Print

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

[GeoLib]

Hi all - just found this thread. Can't find interview  but just thought I'd add my view.

First of all congrats to Donald X. for such a cool game - my wife and I have been playing it with 2-3 other people for 18 months now. We bought all the sets pretty early on and are pretty satisfied with the cards.

What I really like is that most cards go happily with most other cards (unlike, say, munchkin where throwing too many sets together can make for lots of cards unable to interact with each other). The only exception really is Alchemy. Love the idea, just feel there are not enough cards needing potions to buy them over repeated gameplay, so my one wish would be some extra Alchemy cards to give that set a bit of oomph.

I found Dark Ages and Hinterlands offered some really entertaining cards to play with and have my vote as most fun expansions FWIW....also does someone have a link to the interview?
cheers
Cas Liber

The interview from 2012 is on the main blog, which isn't used that much anymore (here, specifically). This thread has continued to be a place to ask Donald questions since then.

[eHalcyon]

You may also be interested in reading the Secret Histories.  That forum also contains various other thoughts from Donald about Dominion and game design/development in general.  Some of them are posted by theory and taken from other sources (mostly BGG, I think), but it is a nice convenient collection of reading material.

[Davio]

Hi all - just found this thread. Can't find interview  but just thought I'd add my view.

First of all congrats to Donald X. for such a cool game - my wife and I have been playing it with 2-3 other people for 18 months now. We bought all the sets pretty early on and are pretty satisfied with the cards.

What I really like is that most cards go happily with most other cards (unlike, say, munchkin where throwing too many sets together can make for lots of cards unable to interact with each other). The only exception really is Alchemy. Love the idea, just feel there are not enough cards needing potions to buy them over repeated gameplay, so my one wish would be some extra Alchemy cards to give that set a bit of oomph.

I found Dark Ages and Hinterlands offered some really entertaining cards to play with and have my vote as most fun expansions FWIW....also does someone have a link to the interview?
cheers
Cas Liber

`
I think this is only true for Transmute and Philosopher's Stone, maybe a bit for Golem because 4P is quite steep.
All of the other cards are definitely good enough that you'd get a Potion just for them. Alchemist is also sometimes skippable, but I don't have many issues with it if it's the only Potion card.

What I mean is: Scrying Pool, Apothecary, University, Familiar, Possession, Alchemist and Vineyards will see about the same amount of play whether there are any other Potion costing cards or not. They are not really influenced by it, rather they're influenced by other factors in the kingdom.

Alchemy has this semi-official rule to include at least 3 Potion-costers if you're playing with a Potion-coster: I think if you've randomly selected Transmute, Philosopher's Stone or Golem, you should include at least one other Potion-coster to make the kingdom more fun.

[Cas Liber]

The "interview" is an ongoing thing. Post your questions and he'll answer.

Cool,  thanks for that!

PS: Thanks all folks - found secret histories and interview now 

[Cas Liber]

Hi all - just found this thread. Can't find interview  but just thought I'd add my view.

First of all congrats to Donald X. for such a cool game - my wife and I have been playing it with 2-3 other people for 18 months now. We bought all the sets pretty early on and are pretty satisfied with the cards.

What I really like is that most cards go happily with most other cards (unlike, say, munchkin where throwing too many sets together can make for lots of cards unable to interact with each other). The only exception really is Alchemy. Love the idea, just feel there are not enough cards needing potions to buy them over repeated gameplay, so my one wish would be some extra Alchemy cards to give that set a bit of oomph.

I found Dark Ages and Hinterlands offered some really entertaining cards to play with and have my vote as most fun expansions FWIW....also does someone have a link to the interview?
cheers
Cas Liber

`
I think this is only true for Transmute and Philosopher's Stone, maybe a bit for Golem because 4P is quite steep.
All of the other cards are definitely good enough that you'd get a Potion just for them. Alchemist is also sometimes skippable, but I don't have many issues with it if it's the only Potion card.

What I mean is: Scrying Pool, Apothecary, University, Familiar, Possession, Alchemist and Vineyards will see about the same amount of play whether there are any other Potion costing cards or not. They are not really influenced by it, rather they're influenced by other factors in the kingdom.

Alchemy has this semi-official rule to include at least 3 Potion-costers if you're playing with a Potion-coster: I think if you've randomly selected Transmute, Philosopher's Stone or Golem, you should include at least one other Potion-coster to make the kingdom more fun.

Oops, what I meant was we've played lots of games, and always have a minimum of 3 Alchemy cards if we're using Alchemy - hence doing this one goes through (and gets familiar with) various combinations of Alchemy cards fairly quickly, so if there is one segment of the game that would benefit from some boosting then this would be my vote for it - another small (guilds/cornucopia/alchemy-sized) box with a bunch of cards that either need be bought or otherwise interact with potions.

I must admit as time's gone on I enjoy cards that interact with other players more. Initially we felt reluctant using attack cards on each other (being a bunch of quiet 40-somethings) while my teenaged son would fling attack cards around with reckless abandon, but as time's gone on I enjoy them more and would like to see more cards like this (action/reaction, or Advisor/Contraband/Masquerade type cards).

