Print

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

[Asper]

No seriously, come closer. I can hardly see you back there. Woha, is this a new Dominion concept behind your ear? Where did that come from?

These are a quick idea i had when i thought about what Donald might do next. It's partly inspired by 461.weavile's Medallions (Warlords and Wizards):

Spells are effects similar to Events, which you can buy during your buy phase. They don't go into your deck. Instead, you have 5 tokens in your colour, which you put on (or next to) the Spell card. That Spell is now "prepared". Either way, to actually use a Spell, you have to play a kingdom card that tells you to cast them, and by casting a Spell, you lose the token again. Naturally, you can have up to five Spells prepared, as many of any as you like. Each time a Spell-casting kingdom card is in the supply, 3 Spells are chosen at random to be available. I decided to include a new type after some feedback convinced me it was reasonable.





Be aware, dear observers: For the novelty and pure magic of this new concept, several prices will be off.

[eHalcyon]

A mat or player board with tokens for tracking amount was the best idea I had for doing coin token equivalents for the other vanilla bonuses, since having a bunch of action tokens, buy tokens and card tokens would be annoying.  With Spells, you can get much more varied effects.  Maybe it could have a more modular approach:

The player board is used to track how many you have of generic spells A, B, C, D and E (maybe you just put generic tokens on a spot for each).  When you use a kingdom card that can cast spells, you also randomly deal 5 spells which are then labelled A-E for that game.

[Asper]

A mat or player board with tokens for tracking amount was the best idea I had for doing coin token equivalents for the other vanilla bonuses, since having a bunch of action tokens, buy tokens and card tokens would be annoying.  With Spells, you can get much more varied effects.  Maybe it could have a more modular approach:

The player board is used to track how many you have of generic spells A, B, C, D and E (maybe you just put generic tokens on a spot for each).  When you use a kingdom card that can cast spells, you also randomly deal 5 spells which are then labelled A-E for that game.

Hm, of course that means you'd need six of every spell... And a board... And 3-5 tokens for the Spells... Or you just have 6 smaller boards per Spell...
Or, maybe better, one shared board per Spell, with 3-5 tokens per player showing where they areon the respective Spell mat...

Like: eHalcion has his Spell token on position 2 of the "Glory" mat and position 0 of the "Insight" mat... Asper has his Spell token on position 1 of both, etc...

Idefinitely like the idea of modular Spell choices. Dominion is modular, why not extend this here. I don't think balance would be the issue.

[eHalcyon]

You would only need one copy of each spell.  The point of the generic labels is to avoid needing 6 copies.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding how you want it all to work...

[Asper]

You would only need one copy of each spell.  The point of the generic labels is to avoid needing 6 copies.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding how you want it all to work...

I think i misunderstood you. You are saying each player has a mat that works as a table with, let's say, 5 letters on it. These 5 reference five randomly drawn Spell cards. So six mats, one of each Spell card, five tokens per player, and either a mat or some ABCDE tokens for labeling would be needed.

My idea was having only one mat per Spell, randomly drawn, and the tokens. The mat could contain all information needed, including price, effect and a counter where each player moves when he buys one.

My solution doesn't feel very Dominion-ish, but it reduces the total material count. Yours on the other hand needs only one generic kind of mat, although i find the mapping to be a bit harder to follow. Maybe if it were just three or four Spells per game, and they would be color coded.

[eHalcyon]

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

Alternative solution: each player has their own colour-coded generic tokens.  When you get a Spell, put a token on the Spell card (or below it, to keep text visible).  When you use a spell, remove the token.  No mats or mapping required, but need slightly less-generic tokens, more tokens in total.  On the plus side, the generic tokens in player colours could have more possible uses.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Do spells get used up when you cast them? Otherwise, why would you want to have more than one of each?

[Asper]

Do spells get used up when you cast them? Otherwise, why would you want to have more than one of each?

Yes, they are used and go away.

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

Alternative solution: each player has their own colour-coded generic tokens.  When you get a Spell, put a token on the Spell card (or below it, to keep text visible).  When you use a spell, remove the token.  No mats or mapping required, but need slightly less-generic tokens, more tokens in total.  On the plus side, the generic tokens in player colours could have more possible uses.

