Print

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

[Awaclus]

The aspect that makes me a bit wary though, is that stealing a domain can cause a 6pt swing, and it is mainly luck based...

It already happened with the old Domain, though, so if that wasn't a problem, this won't be a problem.

EDIT: Wait, it was actually just a 4 point swing. But it still doesn't sound like a big difference.

[pacovf]

Yes and no. The old version could only make 4 points swings in two players. Up to 6 points in three players and 8 points in four players (actually, up to 2*N_players, it is not very difficult to prove), but then again this version can do up to 12 points swing in 3+ players...

EDIT: well, dunno, just stating my opinion. 4 points is a duchy plus a tiebreaker, 6 points is a province.

[Awaclus]

Yes and no. The old version could only make 4 points swings in two players. Up to 6 points in three players and 8 points in four players (actually, up to 2*N_players, it is not very difficult to prove), but then again this version can do up to 12 points swing in 3+ players...

EDIT: well, dunno, just stating my opinion. 4 points is a duchy plus a tiebreaker, 6 points is a province.

Province is usually a 12-point swing.

[pacovf]

You will need to get into more detail about your claim, because the way you phrased it, it is false.

[LastFootnote]

What Awaclus means is that stealing a Province would be a 12-point swing. Stealing a Domain is kind of like stealing a Duchy.

It's a delicate balance between wanting it to matter and not wanting it to be too swingy. I wouldn't say that it's purely up to randomness whether you steal Domains, though. You might buy a bunch of Barristers or none at all. You might bloat your deck with cards to avoid your Domains being stolen. Obviously luck does play a part.

$1 and 3 VP is probably pretty close to Harem in terms of power. Thief can already steal Harems, so I'm not so worried about this version being crazy swingy.

[pacovf]

I am kinda assuming games in which both players go barrister. If only one goes barrister, sure, she gets the points, that's what she bought barrister for, barrister is expensive anyway, that's fine with me. But if both players buy/play the same amount of barristers, then whoever ends up with the domains is mainly up to luck.

I think here is a good place to write again the disclaimer that, not having playtested anything at all, I don't really know what I am talking about.

As for thief and harem, there's something you are failing to take into account: people won't buy harems in games with thief, so the potential swinginess never materializes. In games with barrister, you already start with a "harem" in your deck.

Plus, can you think of any card that can cause a 6 point swing in any game it appears in, with no need to build a deck around it?

[Awaclus]

You will need to get into more detail about your claim, because the way you phrased it, it is false.

If there's one Province left in the supply, and I buy it, I have 6 VP and my opponent has 0 VP. If my opponent buys it, he has 6 VP and I have 0 VP. That's a 12-point swing.

[liopoil]

Yes. This is why once someone buys the penultimate province, duchies and estates often stop mattering. Players who were in full green sometimes switch back to buying treasure or better cards.

In general, a card from a pile that will run out* if worth two of that card** ***

*and is also equally good for each player
**except the "second copy" of the card is delayed until the pile runs out.
***other edge cases that may or may not be so edgy at all.

EDIT: oh, and your opponent needs to want more of the cards in that pile than they got.

[pacovf]

You will need to get into more detail about your claim, because the way you phrased it, it is false.

If there's one Province left in the supply, and I buy it, I have 6 VP and my opponent has 0 VP. If my opponent buys it, he has 6 VP and I have 0 VP. That's a 12-point swing.

I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.

Yes. This is why once someone buys the penultimate province, duchies and estates often stop mattering.

Unless, you know, buying that province won't put you on the lead.

[Awaclus]

I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.

Well, if your opponent doesn't need that Province, then it's a 6-point swing. But almost always he does. One 6-point swing by the new Domain is not enough to nullify the 12-point swing from losing the Province split 5-3.

[pacovf]

I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.

Well, if your opponent doesn't need that Province, then it's a 6-point swing. But almost always he does. One 6-point swing by the new Domain is not enough to nullify the 12-point swing from losing the Province split 5-3.

... as I said before, this is just rhetoric. The 12 point swing you are talking about comes from buying 2 more provinces than your opponent, not 1. The last province isn't magically worth 12 points: you already had a 6 point lead from an extra province, now you buy the last province and you have a 12 point lead.

If it's me comparing a 6 point swing with the physical act of buying a province that is bothering you (instead of just the VP value of it, as I intended) , just imagine that in games with Barrister, you add a province to the province pile that can only be gained via Barrister. Now the number of provinces in the game is odd instead of even. That is a big change.

I think we are arguing semantics anyway.

[Awaclus]

... as I said before, this is just rhetoric. The 12 point swing you are talking about comes from buying 2 more provinces than your opponent, not 1.

