Print

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

[jonaskoelker]

Playing a Shepherd and discarding one estate [= a blank cantrip]

It looks a lot like a Laboratory to me. Assume you won't shuffle before your clean-up phase; then Estate does the same for (and/or to) you whether it's in your hand or your discard pile. In this case, Shepherd say "+1 action, +2 cards, perform a distinction-without-a-difference". That's a Lab right there. The fact it doesn't change your hand size doesn't make it any less of a Lab. Let me say that more clearly, it does the same good thing for your hand that a Lab would, at the same cost: no loss of actions, no loss of useful cards.

The reason Spice Merchant and Sacrifice-an-action are not labs is that they trash a card you could have otherwise used; there, the distinction does make a difference.

Shepherding a single victory card is unlike Lab in two ways: one, if you shuffle mid-turn, then you shuffle in green cards. Two, Shepherding one victory card doesn't let you use that same card with your next Shepherd, i.e. it increases the odds of drawing your next Shepherd dead, something that can't happen to Lab.

[FemurLemur]

Pixie revealing Flame's Gift, trashing itself and 0-2 cards from your hand, is strictly better than Bomb.

The influence that Dominion Gunpowder has had on Donald's work is unmistakable. That expansion also had a Moat-like Reactions subtheme. And what do we have here!? Faithful Hound- a Reaction with similarities to Moat!

The fact that Pixie+Flame's Gift is so remarkably similar to the premise of Bomb is not meant to make Bomb obsolete so much as it is to celebrate Bomb: to make it an official part of Dominion cannon- as it were.

Gunpowder was also doing Reserves before Adventures made it cool. It's just really cool to see Donald giving subtle nods to Gunpowder over the years.

Still waiting on some kind of official implementation of Sulfur Pit though.

[jonaskoelker]

[Pixie+Flame's Gift is meant] to celebrate Bomb: to make it an official part of Dominion cannon.

First of all, notsureif spelling.

Second of all, I think canonizing fan cards is something Donald avoids as a General principle.

[ConMan]

[Pixie+Flame's Gift is meant] to celebrate Bomb: to make it an official part of Dominion cannon.

First of all, notsureif spelling.

Second of all, I think canonizing fan cards is something Donald avoids as a General principle.

I think you may not be aware of the legend that is Bomb. Which I guess is ok, but 90-93% of the people here get the reference.

(So that you're in on the joke, the Gunpowder expansion, and particularly Bomb, were not well-regarded fan cards, made worse by the fact that the person who came up with them was not particularly open to the constructive criticism that people offered to the point where they were banned. And IIRC came back under multiple other accounts that became similarly belligerent, and were likewise banned. Also, I'm pretty sure the spelling thing is a deliberate pun.)

[JacquesTheBard]

A few players find engines far less explosive in Nocturne. This isn't the only reason that comes to mind, but does anyone think weaker payload has something to do with it? The most powerful engines will usually have something better than Gold. Bridge, Horn of Plenty, a LOT of Prosperity cards, Highways, Hagglers, Merchant Guilds, Market Square tricks (technically gold but obscene amounts all at once) Bridge Trolls, Fortune. There are plenty of expansions where the deck has stronger payloads available than treasure. In Nocturne, the best thing available is still Gold, though (once you're drawing the deck, obviously). Seaside is an exception to this, but given the raw power of cards like Ambassador and Wharf, the engines are still memorable even if they only go up to double province.

Payload is probably the least important part of an engine. Trashing, draw, buys, and usually actions are all more important for making one work. But it IS the factor that turns "my deck is coming together" into "I can pick up 8 provinces this turn."

[ThetaSigma12]

A few players find engines far less explosive in Nocturne.

They would be a lot more explosive if they had Bomb rather than just Pixie.

[ObtusePunubiris]

Got my copy today and after a few games, I am loving this expansion.  The cards have this, how do I say it, this ambiguous synergy with one another that's just, well, it's special. Can't wait to play more.

[Accatitippi]

Got my copy today and after a few games, I am loving this expansion.  The cards have this, how do I say it, this ambiguous synergy with one another that's just, well, it's special. Can't wait to play more.

Uh, what do you mean exactly by "ambiguous"?

[Cave-o-sapien]

this ambiguous synergy

If this was on purpose I'll buy you a beer.

[JW]

A few players find engines far less explosive in Nocturne. This isn't the only reason that comes to mind, but does anyone think weaker payload has something to do with it? The most powerful engines will usually have something better than Gold. Bridge, Horn of Plenty, a LOT of Prosperity cards, Highways, Hagglers, Merchant Guilds, Market Square tricks (technically gold but obscene amounts all at once) Bridge Trolls, Fortune. There are plenty of expansions where the deck has stronger payloads available than treasure. In Nocturne, the best thing available is still Gold, though (once you're drawing the deck, obviously). Seaside is an exception to this, but given the raw power of cards like Ambassador and Wharf, the engines are still memorable even if they only go up to double province.