So, i have, let's say, 8 tokens per player color (6*8=48), and players can put those below/around/on the Spell cards. If there are only 3-4 Spells each game, i can imagine this working. I like how this means you can't have a max of every Spell, just a max total. On the other hand, i could also imagine different Spells having a different max count, which also had something going for it. I'll playtest a version with a max of 8 Spells total per player once exams are done, i think.

[Asper]

I feel terrible for neglecting my studies. Why do you guys do this to me? Oh wait, it's my own fault. Either way....

Everybody loves pictures, right?

[eHalcyon]

Which implementation are you going with?  If you're going with the tokens in my recent suggestion, "take a Spell" doesn't make much sense.  Not sure of better word though... "place a Spell token"?

[Asper]

Which implementation are you going with?  If you're going with the tokens in my recent suggestion, "take a Spell" doesn't make much sense.  Not sure of better word though... "place a Spell token"?

"Take a Spell", for now, just means "increment the amount of Spells you can cast by 1". It's not tied to any specific implementation. Depending on what i decide to do (and this might change after a bit of playtesting), i will alter the wording approriately. Having not decided yet, i'd say it in fact means "place a Spell token". As it's very unclear to me how well this will work, and what limits i should try, i went with using the unchanged wording. There's not much consistence here, it's very experimental.

I'd say "give me a bit of time", but i won't be able to test those before next week. Either way, i have not forgotten your suggestions.

[Davio]

I like the idea, but I would like it if it was easier to actually get and cast Spells.

Maybe the spell casters can have something like "when you gain this, gain a Spell costing up to $X".

Alternatively, you could assign levels to the Spells and change the caster texts to something like "you may cast a Spell up to level X".
So a cheap caster can only cast lvl 1 Spells and the most expensive casters can cast the most powerful Spells.

You could make it even more awesome by doing some sort of traveler line from sorcerer's apprentice all the way to archmage, being able to cast more powerful Spells as they level up.

[Beyond Awesome]

Yeah, there needs to be a way to always gain spells if you have cards that can cast them. It would suck to have a card that can cast a spell but have no way to gain spells. Otherwise, I love the concept

[Davio]

You could also use something like a die to indicate your current max spell level and just add 1 after you used a spell caster.

So first spell caster can only pick lvl 0 skills (maybe they are like Ruins) and after the spell is cast, you increase it and are able to cast lvl 1 spells, etc...

I also like the idea of having a random selection of spells available, say 5 out of 20 or so (maybe with lvl restrictions?, so always a lvl 0 skill and always a lvl 6 skill).

[Asper]

Yeah, there needs to be a way to always gain spells if you have cards that can cast them. It would suck to have a card that can cast a spell but have no way to gain spells. Otherwise, I love the concept

When a Spell-casting kingdom card is in the supply, you can buy Spells during your buy phase. I thought Magician makes this clear, although it's in the OP, too.

Also, you can't "gain" Spells, and they don't go into your deck. You can just add them to you pool of Spells, and when you cast them, they are gone again. They are one-shot effects triggered by supply cards. The original concept had you take a copy of a Spell card and place it next to your deck when you bought a Spell. You still can have multiples of a Spell at your disposal, and it's just the exact solution i'm not sure on.

I hope this makes a bit clearer how these are supposed to work.

You could also use something like a die to indicate your current max spell level and just add 1 after you used a spell caster.

So first spell caster can only pick lvl 0 skills (maybe they are like Ruins) and after the spell is cast, you increase it and are able to cast lvl 1 spells, etc...

I also like the idea of having a random selection of spells available, say 5 out of 20 or so (maybe with lvl restrictions?, so always a lvl 0 skill and always a lvl 6 skill).

While this is interesting, and probably worth a shot on its own, it doesn't have much in common with my original idea. I just wanted Spells to be a mix of Reserve/Event that you buy, keep next to your deck, and can use when you play a card that goes with it. Your idea reminds me a bit too much of Thunderstone, and is also more complex. To a certain degree, it actually "reduces" Spellcasters to a Traveller chain where each Traveller has a bunch of "choose one"'s, with the selection of what you choose being determined at random during setup.

I really think i'm happy with my buy-variant for now.

[tristan]

Looks like an interesting new mechanism. Spellcasting cards are obviously stronger in Kingdoms that provide extra Buys as a lot of the spells are cheap.

