Print

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

[GendoIkari]

So this set has destroyed a few standard "rules"...

• $1 cost card
• Gaining cards from the trash
• +2 buys (never really a rule, but it's never been done)
• Alternative "Curse" cards
• Victory card that counts money in your deck
• Card that can give negative money when played

So what's left?

• Don't trash cards from the supply
• No more "vanilla" cards
• ??

[werothegreat]

Blood Money.

[Thisisnotasmile]

If by "design rules" you mean "things that haven't been done yet but in theory could be done", then the answer is: lots.

[werothegreat]

If by "design rules" you mean "things that haven't been done yet but in theory could be done", then the answer is: lots.

He means things we've told ourselves should never be done on a Dominion card.

[GendoIkari]

If by "design rules" you mean "things that haven't been done yet but in theory could be done", then the answer is: lots.

I mean things that people have specifically talked about and said "no, you shouldn't do that on cards."

[LastFootnote]

Don't trash cards from the supply

There's no reason that this can't be done as long as certain restrictions are put in place to prevent mass Province/Colony trashing.

No more "vanilla" cards

We've already broken that in Dark Ages with Ruined Market! 

[GendoIkari]

No more "vanilla" cards

We've already broken that in Dark Ages with Ruined Market! 

Lol, half-credit to Ruined Market. It's not quite vanilla because you can't just buy it at will (only if it happens to be on top of the pile).

[WanderingWinder]

Don't make a card which is strictly better/worse than another card.

[werothegreat]

Don't make a card which is strictly better/worse than another card.

Better Scout
Action
$4

+1 Action
+1 Card

[WanderingWinder]

Don't make a card which is strictly better/worse than another card.

Better Scout
Action
$4

+1 Action
+1 Card

The word 'strictly' is incredibly important in my statement.

[werothegreat]

Don't make a card which is strictly better/worse than another card.

Better Scout
Action
$4

+1 Action
+1 Card

The word 'strictly' is incredibly important in my statement.

Well, that already happened with Council Room and Margrave.

[Captain_Frisk]

So this set has destroyed a few standard "rules"...

• $1 cost card
• Gaining cards from the trash
• +2 buys (never really a rule, but it's never been done)
• Alternative "Curse" cards
• Victory card that counts money in your deck
• Card that can give negative money when played

So what's left?

• Don't trash cards from the supply
• No more "vanilla" cards
• ??

We've also just violated the "fish through your discard" rule.

[WanderingWinder]

Don't make a card which is strictly better/worse than another card.

Better Scout
Action
$4

+1 Action
+1 Card

The word 'strictly' is incredibly important in my statement.

Well, that already happened with Council Room and Margrave.

I'm sorry - which of those is strictly better than the other? Council room gives you more cards. Margrave has the attack. So, the attack is USUALLY better, but not always.
Hence, the word STRICTLY is important here.

[GendoIkari]

So this set has destroyed a few standard "rules"...

• $1 cost card
• Gaining cards from the trash
• +2 buys (never really a rule, but it's never been done)
• Alternative "Curse" cards
• Victory card that counts money in your deck
• Card that can give negative money when played

So what's left?

• Don't trash cards from the supply
• No more "vanilla" cards
• ??

We've also just violated the "fish through your discard" rule.

Good call... that's funny, everyone's talking about the Hermit getting the Madman; no discussion on his usual ability! I'd forgotten all about it!

[NoMoreFun]

Trash from hand attacks
Cards costing $10 or higher than $11
Self gaining of curses/ruins as a card drawback
Nothing involving the bottom of the deck (except pearl diver)
Reactions that hurt the attacker (and for good reason)
Action cards that don't remain in play (except one shots/mining village)
Cards strictly better than silver for $4 (IIRC)
Durations not necessarily cleaned up at the end of your next turn (except failed tacticians)
Attacks with +2 actions

[werothegreat]

I really most want to see the Attack Village, just so I can play one crazy game with all Attacks.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Durations not necessarily cleaned up at the end of your next turn (except failed tacticians)

Failed Havens.

[werothegreat]

Don't make a card which is strictly better/worse than another card.

Better Scout
Action
$4

+1 Action
+1 Card

The word 'strictly' is incredibly important in my statement.

Well, that already happened with Council Room and Margrave.

I'm sorry - which of those is strictly better than the other? Council room gives you more cards. Margrave has the attack. So, the attack is USUALLY better, but not always.
Hence, the word STRICTLY is important here.

Murr.  I was just trying to make a Scout joke.

[Voltaire]

So if every preview has violated a "rule" so far, what rule is going down tomorrow?

[greatexpectations]

I'm sorry - which of those is strictly better than the other? Council room gives you more cards. Margrave has the attack. So, the attack is USUALLY better, but not always.
Hence, the word STRICTLY is important here.

you clearly seem to be forgetting that scout jokes will earn you more internet points than dominion discussion.

[Grujah]

Must reveal when in hand
Remove from play
Exodia!

[NoMoreFun]

Exodia!

KC+KC+Bridge+Bridge+Bridge usually works

or a KC/Masq Pin with Monument as the spare card (2 player only)

[GendoIkari]

I'm sorry - which of those is strictly better than the other? Council room gives you more cards. Margrave has the attack. So, the attack is USUALLY better, but not always.
Hence, the word STRICTLY is important here.

you clearly seem to be forgetting that scout jokes will earn you more internet points than dominion discussion.

Seriously! I'm pretty sure my Scout joke yesterday gained me more respect than any other single post I've ever made. And I'd like to think that I've made at least some good observations / interesting points about Dominion!

[AJD]

We've also just violated the "fish through your discard" rule.

Wasn't that rule first violated with Counting House?

[LastFootnote]

We've also just violated the "fish through your discard" rule.

Wasn't that rule first violated with Counting House?

Well, pulling Copper out of the discard pile is a pretty controlled situation. Sort of like how Mine gains a Treasure directly into your hand. It's OK, because there's only so much shenanigans you can get up to with that Treasure card.

Speaking of, I'd consider "cards shouldn't gain Action cards directly into your hand" to be a decent card design rule. Maybe Dark Ages will break that one in a cool, balanced way.

[AJD]

We've also just violated the "fish through your discard" rule.

Wasn't that rule first violated with Counting House?

Well, pulling Copper out of the discard pile is a pretty controlled situation. Sort of like how Mine gains a Treasure directly into your hand. It's OK, because there's only so much shenanigans you can get up to with that Treasure card.

Inn also fishes through your discard.

[Taco Lobster]

I'm sorry - which of those is strictly better than the other? Council room gives you more cards. Margrave has the attack. So, the attack is USUALLY better, but not always.
Hence, the word STRICTLY is important here.

This is the point at which, if we were discussing Magic, and a strictly better card actually existed, some asshat would point to Possession and say "nuh-uh, it's not strictly better because if you were possesed, you'd rather have the worse version."

But, yeah, there has yet to be a Dominion card that's strictly better than another Dominion card.  Well, except Scout, which is strictly better than Smithy because you can draw 4 cards with it and get +1 Action.

[werothegreat]

I'm sorry - which of those is strictly better than the other? Council room gives you more cards. Margrave has the attack. So, the attack is USUALLY better, but not always.
Hence, the word STRICTLY is important here.

This is the point at which, if we were discussing Magic, and a strictly better card actually existed, some asshat would point to Possession and say "nuh-uh, it's not strictly better because if you were possesed, you'd rather have the worse version."

But, yeah, there has yet to be a Dominion card that's strictly better than another Dominion card.  Well, except Scout, which is strictly better than Smithy because you can draw 4 cards with it and get +1 Action.

I'd say Copper is strictly better than Curse.

[Taco Lobster]

I'm sorry - which of those is strictly better than the other? Council room gives you more cards. Margrave has the attack. So, the attack is USUALLY better, but not always.
Hence, the word STRICTLY is important here.

This is the point at which, if we were discussing Magic, and a strictly better card actually existed, some asshat would point to Possession and say "nuh-uh, it's not strictly better because if you were possesed, you'd rather have the worse version."

But, yeah, there has yet to be a Dominion card that's strictly better than another Dominion card.  Well, except Scout, which is strictly better than Smithy because you can draw 4 cards with it and get +1 Action.

I'd say Copper is strictly better than Curse.

Not if you're being possessed!

(Fair point - I was thinking kingdom cards)

[zahlman]

Since nobody else mentioned it: cantrip moats.

