Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

26

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What would make Scout better?

« on: October 09, 2012, 11:26:22 am »

Counting House could have something like this:

Choose: +2 Cards or [discard 2 cards, +$1, +1 Buy] <-- not all on the card, just chucking a few ideas into the same pot.

The +2 cards needs to be optional otherwise it would break any combos with deck-into-discard. The benefit of +2 cards is not huge, but helps speed up the general play of Counting House perhaps. I'm not sure it needs a serious boost to each time it's played as that would likely become overpowered, so far that reason I'm less sure about things like +1 Buy as that could a really strong effect each time and would help you pick up coppers - I wonder if that would have a bit too much self-synergy.

Scout:

+1 Card sounds fair, but is rather uninspiring - it essentially makes it a worse version of Cartographer (which is really already is I suppose). What about something a bit more controversial like "gain a VP costing less than 5" ? Or increase the number drawn to 5 or even 6?

Eidt : hah, a couple of my ideas got posted while I typed.

27

Dominion General Discussion / Re: There's room for an extra card in the Base Set and Seaside

« on: October 07, 2012, 11:10:46 am »

No, I don't think so.

28

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Recursive Victory Solution?

« on: October 06, 2012, 01:39:04 pm »

Recursive VP Card:

Recursion - Action / Victory

4 VP - Recursion is worth one less VP (no minimum) for every 2 recursions in your deck at the end of the game. [that's not the recursive part, that's just an attempt at making it all viable]

------------------------------

Gain a Recursion, placing it in your hand.

If you have a Recursion in your hand, you must now play it.

***********************************************

I think that's about right?

29

Dominion General Discussion / Re: The value of a terminal Gold

« on: October 05, 2012, 08:24:53 am »

Sometimes people liken treasure to +1 card / + 1 Action / +$x, but it's better than that because you dead draw it. (And it's also not affected by Poor House because its phase comes later).

One interesting question is how much would a terminal silver cost - probably $2. So perhaps $4 is ok for a terminal gold. However, you'd likely just open with it very often in that case. The only way to tell really is to play test it, which we're not going to do. I suspect that +$3 coming from actions is rare precisely because it's so variable: it makes engines much easier to generate the cash, but it's probably relatively useless without +actions kicking around.

Still, Davio's point is the most relevant - it's not an interesting card at all. And also seeing as it doesn't fit into a nice $4 or $5 all that easily it would probably need something to make it balance right.

30

Dominion General Discussion / Re: my wife is finally going to play dominion with me

« on: October 04, 2012, 06:26:53 am »

Really? Because it's not optional, I make sure people take it in hand, otherwise the rules of the game are being broken. But on top of that I'm aware that it's a subtle distinction in the rules that's easy to miss as a beginner and so am careful to point it out. That sounds a bit underhand from your mate to me :/

31

Dominion General Discussion / Re: my wife is finally going to play dominion with me

« on: October 03, 2012, 05:00:41 pm »

I think we can safely chalk this one up in the "wins" column.

32

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Why +actions are not necessary to make an "interesting" kingdom

« on: October 03, 2012, 08:43:26 am »

In fact the game would have been a lot LESS interesting if there had been +actions.

Perhaps, but I think if that were the case then it would be the fault of Scrying pool more than village - I think Scrying Pool is a remarkably tedious card and it's use was limited here by the lack of village. Sure adding a village would exacerbate the issue, but it's a subtle distinction for me that I would blame Scrying pool for being annoying and predictably spammy rather than blame the village for being an activator.

33

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Finally purchasing my own Dominion copy - which expansions to pick up?

« on: October 02, 2012, 10:58:55 am »

Heavy action-engine games from any set can get dull pretty quick in face-to-face play, especially when the payoff of a large chain is utterly trivial  - we're a bit too used to Iso on here where everything is lightning quick. In certain circumstances in real life play I have to deliberately avoid engines for diplomatic reasons. I don't have alchemy (for different reasons) but I can see how that it might exacerbate it more than most. It's strange, because Dominion is still such a quick game, and so many other games you have to wait so long for your turn and it's seems less of a problem.

34

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Finally purchasing my own Dominion copy - which expansions to pick up?

« on: October 01, 2012, 07:18:02 pm »

Yeah, you can often pick up Base dominion for only a few pounds (here in the UK) more than the Base Supply cards, so it's really worth keeping that set on your radar considering how many cards you get with it. Base can feel boring on its own, but it does come back to life when combine with the others sets, the directness of them can be a refreshing change of tempo.

35

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Good teaching sets with Intrigue + Dark Ages only?

« on: October 01, 2012, 05:48:16 pm »

You mention "valuable lessons" a lot: forget about them.

The valuable lessons for new players are known as The Rules After that you can worry about the kind of things you're thinking about.

I think you'll have trouble with Dark Ages because of this as most cards break the rules in some way.