[Davio]

Yeah, there needs to be a way to always gain spells if you have cards that can cast them. It would suck to have a card that can cast a spell but have no way to gain spells. Otherwise, I love the concept

When a Spell-casting kingdom card is in the supply, you can buy Spells during your buy phase. I thought Magician makes this clear, although it's in the OP, too.

Also, you can't "gain" Spells, and they don't go into your deck. You can just add them to you pool of Spells, and when you cast them, they are gone again. They are one-shot effects triggered by supply cards. The original concept had you take a copy of a Spell card and place it next to your deck when you bought a Spell. You still can have multiples of a Spell at your disposal, and it's just the exact solution i'm not sure on.

I hope this makes a bit clearer how these are supposed to work.

You could also use something like a die to indicate your current max spell level and just add 1 after you used a spell caster.

So first spell caster can only pick lvl 0 skills (maybe they are like Ruins) and after the spell is cast, you increase it and are able to cast lvl 1 spells, etc...

I also like the idea of having a random selection of spells available, say 5 out of 20 or so (maybe with lvl restrictions?, so always a lvl 0 skill and always a lvl 6 skill).

While this is interesting, and probably worth a shot on its own, it doesn't have much in common with my original idea. I just wanted Spells to be a mix of Reserve/Event that you buy, keep next to your deck, and can use when you play a card that goes with it. Your idea reminds me a bit too much of Thunderstone, and is also more complex. To a certain degree, it actually "reduces" Spellcasters to a Traveller chain where each Traveller has a bunch of "choose one"'s, with the selection of what you choose being determined at random during setup.

I really think i'm happy with my buy-variant for now.

Okay, maybe I'll work something base on my idea which is somewhat based on your idea.
I've always liked having some kind of learning/experience mechanism.

[Asper]

Looks like an interesting new mechanism. Spellcasting cards are obviously stronger in Kingdoms that provide extra Buys as a lot of the spells are cheap.

Yes, probably. I thought about adding a +Buy to Magician, and have an idea for some more expensive Spells, too.

Not that what you observed is bad, but i'd like a bit more variety.

[Asper]

You could also use something like a die to indicate your current max spell level and just add 1 after you used a spell caster.

So first spell caster can only pick lvl 0 skills (maybe they are like Ruins) and after the spell is cast, you increase it and are able to cast lvl 1 spells, etc...

I also like the idea of having a random selection of spells available, say 5 out of 20 or so (maybe with lvl restrictions?, so always a lvl 0 skill and always a lvl 6 skill).

Your reply gave me an idea how to implement something like your suggestion as a card within my rules:

Summoner, $4
You may cast a Spell.
Take a Spell costing up to $3.

Edit: Switched the order.

[tristan]

You could also use something like a die to indicate your current max spell level and just add 1 after you used a spell caster.

So first spell caster can only pick lvl 0 skills (maybe they are like Ruins) and after the spell is cast, you increase it and are able to cast lvl 1 spells, etc...

I also like the idea of having a random selection of spells available, say 5 out of 20 or so (maybe with lvl restrictions?, so always a lvl 0 skill and always a lvl 6 skill).

Your reply gave me an idea how to implement something like your suggestion as a card within my rules:

Summoner, $4
Take a Spell costing up to $3.
You may cast a Spell.

The idea of a Spell Gainer is definitely good but the current version of Summoner would obviously be too strong with the current spells (especially Dexterity).
On the other hand you could simply switch the order such that you cast the Spell before you gain it to get rid of the immediacy and the hyperflexibility of Summoner.

[Asper]

You could also use something like a die to indicate your current max spell level and just add 1 after you used a spell caster.

So first spell caster can only pick lvl 0 skills (maybe they are like Ruins) and after the spell is cast, you increase it and are able to cast lvl 1 spells, etc...

I also like the idea of having a random selection of spells available, say 5 out of 20 or so (maybe with lvl restrictions?, so always a lvl 0 skill and always a lvl 6 skill).

Your reply gave me an idea how to implement something like your suggestion as a card within my rules:

Summoner, $4
Take a Spell costing up to $3.
You may cast a Spell.

The idea of a Spell Gainer is definitely good but the current version of Summoner would obviously be too strong with the current spells (especially Dexterity).
On the other hand you could simply switch the order such that you cast the Spell before you gain it to get rid of the immediacy and the hyperflexibility of Summoner.