And the buying 2 more Provinces than your opponent comes from buying your 5th Province, because at 4 Provinces your opponent can still buy 4 Provinces as well. The 5th Province is a single Province.

[pacovf]

What you are saying is that all provinces are worth 0 points up until the fourth, and after that all of them are worth 12 points (since going from 4-3 to 5-3 is a 12 point swing). Sure, that's equivalent to saying that each province is worth 6 points, only your approach breaks down if the number of provinces bought is different from 8.

Anyway, we are talking past each other, and I don't find this discussion particularly interesting in the first place, so I will leave it here, if you don't mind.

[Asper]

I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.

Well, if your opponent doesn't need that Province, then it's a 6-point swing. But almost always he does. One 6-point swing by the new Domain is not enough to nullify the 12-point swing from losing the Province split 5-3.

If i play with six players, is it a 36-point swing?

[scott_pilgrim]

I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.

Well, if your opponent doesn't need that Province, then it's a 6-point swing. But almost always he does. One 6-point swing by the new Domain is not enough to nullify the 12-point swing from losing the Province split 5-3.

If i play with six players, is it a 36-point swing?

No.  On average, it would be a 6+(6/5) point swing, given that the game ends on Provinces and not piles, and you have no idea what the other players' scores are.  If the game ends on piles, it would be a 6 point swing.

Obviously in practice, you don't always know whether the game will end on Provinces or on piles, and you usually have at least some idea of other players' scores, which is why Awaclus's perspective doesn't always work.  But you're generalization to 6-players is backwards, you should be dividing, not multiplying.

[LastFootnote]

I believe you should be averaging. Or really, you should be averaging only the opponents who have a shot at victory.

[TheOthin]

It's still a 12-point swing between you and any player with the potential to beat you. It just has an additional opportunity to disappear from that swing by ending up in the hands of a player without a shot at first, like a Province that gets trashed or remains in the Supply.

Say you're leading two opponents by 4 points each, with one more Province available. If you don't get it, one of them will. If you get it, you win by 10 points. If you fail to get it, they don't split it between themselves for a 9-point swing where you still win by 1 point. One of them gets it and wins by 2 points, for a 12-point swing.

[pacovf]

This looks like a conversation that could be forked towards a new thread in the Dominion General Discussion or Dominion Articles boards, where it will probably have more visibility...

[LastFootnote]

So let's assume for the moment that Dignitary is too complex. Both of the effects are fairly simple, but they're both wordy (by necessity) and a bit difficult to parse. The reaction is quite popular and the the action has some fans (including me), so let's say I split it into two cards.

Right now I'd like to talk about the Action part of it. I don't think it's interesting enough to be by itself, so I'd like to add another reaction to it. Here's a reaction that I came up with recently that might be a good fit.

When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this and a Treasure. If you do, gain a Gold.

Pretty simple, but I don't think it's too close to anything that's currently out there. It's closest to Beggar and Market Square, but different. It falls under the set's "cares about Treasures" theme since you have to discard a Treasure. Any opinions?

[Co0kieL0rd]

So let's assume for the moment that Dignitary is too complex. Both of the effects are fairly simple, but they're both wordy (by necessity) and a bit difficult to parse. The reaction is quite popular and the the action has some fans (including me), so let's say I split it into two cards.

First off, how does one find either of Dignitary's effects complex? I'm reading the current text and there's just no misunderstanding. It's phrased very well.
This reminds me of my (and friends') early games with Secret Chamber and Torturer. These cards are part of what is supposed to be a beginners' set but newbies tend to agonize about which cards to put back and which ones to discard. Dignitary is no more complex than that, and while people resolve one half of the card they don't need to think about the other half of it.
With that said, Dignitary's action and reaction might as well be seperated...

Right now I'd like to talk about the Action part of it. I don't think it's interesting enough to be by itself, so I'd like to add another reaction to it. Here's a reaction that I came up with recently that might be a good fit.

When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this and a Treasure. If you do, gain a Gold.

Pretty simple, but I don't think it's too close to anything that's currently out there. It's closest to Beggar and Market Square, but different. It falls under the set's "cares about Treasures" theme since you have to discard a Treasure. Any opinions?

Please don't smack something on there just for the reaction's sake. Your suggestion is not too close to anything but it's also not particularly interesting. And there's already Profiteer as a Gold gainer in your set. I know he does it under completely different circumstances but there's enough cards in your set that "care about treasures" already, anyway. It's not a very intriguing theme, in my opinion.

Whether split up Dignitary or not, have you considered phrasing the action like this:

+2 Cards. You may put up to 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck. +$1 for each card you put back.

?