Payload is probably the least important part of an engine. Trashing, draw, buys, and usually actions are all more important for making one work. But it IS the factor that turns "my deck is coming together" into "I can pick up 8 provinces this turn."

The main reason why engines in Nocturne are weaker seems to be the difficulty of reliably drawing the deck. The villages are fewer and weaker in combination with the rest of the set than in recent sets: Cursed Village is weaker when you want the 12 of 33 Nocturne cards that are (non-Werewolf) Night cards, because you can't get them out of your hand mid turn by playing them. Conclave doesn’t let you play any one terminal many times unless you have a lot of different actions with +1 Action (and such actions are rare in Nocturne).

The draw cards can also be tricky to use. For example, Shepherd needs to be lined up with Victory cards, while Tragic Hero often trashes itself. Fool makes it harder to draw your deck because Lucky Coin gains stop cards, and it also strengthens money strategies (I think it's well-designed, but it leads to different kinds of games).

[werothegreat]

A few players find engines far less explosive in Nocturne. This isn't the only reason that comes to mind, but does anyone think weaker payload has something to do with it? The most powerful engines will usually have something better than Gold. Bridge, Horn of Plenty, a LOT of Prosperity cards, Highways, Hagglers, Merchant Guilds, Market Square tricks (technically gold but obscene amounts all at once) Bridge Trolls, Fortune. There are plenty of expansions where the deck has stronger payloads available than treasure. In Nocturne, the best thing available is still Gold, though (once you're drawing the deck, obviously). Seaside is an exception to this, but given the raw power of cards like Ambassador and Wharf, the engines are still memorable even if they only go up to double province.

Payload is probably the least important part of an engine. Trashing, draw, buys, and usually actions are all more important for making one work. But it IS the factor that turns "my deck is coming together" into "I can pick up 8 provinces this turn."

I think the perceived lack of good payload in the set is a consistent undervaluing of Boons, Hexes, and Raider.  But granted, there isn't really a game-warping build-around payload in the same vein as Goons.

[ObtusePunubiris]

this ambiguous synergy

If this was on purpose I'll buy you a beer.

I like stouts.

[josh56]

All the Night-Duration cards that are hand-gained have one thing in common, they are variants of familiar, often basic cards: Laboratory, Village and Lighthouse.

Their advantage is that they can be played immediately after they are gained. Guardian thus becomes a form of Coin token like coin transfer into the next turn and Den of Sin is like an Expedition for free.
Their disadvantage is that they all cost as much as their Action card brethrens but are weaker beyond the first play: unlike Lighthouse Guardian doesn't provide a coin on the turn it is played, Den of Sin is worse than Caravan which is again worse than Laboratory, Ghost Town is worse than a hypothetical 'cantrip on play' duration village (+1 Card +1 Action / At the start of your next turn: +1 Action) which is again worse than Village.
But this is partly compensated by the fact that unlike Action cards Night cards can never be drawn dead which makes them less risky / more reliable.

I think that it would be quite interesting to do what has probably happened during playtesting: set up a Kingdom in which the respective pairs, i.e. for example Den of Sin and Laboratory, are both present in order to see in which situations the Night card is better than the Action card and vice versa.

[markusin]

Is Den of Sin really worse than Caravan once it's in your deck? That's a really close call.

It's worse than Laboratory once in your deck, sure.

[Awaclus]

Is Den of Sin really worse than Caravan once it's in your deck? That's a really close call.

It's worse than Laboratory once in your deck, sure.

I don't think it's weaker than Caravan and it's not even clear whether it's worse than Lab. The consistency is a big factor.

[markusin]

Is Den of Sin really worse than Caravan once it's in your deck? That's a really close call.

It's worse than Laboratory once in your deck, sure.

I don't think it's weaker than Caravan and it's not even clear whether it's worse than Lab. The consistency is a big factor.

Yeah it's still a tough call. Den of Sin helps with consistency and is not drawn dead, but it is a duration so it only gives the effect every other turn (assume the Den of Sin has already been emptied or whatever), plus the times that missing the shuffle counts for something.

[josh56]

Is Den of Sin really worse than Caravan once it's in your deck? That's a really close call.

It's worse than Laboratory once in your deck, sure.

I don't think it's weaker than Caravan and it's not even clear whether it's worse than Lab. The consistency is a big factor.

If that were the case Den of Sin would be better than Lab in 3 ways: great first play effect, cannot be drawn as it is a Night card and same/similiar beyond-first-play effect.
I think it is fair to say that DXV doesn't make such obvious blunders.

All of this just boils down to Durations 101: you want the good stuff now instead of later, you don't want cards to miss reshuffles and you don't wanna play a card just every second turn when you draw your entire deck. I cannot imagine any situation in which I would prefer Caravan over Lab or +1 Action | At the start of your next turn +2 Cards over Caravan.