[werothegreat]

I'm sorry - which of those is strictly better than the other? Council room gives you more cards. Margrave has the attack. So, the attack is USUALLY better, but not always.
Hence, the word STRICTLY is important here.

This is the point at which, if we were discussing Magic, and a strictly better card actually existed, some asshat would point to Possession and say "nuh-uh, it's not strictly better because if you were possesed, you'd rather have the worse version."

But, yeah, there has yet to be a Dominion card that's strictly better than another Dominion card.  Well, except Scout, which is strictly better than Smithy because you can draw 4 cards with it and get +1 Action.

I'd say Copper is strictly better than Curse.

Not if you're being possessed!

(Fair point - I was thinking kingdom cards)

Actually, Shanty Town/Poor House/Poor House/Curse/Curse would allow your Possessee to buy a Province, whereas Shanty Town/Poor House/Poor House/Copper/Copper would not.

[werothegreat]

Since nobody else mentioned it: Lighthouse.

FTFY

[NoMoreFun]

There aren't any unconditionally non-terminal cards that have the potential to draw more than 2 cards without penalty...

EXCEPT SCOUT!

And apothecary

[werothegreat]

There aren't any unconditionally non-terminal cards that have the potential to draw more than 2 cards without penalty...

EXCEPT SCOUT!

And apothecary

And Crossroads and now Madman.

EDIT: Err, I guess you could argue that both of those have penalties.

[GeoLib]

I'd say Copper is strictly better than Curse.

Nuh uh. If your opponent plays a Mountebank, you'd rather have a curse in hand so you can discard it and avoid getting that nasty copper.
If you play an Ambassador you'd rather have a curse in hand so you can give that to your opponents.
If you play an Adventurer, you'd rather hit a curse then a copper so it will keep looking for better treasure.
If you play a Venture, you'd rather hit a curse then a copper so it will keep looking for better treasure.
If you play a Farming Village, you'd rather hit a curse then a copper so it will keep looking for better treasure and actions.
If you play a Masquerade, you'd rather have a curse in hand so you can give it to the person on your left.
If your opponent plays a Tribute you'd rather they hit a curse than a copper, so they don't get +$2.
If you opponent plays a Pirate Ship, you'd rather they hit a curse so they don't get a token.
If you play a Menagerie, you'd rather have a curse than a second copper in hand, so you can get +3 cards.
If you play a Harvest, you'd rather turn up a curse than a second copper, so you can get +$1 more.
If you have Fairgrounds, you'd rather have one curse than another copper, so it's worth 2/5ths of a point more.
If you're being possessed, you'd rather have a curse in hand, so your opponent can't spend as much.

Clearly curse is an excellent card. :-P

[NoMoreFun]

Crossroads is only non terminal the first time you play it, and madman has a penalty

[Taco Lobster]

Heh.  I think the way "strictly better" is traditionally defined, all characteristics of the card need to be the same, which means that, despite what I posted above, Copper probably isn't strictly better than Curse because the quality of being a treasure and of being a Curse each have separate and distinct rules associated with them. 

Or something like that.  People love to argue strictly better because it's such an absolute term. 

Swindler is another good card to break strictly better arguments.  If there was a treasure that cost $0 and produced $3, you'd still get people arguing that it is not strictly better because Swindler turns the former into a Curse, whereas it would turn Gold into (usually) another Gold.

[jonts26]

We've now also seen a card which returns itself to the supply on play.

[theory]

Depends on how useful you want the term "strictly better" to be.

For Dominion purposes it is probably most helpful to just define it ex ante, because ex post there would be no such thing as "strictly better" when Ambassador is involved.

[zahlman]

Since nobody else mentioned it: Lighthouse.

FTFY

Lighthouse is a pretty solid defense, but it doesn't draw a card to go with the action. So even if you're consistently playing one a turn perfectly smoothly in an otherwise BM deck, you're still effectively only getting a Silver from those cards, and that's really the absolute best case. It gets in the way of your village-draw engines since it reduces your effective initial hand size (opportunities to pick up the villages and drawers). But yeah I still buy multiples of them most of the time they're around

[werothegreat]

Since nobody else mentioned it: Lighthouse.

FTFY

Lighthouse is a pretty solid defense, but it doesn't draw a card to go with the action. So even if you're consistently playing one a turn perfectly smoothly in an otherwise BM deck, you're still effectively only getting a Silver from those cards, and that's really the absolute best case. It gets in the way of your village-draw engines since it reduces your effective initial hand size (opportunities to pick up the villages and drawers). But yeah I still buy multiples of them most of the time they're around

They go great with Menagerie/Library/etc.

[GendoIkari]

Heh.  I think the way "strictly better" is traditionally defined, all characteristics of the card need to be the same, which means that, despite what I posted above, Copper probably isn't strictly better than Curse because the quality of being a treasure and of being a Curse each have separate and distinct rules associated with them. 

Or something like that.  People love to argue strictly better because it's such an absolute term. 

Swindler is another good card to break strictly better arguments.  If there was a treasure that cost $0 and produced $3, you'd still get people arguing that it is not strictly better because Swindler turns the former into a Curse, whereas it would turn Gold into (usually) another Gold.

Trash for benefit cards also make it so that even if 2 cards are identical except for the price, the cheaper one is not necessarily strictly better than the more expensive one.

[chwhite]

There aren't any unconditionally non-terminal cards that have the potential to draw more than 2 cards without penalty...

EXCEPT SCOUT!

And apothecary

And Crossroads and now Madman.

EDIT: Err, I guess you could argue that both of those have penalties.

And Menagerie.

[Kirian]

Depends on how useful you want the term "strictly better" to be.

For Dominion purposes it is probably most helpful to just define it ex ante, because ex post there would be no such thing as "strictly better" when Ambassador is involved.

Indeed, we probably abuse the hell out of the words "strictly better."  Sure, there is a situation where Copper is better than Platinum, but that situation is so incredibly rare and difficult to set up that it's nearly meaningless.

[werothegreat]

Strictly better:

The cards must have the same cost.

The cards must do the same thing.

One card you will always take over the other.

[WanderingWinder]

Depends on how useful you want the term "strictly better" to be.

For Dominion purposes it is probably most helpful to just define it ex ante, because ex post there would be no such thing as "strictly better" when Ambassador is involved.

Indeed, we probably abuse the hell out of the words "strictly better."  Sure, there is a situation where Copper is better than Platinum, but that situation is so incredibly rare and difficult to set up that it's nearly meaningless.

I can think of six off the top of my head (coppersmith, apothecary, counting house, possession, moneylender, thief), plus the uh, oh yeah, it's a LOT cheaper. And cost is important, though 'strictly better effect' is important too.
I guess the important point is that no one card should obsolete another; not even warehouse/cellar or margrave/council room do that, really.

[Davio]

Weird dual-types, like Treasure-Action, Something-Curse or Treasure-Duration.

Some of those make no sense, cause confusion or are already promised to never appear, but you never know...

[Taco Lobster]

Agreed.  Strictly better is a useful concept for discussing card games, and the corner cases in which an inferior card would be better than a superior card aren't particularly useful or relevant to that discussion. 

[werothegreat]

Even Thief and Noble Brigand can't be strictly better than one another, because they really do different things.

[Dsell]

There aren't any unconditionally non-terminal cards that have the potential to draw more than 2 cards without penalty...

EXCEPT SCOUT!

And apothecary

And Crossroads and now Madman.

EDIT: Err, I guess you could argue that both of those have penalties.

And Menagerie.

And Scrying Pool.

I'd say Copper is strictly better than Curse.

Nuh uh. If your opponent plays a Mountebank, you'd rather have a curse in hand so you can discard it and avoid getting that nasty copper.
If you play an Ambassador you'd rather have a curse in hand so you can give that to your opponents.
If you play an Adventurer, you'd rather hit a curse then a copper so it will keep looking for better treasure.
If you play a Venture, you'd rather hit a curse then a copper so it will keep looking for better treasure.
If you play a Farming Village, you'd rather hit a curse then a copper so it will keep looking for better treasure and actions.
If you play a Masquerade, you'd rather have a curse in hand so you can give it to the person on your left.
If your opponent plays a Tribute you'd rather they hit a curse than a copper, so they don't get +$2.
If you opponent plays a Pirate Ship, you'd rather they hit a curse so they don't get a token.
If you play a Menagerie, you'd rather have a curse than a second copper in hand, so you can get +3 cards.
If you play a Harvest, you'd rather turn up a curse than a second copper, so you can get +$1 more.
If you have Fairgrounds, you'd rather have one curse than another copper, so it's worth 2/5ths of a point more.
If you're being possessed, you'd rather have a curse in hand, so your opponent can't spend as much.

