Print

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

[GeneralRamos]

Originally, the basic bonus was +$1, and it was otherwise the same, making it a terminal Silver, a Silver, a +Buy Silver, and a Grand Market in the end.

I've been running through permutations of this card on my walks the last couple days. The more I think about it, the more I like this as a configuration for the card. It seems to solve the problem of power by not feeling so much weaker than $3 for so long. It seems to solve the problem of not being a dud if you don't get to play it in spring.
If you play consistently from Spring:
Spring: terminal silver (worse than silver)
Summer: non-terminal silver (a little worse than silver)
Fall: non-terminal silver with +buy (on par with silver, situationally better)
Winter: Grand Market (way better than silver)
If you play consistently from Summer:
Summer: non-terminal copper (weak)
Fall: non-terminal copper +Buy (still weak, but at least +buy)
Winter: market (great buy for $3)
In both cases, the card gets WAY better in Winter, but that is how it should be--it blossoms in the late game (a thematic paradox  ) and ramps up the ending. Missing the Spring makes Summer and Fall very weak, but Winter at least is still worth it. It might make sense to change the order in this case to +$; +Action; +Card; +Buy to make the first-play-in-Summer case substantially better.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Originally, the basic bonus was +$1, and it was otherwise the same, making it a terminal Silver, a Silver, a +Buy Silver, and a Grand Market in the end.

Asper forgot to mention that we of course tested this version and discarded it after a few games because it was completely cwazy. No, seriously, Grand Markets available for $3 favour shuffle luck more than anything which often led to one player (in a two-player game) winning the Student split 7-3. Guess which player won the game.

[eHalcyon]

Random bad idea for Student: In games using this, Fall is the first season.

Maybe less bad idea: Introduce a new bonus token that has a (usually) negative effect like "discard a card".  And then do something like...

+1 action, +$1
Spring: +1 Card token
Summer: bad token (because the student is slacking, haha)
Fall: +1 action token AND +$1 token
Winter: +1 buy AND +1 card token (if you missed it in Spring)

I think it might be interesting to have a negative option that makes you not want to play it for a whole season, but still have some incentive to get it early.

For this idea, the specific bonus distribution I have here may not be best.  I'm just throwing it together for the idea -- stronger start, poor middle, strong end.

It's more complicated though, potentially not worth it.

[Asper]

Originally, the basic bonus was +$1, and it was otherwise the same, making it a terminal Silver, a Silver, a +Buy Silver, and a Grand Market in the end.

Asper forgot to mention that we of course tested this version and discarded it after a few games because it was completely cwazy. No, seriously, Grand Markets available for $3 favour shuffle luck more than anything which often led to one player (in a two-player game) winning the Student split 7-3. Guess which player won the game.

I can confirm cwazyness.

[Co0kieL0rd]

eHalcyon, sorry for the late response. I kinda like your idea of introducing a "discard token" but I personally wouldn't like it on Student. There might be a place for it on some other card (or) in some other set, though.

And now for something completely different.



Your kingdom is a mess! Everybody knows it and someone’s got to say it. It’s a mess. Look at all those Coppers flying around – with that inflation going on for years, who still pays with Coppers? No one will accept them. What about those shabby, old Estates no one wants to live in? You need a professional to make a clean sweep and rebuild your domain from scratch.

So you deploy Bailiffs to whip your kingdom into shape. Over the course of the year, they implement a simple two-phase plan. Phase one – withdraw worthless coin from circulation and replace your Estates with infrastructure that’s actually useful. Phase two – acquire… Duchies?

Granted, after a very successful first half of the year they seem so self-complacent they don’t even try to keep up the good work anymore. You hope that by that point you already have almost won, or you throw them all out when they have outlived their purpose. Either way, their help will be much appreciated in nearly every kingdom.

[enfynet]

And now for something completely different.

+1 For this...

I will read the rest of the post now.

[eHalcyon]

Bailiff doesn't feel so cohesive to me.  That is to say, I look at the Spring/Summer effect and it seems like it would be fine as its own card.  I look at the Fall/Winter effect and it also seems like it would be fine as its own card.  I look at them together, and I don't see any reason why they are more compelling as a single Seasons card instead of two regular action cards.  What am I missing?