The Kingdom has 10 piles plus the basic supply (except for Ruins/Spoils/various other cards)
Spending money goes on the table, then into your discard (except Spoils)
Any 3 stacks running out ends the game (except Spoils)
When you gain a card it goes to your discard pile (except for Armoury)
Cards do the things written on them when you play them (except on Trash/Gain/Discard effects)
Trashing a card makes it go here into the trash (except for Fortress)
Each pile has the same cards in it (except Ruins, Knights)
Trashed cards are out of play, forget about them (except for Graverobber et al)
You can't play another card if you don't have any actions left (except for Cultist)
There's bad cards that you give to other people (except Deathcart where you take them for yourself)

and on and on....

With all these I wouldn't be at all surprised if they picked a ton of wrong habits that you then had to correct them over for the next few games, let alone the strategic implications of cards like Armoury that will warp their perception of how good gaining cards is. Normally cards that manipulate the basic rules are adequate complication at first, let alone those that break all the rules.

There's a couple in there that work, Junk Dealer is nice, Sage as mentioned could work, but most I would avoid including Marauder and Fortress - yes those two are simple in terms of what they do, but they change the game significantly from the base.

I would recommend
Masquerade (very fun as it keeps people involved when it's not their turn)
Courtyard
Coppersmith
Upgrade
Trading Post
Baron (for example this looks complex but is very simple to get - discard a shit card for a bonus, right, I get it)
Tribute is kind of fun.
Mining Village obviously
Swindler is probably the safest starting attack to go with.

The Alt VPs could be ok, but be wary of downplaying the importance of provinces.

36

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Attack definition

« on: September 28, 2012, 12:50:33 pm »

I think this kind of discussion is really...odd. DXV frequently talks about how he changes/tweaks rules that are causing confusion - he just said the term Attack itself was created to stop precisely such messiness. If the current state of dominion is anything to go by, a card causing this much confusion right out of the gate (as opposed to the when combined in some exotic, unusual scenario) would not make the cut so having a hypothetical discussion about it is just totally pointless.

How would this hypothetical situation pan out? It wouldn't. That's the answer. (sorry if I'm being a curmudgeon about it)

37

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Filing Labels

« on: September 28, 2012, 06:46:03 am »

There's a few threads where this is mentioned already, just check for storage solution threads, this thread has some stuff on the second page.

Me, I just wrote and cut mine out by hand on brightly colour-coordinated nice thick card, rounding off all the corners and stuff. Printable card was just too thin and flimsy when I tried it. Mine don't have all the extra info on them like prices and sets, but I don't need that stuff for my purposes.

38

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Attack definition

« on: September 27, 2012, 02:38:00 pm »

So, what happens when I play Minion for the +$2? Am I attacking? Sure, you don't want to Moat it (there's no need), but I still converted my urchin into a Mercenary so its status as an Attack is still relevant, even though it doesn't fall into any of the above criteria.

39

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Attack definition

« on: September 27, 2012, 08:39:07 am »

Well, no, the Attack wording is not there because it's not an Attack. It's an aggressive card, but it's not an Attack - Attacks (as far as the game is concerned) must be played it seems. To lump everything into 'Attack' then nullifies the actual terminology. It would be clearer to use a different word, but even that is flawed. I think trying to label cards as one or other is inaccurate - it's the move within the context that's aggressive/attacking and that can come in lots of forms and with lots of cards. Sometimes Attacks are not used to attack the opponents, you're just running a pile down to end the game perhaps. As stated in the beginning, sometimes a cards helps, sometimes it hinders, it all depends, it and doesn't depend on the card, it depends on the context and the intent, so labelling things outside of that sphere will always be inaccurate to some extent.

40

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Feedback needed: Define card categories

« on: September 27, 2012, 06:33:00 am »

Awesome post by jomini there, you've really well articulated some major components there.

However, I would question this assertion you made at the beginning:

for card comparisons, I think it is more important to focus on the functional stuff - we don't really know what cool new mechanisms will come out and there is just so much overlap that it gets crazy

I agree with the part about the overlap sending things crazy, and I also think the distinction between functional and mechanistic itself is an accurate one, but I wonder if passing over the mechanistic side overlooks a key point: the functional side will allow you to identify what elements you need for your strategy (or least consider the options in that way) but the nitty gritty of how you actually execute your strategy will depend a lot on the mechanistic side of the available cards surely?

I suppose you can break down Lab into an Accelerator / Action-balance, and if you see Smith (Accelerator) then you might need some Action-balance to make multiple Smithies work (setting aside the idea that one is usually enough), so in that way the functional side works to some extent, and I just wonder if we can indeed amputate the mechanistic side of things without heavily undermining the application of this to strategy (eg discussing why a deck actually worked through analysis of the card components). Or have I maybe misjudged the goal of such categorization?