Clearly curse is an excellent card. :-P

You'd rather have curse in hand if you're playing multiple Poor Houses this turn!

[chwhite]

"No politics" and "No curses other than Curse" are the only two rules that I think are pretty much ironclad.  Reactions that hurt the attacking player are also right out, though that should be covered under the "no politics" rule.

At this point there's a very good chance we'll never see one, but I think a cantrip Moat is possible.

We have yet to see a discard Attack where the attacker chooses what card to discard rather than the victim; I'd love to see one but suspect it's too nasty to balance.  We won't see a Duration-Attack and I think that's the biggest missed opportunity in the entire Dominion universe.

Treasure-Action would have to be a card where you choose to play it as an Action for one effect, or as a Treasure for a different effect.  It could be done, but as with the other examples above I'd expect it probably won't be.

[Taco Lobster]

We have yet to see a discard Attack where the attacker chooses what card to discard rather than the victim; I'd love to see one but suspect it's too nasty to balance.

That seems like it'd likely run afoul of the no politics rule, but I suppose no more so than something like Swindler ("Why'd you replace his Copper with another Copper and my Copper with a Curse?!?")

[rinkworks]

All I know is that my Fan Card Creation Guide probably needs an overhaul.  I recall that although I mentioned a lot of these as design spaces you should be very careful with, I recall only very seldomly being strict and unequivocal about some particular idea being irredeemable.  But I'm still building up the courage to go back and check.

[AdamH]

We've now also seen a card which returns itself to the supply on play.

I know I'm being obnoxious, but Madman is not in the supply; it gets returned to the Madman pile on play.

[eHalcyon]

Strictly better:

The cards must have the same cost.

The cards must do the same thing.

One card you will always take over the other.

If the cards cost the same and do the same thing, there is no mechanical reason you would prefer one over the other.  Though I suppose you might prefer one for the artwork, or the name.  Or maybe just based on how many are left in supply, or for things like HoP.

Whenever I talk about "strictly better" cards, I consider which one would be preferred if they cost the same.  In other words, I consider Card A strictly better than Card B if A can do everything B can do, plus something extra that is beneficial, with no additional detriments.

For example, Expand is strictly better than Remodel.  Goons is strictly better than Militia.

[WanderingWinder]

Strictly better:

The cards must have the same cost.

The cards must do the same thing.

One card you will always take over the other.

If the cards cost the same and do the same thing, there is no mechanical reason you would prefer one over the other.  Though I suppose you might prefer one for the artwork, or the name.  Or maybe just based on how many are left in supply, or for things like HoP.

Whenever I talk about "strictly better" cards, I consider which one would be preferred if they cost the same.  In other words, I consider Card A strictly better than Card B if A can do everything B can do, plus something extra that is beneficial, with no additional detriments.

For example, Expand is strictly better than Remodel.  Goons is strictly better than Militia.

And this is what I call 'strictly better effect'. But I have a question for you: is Goons strictly better than woodcutter?

[jonts26]

But I have a question for you: is Goons strictly better than woodcutter?

Oh, I know this one! Answer is NO. Because opponents discarding might be advantageous to them and they can reveal reactions. Do I get a prize?

[eHalcyon]

But I have a question for you: is Goons strictly better than woodcutter?

Oh, I know this one! Answer is NO. Because opponents discarding might be advantageous to them and they can reveal reactions. Do I get a prize?

This indeed.  One of the examples I was thinking of was Margrave > Smithy, but that's also not true because the discard can be good for the opponent.

[rinkworks]

But I have a question for you: is Goons strictly better than woodcutter?

Oh, I know this one! Answer is NO. Because opponents discarding might be advantageous to them and they can reveal reactions. Do I get a prize?

I say yes, because although that is quite correct, it adheres to the definition of "strictly" too strictly to be useful.  The equivalent is saying that Militia is not strictly superior to...

Not Strictly Superior To Militia!?
$4 - Action
+$2

[eHalcyon]

But I have a question for you: is Goons strictly better than woodcutter?

Oh, I know this one! Answer is NO. Because opponents discarding might be advantageous to them and they can reveal reactions. Do I get a prize?

I say yes, because although that is quite correct, it adheres to the definition of "strictly" too strictly to be useful.  The equivalent is saying that Militia is not strictly superior to...

Not Strictly Superior To Militia!?
$4 - Action
+$2

It's almost strictly superior.  Almost.

[zahlman]

Reactions that hurt the attacking player are also right out, though that should be covered under the "no politics" rule.

Sorry, I don't follow, not in the slightest. Everyone has the same opportunity to play action cards, and to reveal such a reaction; such a reaction wouldn't interact with third parties (it's just "I attack everyone; everyone has the chance to cause me to be hurt"); and it wouldn't affect third parties' decisions to reveal reactions (regardless of whether another player caused the attacker to be hurt, I still want to be unaffected by the original attack if possible). Where are the politics, and what's the problem?

[engineer]

Reactions that hurt the attacking player are also right out, though that should be covered under the "no politics" rule.

Sorry, I don't follow, not in the slightest. Everyone has the same opportunity to play action cards, and to reveal such a reaction; such a reaction wouldn't interact with third parties (it's just "I attack everyone; everyone has the chance to cause me to be hurt"); and it wouldn't affect third parties' decisions to reveal reactions (regardless of whether another player caused the attacker to be hurt, I still want to be unaffected by the original attack if possible). Where are the politics, and what's the problem?

If the reaction doesn't save the reactor but only hurts the attacker, then I could choose to play the reaction on one attacker and not another, because I like you better, or I think he's winning, or whatever.

[eHalcyon]

Reactions that hurt the attacking player are also right out, though that should be covered under the "no politics" rule.

Sorry, I don't follow, not in the slightest. Everyone has the same opportunity to play action cards, and to reveal such a reaction; such a reaction wouldn't interact with third parties (it's just "I attack everyone; everyone has the chance to cause me to be hurt"); and it wouldn't affect third parties' decisions to reveal reactions (regardless of whether another player caused the attacker to be hurt, I still want to be unaffected by the original attack if possible). Where are the politics, and what's the problem?

My close friend Joe plays an attack card.  Joe is a cool guy and doesn't afraid of anything, so I choose not to reveal my harmful reaction card, Super Spiky Shield.  Schmoe goes next.  He is not a cool guy.  He plays an attack card so I spite him by revealing the reaction.  Tough luck, Schmoe!

Moreover, given the reaction, you can't allow it to be revealed more than once.  You have to put in a mechanic such that the reaction gets discarded or set aside.  If that isn't worded with extreme care, you get into situations where you think, "I could use my reaction now, but Schmoe is winning so I should save it, just in case."

(ninja'd, but I was more detailed )

[werothegreat]

Strictly better:

The cards must have the same cost.

The cards must do the same thing.

One card you will always take over the other.

If the cards cost the same and do the same thing, there is no mechanical reason you would prefer one over the other.  Though I suppose you might prefer one for the artwork, or the name.  Or maybe just based on how many are left in supply, or for things like HoP.

Whenever I talk about "strictly better" cards, I consider which one would be preferred if they cost the same.  In other words, I consider Card A strictly better than Card B if A can do everything B can do, plus something extra that is beneficial, with no additional detriments.

For example, Expand is strictly better than Remodel.  Goons is strictly better than Militia.

And this is what I call 'strictly better effect'. But I have a question for you: is Goons strictly better than woodcutter?

The effect is strictly better than Militia, but Goons has a cost increase of $2, therefore Militia is not obsolete.  In order to be "strictly better," they have to have the same cost.

[zahlman]

My close friend Joe plays an attack card.  Joe is a cool guy and doesn't afraid of anything, so I choose not to reveal my harmful reaction card, Super Spiky Shield.  Schmoe goes next.  He is not a cool guy.  He plays an attack card so I spite him by revealing the reaction.  Tough luck, Schmoe!

Yep. The ninja-comment said something about not saving the reactor, though. If the reaction also protected the reactor, would that be enough to solve the problem? I guess it depends on how powerful the counter-attack is. Would I let Joe make me discard down to 3 (one of which is my reaction that I'll have to discard if I use it) so that I can put a Curse in Schmoe's deck? Several Curses (or to take an example from something that actually already exists, a Curse and a Copper)? And then, I don't know if Schmoe is going to attack this time around...

