Print

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

[LastFootnote]

So you are more excited by this? I can't say that I am. It looks as weak and as the other version.

Hey, man, I'm just throwing out some ideas to see what sticks. Making Attack cards is haaaaaaard.

I have to think that allowing other players to look at and re-arrange their top two cards isn't worth the possibility of giving them a Copper. The only situation I can think of where I would open with such a card is if my opponent opened Mint. Even then I wouldn't. So I would buy this card late-game only. And how much does giving your opponent a Copper matter then, really? Is it worth putting a terminal Silver in your deck this late in the game? Like Noble Brigand, Bookkeeper would rarely be good, and even then it won't be amazing. But at least Noble Brigand discards the top two cards. If Bookkeeper did that, it would be too similar to NB. If you leave it like this, I think $3 might be more appropriate.

What you may have missed is that the gained Copper goes on top of their deck, which limits the utility of being able to rearrange their top 2 cards. I guess I could disallow changing the order. It would be fewer words, but that's not how any of the current Dominion cards works. The idea is that once they've topdecked a couple of Coppers, the attack stops hitting, you see. The main thrust of the attack, of course, is that gaining a Copper on their deck is worse than gaining one in their discard pile, since it gums up engines, etc.

Sorry this looks like a long rant. I figured I could be honest with you

It's cool, man. Keep it coming! I appreciate the feedback.

[Co0kieL0rd]

You're right, I missed that the Copper goes on top of their deck. Should be decent then. I'm still not intrigued by the card as a whole. Maybe it's the picture - the guy looks really pissed (because of all the Coppers, maybe).

Sorry, I'm also tired.

[LastFootnote]

OK, screw this Copper-mucking nonsense. Time for something basic. Here's the version I plan to print for testing on Friday. It's like Magistrate, but allows the targets to discard Copper and doesn't require a choice on the part of the attacking player.

Bookkeeper
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals one of them. If it's an Action or Treasure, he discards it. Otherwise, he puts it on top of his deck.

Yes it will sometimes be Cutpurse, but hey it costs $3. And the victim may choose to e.g. topdeck an Estate if he doesn't want to be down $1 in hand. I'm hoping it'll give the targets interesting options, especially in the later game when they may not have a Copper to discard.

[TheOthin]

Interesting. My one worry is that the Cutpurse comparison may actually be slanted a bit far in Bookkeeper's favor: the opponent can choose to make it a Cutpurse, and they probably will because that's one of its weakest possible impacts. If they don't have Coppers, Cutpurse will do nothing, while Bookkeeper will typically get even nastier, forcing them to either discard a good card or hurt their next turn.

The advantage for Cutpurse is that it can keep hitting after they're already below 5 cards, and that it doesn't give them the chance to keep a Copper if it'd somehow be more valuable than some Action they don't want like a dead terminal or a Ruin. (Or to top-deck in an emergency.) That's enough that it wouldn't outclass Cutpurse at the same price, but making it cheaper could be a problem.

But I'm not sure it could actually cost $4, either, because of Militia. Bookkeeper could do more damage if it guarantees hurting them somehow when Militia would just make them discard two dead Victory/Curse cards, but I don't think that's enough to really justify it when there are so many more times Militia is the one that will hurt more.

[Asper]

Huh, Bookkeeper reminds me of my Assassin, in that it will usually be a Militia/Ghost Ship mashup that always hits you the most unpleasant. Your approach is much more elegant, though, because as you said, it doesn't cause sequential decisions. I'm not sure whether you underestimate how harsh the attack is - less cards than Militia, but can't be shrugged off. Not that i can really judge it.

Edit: Oops, didn't read TheOthin's post before.
Edit 2: One should also compare it to Bureaucrat, which it actually seems inspired by. $2 are pretty on par with the Silver gain i think, but like with Militia, Bookkeeper never fails.

[LastFootnote]

Edit 2: One should also compare it to Bureaucrat, which it actually seems inspired by. $2 are pretty on par with the Silver gain i think, but like with Militia, Bookkeeper never fails.

Yeah, good call. On the other hand, Bookkeeper often lets the target choose whether they'd rather be hit by Cutpurse or Bureaucrat. And unlike those two cards, Bookkeeper doesn't stack.

[TheOthin]

Changing up the vanilla bonus might make the direct Attack comparisons less worrisome. Maybe +2 Cards? That might be easy to set at $4.

[LastFootnote]

Changing up the vanilla bonus might make the direct Attack comparisons less worrisome. Maybe +2 Cards? That might be easy to set at $4.

That could work. I tend to like +$ rather than +Cards on attacks that don't stack, but maybe it's worth differentiating them. +2 Cards is weaker than +$2, though (without +Actions). I think that would cement its $3 cost.

[LastFootnote]

Time to finally print and test Conquest.

Conquest
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash this. Each other player reveals cards from his deck until revealing one costing from $3 to $6. He trashes that card and discards the rest. Gain one of the trashed cards, putting it into your hand.

An actual one-shot in my one-shot themed set. How novel!

[GendoIkari]

There aren't currently any non-terminal one-shots are there? (Not counting Spoils). It just feels like a contradiction; non-terminal means it's a card that's not too strong to play multiple of; one-shot means it's a card that's too powerful to play repeatedly. Of course, it's obviously non-terminal so that you can immediately play the gained card; which is cool.

I do like that even though it's a one-shot, it's also kind of like Urchin/Hermit... it just upgrades itself to another card. Except you don't know which card that will be.

The obvious comparison is Saboteur. And I dunno how it compares, but the rundown:

Pros:
Other player doesn't get a replacement card.
Non-terminal.
It gains a card.
You gain the trashed card hand (You can play it immediately, plus it doesn't reduce handsize; so basically a cantrip).