So...errr....Donald X. this'd be my request - more Alchemy-compatible (heck, call it Dark Arts and fling in cards for being nefarious against each other ) and interactive...but in truth am pretty happy...just feel a bit sad as our Alchemy cards are a bit negected.
cheers
Cas

[Cas Liber]

Looking at Donald's secret histories...yeah I wish Bank had been in Alchemy. I find it a bit overpowered even at a cost of 7, folks gun for it. 4 + P would have been better - slightly less accessible.

Hoard is one card we make a b-line for. I wonder if 6 is still too cheap for it.

Some of those possible cards at the bottom of the secret history of dark ages sound fun too....

[Eevee]

The community voted bank 11th out of 16 6+ cost cards*, it's definitely not overpowered. Yeah, it's crazy good sometimes, but usually just a tiny bit better than gold (and sometimes a lot worse). Hoard is very much where it belongs at 6 too, I doubt it would see much play if it costed 7. Many of the decks that want hoard have trouble reaching 6, let alone 7.


*http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11791.0)

[DStu]

A relevant update on RGG's website:
http://riograndegames.com/

For those who didn't find it in the wall of text/too lazy to click through:

We are also planning a additions to the Dominion and Race for the Galaxy families of games for 2015. We will provide further information on these games in early 2015.

It IS a new expansion and a large one.

Jay

[Polk5440]

A relevant update on RGG's website:
http://riograndegames.com/

For those who didn't find it in the wall of text/too lazy to click through:

We are also planning a additions to the Dominion and Race for the Galaxy families of games for 2015. We will provide further information on these games in early 2015.

It IS a new expansion and a large one.

Jay

The real question is who designed it?

[jsh357]

A relevant update on RGG's website:
http://riograndegames.com/

For those who didn't find it in the wall of text/too lazy to click through:

We are also planning a additions to the Dominion and Race for the Galaxy families of games for 2015. We will provide further information on these games in early 2015.

It IS a new expansion and a large one.

Jay

The real question is who designed it?

I can answer that one.  His name starts with D and the end rhymes with Nidorino.

[eHalcyon]

Who in the world is Didorino?

[Polk5440]

A relevant update on RGG's website:
http://riograndegames.com/

For those who didn't find it in the wall of text/too lazy to click through:

We are also planning a additions to the Dominion and Race for the Galaxy families of games for 2015. We will provide further information on these games in early 2015.

It IS a new expansion and a large one.

Jay

The real question is who designed it?

I can answer that one.  His name starts with D and the end rhymes with Nidorino.

Really? I thought "D. Nidorino" was done making Dominion expansions and new ones would have to be designed by someone else.

[Watno]

Oops, what I meant was we've played lots of games, and always have a minimum of 3 Alchemy cards if we're using Alchemy - hence doing this one goes through (and gets familiar with) various combinations of Alchemy cards fairly quickly

Try playing withou the restriction. I think it makes much more interesting. If you always have at least 3 Alcehmy cards, the decison to buy a potion is usually pbvious, if you only have one, it's much more of a strategic choice.

I love the familiar pun by the way.

[jsh357]

Yeah, I firmly think the suggestion of playing with >2 Potion cost cards is a mistake.  It's nice when you're first learning the cards, but all of the Alchemy cards are worth buying at some point even if they are alone, and Dominion is designed to be played with random sets of 10 anyway.  It'll work out for you.

[liopoil]

all of the Alchemy cards are worth buying at some point even if they are alone

I'm pretty sure I've never gotten a potion just for transmute. There's always been something else. But that's not the fault of alchemy, transmute is just weak.

[Witherweaver]

all of the Alchemy cards are worth buying at some point even if they are alone

I'm pretty sure I've never gotten a potion just for transmute. There's always been something else. But that's not the fault of alchemy, transmute is just weak.

They can't all be the best $0P ever.

[LastFootnote]

Try playing withou the restriction. I think it makes much more interesting. If you always have at least 3 Alcehmy cards, the decison to buy a potion is usually pbvious, if you only have one, it's much more of a strategic choice.

This is a common misconception, propagated by players who always play full random and therefore usually have no more than one Alchemy card in a game. In games with several Potion-cost cards, the question of "should I buy a Potion?" is merely expanded to "how many Potions should I buy and when?". And although it's rare, zero Potions is sometimes still a valid answer.

[LastFootnote]

I'm pretty sure I've never gotten a potion just for transmute. There's always been something else. But that's not the fault of alchemy, transmute is just weak.

Transmute isn't actually weak. Its problem is that—unlike all the other Potion-cost cards—you almost never want more than one copy of it. So buying a Potion just to buy a single Transmute is way too slow and leaves you with a dead Potion in your deck.

So, yeah. I agree that Transmute is almost never worth getting a Potion for. But it's not because it's a weak card. It's because your Potion then becomes a liability in your deck.

[liopoil]

Try playing withou the restriction. I think it makes much more interesting. If you always have at least 3 Alcehmy cards, the decison to buy a potion is usually pbvious, if you only have one, it's much more of a strategic choice.

