Print

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

[Davio]

As long as I can remember, fans have tried to create a X-Curse dual-type card and I think we've gotten to the conclusion that it doesn't work.

What will these cards cost? Can you gain them over regular Curses when an opponent plays a Witch? Too many weird stuff, too little advantages.

With Dark Ages out, I'd like to take a new look on Cursed Gold, but not as a dual-type, but as a (self-)Curser.

How is this for a start?

Cursed Gold
Treasure - $5

$3

When you gain this, gain a Curse.
When you trash this, each other player gains a Curse.

I really like the DA on-trash abilities and wonder if something like this is fitting for a card such as this.
Why would you want to trash it? You might be trashing it for a benefit anyway so handing out Curses is a nice little extra. The sad part is you can't Remodel it to a Province, but hey, you can still Expand it. And you could alway Remodel it to a regular Gold if you wanted to.

[yudantaiteki]

Gaining 1 curse doesn't seem like much of a penalty for a 5-cost gold, but maybe I tend to undervalue curses.

[One Armed Man]

yudantaiteki, think about it in terms of money ratio for BM. It is 1.5, the same as Cache (less than 2 from silver). One problem of $5 gold +curse is that BM can get it after being on the bad end of cursing attacks. This one's extra bonus only works if you don't get it this way. I like this more than any other Curse gold I have seen (they are usually called "blood money" ).

[One Armed Man]

sorry for the double post, but here are the previous discussions:

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1735.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3459.msg66121#msg66121

[eHalcyon]

This is not a new idea, except for the on-trash effect which just makes it more powerful.

Many people try to correct this problem by adding a clause to the card such as "This card cannot be trashed" or "If this card is trashed, place it in your discard pile instead of the trash pile." This kind of special-case rule rubs me wrong (there's a section on special-case rules later), though it might be workable in this case. Another workaround people use is "When you buy this card, gain a Curse." Or, since the Curse pile can run out and gained Curse cards can be trashed, the concept of a "curse token" is employed: "When you buy this card, gain X curse tokens." A curse token would be worth -1 VP at the end of the game, similarly to how Prosperity's Victory Tokens are worth +1 VP at the end of the game.

Regardless, these solutions still come up short, although they're improvements on the original idea. The problem is that a power card can't be balanced with a fixed VP cost, for the simple reason that VP totals vary wildly from game to game, depending on the board. Dominion games can be won with 5 points and lost with 100. The difference between scores can be very small, meaning a -2 VP penalty could be decisive, or very large, making it insignificant.

A counterargument to this is that one of the basic strategic principles of Dominion is recognizing that every card is good in some situations and bad in others, so a card that is powerful sometimes and weak at other times is no problem at all. But this kind of card seems to be usually either dominant or suicidal and only rarely in between.

The best solution seems to be to cause a VP penalty to be incurred upon each USE of the card, rather than merely on the purchase of it. Then the VP penalty is directly proportional to the benefit you get from using it. In games with heavy-trashing, where the card would be used more often, the penalty is steeper. In no-trashing games, where the card would be used less often, the penalty is smaller.

Seemingly the two best ways to incur a penalty upon use of the card are (1) "Gain X curse tokens," and (2) "Gain a Curse. If you do...." The former incurs an irreversible VP penalty. The latter puts a stop to free power plays when the Curses run out. Both deal damage in proportion to the use you get out of the card.

[AJD]

And of course Death Cart demonstrates there are other ways to handle this as well.

[Rush_Clasic]

I'd still like to see the playtesting on the "blood money" concept. If anything, Cache is proof that the idea is a feasible one; clogging your deck with two Coppers has some equivalence to clogging it with one Curse. At 5, that drawback feels reasonable and balanced enough to vary in fun enough ways.

I don't like the trash ability on this Cursed Gold, but only because the card itself is strong without it. The idea itself is interesting and worth trying out. Maybe as an over-costed Silver.

[rinkworks]

I'd still like to see the playtesting on the "blood money" concept. If anything, Cache is proof that the idea is a feasible one; clogging your deck with two Coppers has some equivalence to clogging it with one Curse.

Not if the Curses are out.  Coppers are unlikely to be.  Additionally, it's (probably) twice the work to trash two Coppers than one Curse.

Cache actually makes me less interested in the idea than before.  I mean, now we've got a card that does that sort of thing.

[Rush_Clasic]

I'd still like to see the playtesting on the "blood money" concept. If anything, Cache is proof that the idea is a feasible one; clogging your deck with two Coppers has some equivalence to clogging it with one Curse.

Not if the Curses are out.  Coppers are unlikely to be.  Additionally, it's (probably) twice the work to trash two Coppers than one Curse.

Fair point. I still think the negative VP possibilities compound the problem enough to make it interesting, but I suppose in a heavy curse game the drawback fades rather quickly.

Cache actually makes me less interested in the idea than before.  I mean, now we've got a card that does that sort of thing.

Me too, to a point. I'm still interested in the version with the Gold being worth negative VP.

