Print

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

[LastFootnote]

Tariff
Types: Action
Cost: 4
+2 Coins. Trash this card. Swap a nonempty Kingdom card pile in the Supply with a pile from the sideboard.
------------------------------------------------------------
Setup: Make a sideboard from 3 Kingdom card piles not in the Supply.

The immediate comparisons that spring to mind are Embargo and Black Market. It's like Embargo in that it's a one-shot that changes the Supply. But unlike Embargo, the change isn't necessarily permanent. It's less random than Black Market, which in theory allows for more strategic play.

Unfortunately, the card would require some rules clarification. I'm leaning toward making sideboard Victory piles count toward Trade Route and letting the Bane pile be swapped out like any other pile. I'm sure there are other rules interactions that I haven't yet considered.

Any opinions, critiques, or comments?

[DStu]

Nice.

The question is why it should costs $4, while Embargo costs $2. Its a terminal one-time Silver, like Embargo, and like Embargo it in principle effects all players the same.

The effect might be a bit stronger than Embargo, because you really can't buy from a pile that got swaped out, but on the other hand its self-inverse if you want, so you can swap the pile back. You can't undo a Embargotoken.

I'm not sure if the card makes engines more likely. It's more likely that you got all the cards you need in 12 stacks than in 10, but you can be attacked quite easily if you want to build an action/card engine and the only Village got swapped out while you are building it. You can swap it back, but that takes time. So probably BigMoney+X is a little bit too favoured by this, because it can not easily be attacked. When the games degenerate to BigMoney, Tariff itself has not much of a value.

On the other hand, an (half-)engine can expect to play a Tariff pretty fastly after it's build and continue the buildup, while BigMoney usually can wait 2-6 turns until you see a newly bought card.

[LastFootnote]

The question is why it should costs $4, while Embargo costs $2. Its a terminal one-time Silver, like Embargo, and like Embargo it in principle effects all players the same.

The effect might be a bit stronger than Embargo, because you really can't buy from a pile that got swaped out, but on the other hand its self-inverse if you want, so you can swap the pile back. You can't undo a Embargotoken.

Well, to be perfectly honest, the original reason that this cost $4 is that I'm thinking about using it to replace another $4 card in my expansion. But after thinking about it, I decided I liked it at $4 because I want players to buy it when they actually want the pile-swapping effect, not just whenever they have a spare $2 and an extra buy.

I'm not sure if the card makes engines more likely. It's more likely that you got all the cards you need in 12 stacks than in 10, but you can be attacked quite easily if you want to build an action/card engine and the only Village got swapped out while you are building it. You can swap it back, but that takes time. So probably BigMoney+X is a little bit too favoured by this, because it can not easily be attacked. When the games degenerate to BigMoney, Tariff itself has not much of a value.

On the other hand, an (half-)engine can expect to play a Tariff pretty fastly after it's build and continue the buildup, while BigMoney usually can wait 2-6 turns until you see a newly bought card.

Hm, you have a good point. I'm more of a non-engine player myself, so I didn't catch on to this possibility. To be honest, the same criticism could be leveled against Embargo, but that doesn't make it invalid. I was considering giving the card a +1 Buy, in which case it might be worth it to use Tariff to swap the Village pile into the Supply in order to buy 2 on that turn. Do you think that would help to alleviate the problem?

[DStu]

Hm, you have a good point. I'm more of a non-engine player myself, so I didn't catch on to this possibility. To be honest, the same criticism could be leveled against Embargo, but that doesn't make it invalid. I was considering giving the card a +1 Buy, in which case it might be worth it to use Tariff to swap the Village pile into the Supply in order to buy 2 on that turn. Do you think that would help to alleviate the problem?

Embargo by default helps engines, because embargoed Provinces or Gold usually hurt a BM player much more than an engine.

But I don't know if that's even a problem. An engine can profit more from a larger sample of cards, and can react faster if it's set up a bit. So that might be the stronger effect.

[LastFootnote]

Embargo by default helps engines, because embargoed Provinces or Gold usually hurt a BM player much more than an engine.

Ah, good call. It's true that Tariff can't affect basic Supply cards. At the same time, wouldn't a BM player embargoing engine components cause the engine-builder some trouble, especially if there were no good Curse-trashing options available?

But I don't know if that's even a problem. An engine can profit more from a larger sample of cards, and can react faster if it's set up a bit. So that might be the stronger effect.

Hmm, that's also true. I'll try testing it as-is and see if it strongly favors one style of play over another.

[Insomniac]

I think it should be able to swap non tariff piles...Otherwise if you have the only tariff and hit if before someone buys one then you get to choose which of the sideboard cards are in play.

I have 4/3 Split You have 5/2
I buy tariff silver
you buy mountebank/nothing
Turn 3 I tariff tariff into moat

[LastFootnote]

I think it should be able to swap non tariff piles...Otherwise if you have the only tariff and hit if before someone buys one then you get to choose which of the sideboard cards are in play.

I have 4/3 Split You have 5/2
I buy tariff silver
you buy mountebank/nothing
Turn 3 I tariff tariff into moat

That is a very good point. Thanks for catching it! I'll update my original post.

EDIT: On second thought, I might also test it the original way. I think both options have some interesting strategic possibilities.

[Powerman]

With embargo, would embargo token travel with the pile, or would they be put on to the pile that got moved into the kingdom?

[LastFootnote]

With embargo, would embargo token travel with the pile, or would they be put on to the pile that got moved into the kingdom?

I think it would have to travel, like the Trade Route tokens and the Bane signifier.