41

Dominion General Discussion / Re: An Attempt at Theme Discussion

« on: September 26, 2012, 08:27:09 am »

Really? Like what? Directed attack means stuff like "Choose a player. this player [does X, Y and X]". Placing the robber is about as directed as it gets in Settlers, but you're targeting a land hex that belongs to no-one in particular, it just so happens there's a guy round it. You might think that's semantics, but there's a difference: if people you don't want to suffer are round the hex too you can't help but effect them, and if you can't find a decent spot you're stuffed. It's indirectly affecting the player you want to suffer. Also, refusing to trade with someone isn't an attack, neither is building a road in an awkward/blocking spot, they're both indirect or entirely passive.

All these are aggressively interfering with the other player in some way or other, but even Carcassonne can be an aggressive game in that way. However, they are not directed attacks like Risk or something. A lack of direct attacks does not mean a lack of interaction, and any interaction usually can manipulated to your advantage and your opponent's disadvantage, which seems like an attack.

To relate this back to the topic:

This is one thing that remains unexplained in this thread: how to do attacks factor in to the equation considering they attack everyone? (and so, btw, are not direct) Does this still fit in? Or is it jarring? A militia goes and causes trouble in all other kingdoms, simultaneously. Sort of.

42

Dominion General Discussion / Re: An Attempt at Theme Discussion

« on: September 25, 2012, 06:47:59 pm »

*shrug*  I pointed out several instances where Magic attempts to ground its mechanics in its art/concepts.  There's a lot of work done to have the mechanics match the art, the set, the themes of the block, etc.  Maybe we're talking about two different things.

Yeah, I got that, but I think the difference that you suggest is this (mentioned earlier), but I just articulated it badly.

it occurs to me that you will probably making a trade-off in this discussion between making the system as a whole make sense and making any given card make sense

So in Magic the individual cards can be very coherent in and of themselves, but the system of it all is very very abstract in my opinion.

43

Dominion General Discussion / Re: An Attempt at Theme Discussion

« on: September 25, 2012, 03:42:03 pm »

@DXV:

In my opinion, letting gameplay trump flavour is one the things that makes Dominion stand out as a superior game, so thanks for taking it down that road.

Now, not to derail the topic but:

Part of the reason I'm so aware of the poor theme in Dominion is because Magic does it so damn well.

What?

The premise of Magic is utterly devoid of theme, it's one of the most abstract games out there in my opinion, and that's how it manages to leave design space for a such vast library of cards. Basically anything goes in terms of flavour because the foundation is so so simple. The card names, mechanics and artwork link up nicely quite often sure, but in terms of imaging yourself as something Magic really doesn't cut it. The mix of sizes, scope, physicality and abstract concepts mean you cannot place it anywhere nor tie it to anything

I think this abstract nature is what given Magic is strength, as well as - like Dominion - allowing gameplay to trump flavour, because there's no narrative, universe rules or even reality to adhere to.

44

Dominion General Discussion / Re: my wife is finally going to play dominion with me

« on: September 25, 2012, 03:19:16 pm »

@rinkworks: I wish it only took a few turns.

There's several factors for me though: 1) we mix up what games we play so Dominion get played about 1 in 4 sessions tops really, but usually less, 2) there's only 8 duration cards out of 150-200, so they don't turn up that often, 3) they don't always buy them, and 4) they're not always there and it's not every week we meet up. So I guess that adds up to them often forgetting, even though some of them have been on iso loads. I'm curious as to what Dark Ages is going to be like.

As for it not being that bad, it's not, it's just they themselves get frustrated when they've cleaned their stuff away and they can't remember what they had out and I was busy doing my turn so forget. I teach the whole 'layers' thing too, but sometimes I have enough trouble getting people to keep their discard pile in the same place and face up rather than switching it side-to-side both face down and then forgetting which one is which. *facepalm*

My old school gamer mates are fine with all of this, but these days the people I play with are not from that ilk.`One of the problems is that they always look to me for the rules and to be reminded of what to do, so they never learn it thoroughly for themselves (Eg we'd played dominion a good dozen or so times, and one couple liked it enough that I bought them a set. Their first couple games on their own were very weird because they left out the estates). I try to just let them move on, but it doesn't seem to work. Or they just end up playing cards entirely wrong. Playing money in order is another one that catches them out (eg Bank) and I have to constantly re-iterate that you have to actually play your money to the table, even if it's only so we can see the cards and confirm you do actually have $8!

As for advanced tactics, yeah, some haven't really even noted the significance of when you buy something. Once someone bought a Gardens on turn 1 and I commented that that probably wasn't wise (should've not said anything) and then when I proceeded to do a gardens rush at the end they said "hey, but you bought loads of Gardens!" - it all depends on the players really.