What if the reaction were compulsory? But then I guess there is no way to keep people honest except "in games using this, all players reveal their hands in response to any Attack", which in turn makes every other reaction compulsory and also strengthens(?) the attack by having everyone give information to everyone else.

Moreover, given the reaction, you can't allow it to be revealed more than once.  You have to put in a mechanic such that the reaction gets discarded or set aside.

Depending on the counterattack. If it's "the attacker discards down to 3 cards", then it doesn't matter if that's revealed multiple times. If it's "the attacker gains a Curse", it definitely does.

If that isn't worded with extreme care, you get into situations where you think, "I could use my reaction now, but Schmoe is winning so I should save it, just in case."

I'm thinking my concept of "politics" doesn't include situations where the second-place player is incentivized to play differently against the leader than against the loser, simply by virtue of the current standings. It's not like we're actively co-operating with Joe here.

But maybe we need a separate thread to discuss just what "politics" means to people

[eHalcyon]

The effect is strictly better than Militia, but Goons has a cost increase of $2, therefore Militia is not obsolete.  In order to be "strictly better," they have to have the same cost.

The effect is not strictly better.  Sometimes you don't want the opponent to discard.

[werothegreat]

The effect is strictly better than Militia, but Goons has a cost increase of $2, therefore Militia is not obsolete.  In order to be "strictly better," they have to have the same cost.

The effect is not strictly better.  Sometimes you don't want the opponent to discard.

I'm talking about Goons > Militia.  I'm not talking about Woodcutter.  Adding +Buy and VP chips to the same exact thing is better.

[eHalcyon]

I'm talking about Goons > Militia.  I'm not talking about Woodcutter.  Adding +Buy and VP chips to the same exact thing is better.

Oh, in that case, yes.  Sorry for misreading!

But I already said that I don't consider cost when talking about "strictly better".  WW pointed out that I'm just considering "strictly better effects", which is true.  I don't think taking cost into account is useful.

[GendoIkari]

I'm talking about Goons > Militia.  I'm not talking about Woodcutter.  Adding +Buy and VP chips to the same exact thing is better.

Oh, in that case, yes.  Sorry for misreading!

But I already said that I don't consider cost when talking about "strictly better".  WW pointed out that I'm just considering "strictly better effects", which is true.  I don't think taking cost into account is useful.

Border Village vs Village. Not a strictly better effect, because you might not want to gain another card.

[rinkworks]

I'm talking about Goons > Militia.  I'm not talking about Woodcutter.  Adding +Buy and VP chips to the same exact thing is better.

Oh, in that case, yes.  Sorry for misreading!

But I already said that I don't consider cost when talking about "strictly better".  WW pointed out that I'm just considering "strictly better effects", which is true.  I don't think taking cost into account is useful.

It is if you're talking about card design.  Having one card strictly better than another is bad.  But it's fine for one card to have a strictly better effect than another, if the costs of the two cards are different.

This is also why I say it's not useful to say Goons' effect isn't strictly better than Woodcutter's, on the grounds that sometimes you don't want your opponent to discard.  I mean, if the context of the discussion has something to do with Dominion puzzles -- i.e., come up with a situation when you'd rather have a free Woodcutter than a free Goons -- then fine.  But if the discussion is about card design (such as this thread), arguing that Goons doesn't have a strictly better effect than Woodcutter is not useful.  It's strictly better for the practical purpose of card design, so why quibble?

[eHalcyon]

It is if you're talking about card design.  Having one card strictly better than another is bad.  But it's fine for one card to have a strictly better effect than another, if the costs of the two cards are different.

This is also why I say it's not useful to say Goons' effect isn't strictly better than Woodcutter's, on the grounds that sometimes you don't want your opponent to discard.  I mean, if the context of the discussion has something to do with Dominion puzzles -- i.e., come up with a situation when you'd rather have a free Woodcutter than a free Goons -- then fine.  But if the discussion is about card design (such as this thread), arguing that Goons doesn't have a strictly better effect than Woodcutter is not useful.  It's strictly better for the practical purpose of card design, so why quibble?

Fair enough.

But I guess maybe we should come up with a community definition of "strictly better" that is useful to use, so that we can be consistent in discussions.

[GendoIkari]

It is if you're talking about card design.  Having one card strictly better than another is bad.  But it's fine for one card to have a strictly better effect than another, if the costs of the two cards are different.

This is also why I say it's not useful to say Goons' effect isn't strictly better than Woodcutter's, on the grounds that sometimes you don't want your opponent to discard.  I mean, if the context of the discussion has something to do with Dominion puzzles -- i.e., come up with a situation when you'd rather have a free Woodcutter than a free Goons -- then fine.  But if the discussion is about card design (such as this thread), arguing that Goons doesn't have a strictly better effect than Woodcutter is not useful.  It's strictly better for the practical purpose of card design, so why quibble?

Fair enough.

But I guess maybe we should come up with a community definition of "strictly better" that is useful to use, so that we can be consistent in discussions.

I think WW said it well earlier in the thread. The question that matters is, "is this other card obsolete?" If Goons cost $3, Woodcutter would be obsolete. You need puzzle-type questions to arise before you start to even consider that there might be times you'd take a Woodcutter instead (Horse Traders!)

[Davio]

No card is strictly better than another card, because there will always be edge cases.

I mean, even Goons vs Militia. Let's say your opponent plays a Governor to trash and get the last Province, hoping you won't be able to get the crucial Duchy. In that case, you'd rather have Militia in hand than Goons.

[Taco Lobster]

But I guess maybe we should come up with a community definition of "strictly better" that is useful to use, so that we can be consistent in discussions.

But that's the rub - there aren't any Dominion cards that are "strictly better" as that term is typically used.  So, to a large extent, this is us being hyper-technical terminology nerds for the sake of being hyper-technical terminology nerds.   

[Taco Lobster]

The discussion is much more relevant in Magic, where strictly better cards exist (and are being added all the time).

[LastFootnote]

All I know is that my Fan Card Creation Guide probably needs an overhaul.  I recall that although I mentioned a lot of these as design spaces you should be very careful with, I recall only very seldomly being strict and unequivocal about some particular idea being irredeemable.  But I'm still building up the courage to go back and check.

No worries, man. I already checked and the only thing you might want to change is to soften the wording on the gaining cards from the trash section.

[rinkworks]

But I guess maybe we should come up with a community definition of "strictly better" that is useful to use, so that we can be consistent in discussions.

But that's the rub - there aren't any Dominion cards that are "strictly better" as that term is typically used.  So, to a large extent, this is us being hyper-technical terminology nerds for the sake of being hyper-technical terminology nerds.   

It's useful when critiquing fan cards.  For instance, I remember a card in WW's expansion:

Something Village
$2 - Action
+2 Actions
+$1

At the time, we debated whether that was balanced at $2 (conclusion: it was), but now it would be useful to say that it's strictly inferior to Squire and should therefore probably cost $1 (now that that precedent's set!) or get a buff.  Is it strictly strictly superior to Squire?  Well no, because there are always Cornucopia cards that can make a deck prefer one of each, and maybe you want to trash it later and not bog your deck down with a Fortune Teller, I don't know.  But those observations don't help WW fix his card.

You're right, though -- no official Dominion card has a strictly better effect as another at the same price, even when you discount edge case puzzles.  Noble Brigand and Hunting Party come closest, but not quite.

[rinkworks]

All I know is that my Fan Card Creation Guide probably needs an overhaul.  I recall that although I mentioned a lot of these as design spaces you should be very careful with, I recall only very seldomly being strict and unequivocal about some particular idea being irredeemable.  But I'm still building up the courage to go back and check.

No worries, man. I already checked and the only thing you might want to change is to soften the wording on the gaining cards from the trash section.

Phew!  Good to know!

[GendoIkari]

The discussion is much more relevant in Magic, where strictly better cards exist (and are being added all the time).

Even in Magic, you can find the same edge cases if you are pedantic enough. You have a 2/1 creature that costs 1 red, and I have a 1/1 creature that costs 1 red? Well, I play this card that kills all creatures with power power 2 or greater.

This card deals 3 damage for 1 red, while this other card deals 3 damage for 2 red? Well I play something that discards a card from my hand and gains me x life, where x is the converted mana cost of the card I discarded.

[chwhite]

Noble Brigand and Hunting Party come closest, but not quite.

Hunting Party? 

Rinkworks is saying that the closest Dominion comes to having "strictly better" cards is Noble Brigand over Thief, and Hunting Party over Lab.

Which is accurate.