You are right. Switching the order also makes it more interesting.

[GendoIkari]

You could also use something like a die to indicate your current max spell level and just add 1 after you used a spell caster.

So first spell caster can only pick lvl 0 skills (maybe they are like Ruins) and after the spell is cast, you increase it and are able to cast lvl 1 spells, etc...

I also like the idea of having a random selection of spells available, say 5 out of 20 or so (maybe with lvl restrictions?, so always a lvl 0 skill and always a lvl 6 skill).

Your reply gave me an idea how to implement something like your suggestion as a card within my rules:

Summoner, $4
Take a Spell costing up to $3.
You may cast a Spell.

This also could be read as:

Summoner, $4
Choose one:
[list of all sorts of different effects of varying strength]

It sounds really strong. It also sounds like Band of Misfits.
[/list]

[Asper]

You could also use something like a die to indicate your current max spell level and just add 1 after you used a spell caster.

So first spell caster can only pick lvl 0 skills (maybe they are like Ruins) and after the spell is cast, you increase it and are able to cast lvl 1 spells, etc...

I also like the idea of having a random selection of spells available, say 5 out of 20 or so (maybe with lvl restrictions?, so always a lvl 0 skill and always a lvl 6 skill).

Your reply gave me an idea how to implement something like your suggestion as a card within my rules:

Summoner, $4
Take a Spell costing up to $3.
You may cast a Spell.

This also could be read as:

Summoner, $4
Choose one:
[list of all sorts of different effects of varying strength]

It sounds really strong. It also sounds like Band of Misfits.
[/list]

Yes, this is why i'll go with tristan's suggestion and switch the order.

[Asper]

Abracadabra. Co0kieL0rd and i tested some Spells today. Amazingly, they worked kind of well for the most part. We decided to stick with 3 Spells per game, and did two games. We played with the Spells lying in the kingdom, similar to Events, and each player owning 5 tokens in the respective player colours. When you buy a Spell, put your token there, when you cast one, remove the token. It worked.


The first kingdom had Trickster and Wizards, with the Spells being Wisdom, Purity and Power (new).




A noticeable problem on this board was a lack of +Buy, which we feared would render Spells rather useless. Given Wizard's Spell-preparation-skills ("prepare" means "place a token", btw), it kind of worked out. Wizard casting one or two Power Spells was a sure way to spike very high very early. Sadly, i decided to green much too early (curse you Wizards!), and then even trashed my Wizards for Provinces. Later i tried to use my stalling turns to get some magic for my few Tricksters, but it was too late and i lost

We played the game with a version of Wizard that only works on-buy, but i found out that the combo i tried to avoid when making it on-buy doesn't work either way, so i decided to revert that change afterwards. Power's special ability and Wizard's double-cast were kind of redundant. With more +Buy, who knows how good casting Power could have been.

Wisdom Spells and Trickster were nice. Purity works, but the mega-turn where you would use it to its greatest effect didn't happen here.  Either way, not the total disaster i feared.


The second game had these:




A notable thing about this game was the existance of Port. Man, it's really easy to play a few Magicians and get incredibly much money for a Wealth Spell once you invested in a few Ports. I won this one by a single point, using Glory to avoid stalling too early. It was a close one. Interestingly, Sorcerer didn't get used much simply because we were too eager to try ourself at Magician's crazy tricks, and another cantrip in the kingdom (my Artisan, which picks up -cost cards) was better to help with that. Either way, i feel Glory might be too cheap, but then i had the slight feeling most Spells might be. Magician definitely is the combo card here.

[eHalcyon]

I like the "prepare a spell" wording.

[J Reggie]

Another kind of wording thing: have you considered adding a card type to the spell-casting cards to signify that Spells should be available, similar to how Looters add Ruins to the supply?  Not sure if this is entirely necessary as the Spells aren't actually in the supply, but it might be neat and could potentially help with clarity/rules questions.

[Asper]

Another kind of wording thing: have you considered adding a card type to the spell-casting cards to signify that Spells should be available, similar to how Looters add Ruins to the supply?  Not sure if this is entirely necessary as the Spells aren't actually in the supply, but it might be neat and could potentially help with clarity/rules questions.

