Print

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

[crj]

You can look through the trash before playing the Necromancer

Normally, yes. Not when it's turned up by a Golem or Herald. Nor if you've Summoned or Princed your Necromancer and don't like the options when you come to play it.

Uh, I imagine you can reach over, pick up the cards in the trash, and look at them any time you like. It's just a few inches away from you.

Yes! Agreed! You can, indeed, know what's in the trash, and therefore know you don't want to play Necromancer.

My point is that there are circumstances in which you can end up unable to avoid playing Necromancer. Not common circumstances, but circumstances nonetheless. Hence my surprise that its effect isn't optional.

[JThorne]

The contents of the Trash being public knowledge is a key component of the rules that's worth highlighting, especially since the contents of your discard pile, which are also face-up, are not. Players are not allowed to go through their discard pile, nor even count the number of cards in it, unless a card or event specifically instructs them to.

[King Leon]

So what happens when you Necromancer something like Mining Village or Feast? Will the blue dog rule apply, so that the trashed Mining Village is considered as another Mining Village than the Necromancered Mining Village, so that it is trashed face-up again?

[J Reggie]

So what happens when you Necromancer something like Mining Village or Feast? Will the blue dog rule apply, so that the trashed Mining Village is considered as another Mining Village than the Necromancered Mining Village, so that it is trashed face-up again?

I believe it's akin to Throne Room. The card can't move to the trash because it's already there.

[King Leon]

So what happens when you Necromancer something like Mining Village or Feast? Will the blue dog rule apply, so that the trashed Mining Village is considered as another Mining Village than the Necromancered Mining Village, so that it is trashed face-up again?

I believe it's akin to Throne Room. The card can't move to the trash because it's already there.

Ok, thank you. I wonder if this makes an endless turn possible, when Graverobber/Lurker is in the Kingdom.

[matste]

Can a necromanced Graverobber gain itself from the trash?

I mean he fails to move himself, the rules state, but he can gain a card from the trash which just happens to be himself, right?

I mean when does the „leaving it there” resolves?

Question 2:
Do you set aside a necromanced Mining Village while being posessed?

[Asper]

I think I know what irks me with the art. Several things are really muddy, but other things look highly realistic. It appears as if the creator had just copied pictures together and painted over them, which also explains the off perspective, eg. for Celine's  Apprentice's foot and Mason's wall. It looks a lot like the images in those dreadful object searching apps.

[werothegreat]

Does "leaving it there" apply just to when the act of playing the card would normally put it into play, or does it prevent other card movement as a result of performing instructions on the card? For example, if you play a Wish from the Trash, does Necromancer leave it in the trash and turn it face-down, but then the Wish moves itself to its pile anyway?

Necromancer on Wish would just give you +1 Action, and Wish would stay in the trash.

[trivialknot]

I think I know what irks me with the art. Several things are really muddy, but other things look highly realistic. It appears as if the creator had just copied pictures together and painted over them, which also explains the off perspective, eg. for Celine's  Apprentice's foot and Mason's wall. It looks a lot like the images in those dreadful object searching apps.

I agree with this.  The level of detail in the artwork is inconsistent.

I think another factor is the incoherent color scheme.  They're mostly dull gray and brown, but there are touches of more saturated colors.  But the saturated colors are all over the place, and they draw the eye towards parts of the artwork that don't seem like they should be the focus.  I do think the art for Necromancer itself is the best.

[chipperMDW]

Does "leaving it there" apply just to when the act of playing the card would normally put it into play, or does it prevent other card movement as a result of performing instructions on the card? For example, if you play a Wish from the Trash, does Necromancer leave it in the trash and turn it face-down, but then the Wish moves itself to its pile anyway?

Necromancer on Wish would just give you +1 Action, and Wish would stay in the trash.

Yeah, I see I missed that in the original post. The "leaving it there" is a blanket effect that prevents Necromancer from putting it into play when it plays it, and also prevents the card from moving itself. But how deep does that go? As matste asked, does it just prevent the card from moving itself through references to "this," or does it prevent the card from moving any card that happens to be "this"? In the latter case, does it apply recursively to things played by the Necromanced card? Like, if you Necromance a Throne Room and use it to play a Lurker, can that move the Throne Room? Or maybe it just prevents the card's movement by anything during the time when it's resolving, in which case even a hypothetical gain-from-the-trash reaction would be prevented from moving it.

[SirSlugma]

I'm not quite sure how good this card is but I have really enjoyed it in the few games so far!  There's just so much going on with multiple decisions and the interactions with the stuff you trash, but it doesn't have quite the randomness of Boons/Hexes.

[markusin]

How does Necromancer interact with cards such as Highway, which must be "in play" to be most useful?

Badly.

Also, Necromancer on Pixie is not as good as you might initially think.

[markusin]

Man I would not have bought this game if I had known it would end up adding a zombie mechanic halfway through.

I would like to submit a formal request for joke explanation, please.