[ednever]

What would happen if it let you swap out any pile?

Swapping out golds or silvers could be really interesting. Or moving out provinces to slow down the game and give you time to build a longer-term deck - forcing the other player to pick up a tarrif before they can go back to buying provinces.

May get too crazy, but could be really interesting.

(I like cards that change the fundamental game - alt vp, highway, peddlers - and this card would add to that list if it could remove base cards...)

Ed

[Dsell]

What would happen if it let you swap out any pile?

Swapping out golds or silvers could be really interesting. Or moving out provinces to slow down the game and give you time to build a longer-term deck - forcing the other player to pick up a tarrif before they can go back to buying provinces.

May get too crazy, but could be really interesting.

(I like cards that change the fundamental game - alt vp, highway, peddlers - and this card would add to that list if it could remove base cards...)

Ed

I don't think that is a good idea without special rules addressing specific cases like:

Player 1 has an engine and gains two tariffs, playing them the same turn and swapping out provinces then tariffs to ensure that his big money opponent cannot compete with his goons engine.

This could maybe be fixed by making the tariffs untariffable, but then you have the issue of one opponent buying/gaining them all and playing them to block the opponent's strategy. Heck, if there's no alt vp you can remove all the victory cards from the game completely.

Of course, all this doesn't necessarily make it a bad card (with the non-kingdom piles...with just kingdom piles, I think it's a cool idea!), it just means that it may be game-warping way past the level of, say, possession or ambassador, and potentially harder to counter, especially if you don't see it coming.

[Schneau]

I like the idea of being able to swap basic Treasures and Victory piles from supply. I think it should be fine as long as you don't allow swapping of Tariff. As ednever says, this could make things very interesting.

[GendoIkari]

I like the idea of being able to swap basic Treasures and Victory piles from supply. I think it should be fine as long as you don't allow swapping of Tariff. As ednever says, this could make things very interesting.

I definitely think this would be a bad idea. Even if you don't allow swapping of Tariffs, at some points someone can still play the last Tarrif, at which point no more swapping can occur. If you swap out Provinces and Duchies, in a board with no alt-VP, you now have a really, really crappy game to play.

I just think it goes a bit too far with changing the fundamentals of Dominion. The rules as a whole were designed around the notion that Province is always available to buy. If Provinces run out, the game is over. When playing with Colonies, you don't replace Provinces. The game is simply not meant to be played with Provinces not available.

[ednever]

I think I'm convinced that swapping out provinces could mess things up.

Most issues can be dealt with - the player who buys up the tarrifs to keep the provinces out of play better have a damn good engine because he slowed himself down a lot buying tarrifs.  (in theory the same thing could be done with embargo, but in practice it's way too slow). In this case it would only take one tarrif to remove provinces, but a single tarrif brings back the provinces AND lets you buy one that turn (with +2$)

The bigger issue is bad play. In theory a player could buy a vp, then all the tarrifs, then remove all of the vp from the game. At that point the game is over, but you still have to go through the motions of emptying piles. Sounds like a bad experience.

It might work if it could be used on any card except provinces.,,

Ed

[LastFootnote]

The ability to swap out basic cards is a little too wacky for my taste. I'll be playtesting the card tonight without the ability to swap out basic cards, but with the ability to swap out Tariff itself. My guess is that I'll need to bump it up to +$3 or +1 Buy/+$2, but we'll see how it goes.

Tangentially, my wife suggested the name Boycott for the card, and I'm strongly considering making that the final name of the card.

[tlloyd]

Why is this called tariff? I don't see anything in the gameplay that resembles a tax on imports. Did you make that choice because the card feels like embargo and embargo ~ tariff? Maybe call it Customs House or even Trade War.

[jotheonah]

Re: Basic piles. Other issues.

*Swapping out the Golds to make opponents' Tunnel/Governor/Bag of Gold useless
*Swapping out the Curse pile to nullify Cursing attacks
*Swapping out Silver to screw up Trader, Jack, Bureaucrat
*Swapping out Coppers and then buying all the Caches

These piles can really mess up a kingdom more than embargo, because they're built into the balance of so many other cards. It's kind of a huge Pandora's box.

[LastFootnote]

Why is this called tariff? I don't see anything in the gameplay that resembles a tax on imports. Did you make that choice because the card feels like embargo and embargo ~ tariff? Maybe call it Customs House or even Trade War.

As my previous post said, I'm renaming it to Boycott. Originally, I thought Tariff because a tariff could be used to discourage the purchase of one good and encourage the purchase of another. That being said, Tariff is a more appropriate name for a card that raises the cost of other cards, whether or not such a card ever gets made or is a good idea.

[Insomniac]

One way of dealing with the inability to get basic cards back is you could make Tariff/Boycott go back to the supply instead of being trashed. I like the CONCEPT of tariffing basic card but I dont think it works in a practical sense

[LastFootnote]

OK, I played the first test game with the card. This was the set:

Surveyor
Gambler
Wishing Well (Bane)
Boycott
Young Witch
Barracks
Cathedral
Harvest
Horn of Plenty
Hunting Party
Stash

Sideboard:
Gardens
Scout
King's Court

Boycott ended up being used three times. I bought it on turn 1. One turn 3, I used it to swap out Wishing Well (the bane card) for King's Court and bought a Young Witch. Late in the game, my opponent played two in one turn, swapping Hunting Party out for Gardens (he had a big Hunting Party lead and a bigger deck), and then swapping out Boycott for Scout.

Overall, it worked out well and made for an interesting game. I may still decide to have it produce +$3 instead of +$2.