I was asked this yesterday, and thought about it before. My choice at that time was that a type is not necessary. My line of thought was: If you have a component and including it in the game without the card referencing it changes nothing, the card does not need a type.

Tournament, Island, Monument, Pillage, Madman and Baker all only have their normal types. Sure, you only need to get out VP tokens, coin tokens, Island Mat, Prizes or Spoils if they are used. But you could just as well imagine they always are there. It's inconsequential to the game if you put VP tokens on the game and no +VP card is in the kingdom.

The same goes for Spells for the most part. Of course you could buy Spells, but it doesn't get you anything different than just not using your buys. There are three things that might make me change my mind: Cards that, in response to being gained/bought count your unused buys and give you something you might not want in response. Buying a Spell for no effect could be useful here. The same goes for a card that does something depending on how much money you have some time in your buy phase. And of course, the fan card that forces others to use up their buys. I don't think most of these are realistic (in fact, i oppose the last attack concept), but they are technically possible.

I'm just not sure a type is actually required. I mean, i could include one, there's no harm in that. I guess it's okay to have a type for 5 cards. Looter does it for 3, Knights for a single pile, Prizes for 5 singletons.

[J Reggie]

Tournament, Island, Monument, Pillage, Madman and Baker all only have their normal types. Sure, you only need to get out VP tokens, coin tokens, Island Mat, Prizes or Spoils if they are used. But you could just as well imagine they always are there. It's inconsequential to the game if you put VP tokens on the game and no +VP card is in the kingdom.

I think the difference between these cards and the Spellcasters, and what made me think of this, is that the Spellcasters add an extra step to setup where you have to somehow pick which Spells are being used in that game.  I'm not sure how far you're planning on going with this expansion, but if you were to create a rulebook, it would be much easier to say something like "If any Kingdom card has the type Spellcaster, randomly select 3 Spells to be used in this game" and then whatever suggestions you want about how to select the Spells. 

What you say about it not mattering if Spells are available in games without Spellcasters makes sense to us as humans, but Dominion is supposed to run like a computer program.  I think without this rule it would imply that if you own this expansion, randomly select 3 Spells for every game and just let them sit there (if that makes any sense).  I'm just imagining having this on MF and for every game having 3 random Spells on the next page, whether or not they're doing anything.  But maybe I'm taking this too far.  Anyway, that's just my thought process for this.


Edit: Okay, another thought just came to me: All of those cards that you mentioned are either the only card that adds its thing to the game or deal with tokens (or both; in the case of Baker it's the only card that gives you a token to start with, but it says that on the card.)  With the tokens, it doesn't change the game in any way to have the tokens sitting there.  For instance, in my post here I noticed that one of the bots had a Journey token next to his avatar, even though there was no Journey token card in the game.  This, however, didn't change anything about the game, as there wasn't anything he could do with his token.  But with Spells, it does actually change the game, however inconsequentially, as it gives you more options (you can buy them), and there's more than one card that deals with them.  So I guess that's another part of my reasoning for why there should be a card type to decide when to include Spells. 

Okay, I'm done now.  This mechanic is really cool, by the way!

[Asper]

Edit: Okay, another thought just came to me: All of those cards that you mentioned are either the only card that adds its thing to the game or deal with tokens (or both; in the case of Baker it's the only card that gives you a token to start with, but it says that on the card.)  With the tokens, it doesn't change the game in any way to have the tokens sitting there.  For instance, in my post here I noticed that one of the bots had a Journey token next to his avatar, even though there was no Journey token card in the game.  This, however, didn't change anything about the game, as there wasn't anything he could do with his token.  But with Spells, it does actually change the game, however inconsequentially, as it gives you more options (you can buy them), and there's more than one card that deals with them.  So I guess that's another part of my reasoning for why there should be a card type to decide when to include Spells. 

Okay, I'm done now.  This mechanic is really cool, by the way!

Well, more than one card uses VP tokens or Spoils. And in current Dominion, the choice of spending money and a buy on no effect at all opens no additional options. You could just as well leave the money and buy unspent.