I dunno, maybe my mates are just slow, or maybe we just don't play dominion enough. I'd like to play it more, but 5 is a crap number for it, and that's how many we usually have.

45

Dominion General Discussion / Re: my wife is finally going to play dominion with me

« on: September 25, 2012, 11:22:52 am »

realize why copper is bad

Lol, I've shown dominion to a fair few people and continued to play with them many times and some (maybe even most) still haven't clocked that coppers really are genuinely bad.

46

Dominion General Discussion / Re: An Attempt at Theme Discussion

« on: September 25, 2012, 06:25:37 am »

Lack of theme is liberating. It allows the players to focus on gameplay unencumbered by thoughts of it being unrealistic, and it allows game designers to follow exploit the mechanics.

Thunderstone is another game I enjoy that is dripping in theme, but it often tries too hard to stick to it and ends up with clunky rules as a result that seem to have a ton of edge cases that the rules don't cover properly. Sticking to the theme is what's great about the game but also it's most prominent flaw in terms of gameplay as far as I can see. That kind of thing can work and it could just be poor choices, but it can work against you too.

So I don't see the need to map the in-game mechanics into thematic elements really. We would approach the game differently if the game had to make sense in a figurative way.

47

Dominion General Discussion / Re: my wife is finally going to play dominion with me

« on: September 24, 2012, 07:14:12 pm »

In Intrigues defence:

I think the alternative VPs are the keystone of Intrigue but are often over looked. The dual types really get people thinking about the mechanics (like, what you could exploit) and the alt. VPs force players to address their long-game strategy because the VPs are actually useful which changes things a lot. The fact that there's 2 obviously good $6s seemed to get people going too when I cracked Intrigue out, and the game not just boiling down to Provinces is really refreshing. The attacks and the AP, yeah, they can be a pain for sure, but the flip-side is that there's fewer new rules to learn and you can explore your tactics more deeply rather than coping with new mechanics. The choice can cause AP, but then I find people really like not being committed to one thing out them, they're not so afraid of them being a wasted buy (even if they really are).

Duration cards are of course great, but I find that new players (and experienced too actually) continually clear them away and forget about them, and that can be a frustrating experience. Also, the tokens and stuff in Seaside, for me, are not so hot, they're a bit fiddley and reduce the elegance of the pure-card-based-ness of the game.

All anecdotal and personal stuff though. It might be the case that the wifey loves attacks and gets a kick out of them, who knows?

Lastly, more generally: I think it got said earlier, but yeah, definitely try to get some 3-player on the go with another newbie if you can, and consider not playing and letting them play each other 2P. Just knowing that the other player will aware of all your mistakes can be offputting, and another newbie really helps counter that.

PS - Throne Room is in Base

48

Dominion General Discussion / Re: my wife is finally going to play dominion with me

« on: September 23, 2012, 07:23:29 am »

Cornucopia second: perhaps, but I think sounds like a better idea than it might be in practice. The strategies it opens up do involve more cards, but new players buy many different cards out of inexperience, and I'm not sure how much cornucopia would be a crutch for that. You really need to be quite deliberate about what you're buying for the cornucopia strategies to actually be effective - it's more about engine building more than just allowing a mess of cards - and that's a fair whack harder than just picking a couple cards that combo.

49

Dominion General Discussion / Re: my wife is finally going to play dominion with me

« on: September 22, 2012, 07:28:38 pm »

Base, then intrigue, then it opens up from there.

Base introduces all they core concepts in their most straightforward variant, Intrigue builds really nicely on that without going overboard and the expansions all feel like they're missing something if base never appears, their the fancy stuff without the foundation. It might be the case that she could handle all kinds of sneaky stuff but - for me at least - one of the joys of dominion was the flowering open of the different exploitations of the mechanics, I'd played CCGs etc for ages so complication stuff would be fine, but seeing the simple stuff first allows me to appreciate the complex stuff later.

Then again, that's just me. And it's different when you're exploring it for yourself from when someone else is leading you through it.

50

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Feedback needed: Define card categories

« on: September 21, 2012, 08:28:59 am »

Well, for a start, I think cards that collide with themselves deserve be separate as I mentioned above because the approach is different - buying two/three types of cards to ensure collision is strategically quite different from just hammering the one pile. So to extend that, yeah, being able to buy a wide variety of card is different from needing a specific one.

I guess the rough clarifications are as follows:

require themselves [colliders] (fool's gold, treasure map)
require specific card (moneylender, baron)
require card type (throne room, counterfeit, rebuild)
require any card (upgrade, remodel etc)

Note that by requires I mean 'requires to be effective' because Throne Room + KC + Rebuild et al don't actually require you have the card type in order to play them, but without them they're almost useless. Admittedly Village is effectively useless without other cards, but that's different.

PS - I think the terms contingents is good. Whether a specific name is need for each type is the next question I suppose.