Print

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

[theory]

Secret History link

For those of you keeping track here, those old abbreviations were indeed for slightly older card names.  Stonemason was originally named Mill, Plaza = Tavern, Masterpiece = Fortune, Journeyman = Guide.

[Schneau]

If anyone missed it, Donald also posted The Secret History of the Nonexistent Dominion VP Cards later in the thread.

[loppo]

and he also explained why he isn't showing up here anymore,which is kind of sad.

quote:
You don't need Donald X.; the real Donald X. was inside you the whole time.

I am here if anyone wants to chat with me about whatever; you don't even have to switch chairs. At dominionstrategy I found that I was spending time on pointless arguments with Dominion fans, and it was good times when I stopped doing that, so I'm not really looking for more of it.

[SirPeebles]

- worth 2 VP, Scout

[() | (_) ^/]

and he also explained why he isn't showing up here anymore,which is kind of sad.

quote:
You don't need Donald X.; the real Donald X. was inside you the whole time.

I am here if anyone wants to chat with me about whatever; you don't even have to switch chairs. At dominionstrategy I found that I was spending time on pointless arguments with Dominion fans, and it was good times when I stopped doing that, so I'm not really looking for more of it.

I agree... =(

[platykurtic]

For a bit I kind of wanted a new action-victory card, and tried +1 Action, reveal a card from your hand for the corresponding Ironworks bonus, 2 VP, for $4. It was fine but I mostly just liked that it was an action-victory card.

Poor Scout

[AJD]

Poor Scout

+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the revealed Victory cards in your hand and put the rest back in any order.
–$1 per Victory card in your hand.

[LastFootnote]

Well, if nothing else, the ensuing discussion in that thread has made me give up on getting any fan cards published.

[AdamH]

Donald said "Achievement Unlocked" (well he was quoting someone else) but that made me happy.

I'm going to start saying "Foosh" now. I'm thinking I'll save it for the next IRL game where I just grab the stack of Provinces/Colonies, putting it in my discard, without knowing or caring how many are there.

He said that overpay for coin tokens was "crazy" which I assume means OP and/or maybe swingy. I wonder if Curse would work for that...

About him not coming here, yeah. I guess what I have to say about his quote is "I CRI EVERTIM"

[Tables]

It's sad, but I can understand it. One guy with hundreds of people wanting to talk to him specifically about various aspects can get pretty overwhelming pretty quickly.

[() | (_) ^/]

It's sad, but I can understand it. One guy with hundreds of people wanting to talk to him specifically about various aspects can get pretty overwhelming pretty quickly.

It didn't sound like it was the talking in general that was the problem... I mean, he gets that at BGG already.  It sounds like it was some of the ... debating ... that was frustrating.  I think.

[werothegreat]

It's sad, but I can understand it. One guy with hundreds of people wanting to talk to him specifically about various aspects can get pretty overwhelming pretty quickly.

It didn't sound like it was the talking in general that was the problem... I mean, he gets that at BGG already.  It sounds like it was some of the ... debating ... that was frustrating.  I think.

There were a number of users on here who insinuated he was an idiot who didn't know what he was doing, despite inventing their favorite pastime.

[Tables]

I must have missed that... I could totally understand DXV disliking that. I know I would.

[Witherweaver]

It's sad, but I can understand it. One guy with hundreds of people wanting to talk to him specifically about various aspects can get pretty overwhelming pretty quickly.

It didn't sound like it was the talking in general that was the problem... I mean, he gets that at BGG already.  It sounds like it was some of the ... debating ... that was frustrating.  I think.

There were a number of users on here who insinuated he was an idiot who didn't know what he was doing, despite inventing their favorite pastime.

Can you phrase that in the meme of an Insanity Wolf?

[Stealth Tomato]

Donald is incredibly good at cheerfully telling people to fuck off, and it's awesome.

[Stealth Tomato]

I must have missed that... I could totally understand DXV disliking that. I know I would.

Remember when every thread about anything turned into "let's bitch endlessly about Goko without remotely breaking any new conversational ground"? He probably got even more tired of that than we did.

[NoMoreFun]

I was one of the haters.