You make good point, though. Originally, i planned all Spells to be in the kingdom if cards that cast them are included. It's true that setup with Spells means more complexity then just including them, you actually have to go through some choosing process.
Also, unlike VP tokens etc, it usually doesn't matter if you forget to put them out until somebody plays a card that asks for the component. "I play Bishop... Hey, where are the tokens?". As you will have to plan ahead with Spells, possibly buying them before ever playing a Spellcaster, this doesn't really work there.
And i guess that somebody could come up with a card that counts your buys or coins during your buy phase, and well, there are fan cards like LastFootnote's Charlatan which forces you to use your buys...

So thinking about this a bit more, i'll admit it's safer if i just add a Spellcaster-type. The cards are all plain actions, either way, and i don't really intend to do more, so one additional type won't hurt.

Edit: Cards in the OP now have a secondary type.

[GendoIkari]

So I'm too late, and this whole post is now pointless, but I'll throw in my support for a new type anyway. Without it, there's a legitimate question of "can I legally buy a spell this game"? That question doesn't come up with Spoils; you can't ever buy a Spoils. There's no difference between Spoils being left in the box or not until a card tells you to gain a Spoils. Ruins are different. As soon as you have a Looter in the game, Ruins are a thing you can buy.

The only real alternative to the type is to make a rule that says "in all Dominion games from now on, you can always choose to buy/prepare a Spell". Or a Shelters-type rule that says "when using any cards from this expansion, you can always choose to buy/prepare a Spell". That's a little better, though I didn't see if you ever said if your expansion would include non-spellcaster cards. Anyway, I'm glad you made the change.

[Asper]

So I'm too late, and this whole post is now pointless, but I'll throw in my support for a new type anyway. Without it, there's a legitimate question of "can I legally buy a spell this game"? That question doesn't come up with Spoils; you can't ever buy a Spoils. There's no difference between Spoils being left in the box or not until a card tells you to gain a Spoils. Ruins are different. As soon as you have a Looter in the game, Ruins are a thing you can buy.

The only real alternative to the type is to make a rule that says "in all Dominion games from now on, you can always choose to buy/prepare a Spell". Or a Shelters-type rule that says "when using any cards from this expansion, you can always choose to buy/prepare a Spell". That's a little better, though I didn't see if you ever said if your expansion would include non-spellcaster cards. Anyway, I'm glad you made the change.

Well, as i said before, currently, in a game without Spellcasters, it makes no difference whether Spells are put on the table or not. You can buy them, but it is inconsequential in every regard. Buying a "Purity" Spell does the same as not using the 2 and 1 buy at all in these games. It might matter for hypothetical future cards, though, and setup is inherently complex (you have to choose), so i changed my mind.

[tristan]

Spellcaster is a type, or rather a subtype, like Looter that serves as a setup reminder. Unlike "proper" types like e.g. Attack or Reaction is is not strictly necessary rule wise.
That spells are only in the Kingdom if card that references spells exist is kind of obvious. It is like with Potion (although admittedly there you have a easy visual clue).

[GendoIkari]

So I'm too late, and this whole post is now pointless, but I'll throw in my support for a new type anyway. Without it, there's a legitimate question of "can I legally buy a spell this game"? That question doesn't come up with Spoils; you can't ever buy a Spoils. There's no difference between Spoils being left in the box or not until a card tells you to gain a Spoils. Ruins are different. As soon as you have a Looter in the game, Ruins are a thing you can buy.

The only real alternative to the type is to make a rule that says "in all Dominion games from now on, you can always choose to buy/prepare a Spell". Or a Shelters-type rule that says "when using any cards from this expansion, you can always choose to buy/prepare a Spell". That's a little better, though I didn't see if you ever said if your expansion would include non-spellcaster cards. Anyway, I'm glad you made the change.

Well, as i said before, currently, in a game without Spellcasters, it makes no difference whether Spells are put on the table or not. You can buy them, but it is inconsequential in every regard. Buying a "Purity" Spell does the same as not using the 2 and 1 buy at all in these games. It might matter for hypothetical future cards, though, and setup is inherently complex (you have to choose), so i changed my mind.

It makes a difference in that it changes the actual rules of the game for all games of Dominion. It's like of someone created an event that said "This does nothing" and then also added a rule that this event MUST be used in every game of Dominion anywhere.

[eHalcyon]

So it makes a difference in theory but not in practice.  Embargo is an official card that does this too - Embargo tokens technically have an effect even if Embargo isn't in the game.

