Print

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

[LastFootnote]

I had no problem with the old Convoy/Guide or whatever, although you said some people did. But when I look at a card and the first thing I read is "Discard a card" and then draw, I don't feel good about this at all. That's just my first impression but you know, when a card looks un-fun, that's never good. It doesn't seem particularly powerful as well.

Ah, dang! Well, it could be draw, then discard. I was trying to differentiate it more from Smithy and Courtyard.

The problem with the old version is that it was super fiddly and slow to resolve, which is the opposite of what I want for a card that you might be playing 5 times in a row.

Would it be better if it said, "Discard a card, then draw 3 cards", rather than having the bold "+3 Cards" under "Discard a card"?

[Minotaur]

I was also thinking about Courtyard when I saw this.  And Courtyard is pretty awesome.  It definitely makes a difference in how it resolves in practice, but it definitely feels bad to do the weaker option.  It *could* be better than Courtyard if you'd rather sift than save.  It's a tough call whether you really want to risk a token on a terminal draw when other options are around...

EDIT: Part of what makes Courtyard so good is that topdecking does a lot to mitigate the downside of terminal draw.  It's often better than Smithy in some hands.

[LastFootnote]

Well, there is always this option:

Convoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. You may spend a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

That looks pretty weak to me, plus I probably need to let you return the looked-at cards in any order, necessitating more words.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Would it be better if it said, "Discard a card, then draw 3 cards", rather than having the bold "+3 Cards" under "Discard a card"?

I don't know,... it would seem kinda wrong for a Dominion card, just because of the phrasing.

I was also thinking about Courtyard when I saw this.  And Courtyard is pretty awesome.  It definitely makes a difference in how it resolves in practice, but it definitely feels bad to do the weaker option.  It *could* be better than Courtyard if you'd rather sift than save.  It's a tough call whether you really want to risk a token on a terminal draw when other options are around...

Yes, that is the other point. Spending a token on terminal draw does not seem like a good idea, even if it said "+3 cards, discard a card." Have you thought about "You may spend a Trade Token. If you do, +1 Action"? That might be a nice addition to other kinds of cards as well, now that I think about it.

[LastFootnote]

Would it be better if it said, "Discard a card, then draw 3 cards", rather than having the bold "+3 Cards" under "Discard a card"?

I don't know,... it would seem kinda wrong for a Dominion card, just because of the phrasing.

I was also thinking about Courtyard when I saw this.  And Courtyard is pretty awesome.  It definitely makes a difference in how it resolves in practice, but it definitely feels bad to do the weaker option.  It *could* be better than Courtyard if you'd rather sift than save.  It's a tough call whether you really want to risk a token on a terminal draw when other options are around...

Yes, that is the other point. Spending a token on terminal draw does not seem like a good idea, even if it said "+3 cards, discard a card." Have you thought about "You may spend a Trade Token. If you do, +1 Action"? That might be a nice addition to other kinds of cards as well, now that I think about it.

"You may spend a Trade token for +1 Action" is certainly doable, but doesn't really excite me. +2 Actions would be better, but still not great. At the same time, "You may spend a Trade token to play this again" is really Convoy's main concept, which I am loathe to remove. And for such a card, it's very useful to require no tracking (so no +Actions, +Buys, or +$). So the main things you can do with no tracking are: draw cards, discard cards, trash cards, and put cards on your deck.

The current version has the great advantage of letting you see what cards you'd draw if you played it again, but the disadvantage of being fiddly. What I want is a version that lets you see which cards you'll draw but isn't fiddly. There's also sometimes letting you see:

Convoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Look at the top 2 cards of your deck; discard them or put them back in any order. You may pay a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

That's a little less fiddly. The main reason I haven't done it is that it's like a weak Oracle when you're not using the token. But uh, maybe that's the best option.

[Minotaur]

Convoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Look at the top 2 cards of your deck; discard them or put them back in any order. You may pay a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

That's a little less fiddly. The main reason I haven't done it is that it's like a weak Oracle when you're not using the token. But uh, maybe that's the best option.