I let him know how annoyed I was with the whole "not enough room" thing, and insinuated that he designed Thief to trick beginners and that he should have playtested Scout outside of all intrigue decks. Part of me thought that would convince him to write errata or make more expansions, but it was just verbal sparring for its own sake. I'd probably react similarly to any creator I see on a forum beyond the "holy shit he actually posts here" phase.

I am sorry to everyone here for contributing to his dislike of these forums. If he comes back I will try to make him feel welcome.

[Kirian]

It's sad, but I can understand it. One guy with hundreds of people wanting to talk to him specifically about various aspects can get pretty overwhelming pretty quickly.

It didn't sound like it was the talking in general that was the problem... I mean, he gets that at BGG already.  It sounds like it was some of the ... debating ... that was frustrating.  I think.

So, my curiosity got the better of me and I went looking.  It appears that these two threads were the last straw:

So when will Isotropic return? -- in which a silly question suddenly includes someone (in his first post) suggesting doing something illegal (and getting banned), Donald suggesting theory take the forums down to let people cool off, and a heated transaction between Donald and another user causes theory to lock the thread.

Goko UI makes me want to... -- in which a reasonable discussion gets derailed by the "I already paid for Dominion argument," and Donald and I end up on the same side of a heated argument with the same user as in the other thread, with a few other people on both sides.  I got fed up with the thread before Donald did.

So yeah, there was your breaking point.

[Witherweaver]

It's sad, but I can understand it. One guy with hundreds of people wanting to talk to him specifically about various aspects can get pretty overwhelming pretty quickly.

It didn't sound like it was the talking in general that was the problem... I mean, he gets that at BGG already.  It sounds like it was some of the ... debating ... that was frustrating.  I think.

So, my curiosity got the better of me and I went looking.  It appears that these two threads were the last straw:

So when will Isotropic return? -- in which a silly question suddenly includes someone (in his first post) suggesting doing something illegal (and getting banned), Donald suggesting theory take the forums down to let people cool off, and a heated transaction between Donald and another user causes theory to lock the thread.

Goko UI makes me want to... -- in which a reasonable discussion gets derailed by the "I already paid for Dominion argument," and Donald and I end up on the same side of a heated argument with the same user as in the other thread, with a few other people on both sides.  I got fed up with the thread before Donald did.

So yeah, there was your breaking point.

That was kind of.. well, either funny or sad, or both.  It feels like a lot of the negative tone was caused by (a) people feeling much more at ease saying rude and insulting things when you're behind the facade of a computer, and (b) people not using the same definitions/starting points for things and fighting about derivative stuff that isn't actually the basis of the disagreement. (In particular, the difference between a "sound" argument and a "valid" argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity was probably relevant.)

Or because (c) on every forum, there must exist trolls.  We should have had a troll Dominion card.  Maybe you play it as a reaction before an opponent buys a card or as a reaction to them playing an action that gives -1 coin, -1 buy, each card has its cost increased by (1) (... you know, because trolls live under bridges).

[dondon151]

1. I am not a troll.
2. Donald X. being the designer of Dominion doesn't give him the right to act like a jerk. I can't believe that some of you actually tried to justify his behavior.

Now, I don't really care if you think (or imply) that it's my fault that Donald X. doesn't post on f.DS anymore. I'm just going to insist that it isn't. Donald X. took perfectly logical responses to two different arguments and blew them up. You can tell from the content of my posts that I didn't have a hard-line stance on any of the issues, yet Donald X.'s argumentative side got the better of him and now he acts as if we've lost his grace.

[LastFootnote]

Well, arguing about arguments certainly isn't going to solve anything. Perhaps we should just let the whole thing rest.

Yes, it's sad that Donald is gone, but nothing lasts forever.

[crj]

So, my curiosity got the better of me and I went looking.  It appears that these two threads were the last straw

Um... yeah. That ought to do it.

All becomes clear, thanks. )-8

[ftl]

Yeah, so it was all the negativity with Goko that finally did it. Sad. Well, maybe he'll be back eventually, the community seems to have settled down a little since that time.

[Dsell]

Yeah, so it was all the negativity with Goko that finally did it. Sad. Well, maybe he'll be back eventually, the community seems to have settled down a little since that time.