[Asper]

Yes, my point was exactly that such an Event would be inconsequential, for which reason having it in a game of Dominion is not distinguishable from not having it. If having or not having something is equal, having it doesnt ask for a type - or at least that was my reasoning. Before, i thought it applied to Spells, but i changed my mind. While it might currently be indistinguishable whether you have or don't have Spells in a game without Spellcasters, future cards might (and LastFootnotes Charlatan does) change this. Eiher way, this is not official Dominion reasoning, it's just what i observed with other cards. I don't like introducing types, but this thing needed one.

Also, practically speaking, it's no fun if somebody forgets to include Spells and only notices they could have bought a Spell or two after somebody gains their first Spellcaster. And there need to be rules how to set up the Spells, so a type helps with clarity. All in all, three reasons are enough, and there was enough room, either way.

[461.weavile]

Well, having the Spellcaster type actually makes them combo with one of my custom cards: Rook. Rook cares if the cards played after it have more than one type. It doesn't matter with any of the official cards, as they only deal with major types and Attacks (excepting Vagrant, but that doesn't count) and I haven't seen other fan cards in my short journey through the forum that count the types or care about various arbitrarily named types.

Have you tested these much? I know you have your other fancy expansion, and have been busier than you wanted to even test that. I have some ideas off the top of my head (since this thread is my fault anyway. XD)

How about a Spellcaster card that increases or decreases the number of Spells in the Kingdom? Does casting Harm have any issue with not being an Attack? I'm not even going to suggest a Black Market variant that just scrolls though the different spells, that's so boring and I think it's been done before. Have you avoided making an Attack Spellcaster - it makes sense to me? Maybe too random, but how about a one-shot Spellcaster that uses all the spells at once or all the spells you have prepared? How about an overpay that lets you cast a spell ... no that doesn't make a lick of sense. How about an Attack Spellcaster that removes other players prepared spells if you cast that spell, like Taxman? What about a Spellcaster that has a stronger effect if you have more spells prepared - that should satisfy the level-up condition without being a Traveller or using more materials? How about a spell that is a Moat if you have it prepared... no that's just silly and doesn't even match the rest. What about one that uses the Trade Route mat to improve the power of the spell? A spell that reduces card costs; or would that not be different enough from +coins? Maybe there could be a Spellcaster that completely replaces Scout, Chancellor, or Rebuild... aaaaand now I'm rambling.

I have TTS now, so I can test stuff or just play stuff, too.

[Asper]

Well, having the Spellcaster type actually makes them combo with one of my custom cards: Rook. Rook cares if the cards played after it have more than one type. It doesn't matter with any of the official cards, as they only deal with major types and Attacks (excepting Vagrant, but that doesn't count) and I haven't seen other fan cards in my short journey through the forum that count the types or care about various arbitrarily named types.

Have you tested these much? I know you have your other fancy expansion, and have been busier than you wanted to even test that. I have some ideas off the top of my head (since this thread is my fault anyway. XD)

How about a Spellcaster card that increases or decreases the number of Spells in the Kingdom? Does casting Harm have any issue with not being an Attack? I'm not even going to suggest a Black Market variant that just scrolls though the different spells, that's so boring and I think it's been done before. Have you avoided making an Attack Spellcaster - it makes sense to me? Maybe too random, but how about a one-shot Spellcaster that uses all the spells at once or all the spells you have prepared? How about an overpay that lets you cast a spell ... no that doesn't make a lick of sense. How about an Attack Spellcaster that removes other players prepared spells if you cast that spell, like Taxman? What about a Spellcaster that has a stronger effect if you have more spells prepared - that should satisfy the level-up condition without being a Traveller or using more materials? How about a spell that is a Moat if you have it prepared... no that's just silly and doesn't even match the rest. What about one that uses the Trade Route mat to improve the power of the spell? A spell that reduces card costs; or would that not be different enough from +coins? Maybe there could be a Spellcaster that completely replaces Scout, Chancellor, or Rebuild... aaaaand now I'm rambling.

I have TTS now, so I can test stuff or just play stuff, too.

These have been tested only in the two games i described earlier. So, not much.

About Harm, we didn't play with it because my opponent thought it was too expensive. The fact it's not an attack is one of the few things it has in its favour. It's a bit like a cheaper IGG in that respect. Also, doing a wording that makes the Spellcaster an attack didn't seem worth the effort.