This would be good at $2.  Maybe too good, idk.

[LastFootnote]

Also, there's just "Look at the top 3 cards, discard one, and put the rest into your hand". Or look at the top 4 and discard 2. You don't know exactly what you'll get, but at least you'll have options.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Also, there's just "Look at the top 3 cards, discard one, and put the rest into your hand". Or look at the top 4 and discard 2. You don't know exactly what you'll get, but at least you'll have options.

Isn't that very close to the original Guide? Why not go with that? It's simple and useful.

[scott_pilgrim]

Yeah, I thought the original was fine.  I remember you saying before you didn't like "spend a token to draw" because you didn't know what you were getting, and the original Guide was good because it didn't have that problem.  All of the other versions you're suggesting have that problem (though some to a lesser extent than others).  I think it would just feel bad to spend a trade token only to draw dead actions, or not get as much money as you wanted.  The old version of Guide had a really nice, clean fix to that problem.

Granted, I haven't actually played with it at all, so you should know better than I do.  I just don't see anything wrong with the original.  Is it really any worse than Oracle?  It should be easier to decide what to discard, and you don't have to choose for other players.  You can play it multiple times and that will slow it down, but I would think if you're doing that, you have a big turn going anyway so there's already sort of a natural break in the game.

[LastFootnote]

Yeah, I thought the original was fine.  I remember you saying before you didn't like "spend a token to draw" because you didn't know what you were getting, and the original Guide was good because it didn't have that problem.  All of the other versions you're suggesting have that problem (though some to a lesser extent than others).  I think it would just feel bad to spend a trade token only to draw dead actions, or not get as much money as you wanted.  The old version of Guide had a really nice, clean fix to that problem.

Granted, I haven't actually played with it at all, so you should know better than I do.  I just don't see anything wrong with the original.  Is it really any worse than Oracle?  It should be easier to decide what to discard, and you don't have to choose for other players.  You can play it multiple times and that will slow it down, but I would think if you're doing that, you have a big turn going anyway so there's already sort of a natural break in the game.

I definitely found the original fiddly. I would like to try the "discard 1; draw 3" version just to see if it's better. The old version is not off the table. I just haven't seen it bought much recently and wondered if I could improve it.

I definitely would prefer a version where you see what you'll draw, but it's possible that I'm making a bigger deal about that than I should be. Maybe it's just like, if you don't have Actions to spare and your deck is mostly Action cards, don't use the token this turn.

[pacovf]

Dunno, maybe "look at the top 5 cards of your deck; put 2 of them in your hand, put the rest on top of your deck in any order" ?

Might be too strong for $4 though, and it's a bit wordy.

[LastFootnote]

Dunno, maybe "look at the top 5 cards of your deck; put 2 of them in your hand, put the rest on top of your deck in any order" ?

Might be too strong for $4 though, and it's a bit wordy.

If I did that, it would be the top 4 cards, so that you usually only have to divide the cards into two categories (in-hand and "would draw if you played it again"), not three categories (in-hand, "would-draw if you played it again", and "wouldn't draw even then"). It's not a bad option, although I'm not sure how much it helps the fiddly-ness issue. I guess I could bump it from $3 to $4, especially if Tinker works out at $3.

[pacovf]

The logic behind 5 cards instead of 4 was to give you more information about your next play: you know 60% of the cards you are going to look at, instead of only 50%. The larger the number of cards you look at, the less the extra two unknown cards you will look at will affect your decision.

Of course, you have to put limits somewhere, because "look at your whole deck and discard pile; put two cards from anywhere into your hand" is sort of slightly undercosted at $4.

[LastFootnote]

The logic behind 5 cards instead of 4 was to give you more information about your next play: you know 60% of the cards you are going to look at, instead of only 50%. The larger the number of cards you look at, the less the extra two unknown cards you will look at will affect your decision.

Of course, you have to put limits somewhere, because "look at your whole deck and discard pile; put two cards from anywhere into your hand" is sort of slightly undercosted at $4.