Settled down a lot, I think. It's pretty rare to see Goko-hate these days. The most I've noticed is an occasional jab and genuine constructive criticism.

[dondon151]

The thing is that Donald X. did not need to get involved in the argument at all. Any informed party knew that the decision to take down Isotropic was not his to make.

[heron]

I think part of the issue was that we are smart people, and as such we like to make clever, witty comments that are mildly insulting and stick them in our arguments.
And then the argued person is like, whoa man, don't be a jerk like that with your witty-but-insulting comment! I'm going to write something clever about how that was a jerk move!

Also, lets try to avoid this thread going the way those two did! I was going to post a clever but mildly insulting argument about why I was right about something, but then I was like, hey man, that would be a jerk move!

[ashersky]

I think part of the issue was that we are smart people, and as such we like to make clever, witty comments that are mildly insulting and stick them in our arguments.
And then the argued person is like, whoa man, don't be a jerk like that with your witty-but-insulting comment! I'm going to write something clever about how that was a jerk move!

Also, lets try to avoid this thread going the way those two did! I was going to post a clever but mildly insulting argument about why I was right about something, but then I was like, hey man, that would be a jerk move!

Jerk.

[Watno]

The thing is that Donald X. did not need to get involved in the argument at all. Any informed party knew that the decision to take down Isotropic was not his to make.

You didn't need to get involved in thata rgument either.

[WanderingWinder]

Are we seriously having an argument about the previous argument, here and now?

[Voltaire]

Hey, Guilds! Count me among those bummed we didn't get more duration cards. But coin tokens are really cool!

[ftl]

Yeah, I'm definitely sad we're out of duration cards. The thing with the duration mechanic is that you can combine it with all the others - you could have duration cards that give you choices, duration-VP cards, duration-attacks, durations that give you coin tokens or interact with the trash or care about variety and so on. So I think there's a very wide unexplored strategy space there.

[LastFootnote]

Yeah, I'm definitely sad we're out of duration cards. The thing with the duration mechanic is that you can combine it with all the others - you could have duration cards that give you choices, duration-VP cards, duration-attacks, durations that give you coin tokens or interact with the trash or care about variety and so on. So I think there's a very wide unexplored strategy space there.

The question is, is it actually interesting to slap all of those effects on Duration cards?

[Witherweaver]

Are we seriously having an argument about the previous argument, here and now?

I'm going to say, "No, we are not," so that we can here and now have an argument about whether or not we're having an argument about the previous argument.

You've been meta'd!

[Hockey Mask]

I am also hoping for some good Duration cards in the future but aren't Coin Tokens the epitome of the Duration mechanic?

[ftl]

Yeah, I'm definitely sad we're out of duration cards. The thing with the duration mechanic is that you can combine it with all the others - you could have duration cards that give you choices, duration-VP cards, duration-attacks, durations that give you coin tokens or interact with the trash or care about variety and so on. So I think there's a very wide unexplored strategy space there.

The question is, is it actually interesting to slap all of those effects on Duration cards?

Not sure, but why not? Making a card a duration makes it play a little differently, so presumably it's one more twist to add. Duration-attacks in particular could be interesting - it will generate the situation where you play through your turn knowing in advance that you'll be attacked after it, and knowing what the attack will be. That could be different.

I mean, it's not like I've playtested them, maybe they end up playing not much differently, I don't know. But based on the outtakes DXV posted, it doesn't look like a space that he tried to explore much either, so perhaps there's good stuff to be had there.

I am also hoping for some good Duration cards in the future but aren't Coin Tokens the epitome of the Duration mechanic?

That's a good point, saving up coin tokens is sort of like a duration. That works.

[Voltaire]

I am also hoping for some good Duration cards in the future but aren't Coin Tokens the epitome of the Duration mechanic?

Nothing can fill the orange-colored hole in my Dominion heart.

[dondon151]

You didn't need to get involved in thata rgument either.

Of course, Donald X. can say anything that he wants and I have no right to call him out on it!

[LastFootnote]

You didn't need to get involved in thata rgument either.

