to trash the Curse later.

Inquisitor ($4 Action-Attack)
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse. Any player that did may discard an Action or Treasure from their hand and, if they did, put the Curse on their Inquisitor mat. Return the set aside cards to the player's deck at the end of the game.
---
Any player with cards on their Inquisitor mat at the end of their Cleanup phase may discard an Action or Treasure card from their hand. If they do, then trash one card from the mat.

Summary: two-stage Torturer-style attack. The second discard is after Cleanup to provide some protection from further size reduction attacks.

Extortionist ($4 Action-Attack)
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse, setting it aside on their Extortionist mat. Return the set aside cards to the player's deck at the end of the game.
---
Any player with cards on their Extortionist mat at the end of their Cleanup phase must either:
  • discard at least one card from their hand; or
  • discard all the cards on their mat.
If they discard from their hand, then trash one card from the mat for every card discarded after the first.

Summary: a postponable Torturer-style attack and closest in style to the original card. Curses don't get trashed automatically to provide play incentives for the attacker even when the 'ransom' is paid.

6
Quote
Okay, if you're going down that route, most of these costs are fine. But your buying restrictions on some just feel wrong to me.

The idea behind the buy restrictions was partly to emulate the "hard and slow to gain" impact of potion costs. I agree that they're not that well thought out though (though the apothecary one doesn't anti-synergise as much as you suggest, as people don't tend to build an entire strategy around apothecary and copper). Any other suggestions would be welcome.

Thinking about the buy restrictions more:

1) I'm tempted to keep the Curse restriction for Familiar, but drop the discard part, and reduce the price to $4. This permits at least four ways of gaining the card:
a) Opening Curse and $4/$5: unlikely to be worthwhile, but not vastly worse than Potion and $2/$3. If your second buy is a drawer, for example, you've got a reasonable chance of buying a Familiar in rounds 3/4 (4 Coppers and a Curse, 2-3 Coppers 0-1 Curses and a Smithy, etc).
b) Buying a cheap Curse early on, using a spare +Buy: might be worthwhile, but possibly niche.
d) Using a Curse from an opponent's attack: this actually makes Familiar and other Cursers less attractive as opponents become more likely to be able to afford Familiars soon after you start attacking. Though getting a couple of unanswered attacks may justify it.
c) Gaining it some other way: e.g. Remodel an Estate.
It may be that the cost of a) and b) doesn't justify the Familiar. I'll playtest to find out.

2) Likewise, I'll playtest the 'non-Copper in-play' restriction for Apothecary. It's actually a fairly minor restriction (as soon as you have one Apothecary, or a synergetic card such as Warehouse, then you're probably fine) and I'm not sure if Apothecary without Potions would get bought much at $6.

3) I'll try Golem at $7 as I can't think of an appropriate buy restriction.

7
Quote
Okay, if you're going down that route, most of these costs are fine. But your buying restrictions on some just feel wrong to me.

The idea behind the buy restrictions was partly to emulate the "hard and slow to gain" impact of potion costs. I agree that they're not that well thought out though (though the apothecary one doesn't anti-synergise as much as you suggest, as people don't tend to build an entire strategy around apothecary and copper). Any other suggestions would be welcome.

Quote
EDIT: Whatever variants you choose, you should playtest them, and adjust when needed.

Absolutely.

8
Quote
and why would you do that? any reason except "i don't like potions?"

Mainly to make it easier to play with just one Alchemy card in a non-Alchemy kingdom. The potion mechanic can result in dead cards if most players decide it's not worth buying a Potion just for the sake of one card.

But partly just for some variation. A $7 Philosopher's Stone presumably plays differently from a $3P one.

9
Nice idea re playing without potions! How about this for a complete 'Chemistry' Expansion Set (Alchemy without thee Potions and Alchemists)?
  • Herbalist - $2
  • Transmute - $4
  • Vineyard - $4
  • Apprentice - $5
  • Familiar - $5 + to buy this you must first reveal and discard a Curse from your hand
  • Apothecary - $5 + to buy this you must have at least one non-Copper in play
  • Scrying Pool - $6
  • University - $6
  • Golem - $6 + to buy this you must have a Gold in play
  • Philosopher’s Stone - $7
  • Possession - $8
Some comments:
  • Transmute here is stronger than the weakish Alchemy card as it can hit Estates in turn 3, and synergises well with trash-for-benefit.
  • Familiar's buy restriction might even make using a +Buy on a Curse worthwhile in an otherwise Curse-free board. Maybe.
  • Apothecary is slightly weaker than the Alchemy card due to lack of potions. The restriction is mainly to handle 5-2 openings.
  • Possession at $8 interacts with Swindler (though not as dangerously as Peddlar).

Pages: [1]

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 19 queries.