[Davio]

You could always do this if you really wanted.

Treasure - Victory
$3
-1 VP

Now it's not a Curse, but a Victory card that's worth -1 VP.
A VP card worth negative VP? How silly! Maybe, but we already have a VP card worth 0 VP.


And yes, we have Cache, but I still like experimenting with this concept.

I think I saw some version which was like:

$3

When you buy/gain this, gain a Curse and each other player gains an Estate.

The Estate giving plays like an attack early, but can be dangerous late although you won't buy it often late in the game.

[engineer]

How about:

Cursed Gold: $0*
worth $3
-2 VP

* It costs $5 to buy Cursed Gold from the supply.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The point here is that you get your gold-plus-curse for $5, but the VP hit is big enough that you do actually want to get rid of it, and it will be bad if you can't.  What's more, the special cost makes TFB much more difficult, because once it's in your deck it's worth zero.

[eHalcyon]

Again.

Regardless, these solutions still come up short, although they're improvements on the original idea. The problem is that a power card can't be balanced with a fixed VP cost, for the simple reason that VP totals vary wildly from game to game, depending on the board. Dominion games can be won with 5 points and lost with 100. The difference between scores can be very small, meaning a -2 VP penalty could be decisive, or very large, making it insignificant.

Another thing is that -2VP on the card will usually hurt less than just gaining a regular Curse.  Yeah, -VP sucks, but it doesn't clog.

[engineer]

Again.

Regardless, these solutions still come up short, although they're improvements on the original idea. The problem is that a power card can't be balanced with a fixed VP cost, for the simple reason that VP totals vary wildly from game to game, depending on the board. Dominion games can be won with 5 points and lost with 100. The difference between scores can be very small, meaning a -2 VP penalty could be decisive, or very large, making it insignificant.

Another thing is that -2VP on the card will usually hurt less than just gaining a regular Curse.  Yeah, -VP sucks, but it doesn't clog.

I never really understood the point of that line in the fan card creation guide.  I mean, isn't it a good thing that the card strength might vary a lot between games?  That means that this card would work well in certain strategies but not in others.  I think that's a good kind of variability (as long as it's not dominant or dead too often).

I do agree that the clogging effect of curses is much worse than the -VP.  But the -VP could still be a reasonable offset to the $5 cost for the gold. 

Forget whether the cursed-gold should function like a curse. The real question is, is this an interesting card?  I do think it has the possibility to be, since it introduces tradeoffs which you don't see on any other card yet, and so it has the possibility to create interesting decisions.  I also actually like the idea that you can trash this type of card to eliminate the downside, because it creates a situation where you have to game plan around that late trashing -- you have to keep the trasher around, and you have to ensure collision before the game ends somehow.  This would tend to work better in strong engine decks.  On the other hand, a card like this might enable Big Money because winning the province split is worth a handful of VP, so you don't need to trash the card.

[AJD]

You could always do this if you really wanted.

Treasure - Victory
$3
-1 VP

Now it's not a Curse, but a Victory card that's worth -1 VP.

Oh man. You know what that combos with?

[rinkworks]

Again.

Regardless, these solutions still come up short, although they're improvements on the original idea. The problem is that a power card can't be balanced with a fixed VP cost, for the simple reason that VP totals vary wildly from game to game, depending on the board. Dominion games can be won with 5 points and lost with 100. The difference between scores can be very small, meaning a -2 VP penalty could be decisive, or very large, making it insignificant.

Another thing is that -2VP on the card will usually hurt less than just gaining a regular Curse.  Yeah, -VP sucks, but it doesn't clog.

I never really understood the point of that line in the fan card creation guide.  I mean, isn't it a good thing that the card strength might vary a lot between games?

The point I was getting at was that it varies wildly beyond the scope of what would make for a good game.  As a trivial example, let's say you had a card as follows:

Variance
$5 - Action
When you play this, if Baron is in the supply, +3 Buys, +$20.  Otherwise, if Duke is in the supply, lose your next 4 turns.  Otherwise, if Cellar is in the supply, +$3.

To be sure, this card varies in strength from game to game.  But when it's strong, it's too strong, and when it's weak, it's too weak, and when it's just right, that's a rare thing indeed.

Obviously this is more of an extreme case than the breed of card I was talking about, but that was the idea.

[razorborne]

Again.

Regardless, these solutions still come up short, although they're improvements on the original idea. The problem is that a power card can't be balanced with a fixed VP cost, for the simple reason that VP totals vary wildly from game to game, depending on the board. Dominion games can be won with 5 points and lost with 100. The difference between scores can be very small, meaning a -2 VP penalty could be decisive, or very large, making it insignificant.

Another thing is that -2VP on the card will usually hurt less than just gaining a regular Curse.  Yeah, -VP sucks, but it doesn't clog.

I never really understood the point of that line in the fan card creation guide.  I mean, isn't it a good thing that the card strength might vary a lot between games?