A Spellcaster attack that attacks in a common Dominion way seems unneccessary. Spells are complex enough as is, no need to mix something in. Spellcasters that attack Spells are useless against opponents playing without Spells, so they actively make players NOT play with Spells. Sure, i could do some "they un-prepare a Spell or gain a Curse" thing, but man, complexity again.

About changing the number of Spells in the kingdom, i think 3 is a fine number. It's cool that sometimes a Spell that goes well with a certain Spellcaster is included, and sometimes not. Also, again, using more Spells can make games too complex/confusing. Besides, some Spells, like Insight, are pretty weak, so having them isn't much different from having less. I mean, you could also have a kingdom card that increases the amount of kingdom cards, and we have. But Young Witch has a specific use for that card. You could make a Spellcaster that adds a special Spell only that card can cast, or something, but again i'm not sure that complexitiy is reasonable considering how fun it is.

A Spellcaster that allows you to use all Spells you prepared at once might work. I have something along that line with Wizard, of course, and that's allready strong. Power, too, is pretty strong. I'm not sure how games with only one of those two cards will look.

Casting out of turn order or your action phase is something i'd like to avoid, though. I once considered a card that lets other players cast a Spell. Then it became a card that lets other players prepare a Spell on gain. Then it became Wizard. There's probably some unexplored design space here, though.

A Spellcaster that does something better when you have more Spells prepared has something of a coin token card that gives you something for the oin tokens you have. It's like, you want to spend these, but you also don't want to spend these. I'm not sure how that plays, but for now, my target is to make people understand and want to play Spellcasters, which of course implies casting Spells. Mostly, i'm just not a fan of that level-up thing. It's an entire new level (ha ha) of complexity, and Spells are complex enough as is.

A Spell that counts some tokens seems nice, but i tried to go with very short tets and it wouldn't fit. It's not that complex, so it might technically be okay. It's mostly a design issue, i guess.

Glory replaces Rebuild (kind of), Insight replaces Scout. A Chancellor Spell might be fun, though. Let's call it "Chance"

[461.weavile]

I have to say, I didn't expect you to comment on the whole thing. It was a little bit joking, a little bit stream-of-consciousness. Rereading what I wrote, probably the only thing I really meant was wondering how Harm works out. The only thing that could work is the Chancellor and only if it had something interesting with it, and maaayyybe the one with the Trade Route mat, but that's neither new nor necessary to make an interesting one. Hey, at least it tells me you put in the effort to read the whole thing. XD

The next step for me is to find a new name for my Spellcaster.

[Asper]

I have to say, I didn't expect you to comment on the whole thing. It was a little bit joking, a little bit stream-of-consciousness. Rereading what I wrote, probably the only thing I really meant was wondering how Harm works out. The only thing that could work is the Chancellor and only if it had something interesting with it, and maaayyybe the one with the Trade Route mat, but that's neither new nor necessary to make an interesting one. Hey, at least it tells me you put in the effort to read the whole thing. XD

The next step for me is to find a new name for my Spellcaster.

Oops, i didn't even think of that card. But seriously, there's no need to rename it. I have a card called Sheriff, and somebody else has a card called Sheriff, and we even use the same image (and his came first). It's nothing i worry about, they're fan cards, after all.

[461.weavile]

I have to say, I didn't expect you to comment on the whole thing. It was a little bit joking, a little bit stream-of-consciousness. Rereading what I wrote, probably the only thing I really meant was wondering how Harm works out. The only thing that could work is the Chancellor and only if it had something interesting with it, and maaayyybe the one with the Trade Route mat, but that's neither new nor necessary to make an interesting one. Hey, at least it tells me you put in the effort to read the whole thing. XD

The next step for me is to find a new name for my Spellcaster.

Oops, i didn't even think of that card. But seriously, there's no need to rename it. I have a card called Sheriff, and somebody else has a card called Sheriff, and we even use the same image (and his came first). It's nothing i worry about, they're fan cards, after all.

Or I could change it to make it a Spellcaster type as well. It wouldn't be that hard. Just replace "take a coin token" with "prepare a spell" and it's good to go. I don't know if a card with the same name and type is the best idea, though. XD