[werothegreat]

Noble Brigand and Hunting Party come closest, but not quite.

Hunting Party? 

Rinkworks is saying that the closest Dominion comes to having "strictly better" cards is Noble Brigand over Thief, and Hunting Party over Lab.

Which is accurate.

But when there are lots of alternate Treasures, Thief is better, and when you want lots of one card, Lab is better.

[GendoIkari]

Noble Brigand and Hunting Party come closest, but not quite.

Hunting Party? 

Rinkworks is saying that the closest Dominion comes to having "strictly better" cards is Noble Brigand over Thief, and Hunting Party over Lab.

Which is accurate.

Yeah, I realized that eventually and deleted my post. I thought at first he had meant to type Thief instead of Hunting Party; that he had said that Noble Brigand was almost strictly better than Hunting Party.

[Taco Lobster]

The discussion is much more relevant in Magic, where strictly better cards exist (and are being added all the time).

Even in Magic, you can find the same edge cases if you are pedantic enough. You have a 2/1 creature that costs 1 red, and I have a 1/1 creature that costs 1 red? Well, I play this card that kills all creatures with power power 2 or greater.

This card deals 3 damage for 1 red, while this other card deals 3 damage for 2 red? Well I play something that discards a card from my hand and gains me x life, where x is the converted mana cost of the card I discarded.

Yes, and you also have Magic's version of Possession to contend with (Mindslaver).  Any card that let's your opponent control your cards/actions contradicts a pedantic interpretation of strictly better. 

[Thisisnotasmile]

Noble Brigand and Hunting Party come closest, but not quite.

Hunting Party? 

Rinkworks is saying that the closest Dominion comes to having "strictly better" cards is Noble Brigand over Thief, and Hunting Party over Lab.

Which is accurate.

I'd argue Nomad Camp > Woodcutter is pretty close to a "strictly better" relationship too, what with the $3 and $4 price points being two of the "closest" price points in the game after the first shuffle.

[blueblimp]

From How costs for cards are set:

There is perception; people like cards that cost more to look better, and don't want similar cards at the same cost, such that one is "strictly better." And there are special cases. Would Remodel be more powerful at $3?

I like the terminology "special case" here. So of course the effect of Goons is strictly better than the effect of Woodcutter outside of special cases, because cases where you want a discard attack played against you are definitely special.

[Donald X.]

Reactions that hurt the attacking player are also right out, though that should be covered under the "no politics" rule.

There's probably an essay from me about this on this site, but the issue is a one-to-three ratio that's the wrong direction. Reactions that hurt the attacker are either too weak for the person buying them or too strong against the other players.

[rinkworks]

Noble Brigand and Hunting Party come closest, but not quite.

Hunting Party? 

Rinkworks is saying that the closest Dominion comes to having "strictly better" cards is Noble Brigand over Thief, and Hunting Party over Lab.

Which is accurate.

But when there are lots of alternate Treasures, Thief is better, and when you want lots of one card, Lab is better.

Really?  Now we're arguing that cards aren't "almost strictly better" because there are cases when you prefer the alternatives?

[ftl]

Reactions that hurt the attacking player are also right out, though that should be covered under the "no politics" rule.

There's probably an essay from me about this on this site, but the issue is a one-to-three ratio that's the wrong direction. Reactions that hurt the attacker are either too weak for the person buying them or too strong against the other players.

There is. I've even seen people find it before and bring it up in such discussions. I don't have a link to it on hand though.

[rinkworks]

Reactions that hurt the attacking player are also right out, though that should be covered under the "no politics" rule.

There's probably an essay from me about this on this site, but the issue is a one-to-three ratio that's the wrong direction. Reactions that hurt the attacker are either too weak for the person buying them or too strong against the other players.

There is. I've even seen people find it before and bring it up in such discussions. I don't have a link to it on hand though.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=71.0

[DWetzel]

Grunching from the OP, rules that are still left:

1. No "random" cards (coin flips, dice rolls, or the like)
2. All cards are two-sided.

[RiemannZetaJones]

Don't make a card which is strictly better/worse than another card.

Isn't Copper strictly better than Curse?

edit: No, Curse can be used as a counter to Mountebank.

[RiemannZetaJones]

No cards refer to the number of players.

[popsofctown]

Grunching from the OP, rules that are still left:

1. No "random" cards (coin flips, dice rolls, or the like)
2. All cards are two-sided.

Stash?  Or what do you mean by two sided?

[dghunter79]

Grunching from the OP, rules that are still left:

2. All cards are two-sided.

And strictly never made from human skin.

[zahlman]

Grunching from the OP, rules that are still left:

1. No "random" cards (coin flips, dice rolls, or the like)
2. All cards are two-sided.

Stash?  Or what do you mean by two sided?

I assume he's talking about the physical geometry of the card.

"When you gain this, you may shuffle any number of VP tokens into your deck."

[Cuzz]

How about Alchemist over Lab (considering effect only)? The topdecking is optional, so there'd be literally no reason to ever take Lab if they cost the same.

[werothegreat]

How about Alchemist over Lab (considering effect only)? The topdecking is optional, so there'd be literally no reason to ever take Lab if they cost the same.

If there were trashing, I'd go Lab.  Otherwise, I'd go Alchemist.

[RiemannZetaJones]

How about Alchemist over Lab (considering effect only)? The topdecking is optional, so there'd be literally no reason to ever take Lab if they cost the same.

There are several pairs of cards in which one is more expensive, but otherwise strictly better than, the other. Many Villages, some other vanilla cards (a lot of things are strictly worse than Grand Market), Expand beats Remodel etc.

[PigFiend]

Something Village
$2 - Action
+2 Actions
+$1

At the time, we debated whether that was balanced at $2 (conclusion: it was), but now it would be useful to say that it's strictly

Why come to this conclusion so readily? Maybe with some play, Squire will prove quite imbalanced.

[eHalcyon]

Something Village
$2 - Action
+2 Actions
+$1

At the time, we debated whether that was balanced at $2 (conclusion: it was), but now it would be useful to say that it's strictly

Why come to this conclusion so readily? Maybe with some play, Squire will prove quite imbalanced.

Unlikely.  Squire has already undergone a heckuva lotta play.

[AJD]

Well, as of today, Donald has also broken the "supply piles have 10 (/8/12) cards in them" rule.

[Schneau]

And the "don't choose which card for your opponent to discard" rule.

[AJD]

And the "don't choose which card for your opponent to discard" rule.

I didn't know that was a rule? Envoy breaks that rule too.

[clb]

I wasn't sure where to ask this, so I put it here - is tomorrow the last preview (15 cards), or are they continuing through Sunday (21 cards)?

[Donald X.]

I wasn't sure where to ask this, so I put it here - is tomorrow the last preview (15 cards), or are they continuing through Sunday (21 cards)?

Tomorrow is the last one. Then probably someone will spoil the set Thursday.

[Thisisnotasmile]

I wasn't sure where to ask this, so I put it here - is tomorrow the last preview (15 cards), or are they continuing through Sunday (21 cards)?

Tomorrow is the last one. Then probably someone will spoil the set Thursday.

Can't you just spoil the set tomorrow to save anyone else the satisfaction of doing it?

[RiemannZetaJones]

I wasn't sure where to ask this, so I put it here - is tomorrow the last preview (15 cards), or are they continuing through Sunday (21 cards)?

Tomorrow is the last one. Then probably someone will spoil the set Thursday.

That's a shame, these previews have been a lot of fun. Thank you.

[rinkworks]

Something Village
$2 - Action
+2 Actions
+$1

At the time, we debated whether that was balanced at $2 (conclusion: it was), but now it would be useful to say that it's strictly

Why come to this conclusion so readily? Maybe with some play, Squire will prove quite imbalanced.

Unlikely.  Squire has already undergone a heckuva lotta play.

That.  But note that I wasn't saying WW's Something Village isn't still balanced at $2.  I'm sure it is, in fact.  Squire might be also balanced at $2 and yet still be strictly better.

[SirPeebles]

The simplest way I can think of to make a new card which is strictly better than an existing card, using established game mechanics and even routing the Possession rebuttal, is to add a "+1 victory token" clause.  Can anyone think of a scenario in which adding "+1 victory token" would not yield a strictly better card? 

One potential benefit of the "weaker" card could be if an opponent plays a Jester.  For this reason we may want to begin with an Action-Victory such as Great Hall or Nobles.  That way the Jester deals out a Curse regardless.

