Print

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

[GendoIkari]

Sorry to drag this on, but now I'm unclear on what your interpretation/intent is... with the "must gain victory first" wording, did you intend to allow a person to gain a $4 victory card, and then fail to gain a $1 treasure? Because if you were to allow gaining only 1 card in any circumstance, then I'm pretty sure you would have to allow that as well...
 
*Edit
Oops sorry. Forgot it was "up to".

[Co0kieL0rd]

I think Bailiff could totally be choose-gain-choose-gain. You can't choose Province as your first card because it costs more than the total amount. This can be spelled out in a FAQ, but I think it's reasonable to expect some common sense from players.

I don't agree; because I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation that you can gain a Counterfeit and a nothing.

You can only gain Counterfeit and nothing if there is no Victory card in the Supply costing $5 or less. If there is one you have to gain that first and then a Treasure costing at most $5 minus the cost of the previously gained card.

I absolutely agree with LFN we should expect common sense from players. Anyway, we might change Bailiff's wording eventually. Asper and I will talk about it. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. Now since the discussion is going in circles it might be time to publish the next card. It's going to be far simpler but we're totally insecure about it.

Sorry to not be clearer; we've been discussing the "gain a treasure card and a victory card costing up to $5" version; where you would pick the order. With the wording you released, I still think that it is impossible to ever gain exactly 1 card with it; you would have to gain 2 cards, except when there's no legal combination, then you gain nothing. The only difference in functionality would be that you can't choose the order.

Maybe you're right and we would be okay with this being the rule: if there is no legal combination available, you cannot gain any card. But I somehow doubt that everybody will expect it to work that way. To Asper and me it seemed more intuitive to assume you only gain one card then. Intuition seems to play a big role for Bailiff...

Sorry to drag this on, but now I'm unclear on what your interpretation/intent is... with the "must gain victory first" wording, did you intend to allow a person to gain a $4 victory card, and then fail to gain a $1 treasure? Because if you were to allow gaining only 1 card in any circumstance, then I'm pretty sure you would have to allow that as well...

We intended Bailiff to support alt-VP strategies. You can gain e.g. a Gardens with it but then your Treasure would have to be a Copper. You can't gain only one card when there's two available.

[Asper]

On Bailiff: I think i have the problem that i find both our original intent and Gendo's interpretation of the rules plausible. This gives me the impression that a wording removing that uncertainity would be better.

Also, brace yourself, a new card is approaching.......

[singletee]

Maybe you're right and we would be okay with this being the rule: if there is no legal combination available, you cannot gain any card. But I somehow doubt that everybody will expect it to work that way. To Asper and me it seemed more intuitive to assume you only gain one card then. Intuition seems to play a big role for Bailiff...

Dominion's "do as much as you can" principle would seem to say that you would gain at least 1 card, if possible. Victory or Treasure, your choice.

[Asper]

Every self-respecting Dominion expansion needs an Alt-VP card. Here we got two variants of a VP card that is affected by Seasons. I admit that at this point we have entered the realm of "cool ideas that are not quite finished, yet".

The first version is tested quite a bit - it's unimportant how long the game lasts here, which makes it less "luck-based", but on the other hand, the first player to have a turn when the game goes into Spring the second time gets quite a bit of an advantage when these sweeties drop to $4 again.
The second version depends on the Season the game ends in (the marker is NOT moved after the turn the game ends in, btw). This means a bit more strategic depth, but also could be perceived as more of a "luck" thing. I'm saying "may", because it's not tested much. I'm sorry to admit this is mostly because of me, as exams are approaching with dazzling speed. So anybody who wants to test either of these versions, please tell us about it.

Either version has some fun interactions with trash-for-benefit, by the way. Also note that the base costs of both cards differ ever-so-slightly. Let's hear what you think of either

[GeneralRamos]

Merely an aesthetic note as I sit and process the card. Is it just me, or is the saturation of the Green on the banners, etc., too low? And/or too dark? Compared to official Dominion cards.
My gut is also leaning toward the variable-point version. I like the timing calculation required in deciding when and how heavily to invest in it, and how this affects other peoples' plays as well. If an opponent is deep in the timberlands, for instance, and it is late in winter, one might try to stall the game if possible to let spring sap their opponent's VP.

[Asper]

Merely an aesthetic note as I sit and process the card. Is it just me, or is the saturation of the Green on the banners, etc., too low? And/or too dark? Compared to official Dominion cards.

Wow, you are right the color is a bit off. Although, weirdly enough, Nobles and Gardens appear to use entirely different shades of green, too. Fairgrounds also seems much darker than Tunnel, for example... We might have to fix this, thanks for pointing it out. It's weird that it took me until now to realize that the green gets weaker to the center for VP-only cards only, and gets weaker from bottom to top for mixed VP cards.