Cons:
One-shot.
Saboteur can trash cards costing more than $6.

I'm sure you've considered every single one of those points already, but it's nice to list them out. Anyway, I think I like the card; I just have no idea how strong it is.

[LastFootnote]

I'm sure you've considered every single one of those points already, but it's nice to list them out. Anyway, I think I like the card; I just have no idea how strong it is.

Sweet, me either! Thanks for writing out the list of pros and cons.

One way to think of Conquest is that you're buying a random good card right from your opponent's deck. And of course it also trashes other players' cards in multiplayer.

[pacovf]

Time to finally print and test Conquest.

The first seal is open...

It will be kind of sad to use Conquest and only get a silver. From a purely theoretical point of view, I think this card will need a lot of work before it's satisfying without being excessively mean. But it's interesting.

[TheOthin]

Hmm. If the Silver thing is too much of a concern, maybe it could target Action cards specifically rather than targeting based on cost? That could get really good at zeroing in on targets within certain deck types, but it'd fit with the way it's set up to play a stolen Action right away.

In any case, I really like the sound of it.

[Thanar]

...maybe it could target Action cards specifically rather than targeting based on cost? That could get really good at zeroing in on targets within certain deck types...

Another possible way of making it more useful/powerful is to allow it to target a type, with something like this:

Targeted Conquest
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash this. Name a card type. Each other player reveals cards from his deck until revealing one of that type costing from $3 to $6. He trashes that card and discards the rest. Gain one of the trashed cards, putting it into your hand.

[TheOthin]

...maybe it could target Action cards specifically rather than targeting based on cost? That could get really good at zeroing in on targets within certain deck types...

Another possible way of making it more useful/powerful is to allow it to target a type, with something like this:

Targeted Conquest
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash this. Name a card type. Each other player reveals cards from his deck until revealing one of that type costing from $3 to $6. He trashes that card and discards the rest. Gain one of the trashed cards, putting it into your hand.

That sounds a bit too powerful, especially at endgame when you could name Victory. And it'd get especially scary with cost reducers. Lower prices by $1 and you can't hit Silver so you can name Treasure and guarantee hitting Gold. Lower them by $2 and name Victory and you can get good odds of snatching a Province.

[Thanar]

I agree it might be too powerful, but I think it would be interesting to playtest to see if it would work at cost $5, and if not, try cost $6.

[LastFootnote]

Hmm. If the Silver thing is too much of a concern, maybe it could target Action cards specifically rather than targeting based on cost? That could get really good at zeroing in on targets within certain deck types, but it'd fit with the way it's set up to play a stolen Action right away.

Hmm. The reason attacks don't usually target Action cards is that it encourages players to play a boring, Action-less deck. But I'm not sure that's such an issue here. It's hard to imagine a player not buying any Action cards in order to foil a one-shot attack. That's going to be a sure way to lose, I would think.

Anyhow, that would allow me to do something like this:

Conquest
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Each other player reveals cards from his deck until he reveals an Action card. He trashes that card and discards the rest. Gain one of the trashed cards; play it. IF it costs less than this, play it again.

Of course there's nothing sitting out to track the fact that the card was played twice, so perhaps I should remove the "play it twice" clause.

[pacovf]

Keep the +1 action. Nobody wants to be forced to play a trasher.
 One more thing, it would be nice to find a version that can't hit itself.
And have you considered adding an "if you did" after "trash this"?

[LastFootnote]

Keep the +1 action. Nobody wants to be forced to play a trasher. One more thing, it would be nice to find a version that can't hit itself.

Normally the fact that trashing attacks can hit themselves is a feature. But in this case, I'm not so sure it's a good idea. Chained Conquests could really suck. So yes, I should probably change that.

Have you considered adding an "if you did" after "trash this"?

I have, and decided to at least test this version first. Well, by "this version" I mean the first version that doesn't specifically target Actions. Losing three Actions to a King's Courted Conquest would really suck.

One solution would be to make sure it always targets cheap (≤$4) cards and then give it an additional bonus of some sort. Or maybe it doesn't even need another bonus. You'd be paying $5 for stealing a cheaper card from an oppponent and playing it immediately.

[Deadlock39]

From a strictly net deck worth standpoint, your opponent is losing at least $3 and you are losing $5 and gaining at least $3, so you are coming out on top.  To me, it doesn't seem like a total dud even if you just hit a Silver (even though it probably isn't that great).  Throne/King-ing could be exceptionally nasty, so that probably needs tested (as I'm sure you already know).

[Awaclus]

From a strictly net deck worth standpoint, your opponent is losing at least $3 and you are losing $5 and gaining at least $3, so you are coming out on top.  To me, it doesn't seem like a total dud even if you just hit a Silver (even though it probably isn't that great).  Throne/King-ing could be exceptionally nasty, so that probably needs tested (as I'm sure you already know).

Spending $5 and a card slot from your hand to Thief a Silver is a total dud.

[TheOthin]

Throne/King could be taken care of by adding an "if you do (trash this)" clause.

[Deadlock39]

Spending $5 and a card slot from your hand to Thief a Silver is a total dud.

I don't agree.  Thieving a Silver is quite good.  It's all those Coppers you Thieve in the mean time that make Thief a bad card. This is guaranteed to hit something good, and it gives it to you right away.  Compare to all the Silver with a bonus cards that are at $5.  If this only hits Silver, the bonus is, the first time you play it, it removes a silver from your opponents deck.  I'm not going to say that is great, but it's not much different than buying a Royal Seal on $5 when there aren't other good options.  Now add the additional bonus that you might hit something better.

[TheOthin]

I would generally prefer having a Lab and letting my opponent have a Silver to having a Silver.

[Deadlock39]

I'd generally prefer Lab over Explorer too?  They can't all be the best $5.