The only other instance I can imagine is when an effect references "differently named card", in which case it may be better to have a "weaker" and a "stronger" rather than two "stronger"  (or preferable have two "weaker" than a "weaker" and a "stronger").  One way to circumvent this would be two introduce a new card which has the same name as an existing card, but I would consider this to be outside the realm of established game mechanics.

Of course, there's also the fact that even Dominion has some politics in it, at least in the sense that one can adjust their strategy towards the detriment of a chosen player (generally the one perceived as winning or the greatest potential threat), and so one may imagine as a marginal circumstance in which a "weaker" card would be preferable to lull your opponents towards butting heads.  If we stick to two player games though, this concern is mostly gone.

[michaeljb]

And the "don't choose which card for your opponent to discard" rule.

I didn't know that was a rule? Envoy breaks that rule too.

But that's completely different; an opponent choosing what to discard to Envoy is limiting the benefit of the huge card draw, rather than getting a very strong attack.

[play2draw]

I If memory serves me right, Donald said that Guilds had its own thing going in it. Maybe we'll see a new type. Perhaps Guild cards.

I'd argue there's still room for a broad rule-change mechanic... Perhaps something similar to the goal cards in Kingdom Builder.

An auction mechanic? An investment mechanic?

There is always the possibility of adding dice.

Cards that affect the draw phase?

Add a board? Catapult?

[michaeljb]

There is always the possibility of adding dice.

Cards that affect the draw phase?

Add a board? Catapult?

Ugh, a few mats and tokens is enough accessories for me 

[joel88s]

I think 'strictly better' most usefully refers to effect and doesn't take into account price per se, so as mentioned Expand is strictly better than Remodel, etc.; but when people cite the principle 'there will never be a strictly better card', that's really shorthand for 'there will never be a strictly better card at the same price.'

I tend to agree with rinkworks on Goons vs. Woodcutter; that Goons's extra benefit might very rarely be a detriment may be true, but seems too marginal to be useful, as with Possession cases where up is down and down is up. I mean you could say a $10 bill is not strictly better than a $5 bill because you might need a quarter for the meter and find a change machine that only takes ones and fives, but that's not too useful in the grand scheme of things.
(Or is that the Grand Market/Scheme of things?)

[Schlippy]

The version in this forum of my fan expansion (Clockwerk) actually has a card with +2 buys, a Victory card that counts money in your deck and an alternative curse card. :]
The Victory card is gone though in the current version.

At the moment I am playing around with the idea of a Card with a cost of $2.5, which is another rule that has not been broken yet, although the idea is so weird that such a rule has never been mentioned. It is basically an attack card that has roughly the strength of a $6 card but works like Treasure Map: You can play it, but it won't do anything unless you reveal another copy from your hand. (You do not have trash them though.)
It is a fun idea to play around with. With two buys, you can pick up two copies for $5. However, you can also pick up two copies with your 4/3 starting turns, but like with Treasure Maps that is not very strong, because they do nothing unless they collide. As you only have to reveal another copy (and not play it or discard it), you can chain them quite nicely in an engine deck, but in the end you have a dead card in your hand, as you can't do anything with the last copy that you have revealed all the time (except for playing it without any benefit).
Because of the cost it has some weird interactions though: You can remodel a card into that card, but you can not upgrade/remake a card into that card, nor can you forge something into that card (unless of course you forge a bunch of coppers and curses and a copy of that card), etc.
So I might change it just because of those interactions. Something like a cost of $3 with a sentence on the card that says: "You may pay $6 for this and gain a second copy". That's another thing that hasn't been done.

[pingpongsam]

I didn't read all 5 pages (yet) but I'm hoping the "no politics" rule will remain unbroken (but maybe that's what Guilds is about?).

e.g. Choose an opponent to receive a curse

[eHalcyon]

The version in this forum of my fan expansion (Clockwerk) actually has a card with +2 buys, a Victory card that counts money in your deck and an alternative curse card. :]
The Victory card is gone though in the current version.

At the moment I am playing around with the idea of a Card with a cost of $2.5, which is another rule that has not been broken yet, although the idea is so weird that such a rule has never been mentioned. It is basically an attack card that has roughly the strength of a $6 card but works like Treasure Map: You can play it, but it won't do anything unless you reveal another copy from your hand. (You do not have trash them though.)
It is a fun idea to play around with. With two buys, you can pick up two copies for $5. However, you can also pick up two copies with your 4/3 starting turns, but like with Treasure Maps that is not very strong, because they do nothing unless they collide. As you only have to reveal another copy (and not play it or discard it), you can chain them quite nicely in an engine deck, but in the end you have a dead card in your hand, as you can't do anything with the last copy that you have revealed all the time (except for playing it without any benefit).
Because of the cost it has some weird interactions though: You can remodel a card into that card, but you can not upgrade/remake a card into that card, nor can you forge something into that card (unless of course you forge a bunch of coppers and curses and a copy of that card), etc.
So I might change it just because of those interactions. Something like a cost of $3 with a sentence on the card that says: "You may pay $6 for this and gain a second copy". That's another thing that hasn't been done.

You get closer to this idea without using the fraction.  For example:

Cost $5; When you buy this, you may gain another copy for free by using an additional Buy.  (This phrasing needs work but you get the idea!)



Or you could just cost it at $3 and it would function nearly the same.

[Sniffnoy]

Here's a rule that hasn't been broken yet: All variable-worth victory cards depend only on the contents of your deck; and they never decrease in value from adding more cards to your deck.

Examples of ways a victory card might violate this: (Here, X and Y are numbers.)

If there are 3 or more empty supply piles, worth X victory points. Otherwise, worth Y victory points.  [Or you could do finer distinctions based on how many supply piles are empty.]

Worth 1 victory point for every X cards in the trash.

Worth 1 victory point for every X cards in the deck of the player with the [largest/smallest] deck.

Worth 1 victory point for every X kingdom cards left in the supply.

Worth X victory points, minus 1 for every Y [type of card] in your deck, to a minimum of zero.

Worth 1 victory points for every Y differently-named cards in anyone's deck.

...and so on; I've left out lots of obvious variants on these.

Some of these are probably terrible ideas, but I suspect not all of them are, and so far none have been done.

[ftl]

Ooh, that's a good one.

[pingpongsam]

Welcome to f.ds Sniffnoy, nice 1st post.

[Razzishi]

Time to stretch the boundaries of imagination.....

All cards are the same size.  Stash comes close to breaking this rule if you only consider one card being a different size, but there could theoretically be many different size cards.  It would be relevant not only via some rules text on some cards, but you could also see the size of the next card(s) down if it was larger.  I include changes in thickness as well as length and width in this category.

All cards have at least one type, and no greater than 3 types.  A card with no types makes very little sense, but is theoretically possible.  There likely is no room for more than 3 types, but they could always make the font smaller.

All attacks affect opponents.  Wouldn't be much of an attack if it didn't you say?  Well, maybe it could attack the supply.  Or cards you have in play somehow.

No cards of type Action-Treasure.  Presumably if such a card existed it would do different things depending on when you played it.

All cards have a cost.  Ok, having a cost of {0*} pretty much means it doesn't have a cost.  Since other cards ask for a card's cost and don't know what to do with "null" as the answer unless it would be treated the same as {0*}, I'd say this is pretty impossible to break unless you were doing it just for the sake of breaking this rule.

All starting decks have 10 cards, 7 of which are Copper.

Also a different sort of card design rule: all Kingdom cards have the same spacial layout; the art is always the same size, as is the text and cost.  (This one Magic has broken multiple times, and not just with joke cards.)

Broken rules you might not have realized:

Once a card has been played in the Action phase, it cannot return to your hand the same Action phase.  Broken by Graverobber (with trash-when-used actions).

You can buy all the cards in your starting deck.  Broken by Shelters.

[werothegreat]

How about cards that make you perform a physical action?

Marathon
Action - $3
Run a mile.  If you do so in under 5 minutes, gain 2 Provinces.


Get Off Your Ass
Action - $2
Do 60 jumping jacks.  If you do, gain a Gold, putting it in your hand.

Tongue Twister
Action - $1
Say "Search and Seizure" five times fast.  If successful, you win.

[pingpongsam]

How about cards that make you perform a physical action?

Marathon
Action - $3
Run a mile.  If you do so in under 5 minutes, gain 2 Provinces.


Get Off Your Ass
Action - $2
Do 60 jumping jacks.  If you do, gain a Gold, putting it in your hand.

Tongue Twister
Action - $1
Say "Search and Seizure" five times fast.  If successful, you win.