[Co0kieL0rd]

Bailiff doesn't feel so cohesive to me.  That is to say, I look at the Spring/Summer effect and it seems like it would be fine as its own card.  I look at the Fall/Winter effect and it also seems like it would be fine as its own card.  I look at them together, and I don't see any reason why they are more compelling as a single Seasons card instead of two regular action cards.  What am I missing?

Bailiff is incredibly strong in the first half of the year so we wanted to give it a significantly weaker and niche-y effect for the second half. The upper part benefits engines while the lower part does the opposite which makes Bailiff unique in this set. The two contradictory effects make him suitable for different strategies which we also like about him.

[Asper]

Yes, the joke is that the effects on Bailiff - unlike Ballroom's, which support one another - are very contrary. One destroys junk, one gains it. It's also (probably) true that if the first effect lingered on, it'd be overly strong in the late game, but the two-headedness of Bailiff is the main idea behind that one.

[Fragasnap]

What am I missing?

Bailiff's miniature Forge is ludicrous, but it cannot be used after turn 10. Bailiff changing into a different card after Summer is necessary simply as a gating mechanism to that powerful effect because it would be stupidly strong if it didn't. I think it might still be too strong: trashing so rapidly in the opening portion of the game (and gaining off of trashing Estates) and gaining Duchies in the latter, but I have not played many games with it.

[eHalcyon]

What am I missing?

Bailiff's miniature Forge is ludicrous, but it cannot be used after turn 10. Bailiff changing into a different card after Summer is necessary simply as a gating mechanism to that powerful effect because it would be stupidly strong if it didn't. I think it might still be too strong: trashing so rapidly in the opening portion of the game (and gaining off of trashing Estates) and gaining Duchies in the latter, but I have not played many games with it.

Well I recognize that the mini-Forge is powerful, but there are other ways of gating it.  Just limiting it to the first 10 turns doesn't seem that great.

Also worth noting, my intuition is that it's most powerful at the start of the game and less powerful at the end.  Not sure if you guys (Asper and Co0kieL0rd) have tested that effect in the late game or designed it from the start with these two parts.  I suggest that it is weaker later because you have to trash exactly 3 cards, which makes it less flexible and much trickier to use than Forge.  In that way, it seems better suited for trashing down early than for gaining VP through TfB later.  I imagine that the Fall/Winter effect you actually have on there right now is stronger for Fall/Winter than the mini-Forge thanks to easy Duchy gaining.  Have you tested the mini-Forge in late game?

I appreciate the thematic joke, though the mechanisms still sound oddly disconnected to me.  FWIW, I think the joke may be better if you name it something with "Committee".

[Asper]

What am I missing?

Bailiff's miniature Forge is ludicrous, but it cannot be used after turn 10. Bailiff changing into a different card after Summer is necessary simply as a gating mechanism to that powerful effect because it would be stupidly strong if it didn't. I think it might still be too strong: trashing so rapidly in the opening portion of the game (and gaining off of trashing Estates) and gaining Duchies in the latter, but I have not played many games with it.

Well I recognize that the mini-Forge is powerful, but there are other ways of gating it.  Just limiting it to the first 10 turns doesn't seem that great.

Also worth noting, my intuition is that it's most powerful at the start of the game and less powerful at the end.  Not sure if you guys (Asper and Co0kieL0rd) have tested that effect in the late game or designed it from the start with these two parts.  I suggest that it is weaker later because you have to trash exactly 3 cards, which makes it less flexible and much trickier to use than Forge.  In that way, it seems better suited for trashing down early than for gaining VP through TfB later.  I imagine that the Fall/Winter effect you actually have on there right now is stronger for Fall/Winter than the mini-Forge thanks to easy Duchy gaining.  Have you tested the mini-Forge in late game?

I appreciate the thematic joke, though the mechanisms still sound oddly disconnected to me.  FWIW, I think the joke may be better if you name it something with "Committee".

I can definitely see what you mean. Why make one card out of something that could have been two, right? And i guess you are right about the power curve, too. Trashing 3 cards is a lot for the late game.

On the other hand, while i don't see the halves to be interesting enough on their own, i always felt the two-sidedness gave Bailiff something special. And, well, that's what we wanted.

About power: Honestly, Co0kieL0rd was a bit concerned that Bailiff might be too strong, and it was usually me who was confident $3 would be okay. But maybe i'm wrong.