Hmm, I see what you're saying. I still think 4 cards is the way to go, but I understand your logic.

Forget the token ability for a moment. What do people think "Look at the top 4; draw 2 of them; put the rest back" should cost?

[pacovf]

$3 tops, from the comparison to courtyard (which is a very strong $2). You look at one extra card, but you can't put any card from your hand on top of your deck.

[LastFootnote]

There is of course also the question of how many cards that put stuff back on your deck one set should have. Harbor and the current version of Dignitary already do this. Granted I could give Dignitary a new top.

Anyway, I'll eventually try at least one version that doesn't have you put cards back on top. It'll be good to find out how bad it really is when you don't know what you're going to draw next. Maybe it's just fine.

[LastFootnote]

So let's say, hypothetically, that I'm trying to replace Committee because it's both wordy and off-theme. Let's say that I'm trying to replace its deck-thinning with Tinker and its gaining a copy of a card with Magic Mirror (or Investment as I will likely rename it). Let's say that I'd also like to replace its interactivity, also with an on-theme card. How does this effect strike you all?

Committee
Types: Action
Cost: $?
+2 Cards. You may spend a Trade token to choose one: +2 Actions; or take 2 Trade tokens; or trash up to 2 cards from your hand. Otherwise, the player to your left chooses for you.

The options are not set in stone (except the token gaining, obviously).

[pacovf]

...so you start without tokens? That doesn't seem like a very good idea.

[LastFootnote]

...so you start without tokens? That doesn't seem like a very good idea.

I see what you're saying. Your opponents may never choose for you to gain tokens and therefore part of the concept would be lost. Hmm.

On the other hand, tokens could be a popular choice because it's least likely to help the player now. I guess I could test it and see how it works out in practice.

The card is wordy enough that I am loathe to add under-line text. Still, you make a good point.

[pacovf]

What about getting a token whenever you don't choose, and toning down the bonuses (boni?) ?

[LastFootnote]

What about getting tokens whenever you don't choose, and toning down the bonuses?

I'm considering that, but I want to keep it different-ish from Craftsman and also as simple as possible.

[pacovf]

Well, if the only way to gain tokens is by letting your opponent pick for you, I think that makes it more "different" than the current version, where once you get your first token, you can avoid that event forever and sort of make labs out of committee. Just my two cents.

EDIT: man, I don't know how you manage to understand what I am writing. I'm rereading myself and thinking "dafuq I am saying here?"

[LastFootnote]

Well, if the only way to gain tokens is by letting your opponent pick for you, I think that makes it more "different" than the current version, where once you get your first token, you can avoid that event forever and sort of make labs out of committee. Just my two cents.

EDIT: man, I don't know how you manage to understand what I am writing. I'm rereading myself and thinking "dafuq I am saying here?"

I'm still trying to figure out the Lab comment, but I have faith that you know what you're talking about. I'll be able to parse it later when I'm less busy.

[pacovf]

Sorry, I have been sleeping less than I should (I have to work on that). I am deeply touched by your faith in me, though.

With your current version of committee (so many double letters, ugh), once you have two tokens, committee looks very similar to lab: play one committee, get +2 actions, play a second committee, get tokens, repeat.

You might say, "but pacovf, lots of cards have the same effect as lab when you put them together! Smithy and village, for example, and they only cost $3 and $4!" Very clever, indeed, but with, say, village and smithy, you have to collide two different cards, which is quite a bit more difficult than colliding two copies of the same card, and with committee you can always get extra tokens after you draw and see that you have nothing to spend your actions on, so next turn you get one extra free firing of committee. This might have been a non-sequitur, I am not entirely sure.

And a card that you can transform into (at least) a lab after a certain point in the game is cool, but maybe less interesting than one where you have to choose whether you trust what your eeevil opponent is going to choose for you.

Anyway, considering that the cost and the actual boni are still in the air, there's only so much we can say about the specifics of the card.

[LastFootnote]

Makes sense. What if instead it were +3 Cards and all the bonuses were cut in half?