The point I was getting at was that it varies wildly beyond the scope of what would make for a good game.  As a trivial example, let's say you had a card as follows:

Variance
$5 - Action
When you play this, if Baron is in the supply, +3 Buys, +$20.  Otherwise, if Duke is in the supply, lose your next 4 turns.  Otherwise, if Cellar is in the supply, +$3.

To be sure, this card varies in strength from game to game.  But when it's strong, it's too strong, and when it's weak, it's too weak, and when it's just right, that's a rare thing indeed.

Obviously this is more of an extreme case than the breed of card I was talking about, but that was the idea.

I would buy that card in a Baron game. I think it would be pretty good.

[engineer]

Again.

Regardless, these solutions still come up short, although they're improvements on the original idea. The problem is that a power card can't be balanced with a fixed VP cost, for the simple reason that VP totals vary wildly from game to game, depending on the board. Dominion games can be won with 5 points and lost with 100. The difference between scores can be very small, meaning a -2 VP penalty could be decisive, or very large, making it insignificant.

Another thing is that -2VP on the card will usually hurt less than just gaining a regular Curse.  Yeah, -VP sucks, but it doesn't clog.

I never really understood the point of that line in the fan card creation guide.  I mean, isn't it a good thing that the card strength might vary a lot between games?

The point I was getting at was that it varies wildly beyond the scope of what would make for a good game.  As a trivial example, let's say you had a card as follows:

Variance
$5 - Action
When you play this, if Baron is in the supply, +3 Buys, +$20.  Otherwise, if Duke is in the supply, lose your next 4 turns.  Otherwise, if Cellar is in the supply, +$3.

To be sure, this card varies in strength from game to game.  But when it's strong, it's too strong, and when it's weak, it's too weak, and when it's just right, that's a rare thing indeed.

Obviously this is more of an extreme case than the breed of card I was talking about, but that was the idea.

Right, I agree that a card that varies too wildly with each kingdom would be bad.  But I'm not convinced that this "cursed gold" (+$3, -2VP) varies that much.  Cards whose strength varies by kingdom are fun if they don't become dominant or dead too often. 

The point that I'm trying to make is that while too much variance is clearly a bad thing, a little variance is actually a good thing, and makes a card more interesting.  If a card has no variance, then it's always either a must-buy or a must-avoid, no matter the kingdom.

To use a similar example to the one you used, let's make another absurd card:

No-Variance
$5-Action
When you play this, gain 100 VP tokens, and end the game immediately.

That card would always clearly be the dominant strategy on any board.  Thus, its variance is zero.  But it's a boring card for that exact reason.  The interesting cards (i.e. the cards that lead to interesting gameplay decisions) are the ones whose strength varies by kingdom -- as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

[rinkworks]

Right, I agree that a card that varies too wildly with each kingdom would be bad.  But I'm not convinced that this "cursed gold" (+$3, -2VP) varies that much.

If there's trashing in the kingdom, such a card is basically a Gold for $5.  You buy a bunch, then trash as many as you can before the end of the game, and they might as well have been actual Golds.  Considering other $5 Gold equivalents have steep penalties, this is clearly a power card.  So maybe you crank up the VP penalty, to introduce a bit more risk.  Now look at games without trashing at all.  Would you really ever buy a Gold that put you down by a Duchy with no way to recover?  Maybe in Village+Goons games, where the point counts get so huge the penalty is dwarfed by comparison.  But in a normal Province game without trashing, probably even -2 VP is too steep.

To be sure, there will be boards where the balance is right.  But I'm pretty convinced that this is a very small percentage of boards.  And on top of that, there is also wild variance within games based on when you buy the card.  Buy it early, and you use the Gold a lot; buy it late, and you don't, but you still get the same penalty.  Sure, other cards are timing-sensitive too, like Chapel and Trading Post.  But those don't vary wildly on TWO axes, just the one.

Because the problem is that the benefit and the penalty don't scale with each other.  In a long Goons slog, you see the Gold a lot, but the -2 VP penalty only happens once.  There is no default point of balance.  It's either too much of a penalty, or too little, and only just right by accident.

Contrast the flat one-time -2 VP penalty with Cache's two Copper gain, or even the penalty of gaining a Curse separately.  Deck clog is a penalty that scales with the benefit.  The longer the game goes and the more you shuffle, the more you see the Gold AND the Coppers/Curse.  Buy it early, buy it late, buy it on a fast board, or buy it on a slow board -- the benefit and penalty will have a tendency to balance each other out, because the two sides aren't fluctuating independently of each other but in sync.  There is still PLENTY of variance, because different kingdoms will have different means by which to cope with the penalties.  Presence of trashing, sifting, etc, will help, while single-card chains will choke.  Envoy will penalize high-variance decks, while Oasis rewards them.  Stuff like that.  But the balance is anchored around a sensible average.

The fact that the Curses easily run out, though, is reason enough to avoid the "When you gain this, gain a Curse" variant.  I'm almost positive that was a consideration when Cache was designed.