[Co0kieL0rd]

About power: Honestly, Co0kieL0rd was a bit concerned that Bailiff might be too strong, and it was usually me who was confident $3 would be okay. But maybe i'm wrong.

I like Bailiff as-is mechanically, too, but I am open towards having it cost $4 if that seems necessary.

[pst]

"Gain a Victory card, and then a Treasure card, with a total cost of up to $5."

It's not clear to me how this is supposed to work when there are no Coppers left. I guess the intention is that you can't gain a Duchy and then find out that there is no Treasure card you can gain, so you have to plan forward already when gaining the Victory card (and probably gain Estate + Silver instead).

But it would be more typical of Dominion to do just one thing at a time, like "Gain a Victory card costing up to $5. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $5 minus the cost of the Victory card." That's too clunky to be good card text, but it's clearer also what happens when it's not possible to do everything. How about when Coppers and Estates have run out (and there are no extra Treasure or Victory cards)? With the clunky text it's clear you would get (just) a Duchy. With the actual text, what happens? You get nothing?

Is it important to be able to get better Treasures? Otherwise my suggestion would be "Gain a Victory card costing up to $5. Gain a Copper." to just avoid the empty-pile problems.

[GeneralRamos]

I don't think the extra wording is warranted or required for the fringe case where there is no copper left (how many games does that really happen? Only with goons or beggar). I think it's fairly clear that when there is no qualifying card to gain, the effect is moot. Like when you trash a squire on a board with no attacks--there is no need for additional wording to deal with the case of a board with no attacks.

[Asper]

You first gain the Victory card and then check whether there is a Treasure card that goes with it. So you gain a Duchy and fail to gain a Treasure card costing $0. It doesn't matter often, either way, but that's what we went for when doing that wording. Also, the wording keeps people from gaining IGG just to fail at gaining a $0 VP card.

[scott_pilgrim]

You first gain the Victory card and then check whether there is a Treasure card that goes with it. So you gain a Duchy and fail to gain a Treasure card costing $0. It doesn't matter often, either way, but that's what we went for when doing that wording. Also, the wording keeps people from gaining IGG just to fail at gaining a $0 VP card.

If this is the case, I think you can gain a Province, and then fail to gain a Treasure card costing up to $-3.

[Accatitippi]

It's worth nothing, but my interpretation of the current wording was: check the supply for legal victory+treasure combinations. If there are any, choose one of those pairs of cards to gain. Otherwise, gain nothing.
No element in the card text made me suspect that the gaining would not be symultaneous (that is, I'd choose the order after checking the legality of both gains together).

[Asper]

It's worth nothing, but my interpretation of the current wording was: check the supply for legal victory+treasure combinations. If there are any, choose one of those pairs of cards to gain. Otherwise, gain nothing.
No element in the card text made me suspect that the gaining would not be symultaneous (that is, I'd choose the order after checking the legality of both gains together).

Well, it says "Gain a Victory card and then...". I think that implies an order rather strongly.

But maybe another wordi g would be clearer? I did not expect people would misunderstand it, honestly, but well, i also expected Student to be one of our better received cards... Apparently quite a few people don't read the wording as intended. Hmm...

I guess a wording that jjust always gains Coppers works too - just now, you can't gain Estate/Silver. Not that it's something you usually do...

[drsteelhammer]

I think the wording is perfectly fine. Nobody is confused by Haggler if Coppers and Curses are out, you simply fail to gain a card costing less than the bought one. Why would this be any different?

[Accatitippi]

It's worth nothing, but my interpretation of the current wording was: check the supply for legal victory+treasure combinations. If there are any, choose one of those pairs of cards to gain. Otherwise, gain nothing.
No element in the card text made me suspect that the gaining would not be symultaneous (that is, I'd choose the order after checking the legality of both gains together).

Well, it says "Gain a Victory card and then...". I think that implies an order rather strongly.

Whoops, you're right, I was going from memory rather than re-reading the card, sorry! 

[Asper]

You first gain the Victory card and then check whether there is a Treasure card that goes with it. So you gain a Duchy and fail to gain a Treasure card costing $0. It doesn't matter often, either way, but that's what we went for when doing that wording. Also, the wording keeps people from gaining IGG just to fail at gaining a $0 VP card.