This is both easier to comprehend and makes the action more flexible (which I'm not sure is what you want). IMO, this would suffice to be an Action card on it's own. What do you think?

[LastFootnote]

First off, how does one find either of Dignitary's effects complex? I'm reading the current text and there's just no misunderstanding. It's phrased very well.
This reminds me of my (and friends') early games with Secret Chamber and Torturer. These cards are part of what is supposed to be a beginners' set but newbies tend to agonize about which cards to put back and which ones to discard. Dignitary is no more complex than that, and while people resolve one half of the card they don't need to think about the other half of it.

I would argue that "trash all but 4 cards from your hand", while elegant in the context of the rules, is wonky and hard to parse. There's no better wording available without also discarding Dignitary, which I think would be too weak. But the average player reads that and either gets it wrong or asks, "Why doesn't it just say to trash a card from your hand?" "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" was great, but then came Donald's unfortunate ruling that "down to" means do them one at a time, opening up the possibility of an inescapable infinite loop with a hand full of Fortresses. Goddamn Fortress.

Also, the card is 8 lines of text. That's a lot! It's intimidating. It's good that it's split into two parts of 4 lines each, but it's still a lot. The idea behind splitting it is to pair each half with another half that's less wordy.

Please don't smack something on there just for the reaction's sake. Your suggestion is not too close to anything but it's also not particularly interesting. And there's already Profiteer as a Gold gainer in your set. I know he does it under completely different circumstances but there's enough cards in your set that "care about treasures" already, anyway. It's not a very intriguing theme, in my opinion.

Well, that's fair. I wouldn't put a Reaction on there just for the sake of having a Reaction, exactly. It's just that I don't think the card stand on its own without some sort of under-line text. It could be an on-gain or something, but a Reaction seems better.

Whether split up Dignitary or not, have you considered phrasing the action like this:

+2 Cards. You may put up to 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck. +$1 for each card you put back.

?

This is both easier to comprehend and makes the action more flexible (which I'm not sure is what you want). IMO, this would suffice to be an Action card on it's own. What do you think?

I think that might be too strong for $4, but it looks pretty unappealing at $5. Both this version and my version are stronger than they look. That's why the Reaction is there: it gives you another reason to buy the card. I guess I could try [+2 Cards; +$2; Put 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck] for $4. Again, though, that looks like it could use a Reaction to spice it up. I could also try [+2 Cards; Put any number of cards from your hand on top of your deck; +$1 per card you put on your deck], though that seems like a $5 card and therefore starts to look very Vault-y. I dunno, maybe it could work at $4 after all. Seems very strong, though, unless your deck is full of junk.

Anyhow, thank you for your candor, co0kieL0rd. I'm not for-sure changing Dignitary. It's just the most complex card in the set currently and I'm trying to simplify where I can.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I would argue that "trash all but 4 cards from your hand", while elegant in the context of the rules, is wonky and hard to parse. There's no better wording available without also discarding Dignitary, which I think would be too weak. But the average player reads that and either gets it wrong or asks, "Why doesn't it just say to trash a card from your hand?" "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" was great, but then came Donald's unfortunate ruling that "down to" means do them one at a time, opening up the possibility of an inescapable infinite loop with a hand full of Fortresses. Goddamn Fortress.

My two cents says fortress isn't worth changing the wording of a good card (especially if it makes it too complex). Fortress is silly. Use "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" and put something in the card FAQ about fortress.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I would argue that "trash all but 4 cards from your hand", while elegant in the context of the rules, is wonky and hard to parse. There's no better wording available without also discarding Dignitary, which I think would be too weak. But the average player reads that and either gets it wrong or asks, "Why doesn't it just say to trash a card from your hand?" "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" was great, but then came Donald's unfortunate ruling that "down to" means do them one at a time, opening up the possibility of an inescapable infinite loop with a hand full of Fortresses. Goddamn Fortress.

My two cents says fortress isn't worth changing the wording of a good card (especially if it makes it too complex). Fortress is silly. Use "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" and put something in the card FAQ about fortress.

Yeah I mean, you're making a fan card expansion after all. While Fortress as such isn't a silly card IMO, all the loop holes and what-the-hecks it creates is something Donald has to deal with when he's making official cards. You, however, shouldn't bother with that. When we play Enterprise with our friends and that case comes up, we'll just tell them there's no infinite loop possible

[TheOthin]

Isn't that a huge edge case because it requires a hand consisting of a Dignitary AND five Fortresses? So your opponent has to give you a draw with something like Council Room or Soothsayer, then play an Attack, then you reveal the Dignitary with no intention of using it.

[liopoil]

You only need one fortress if you're stubborn... and if I'm losing, I very well might be stubborn!