Of course, Donald X. can say anything that he wants and I have no right to call him out on it!

Dude, no one has directly accused you of being the reason Donald left the site. Even if they do, no big deal. It was his decision. Do you really feel the need to prolong this discussion by defending yourself against claims that haven't even been made?

I mean, what do you even think people are thinking? That you're a jerk? You are a jerk. But the internet is full of jerks like you and me, but you have to learn to ignore them when they're being jerks.

[dondon151]

Dude, no one has directly accused you of being the reason Donald left the site. Even if they do, no big deal. It was his decision. Do you really feel the need to prolong this discussion by defending yourself against claims that haven't even been made?

I am not defending myself against those presumed claims.

I mean, what do you even think people are thinking? That you're a jerk? You are a jerk. But the internet is full of jerks like you and me, but you have to learn to ignore them when they're being jerks.

Yeah, dude. Learn to ignore them.

[Voltaire]

Guildzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz guys. Guildz.

Plaza: Originally this also let you trade a coin token for +1 Card. The card was plenty good without that, plus I wanted to cut complexity wherever I could.

Yay cutting complexity! And yay Donald saying it would have been better to simplify some cards in Hinterlands. Some cards felt like stuff was tacked-on (reaction ability of Fools Gold) and in reading the Secret Histories learning some stuff literally was stuck on made sense.

[LastFootnote]

Guildzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz guys. Guildz.

Plaza: Originally this also let you trade a coin token for +1 Card. The card was plenty good without that, plus I wanted to cut complexity wherever I could.

Yay cutting complexity! And yay Donald saying it would have been better to simplify some cards in Hinterlands. Some cards felt like stuff was tacked-on (reaction ability of Fools Gold) and in reading the Secret Histories learning some stuff literally was stuck on made sense.

Oh, I don't know. I think Fool's Gold's reaction is a good fit. If you lose the split, or once your deck can no longer draw them together, it gives you a useful alternative.

Trader with the reaction is just so much cooler than Trader without the reaction.

[Voltaire]

Trader with the reaction is just so much cooler than Trader without the reaction.

On that specific one I agree.

[AJD]

Duration-attacks in particular could be interesting - it will generate the situation where you play through your turn knowing in advance that you'll be attacked after it, and knowing what the attack will be. That could be different.

I think Donald X said somewhere that one reason there aren't any Duration Attacks is that tracking would be a headache with Moat and Lighthouse.

[werothegreat]

What about a Duration card that did nothing this turn, but gave you 2 or 3 VP next turn.  So if you plop a few down, that gives your opponents incentive to hurry up and end the game.

[enfynet]

Now and at the start of your next turn:

Gain a coin token. Each other player discards down to three cards in his hand.


There... An Orange Guilds Attack card.

[Warfreak2]

If I have a Moat this turn, does its protection last for the Duration, too? Since it's the same attack at the start of your next turn, you didn't play it again, so I think it should. Then, does the Moat "stay out" like a Throne Room would? That would be perverse, since now I don't have the Moat in my hand to play during my turn - but if not, how do we keep track of who is immune to the attack on your next turn? If I get a Moat next turn, can I reveal it? No, but people will argue about it and say it's not fair. And then there's Lighthouse...

I think a Duration Attack would just be a massive headache, it wouldn't make the game more fun.

[sudgy]

You could have a duration attack that only attacks this turn, and not the next.

[Hockey Mask]

You could have a duration attack that only attacks this turn, and not the next.

Make it next turn.  That way you can make 'em think about it.

[D Bo]

You could have a duration attack that only attacks this turn, and not the next.

Is that a duration then? Just seems like you're leaving a card in play for no reason. Except for that it's orange and orange is pretty.

[Voltaire]

You could have a duration attack that only attacks this turn, and not the next.

Is that a duration then? Just seems like you're leaving a card in play for no reason. Except for that it's orange and orange is pretty.

It could give you a bonus both turns. Something like +2 cards now and next turn, and also it attacks when you play it.

[Awaclus]

It could give you a bonus both turns. Something like +2 cards now and next turn, and also it attacks when you play it.

It could make all other players discard their Duration cards, so it could be used as an answer to Lighthouse!