This is a common misconception, propagated by players who always play full random and therefore usually have no more than one Alchemy card in a game. In games with several Potion-cost cards, the question of "should I buy a Potion?" is merely expanded to "how many Potions should I buy and when?". And although it's rare, zero Potions is sometimes still a valid answer.

Occasionally you want two potions even when there is only one potion-cost (vineyards, sometimes Alchemist). Even with multiple potion cost cards in the kingdom you still almost always will want at most two potions. So I think that with just one potion-cost usually the choices are the same, except that with multiple potion-costs zero potions is very rarely a valid answer, as you say.

I'm pretty sure I've never gotten a potion just for transmute. There's always been something else. But that's not the fault of alchemy, transmute is just weak.

Transmute isn't actually weak. Its problem is that—unlike all the other Potion-cost cards—you almost never want more than one copy of it. So buying a Potion just to buy a single Transmute is way too slow and leaves you with a dead Potion in your deck.

So, yeah. I agree that Transmute is almost never worth getting a Potion for. But it's not because it's a weak card. It's because your Potion then becomes a liability in your deck.

Transmute is weak for it's cost, just like any other weak card. I'd buy adventurer plenty if it only cost 2...

[LastFootnote]

Transmute isn't actually weak. Its problem is that—unlike all the other Potion-cost cards—you almost never want more than one copy of it. So buying a Potion just to buy a single Transmute is way too slow and leaves you with a dead Potion in your deck.

So, yeah. I agree that Transmute is almost never worth getting a Potion for. But it's not because it's a weak card. It's because your Potion then becomes a liability in your deck.

Transmute is weak for it's cost, just like any other weak card. I'd buy adventurer plenty if it only cost 2...

But Adventurer's cost doesn't swing wildly depending on what else is on the board. Transmute's does. If you can use that Potion to pick up Alchemists and Golems as well, Transmute's cost is drastically lessened.

[Mic Qsenoch]

Try playing withou the restriction. I think it makes much more interesting. If you always have at least 3 Alcehmy cards, the decison to buy a potion is usually pbvious, if you only have one, it's much more of a strategic choice.

This is a common misconception, propagated by players who always play full random and therefore usually have no more than one Alchemy card in a game. In games with several Potion-cost cards, the question of "should I buy a Potion?" is merely expanded to "how many Potions should I buy and when?". And although it's rare, zero Potions is sometimes still a valid answer.

I have played the heavy Alchemy games (some with you from your horrid/blasphemous two expansion selection method) and they come up in full random anyway. Also there was an Isodom forever ago where we played expansion heavy rounds. This is not a misconception, though one can argue about the percentages, the general effect is to make buying a single Potion extremely favorable.

Vineyards is the easiest case for adding multiple Potions (but it doesn't really require more Potion cost cards to encourage it), with Apothecary/SP/Alchemist it can happen but you probably need +buy on the board (and you need to get the +buy and the money in hand before the cheap Potion cards are gone). My experience (granted it's less than yours) has been that 0 potions is dramatically reduced, >1 is boosted a bit but not as much as the 0s are reduced.

edit: to clarify, I don't really think one way or the other is more interesting, this is just my experience about the number of Potions to buy.

[DStu]

I think we had this discussions like 100 times before.

I think common agreement is that it both makes interesting games if you cluster alchemy cards, and if you don't. Like with every other set. It's just that because of the line in the rulebook, there are many people who cluster Alchemy and nothing else.  And it's definitely not neccessary for getting use out of the potion costs cards.

My opinion is that Alchemy feels overpowered if you always cluster, and maybe is also dislike most for exactly that reason (and Posssession). But as said, like with every* other biased selection, it can make interesting games, especially if you want to go more action-heavy.

[Donald X.]

So...errr....Donald X. this'd be my request - more Alchemy-compatible (heck, call it Dark Arts and fling in cards for being nefarious against each other ) and interactive...but in truth am pretty happy...just feel a bit sad as our Alchemy cards are a bit negected.

Alchemy is the least popular set, so it just doesn't make any sense to make more of it. It wouldn't be doing that instead of not doing it; it would be doing that instead of doing something else. Something else would be better.

[Donald X.]

Yeah, I firmly think the suggestion of playing with >2 Potion cost cards is a mistake.  It's nice when you're first learning the cards, but all of the Alchemy cards are worth buying at some point even if they are alone, and Dominion is designed to be played with random sets of 10 anyway.  It'll work out for you.

I struggled to make the cards in Alchemy worth getting when only one was out. Which is why it has an action theme; the cards all wanted to be spammable (Transmute fits this because you can Transmute a Transmute; Possession is an exception because it costs so much). The action theme made the set slow and well if I had it to do again it would have two VP cards and two treasures.

Valerie and Dale wanted the "play with multiple Alchemy cards" thing in the rulebook. They didn't like the cards when just one was out.

[AJD]

Transmute isn't actually weak. Its problem is that—unlike all the other Potion-cost cards—you almost never want more than one copy of it.

That's unfortunate if true, given that one of Transmute's abilities is gaining more copies of Transmute.