[Awaclus]

If that were the case Den of Sin would be better than Lab in 3 ways: great first play effect, cannot be drawn as it is a Night card and same/similiar beyond-first-play effect.
I think it is fair to say that DXV doesn't make such obvious blunders.

But not strictly better. There are situations where you want Lab over DoS and vice versa.

What's noteworthy is that DXV already made Hunting Party, which is sort of just better than Lab, and so far it doesn't look like it has ruined the game or anything.

I cannot imagine any situation in which I would prefer Caravan over Lab or +1 Action | At the start of your next turn +2 Cards over Caravan.

I can: you're playing an engine and you already have (almost) enough draw to draw your deck but can't do so consistently.

[trivialknot]

We already had this argument about Caravan vs. Den of Sin.  It's here and here.

Oh wait, josh56 is actually the one who started the argument in the first place.  You seem to be repeating the exact same arguments despite knowing that people disagreed with them the first time.  Stop it, you're being tiresome.

[josh56]

If that were the case Den of Sin would be better than Lab in 3 ways: great first play effect, cannot be drawn as it is a Night card and same/similiar beyond-first-play effect.
I think it is fair to say that DXV doesn't make such obvious blunders.

But not strictly better. There are situations where you want Lab over DoS and vice versa.

What's noteworthy is that DXV already made Hunting Party, which is sort of just better than Lab, and so far it doesn't look like it has ruined the game or anything.

You are right. A Treasure that says At the start of the turn after the next one: +$3 would not be technically strictly weaker than Gold as there could be weird situations in which it is better. But common sense suffices to realize that such a card would be a sucker compared to Gold.

If you open 5-2 you would definitely prefer a Lab over Hunting Party.
I don't see how you can compare a Lab variant like Stables or Hunting Party that are situationally stronger or weaker than Lab with a definitely weaker duration Lab variant like Caravan or the hypothetical Action version of Den of Sin.

I can: you're playing an engine and you already have (almost) enough draw to draw your deck but can't do so consistently.

If you nearly draw your deck you play those durations a little more frequently than every 2nd turn whereas a Lab could be played every turn.

[jonaskoelker]

notsureif spelling [of cannon/canon].

[I think Donald avoids canonizing fan cards as a General principle].

I think you may not be aware of the legend that is Bomb. Which I guess is ok, but 90-93% of the people here get the reference.

I started the Pixie/Flame's > Bomb subthread.

Me capitalizing the 'g' in 'General' turns it from an adjective into a proper noun, the name of a card from Dominion: Gunpowder.

It's a pun, similar to the canon/cannon pun. My "notsureif" was ironic, an allusion to that meme picture of Fry.

</making-the-joke-better-by-explaining-it>

[he] was not particularly open to the constructive criticism that people offered to the point where they were banned. And IIRC came back under multiple other accounts that became similarly belligerent, and were likewise banned.

IINM he was banned for massive incivility towards Theory (maybe others too), not for being impervious to suggestions, and he came back only once under a single account.

EDIT: currently my signature is this:

I just bluntly state the facts.

That quote is from the Dominion: Gunpowder thread, from a sub-discussion about how to give constructive criticism.

[josh56]

We already had this argument about Caravan vs. Den of Sin.  It's here and here.

Oh wait, josh56 is actually the one who started the argument in the first place.  You seem to be repeating the exact same arguments despite knowing that people disagreed with them the first time.  Stop it, you're being tiresome.

What people? You mean guys like LFN? Oh no, looks like he disagreed with you. 

[trivialknot]

We already had this argument about Caravan vs. Den of Sin.  It's here and here.

Oh wait, josh56 is actually the one who started the argument in the first place.  You seem to be repeating the exact same arguments despite knowing that people disagreed with them the first time.  Stop it, you're being tiresome.

What people? You mean guys like LFN? Oh no, looks like he disagreed with you. 

The fact that LFN disagreed with me has also already been stated--by LFN when he disagreed with me--and now you are stating it again.  Look, I already linked the threads, people can read it on their own.  You're not adding anything new.

[trivialknot]

I mean, you were obviously unconvinced by the arguments, and you are welcome to hold the same views until such a time that you are convinced otherwise.  But this kind of stuff is nonsense:

All of this just boils down to Durations 101: you want the good stuff now instead of later

You're acting like this is all obvious stuff that everyone agrees on when you recently participated in an argument where at least some people were disagreeing with you.  I may think Den of Sin's on-play effect is better than Caravan, but I'm not so condescending to act like this is obvious and everyone agrees with me.

[pacovf]

I find it amusing to have people say that Den of Sin has a delayed effect compared to Lab. You get to play Den of Sin the very same turn you buy it, while you have to wait a full shuffle to play Lab.

Den of Sin is worse than Lab in the sense that you can't chain them, and that if you draw your deck you can only play them one turn out of two, but it's definitely "faster" than Lab.