I LOL'd

[Schlippy]

Here's a rule that hasn't been broken yet: All variable-worth victory cards depend only on the contents of your deck; and they never decrease in value from adding more cards to your deck.

Examples of ways a victory card might violate this: (Here, X and Y are numbers.)

If there are 3 or more empty supply piles, worth X victory points. Otherwise, worth Y victory points.  [Or you could do finer distinctions based on how many supply piles are empty.]

Worth 1 victory point for every X cards in the trash.

Worth 1 victory point for every X cards in the deck of the player with the [largest/smallest] deck.

Worth 1 victory point for every X kingdom cards left in the supply.

Worth X victory points, minus 1 for every Y [type of card] in your deck, to a minimum of zero.

Worth 1 victory points for every Y differently-named cards in anyone's deck.

...and so on; I've left out lots of obvious variants on these.

Some of these are probably terrible ideas, but I suspect not all of them are, and so far none have been done.

How about something like:

Worth 1 VP point for any positive number of cards in your deck distracted from 15. (May be expressed weird, I am not a native speaker.)
The idea is that the card gives you 0VP if you have 15 (or more) cards in your deck, 1 VP if you have 14 cards in your deck, 2 VP if you have 13 cards in your deck, 7 VP if you have only 7 cards in your deck and 14 VP if it is the only card in your deck. The number (15) may need some tweaking. 20 would probably be to much, 15 not enough.



Another idea I recently had is a card with a cost of $6 and the addition: "If this is in the supply every player chooses his starting hands and may play them with any number of cards (but never more than 10 cards in total)"
So you can basically start with hands of 7/0, 6/1, 5/2 or 4/3. But as you can choose the amount of cards up to ten you can also start with things 4/0, 4/2, 3/0, 3/2, 2/0 (or 0/0 ) and draw the spare coppers or estates you didn't use guaranteed in the third turn.
The wording is probably poor, but I guess you get the idea of being able to use any number of cards from your ten starting cards in you first two turns. If you choose to start with all 10 cards you do not shuffle after your first turn; you play your second starting hand with 0 cards. If you choose to start with 7 coppers you play your second with three (or two, or one, or none) estates and no other cards. etc.

[CaptainNevada]

I don't think any card checks to see how many cards are left in a supply pile.  This is probably a good thing as it is an unnatural break in the flow of the game (unlike attacks, where people either can use a reaction card or be affected by the attack).  The only exception would be a Victory Card, as the end of the game is another natural break in the action.

It's still possible to do, and could be done quite thematically to represent a very scarce resource.

Gemstones ($3 - Treasure)
Worth $2 for every 3 Gemstones in the Supply

Wonder of the World ($5 - Victory)
Worth 1 VP for Every Wonder of the World in the Supply.

Mercenaries ($5 - Action - Attack)

+1$ for Every 2 Mercenaries Left in the Supply
Each Opponent With 4 or More Cards Discards to 3 Cards

[Schlippy]

City does somewhat check how many cards are left in a supply pile. :>

[ednever]

Here's a rule that hasn't been broken yet: All variable-worth victory cards depend only on the contents of your deck; and they never decrease in value from adding more cards to your deck.

Examples of ways a victory card might violate this: (Here, X and Y are numbers.)

If there are 3 or more empty supply piles, worth X victory points. Otherwise, worth Y victory points.  [Or you could do finer distinctions based on how many supply piles are empty.]

Worth 1 victory point for every X cards in the trash.

Worth 1 victory point for every X cards in the deck of the player with the [largest/smallest] deck.

Worth 1 victory point for every X kingdom cards left in the supply.

Worth X victory points, minus 1 for every Y [type of card] in your deck, to a minimum of zero.

Worth 1 victory points for every Y differently-named cards in anyone's deck.

...and so on; I've left out lots of obvious variants on these.

Some of these are probably terrible ideas, but I suspect not all of them are, and so far none have been done.

How about something like:

Worth 1 VP point for any positive number of cards in your deck distracted from 15. (May be expressed weird, I am not a native speaker.)
The idea is that the card gives you 0VP if you have 15 (or more) cards in your deck, 1 VP if you have 14 cards in your deck, 2 VP if you have 13 cards in your deck, 7 VP if you have only 7 cards in your deck and 14 VP if it is the only card in your deck. The number (15) may need some tweaking. 20 would probably be to much, 15 not enough.



Another idea I recently had is a card with a cost of $6 and the addition: "If this is in the supply every player chooses his starting hands and may play them with any number of cards (but never more than 10 cards in total)"
So you can basically start with hands of 7/0, 6/1, 5/2 or 4/3. But as you can choose the amount of cards up to ten you can also start with things 4/0, 4/2, 3/0, 3/2, 2/0 (or 0/0 ) and draw the spare coppers or estates you didn't use guaranteed in the third turn.
The wording is probably poor, but I guess you get the idea of being able to use any number of cards from your ten starting cards in you first two turns. If you choose to start with all 10 cards you do not shuffle after your first turn; you play your second starting hand with 0 cards. If you choose to start with 7 coppers you play your second with three (or two, or one, or none) estates and no other cards. etc.

Easier wording:
Worth 15 VP minus the number of cards in your deck (never worth less than 1VP)

Issue with the card is that it can encourage stalemates where neither player wants to buy any cards and that game never ends.

Ed

[Schlippy]

Issue with the card is that it can encourage stalemates where neither player wants to buy any cards and that game never ends.

Ed

Does it? It is not really hard to beat a strategy that is based on getting some of those cards and trashing some other cards and than doing nothing by just buying a bit of cash and 2 provinces or something.
It is not like you have to fear that the game ends because your opponent suddenly three piles by not buying cards. :>

[jonts26]

Another design rule that we often see in fan cards is the permanently in play card. I think there may be a decent chance Guilds gives us this.

[CaptainNevada]

City does somewhat check how many cards are left in a supply pile. :>

It only checks to see if a pile is empty, and that is done after every single turn automatically.  But I'll rephrase it to say that no card checks how many cards are left in a non-empty supply pile.

[eHalcyon]

City does somewhat check how many cards are left in a supply pile. :>

It only checks to see if a pile is empty, and that is done after every single turn automatically.  But I'll rephrase it to say that no card checks how many cards are left in a non-empty supply pile.

My submission to the Set Design Contest for a trasher did this.

[NoMoreFun]

The strictly better/power creep issue is being played with a bit here

Scavenger is much, much better than Chancellor. It's $4 instead of $3, but since they're both terminals I can't think of many situations where that makes a difference (you never want to open chancellor/chancellor, for example). I'd say it's an even worse example of power creep than Thief/Noble Brigand.

Spy's attack is incredibly weak to the point of not being noticeable (which is why Donald X could throw it onto scrying pool when he thought alchemy was short on attacks), and that's the only thing it has over Ironmonger, which otherwise severely outclasses it.

Procession would be strictly better than throne room if "up to" was in the text, but it isn't, and in many games it will kill your good $5 actions, so yay for that.

[jonts26]

Procession would be strictly better than throne room if "up to" was in the text, but it isn't, and in many games it will kill your good $5 actions, so yay for that.

Procession will play completely differently than TR I would wager. The forced trash really changes what you can do with it.

[jonts26]

So death cart sort of does the gain a curse when you gain this thing, except it's two ruins.

[AJD]

And the "all cards in a Kingdom pile are identical" rule is out the window now too.

[eHalcyon]

So death cart sort of does the gain a curse when you gain this thing, except it's two ruins.

I think it's worth noting that one of the main issues with that concept is that the card has to be awesome enough to be worth the junk it comes with, and that if there's an easy way to handle the junk (strong trashing, Watchtower, or even just that the junk is all gone) then the card is overpowered.  Death Card solves this by having an on-going penalty.  The card is awesome, but you need to keep trashing actions.  If you fail to do so, you lose the power card.

[jonts26]

Well it also works because the bad cards you gain are exactly the fodder you can use to feed this card. So you might not want to trash them by other means.

[samath]

All cards have at least one type, and no greater than 3 types.  A card with no types makes very little sense, but is theoretically possible.  There likely is no room for more than 3 types, but they could always make the font smaller.

Dame Josephine just broke this one. And yes, it appears they had to make the font smaller and go to two lines.

[Razzishi]

All cards have at least one type, and no greater than 3 types.  A card with no types makes very little sense, but is theoretically possible.  There likely is no room for more than 3 types, but they could always make the font smaller.

Dame Josephine just broke this one. And yes, it appears they had to make the font smaller and go to two lines.