If it's a reference to what I think it is, explaining the joke might be a spoiler. If it's not a reference to what I think it is, it's a less good joke.

Oh, wow I didn't notice that possibility before.

Anyway, the Wolfenstein series had zombies show up midway before it was cool, or maybe while it was still cool.

[Accatitippi]

The art is clearly a pasteup of several different layers, with no effort made to keep consistent lightning or even add shadows from one object to the other. (Just like Charm, from the same artist.)
Some examples:
Necromancer's feet (or any part of him, really) cast no shadow, despite the fact that he's holding a freaking light source twenty cm from his foot. This gives the disconnected feel to the image, and gives him a measure of "floatiness".

The zombie in Necromancer is also pasted on the floor image, and you need to look twice to realize that he's actually supposed to be bursting out of the floor. He casts no shadow on it, nor does the border of the hole cast a shadow on the zombie.

Necromancer's pose is completely disconnected to the scene. You're freaking summoning a zombie, while looking at something off screen and having a completely neutral pose. This smells heavily of recycled concept art.
Compare with the good art of Summon (from the same artist, even), for a scenic pose.

The freaking column doesn't cast a shadow either...

Apprentice seems completely off scale, and has completely different lightning than everything else in the scene.

The sky is dark in Spy, but everything else is incongrously lit by a sourceless light.

Mason should really cast a shadow. There isn't a single cast shadow in any of the four images.

This art is deeply sub-par. I wish RGG put stricter quality requirements on Dominion's artists. I'm actually tempted of dropping Jay an email.

[SuperHans]

This art is deeply sub-par. I wish RGG put stricter quality requirements on Dominion's artists. I'm actually tempted of dropping Jay an email.

At this point, it wouldn't be Dominion if the quality of the art wasn't all over the spectrum. It's part of the charm.

[LostPhoenix]

The art is clearly a pasteup of several different layers, with no effort made to keep consistent lightning or even add shadows from one object to the other. (Just like Charm, from the same artist.)
Some examples:
Necromancer's feet (or any part of him, really) cast no shadow, despite the fact that he's holding a freaking light source twenty cm from his foot. This gives the disconnected feel to the image, and gives him a measure of "floatiness".

The zombie in Necromancer is also pasted on the floor image, and you need to look twice to realize that he's actually supposed to be bursting out of the floor. He casts no shadow on it, nor does the border of the hole cast a shadow on the zombie.

Necromancer's pose is completely disconnected to the scene. You're freaking summoning a zombie, while looking at something off screen and having a completely neutral pose. This smells heavily of recycled concept art.
Compare with the good art of Summon (from the same artist, even), for a scenic pose.

The freaking column doesn't cast a shadow either...

Apprentice seems completely off scale, and has completely different lightning than everything else in the scene.

The sky is dark in Spy, but everything else is incongrously lit by a sourceless light.

Mason should really cast a shadow. There isn't a single cast shadow in any of the four images.

This art is deeply sub-par. I wish RGG put stricter quality requirements on Dominion's artists. I'm actually tempted of dropping Jay an email.

Completely agree. I'm getting flashbacks about the awfulness of Charm, also by the same artist. Apparently Shadows don't exist. 

[LastFootnote]

I actually made lists (before Nocturne art started) of artists that should be allowed to do Dominion art, those that should be allowed to do art without people/faces, and those who should never ever do art again. At the time, Marco Morte was on the no-faces list, but this maybe bumps him down to "no more art". Again, this is all just my opinion and has/had not much impact on what actually gets done.

My current list of artists that should be allowed to do faces:
• Claus Stephan
• Elisa Cella
• Franz Vohwinkel
• Garret deChellis
• Grant Hansen
• Jeff Himmelman
• Lorraine Schleter

[tastor]

Yes! Agreed! You can, indeed, know what's in the trash, and therefore know you don't want to play Necromancer.

My point is that there are circumstances in which you can end up unable to avoid playing Necromancer. Not common circumstances, but circumstances nonetheless. Hence my surprise that its effect isn't optional.

Well sure, but cut out the middle man: you can already Golem or Herald a Rats directly and it might suck for you. There's already plenty of cards that you might hit with Golem or whatever and be forced to mandatorily play, why not give every card a "may" clause, or just give Golem/Herald/Vassal that clause?

[chipperMDW]

Necromancer's pose is completely disconnected to the scene. You're freaking summoning a zombie, while looking at something off screen and having a completely neutral pose.

I mean, he probably does this all day long and just doesn't find the actual summoning that interesting anymore.

[pacovf]

I actually made lists (before Nocturne art started) of artists that should be allowed to do Dominion art, those that should be allowed to do art without people/faces, and those who should never ever do art again. At the time, Marco Morte was on the no-faces list, but this maybe bumps him down to "no more art". Again, this is all just my opinion and has/had not much impact on what actually gets done.