If this is the case, I think you can gain a Province, and then fail to gain a Treasure card costing up to $-3.

We assume that Dominion, inherently, does not and will never consider prices below $0. Just like Transmute doesn't cost P-1$ after playing Bridge, even though that isn't actually "less than $0". Negative costs simply don't exist. In fact, i don't think Dominion even knows non-natural numbers except $0 at all.

That said, of course you are right the wording counts the price of a set of cards, not a single card. So, how can you know before? I will just say that we thought it was obvious you can't gain a Province with Bailiff, and that the fact it's not entirely logically consistent wasn't worth the extra words - just like Bridge doesn't say "All costs in coins on cards are reduced by one this turn (but don't go lower than $0)" to exclude Potion weirdness. Maybe that was an oversight, but i think even if Donald heard about it today he'd probably decide nobody would go with the logically consistent interpretation, either way.

Anyhow - it appears there are more than one or two people sharing your concern, so maybe what we thought was obvious isn't obvious at all. I'd like to hear a few more voices chime in on this, but a wording change is not out of the question.

[singletee]

You first gain the Victory card and then check whether there is a Treasure card that goes with it. So you gain a Duchy and fail to gain a Treasure card costing $0. It doesn't matter often, either way, but that's what we went for when doing that wording. Also, the wording keeps people from gaining IGG just to fail at gaining a $0 VP card.

If this is the case, I think you can gain a Province, and then fail to gain a Treasure card costing up to $-3.

We assume that Dominion, inherently, does not and will never consider prices below $0. Just like Transmute doesn't cost P-1$ after playing Bridge, even though that isn't actually "less than $0". Negative costs simply don't exist. In fact, i don't think Dominion even knows non-natural numbers except $0 at all.

That said, of course you are right the wording counts the price of a set of cards, not a single card. So, how can you know before? I will just say that we thought it was obvious you can't gain a Province with Bailiff, and that the fact it's not entirely logically consistent wasn't worth the extra words - just like Bridge doesn't say "All costs in coins on cards are reduced by one this turn (but don't go lower than $0)" to exclude Potion weirdness. Maybe that was an oversight, but i think even if Donald heard about it today he'd probably decide nobody would go with the logically consistent interpretation, either way.

Anyhow - it appears there are more than one or two people sharing your concern, so maybe what we thought was obvious isn't obvious at all. I'd like to hear a few more voices chime in on this, but a wording change is not out of the question.

Well, my thought was that there is nothing particularly special about the number zero in Dominion – which is why the current cost reducers all specify that you can't go below zero. I hadn't thought about the Potion cost, that is a valid point. I would actually leave the wording as-is. The card is already wordy enough. If you wanted to change it I would go with "Gain a Victory card costing up to $5, and then a Treasure card costing up to $5 minus the cost of the gained card." Or you could leave as-is and put in reminder text like (Neither card can cost more than 5.)

Out of curiosity, why is 5 the max? Raising it to 6 or 7 does not allow you to gain any different combinations of basic cards, and would let you maybe do some neater things with Kingdom Treasures and Victory.

[GendoIkari]

I'm confused about why it has "then". What's wrong with "Gain a Victory card and a Treasure card with a total cost up to ."? That would feel more natural and obvious in meaning to me. By saying "then", it feels like you first gain a Victory card (any Victory card), then you gain a Treasure card and deal with cost requirements.

[Asper]

Out of curiosity, why is 5 the max? Raising it to 6 or 7 does not allow you to gain any different combinations of basic cards, and would let you maybe do some neater things with Kingdom Treasures and Victory.

Thinking about it just now, i don't remember there being any specific reason why we didn't do that. It definitely sounds like an attractive thing to change. I guess one concern was that Bailiff seemed already rather good for $3, but we might need to buff the price up either way, and then wh not change that, too.

I'm confused about why it has "then". What's wrong with "Gain a Victory card and a Treasure card with a total cost up to ."? That would feel more natural and obvious in meaning to me. By saying "then", it feels like you first gain a Victory card (any Victory card), then you gain a Treasure card and deal with cost requirements.

The reason was to avoid players gaining a $5 Treasure card like IGG or Counterfeit, and then failing to gain a VP card that went with it. So we wanted the VP card to go first. But i see where the confusion lies.