[Roadrunner7671]

I think I like Variant two more. In any season but Winter, this is a great pickup. I think it's very comparable to Distant Lands as the first version. But the second version doesn't make it 'strictly better' than Duchy. And the second version is more different than something we've seen before. I like both of them though, the first one just seems a little overly good (not overpowered, just overly good).

[singletee]

[Timberland]

I like the TFB synergy. I'm not sure which version I like better. Probably the first one, since I don't like it when points just disappear out from under me.

[GendoIkari]

Neat. I wonder how strong it is with Island?

With the second version, I don't know if it's immediately obvious what season it is when the game is over. Especially if the game ends on a turn that's the last turn of a season. I'm sure the general Seasons rules could spell it out though.

[Asper]

Neat. I wonder how strong it is with Island?

With the second version, I don't know if it's immediately obvious what season it is when the game is over. Especially if the game ends on a turn that's the last turn of a season. I'm sure the general Seasons rules could spell it out though.

The token is moved just before the first player in player order takes his regular turn. If the last player makes an Outpost turn, it still happens in the current Season, and so do other extra turns. This includes Possession turns, which means that the first player in order will play his extra turn in another Season than his regular turn. This ensures every player gets the same effect when playing Outpost or Possession, or buying Mission. If the game ends after the last player's turn, the first player doesn't have a next turn, so the token stays. Again, this is to make sure the last player in order ending the game is consistent with the other players.

[eHalcyon]

On Bailiff: I think i have the problem that i find both our original intent and Gendo's interpretation of the rules plausible. This gives me the impression that a wording removing that uncertainity would be better.

For the record, I think GendoIkari's explanation (gain 2 or none at all) is more plausible for the original wording, though you can still get odd cases like the Feodum-Silver-Watchtower edge case I described before.




New card seems cool.  So the TfB synergy only really works if you pick it up early and trash it late, right?

[Asper]

New card seems cool.  So the TfB synergy only really works if you pick it up early and trash it late, right?

Yes, i think for most cases this will be how it works.

Hm, thinking about it, i just noticed the second one always stays withing Knights-range. I like that better.

[Co0kieL0rd]

New card seems cool.  So the TfB synergy only really works if you pick it up early and trash it late, right?

Well, depends on how you see it. Is it really economical to put a dead card into your deck early just to trash-for-benefit it later? Probably not. But I feel like this is one of those cards that could be much better evaluated if playtested by an expert player (which Asper and I aren't). We probably weren't able to max out Timberland's full potential, yet.

[scott_pilgrim]

I really like Timberland.  Maybe it's because I really like alt-VP in general, and this is a clever and simple way to use the Seasons mechanic with it.  Or maybe it's because the color scheme reminds me of watermelon sour patch.  I like the first version a lot better though.  The second version is still a great card too, but the first one seems a lot more elegant and I don't think the extra complexity will make a noticeable enough difference balance-wise to justify doing it the second way.

I also just want to say that I think the best conclusion to be drawn from that whole discussion on Bailiff is that you should just go with "a Duchy and a Copper", or if you really want alt-VP to work, "a victory card costing up to $5 and a Copper".  I don't think Estate/Silver or Estate/cheap kingdom treasure will be a very popular choice anyway, and other than that, there's just a few specific combinations that work (Fool's Gold/Tunnel is the only one that comes to mind).

[LastFootnote]

I definitely prefer the first version. It's less complex. I also think singletee has a good point about the feel-bad-ness of VP disappearing out from under you.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I also just want to say that I think the best conclusion to be drawn from that whole discussion on Bailiff is that you should just go with "a Duchy and a Copper", or if you really want alt-VP to work, "a victory card costing up to $5 and a Copper".  I don't think Estate/Silver or Estate/cheap kingdom treasure will be a very popular choice anyway, and other than that, there's just a few specific combinations that work (Fool's Gold/Tunnel is the only one that comes to mind).

Your second suggestion is pretty adequate for what we had in mind and might actually be the most elegant (non-complicated) way of implementing it.

On Timberland: it seems like both versions receive equal appreciation. Asper and I like both of them, too, design-wise but let me emphasise this; we've thoroghly tested and contemplated the first version and came to the conclusion that there's almost never any risk to pick up Timberland, version 1. On most boards you wouldn't want it before fall or winter and even in those seasons Timberland is reasonably priced (for 4VP). If the game happens to last until second spring you can pick it up for $4 which is most certainly too cheap. It makes Duchy very unattractive in any case.