My current list of artists that should be allowed to do faces:
• Claus Stephan
• Elisa Cella
• Franz Vohwinkel
• Garret deChellis
• Grant Hansen
• Jeff Himmelman
• Lorraine Schleter

The problem with Marco Morte seems to be that it's very uneven, some of his cards are great (Magpie, Crown, Transmogrify...).

I actually liked Matthias Catrein (aside from Scout). Sure, his faces are quirky, but they match the rest of his artstyle. And Witch is fantastic. EDIT: in fact, he did a lot of art for the original Dominion. His art is the most representative of Dominion, in my opinion.

Checking the wiki for artists that have done a few cards with faces: Why not Alayna Lemmer, Brian Brinlee, Dennis Lohausen, Jessi J., Joshua Stewart, Julien Delval, Martin Hoffmann, RC Torres?

[SuperHans]

I actually made lists (before Nocturne art started) of artists that should be allowed to do Dominion art, those that should be allowed to do art without people/faces, and those who should never ever do art again. At the time, Marco Morte was on the no-faces list, but this maybe bumps him down to "no more art". Again, this is all just my opinion and has/had not much impact on what actually gets done.

My current list of artists that should be allowed to do faces:
• Claus Stephan
• Elisa Cella
• Franz Vohwinkel
• Garret deChellis
• Grant Hansen
• Jeff Himmelman
• Lorraine Schleter

The problem with Marco Morte seems to be that it's very uneven, some of his cards are great (Magpie, Crown, Transmogrify...).

I actually liked Matthias Catrein (aside from Scout). Sure, his faces are quirky, but they match the rest of his artstyle. And Witch is fantastic.

Checking the wiki for artists that have done a few cards with faces: Why not Alayna Lemmer, Brian Brinlee, Dennis Lohausen, Jessi J., Joshua Stewart, Julien Delval, Martin Hoffmann, RC Torres?

Jessi J. Is great. Fairgrounds and Young Witch are two of the best. I have been disappointed none of the revealed cards have been done by her. Her style would fit this theme so well. Hopefully she has at least one of the remaining unrevealed cards.

[LastFootnote]

Checking the wiki for artists that have done a few cards with faces: Why not Alayna Lemmer, Brian Brinlee, Dennis Lohausen, Jessi J., Joshua Stewart, Julien Delval, Martin Hoffmann, RC Torres?

Alayna should be on the list.

Have you seen Brian Brinlee's faces? Eeugh.

Dennis Lohausen is acceptable, but not great.

A lot of Jessi J.'s art is mostly way too dark and monochromatic. I hate how Encampment and Settlers look identical at a glance. They're in the same set, for crying out loud.

Joshua Stewart should now be on the list after Nocturne. Exorcist and Conclave (which you can see on his site) have pushed him into face territory.

Julian Delval's faces are unimpressive, and why not have him do more beautiful landscape art like the Boons and Castles?

Martin Hoffman's faces are also pretty mediocre, with Lurker being a particular disappointment.

RC Torres is fine. Maybe when I made the list, I was trying to keep it short.

[Donald X.]

Jessi J. Is great. Fairgrounds and Young Witch are two of the best. I have been disappointed none of the revealed cards have been done by her. Her style would fit this theme so well. Hopefully she has at least one of the remaining unrevealed cards.

She did Misery, Haunting, and Poverty.

[Donald X.]

Can a necromanced Graverobber gain itself from the trash?

I mean he fails to move himself, the rules state, but he can gain a card from the trash which just happens to be himself, right?

I mean when does the „leaving it there” resolves?

Question 2:
Do you set aside a necromanced Mining Village while being posessed?

Necromancer stops the played card from being moved to "in play," and that's all it stops. However! A card that for example trashes itself from play is looking for itself in play, and won't move itself if it's not there.

So, you can Necromancer a Feast and gain a $5 and Feast stays in the trash; you can Necromancer an Encampment and fail to return it to its pile. But since e.g. Mining Village checks to see if you actually trashed it, you can try to trash it but you will fail and the check for it will see that you failed and you won't get the +$2.

Necromancer can play a Graverobber in the trash and use it to gain itself, yes.

[pacovf]

Have you seen Brian Brinlee's faces? Eeugh.

What can I say, I like leprechaun.

A lot of Jessi J.'s art is mostly way too dark and monochromatic. I hate how Encampment and Settlers look identical at a glance. They're in the same set, for crying out loud.

Hm, I can understand that.

Julian Delval's faces are unimpressive, and why not have him do more beautiful landscape art like the Boons and Castles?

Because Thief (though I guess he's technically hiding his face). Give him all the arts.

Martin Hoffman's faces are also pretty mediocre, with Lurker being a particular disappointment.

I find his style expressive. Mercenary, Cutpurse, etc, get the job done. I mean, Claus Stephan is not miles ahead of him either, and you like those too.

Necromancer can play a Graverobber in the trash and use it to gain itself, yes.

That's awesome.