I immediately saw that myself and was outraged at the fact that I couldn't mention it in this thread before anyone else did.   

[zahlman]

All cards have at least one type, and no greater than 3 types.  A card with no types makes very little sense, but is theoretically possible.  There likely is no room for more than 3 types, but they could always make the font smaller.

Dame Josephine just broke this one. And yes, it appears they had to make the font smaller and go to two lines.

Actually she appears to be part of a pile of Knights who all do this.

[axlemn]

No card that trashes only cards up to a particular cost. 
No card that gives other players money.  (I predict this one will be broken in Guilds.)
Nothing that borrows actions or cards from next turn.  i.e. No reversed-duration. 
No card that changes the value of VP cards that other players have.  (Is this politics?  Kingmaking?)
No card that allows you to place a card costing more than 0 that you do not own in another's deck or discard. 
No card that trashes only Curses, Ruins, or Shelters. 

[engineer]

No card that gives other players money.  (I predict this one will be broken in Guilds.)

No card that allows you to place a card costing more than 0 that you do not own in another's deck or discard. 

Embassy does both of these things.  So does Governor.

[ycz6]

I believe by "money" there he means "$", i.e. buying power on the current turn.

[engineer]

I believe by "money" there he means "$", i.e. buying power on the current turn.

Oy, I hope they don't do that.  That would be a pain to keep track of.  I guess you could use tokens.

[NoMoreFun]

I believe by "money" there he means "$", i.e. buying power on the current turn.

Oy, I hope they don't do that.  That would be a pain to keep track of.  I guess you could use tokens.

Still no "each other player gains a copper in hand" attack.

[Dsell]

I believe by "money" there he means "$", i.e. buying power on the current turn.

Oy, I hope they don't do that.  That would be a pain to keep track of.  I guess you could use tokens.

Still no "each other player gains a copper in hand" attack.

The fan expansion is really trying to change this one!

[Donald X.]

Still no "each other player gains a copper in hand" attack.

It will show up in the secret history. One problem is that the copper pile has no definite size, and varies with more players in a poor way.

[NoMoreFun]

I hope you haven't ruled it out. You designed other cards that let other players gain copper indefinitely (ambassador, mountebank, jester, noble brigand), and I don't see why it would be impossible to come up with one more that had the highly interesting (and IIRC, unique) effect of temporarily helping the opponent, but ultimately hurting them.

[Donald X.]

I hope you haven't ruled it out. You designed other cards that let other players gain copper indefinitely (ambassador, mountebank, jester, noble brigand), and I don't see why it would be impossible to come up with one more that had the highly interesting (and IIRC, unique) effect of temporarily helping the opponent, but ultimately hurting them.

Jester and Noble Brigand don't have this problem because they don't give out much Copper really. Ambassador doesn't because you supply some of the Copper. Mountebank does have this issue, but it's a little muted there.

You can temporarily help and ultimately hurt your opponent other ways; it doesn't need to be giving them a Copper in hand.

I gave the mechanic a fair shot. It was in the set from day one and got tried on multiple cards.

[NoMoreFun]

You can temporarily help and ultimately hurt your opponent other ways; it doesn't need to be giving them a Copper in hand.

Are any existing cards meant to do this? I guess you could argue in some cases Governor's Silver Giving and Embassy do that. I know Bishop and Governor's Trashing give the chance to do the opposite.

A council room/witch would of course directly do this, but doesn't have the beautiful simplicity of gaining a copper in hand. Gain a ruins in hand? It's probably too late for that now. There are several fan cards that are when gain everyone else gains a copper in hand (so the supply problem isn't an issue), and I didn't see anything like that in the Hinterlands secret history - was that considered?

[engineer]

Torturer lets you gain a curse in hand, as an option.  So "gain bad stuff in hand" has been touched upon.  I can see why Donald likes that better, since the curse pile scales with the number of people playing.

[NoMoreFun]

Torturer lets you gain a curse in hand, as an option.  So "gain bad stuff in hand" has been touched upon.  I can see why Donald likes that better, since the curse pile scales with the number of people playing.

The thing with curse in hand is you can't play it for benefit - it's handy if you have a trasher ready or can trigger the reshuffle but otherwise it's no better than simply gaining the curse. Gaining an abandoned mine or ruined library to hand would actually be helpful much of the time.

[eHalcyon]

Torturer lets you gain a curse in hand, as an option.  So "gain bad stuff in hand" has been touched upon.  I can see why Donald likes that better, since the curse pile scales with the number of people playing.

The thing with curse in hand is you can't play it for benefit - it's handy if you have a trasher ready or can trigger the reshuffle but otherwise it's no better than simply gaining the curse. Gaining an abandoned mine or ruined library to hand would actually be helpful much of the time.

Not just trashers and reshuffle timing.  Gaining the curse in hand is also good if you have cards that require discarding or let you discard for benefit (Warehouse, Embassy, SC, Cellar, Vault...).  It's also good against Torturer, because it gives you an extra card to discard against it!

[PSGarak]

"The supply looks the same to all players."

All players see the same piles and number of piles, the same number of cards in each pile, and even the same embargo tokens everywhere, and presence/absence of special piles like Prizes, Ruins, Spoils, etc. This got a little screwy with heterogeneous piles like Prizes, Ruins, and Knights, and especially Black Market, but it's still pretty regular. Any interactions with the supply are globally visible, and globally symmetric.

Messing with this would be very hard, but not impossible. The easiest would be making Embargo tokens remember which player played them, and not giving curses to that player. Pain in the ass with bookkeeping, but possible. Another idea would be to change the way Knights work: instead of 1 pile with 10 different cards, each player has their own personal supply pile of 10 of the same knight, and can only buy knights from that pile. I could see Guilds doing something with "Guilds" this way, but it would be very hard to balance and design around. I would only consider it if Guilds come with a built-in way to enter other players' decks.

[Cuzz]

Not sure if this has been discussed yet, but I was amazed to see a card with +$5 on it (for $4 no less!). Obviously Donald X. had to add a lot of downside to balance Death Cart, but what's the limit? Can you balance a card with +$6? +$7?

[axlemn]

You can't have any card that becomes $6 over 2 cards except if you impose very high restrictions, such as if:
-it's temporary
-extreme penalties (trashing the rest of your hand, self-Saboteur, gain junk)
-it costs at least $5 and forces you to pay a medium penalty (more than Count)
-it takes a while to kick in (Pirate Ship)
-it only kicks in sometimes (Trade Route)
-it's terrible (Adventurer)
-it costs at least 7

Otherwise the goal is no longer to get treasure like Gold or even Platinums every game that the card's dealt.  That sort of forced-to-buy card is frowned upon during testing, I think.  Unless it's got the right restrictions, it'll break. 

[blueblimp]

Not sure if this has been discussed yet, but I was amazed to see a card with +$5 on it (for $4 no less!). Obviously Donald X. had to add a lot of downside to balance Death Cart, but what's the limit? Can you balance a card with +$6? +$7?

There already (sort of) is a card with +$6: Vault.

[Cuzz]

Not sure if this has been discussed yet, but I was amazed to see a card with +$5 on it (for $4 no less!). Obviously Donald X. had to add a lot of downside to balance Death Cart, but what's the limit? Can you balance a card with +$6? +$7?

There already (sort of) is a card with +$6: Vault.

Eh, kinda, but it only gives $6 at the expense of the rest of your hand. It plays very similar to a card which says "+2 cards, reveal your hand, +$1 for each card which is not a treasure," which now doesn't sound like it gives +$6.

[AJD]

Say, is Mercenary the first card that gives terminal +card and +coin (barring cases like Pawn and Trusty Steed, where +card/+coin is just one of several possible outcomes of the card)?

[Grujah]

Vault does.

Horse Trader kinda also.

[geemsean]

I was hoping for Dark Ages to have a duration-effect card that let you play curses as either Actions or Treasures... but who cares? DA seems awesome!

[ftl]

I was hoping for Dark Ages to have a duration-effect card that let you play curses as either Actions or Treasures... but who cares? DA seems awesome!

Well, that's what ruins sort of are. They're junk in your deck that you can play as actions.

[davogotland]

my friend had a dream about a card that broke such a rule. it could be called cell split, he wasn't sure. unfortunately, he didn't remember the cost of the card either :0

cell split
$?
trash this card. during cleanup, your discard pile becomes your deck, and what's left of your draw pile is the deck of your second player, left of you in turn order. at the end of the game, both decks reunite.
action