Version 2 supports rush strategies more, due to lower starting cost and makes the decision whether to get Timberland in winter more difficult because you'd have to carefully assess if the game will end in winter or last longer. But that's just my personal taste. I can totally see other people preferring the first version (especially for the sake of lower complexity). I'm just concerned about it being ill-balanced.

Thanks for all the feedback guys

[AdrianHealey]

I also just want to say that I think the best conclusion to be drawn from that whole discussion on Bailiff is that you should just go with "a Duchy and a Copper", or if you really want alt-VP to work, "a victory card costing up to $5 and a Copper".  I don't think Estate/Silver or Estate/cheap kingdom treasure will be a very popular choice anyway, and other than that, there's just a few specific combinations that work (Fool's Gold/Tunnel is the only one that comes to mind).

Your second suggestion is pretty adequate for what we had in mind and might actually be the most elegant (non-complicated) way of implementing it.

On Timberland: it seems like both versions receive equal appreciation. Asper and I like both of them, too, design-wise but let me emphasise this; we've thoroghly tested and contemplated the first version and came to the conclusion that there's almost never any risk to pick up Timberland, version 1. On most boards you wouldn't want it before fall or winter and even in those seasons Timberland is reasonably priced (for 4VP). If the game happens to last until second spring you can pick it up for $4 which is most certainly too cheap. It makes Duchy very unattractive in any case.

Version 2 supports rush strategies more, due to lower starting cost and makes the decision whether to get Timberland in winter more difficult because you'd have to carefully assess if the game will end in winter or last longer. But that's just my personal taste. I can totally see other people preferring the first version (especially for the sake of lower complexity). I'm just concerned about it being ill-balanced.

Thanks for all the feedback guys

Alter the wording of the first that the price never goes down in the second spring? Is that an option?

"This costs $3 less in the first spring. &2 less in the first summer and 1 less in fall and every other summer and spring."

[Accatitippi]

I like timberland, and if I were to vote for the cards as they are I'd vote for version 1 because it's more elegant and simple. (just imagine an average player playing with it the first times: how much did it cost and how much it was worth when?)
But I like the idea of variable vp values more than I like the idea of variable prices, since variable vps can lead to jockeying to end the game when you need it, and to me it sounds more interesting than just having some cards out on sale at some time
My suggestion is to simplify version 2 by having less price and value steps (as is, you have 4 different prices and 3 vp values - a pain to remember!)
To clarify, something like:

Really Big Forest - 4 coins
Worth 2 vp.
------
In winter, this is worth 2 extra points and costs 2 (or 3?) coins more.

Or something completely different of similar complexity. (my example might be problematic because cost increases and cost reductions have an unclear relationship)

[Haddock]

I also just want to say that I think the best conclusion to be drawn from that whole discussion on Bailiff is that you should just go with "a Duchy and a Copper", or if you really want alt-VP to work, "a victory card costing up to $5 and a Copper".  I don't think Estate/Silver or Estate/cheap kingdom treasure will be a very popular choice anyway, and other than that, there's just a few specific combinations that work (Fool's Gold/Tunnel is the only one that comes to mind).

Would the text be too ridiculous to just say "A Duchy and a Copper or an Estate and a Silver."?

Maybe, but that doesn't seem like too too many words.

[chipperMDW]

We assume that Dominion, inherently, does not and will never consider prices below $0.

Negative costs do come up in one situation in actual Dominion: trying (and failing) to gain a card costing -$1 after Developing a card costing $0.

[GendoIkari]

We assume that Dominion, inherently, does not and will never consider prices below $0.

Negative costs do come up in one situation in actual Dominion: trying (and failing) to gain a card costing -$1 after Developing a card costing $0.

This is valid, but it could also be a valid view that what happens with Develop is that you fail you evaluate what "costing 1 less" means when a card costs $0.

[GendoIkari]

Oh, so Timberland is actually a much improved version of my Swamp idea!

[chipperMDW]

This is valid, but it could also be a valid view that what happens with Develop is that you fail you evaluate what "costing 1 less" means when a card costs $0.

That's true. I almost said "or else $1 less than $0 is an undefined cost." (The rulebook uses the negative cost interpretation, for what it's worth.)

[wachsmuth]

We assume that Dominion, inherently, does not and will never consider prices below $0.

Negative costs do come up in one situation in actual Dominion: trying (and failing) to gain a card costing -$1 after Developing a card costing $0.

There are also the following cases:

* Trashing a 0-cost card with Stonemason, trying and failing to gain something costing less than 0.

* Play 5 Highways, trash a Catacombs. It tries and fails to gain something costing less than it.