No, wait...

[Warfreak2]

Duration cards stay out as a reminder - you get the duration effect even if they aren't in play (edge case: "while this is in play" clause, that's only Lighthouse which is immune anyway), e.g. because of Procession. An attack that discards Duration cards would actually be a subtle trap; it helps the opponents play them again sooner.

[Witherweaver]

I guess you'd have to make some choices with the rules on how you want them to work, but I don't think it would be a nightmare. 

With moat:

1) Opponent plays attack-duration card during his turn.
2) You reveal Moat; the on-play effect of the card does not effect you.
3) Either:
3a) When you discard Moat while the attack-duration is in effect, set Moat aside and discard Moat when the attack-duration card is discarded during your opponent's cleanup phase.  You are protected against the duration-attack effect during your opponent's next turn.  If you revealed Moat against multiple attacks, leave it out until the last attack-duration is discarded (this should only matter in a weird case of Outpost where they played attacks during the first and second turn and you somehow discarded Moat form some effect in the middle somewhere).  You can not "reveal" Moat for other attacks while it is set-aside (as it is not in your hand).
3b) Play as normal, getting affected by the duration-attack effect as normal.
4) You can't "reveal" Moat against the duration-attack effect of the card on the future turn.

To me (3a) and (3b) seem a tossup.  I would go for (3b) for simplicity, but (3a) would make Moat better, which it probably needs.

For Lighthouse I don't think there should be any change:

1) You play a lighthouse
2) Opponent plays an attack-duration card; you are not effected
3) Your next turn, you discard lighthouse during cleanup
4) Opponent's next turn; you are effected by the duration-attack part because lighthouse is no longer in play. (Unless you played a second Lighthouse). 

[AJD]

Neither of your two proposals about Moat are correct. The rules are unambiguous about how Duration–Attacks would interact with Moat.

1. Opponent plays Duration–Attack during his turn.
2. You reveal Moat; the this-turn effect of the Attack does not affect you.
3. Later, you play your turn, discarding the Moat.
4. The next-turn effect of the Attack also doesn't affect you, because you revealed Moat when it was played.

The problem is remembering, when (4) comes comes around, who revealed a Moat back at (2). But there's no other way to interpret the cards and rules.

Lighthouse is a little more ambiguous: Moat says "you are unaffected by that Attack", which clearly includes any future effects, but Lighthouse says "when another player plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect you", which might mean that effects of an Attack card that take place at times other than when it's played aren't blocked, but could also be interpreted the same way Moat is.

[Witherweaver]

I see your point there, it does say "you are unaffected by that Attack," so it would hold for the next turn as well.  I was proposing the Moat should stick around as long as the duration does, like you do with Throne Room and King's Court.

I would think Lighthouse would be the latter one.

EDIT: I don't remember the wording of duration cards with other cards.  Is it "if you play a duration card with another card" type of language?  That would not encompass Moat as is (since it is not played), but it feels like this should be changed for cards that are still "doing stuff" when the duration card is doing stuff.

EDIT: I found the wording from the rulebook:

If you play or modify a Duration card with another card, that
other card also stays in your play area until it is no longer doing
anything. For example if you play Throne Room on Merchant
Ship, both cards stay in play until the Clean-up phase of your next
turn. The Throne Room stays in play to remind you that you are
getting the effect of Merchant Ship twice on that next turn.

I think "modify" was put there for the hypothetical Enchant card.  I would say Moat counts as modifying, though (or at least in the same spirit) so the rules aren't clear here. 

[AJD]

EDIT: I found the wording from the rulebook:

If you play or modify a Duration card with another card, that
other card also stays in your play area until it is no longer doing
anything. For example if you play Throne Room on Merchant
Ship, both cards stay in play until the Clean-up phase of your next
turn. The Throne Room stays in play to remind you that you are
getting the effect of Merchant Ship twice on that next turn.

I think "modify" was put there for the hypothetical Enchant card.  I would say Moat counts as modifying, though (or at least in the same spirit) so the rules aren't clear here.

Moat never enters anybody's play area, though, and certainly not that of the person who played the Duration, so it can't "stay in your play area" in any case.

[Witherweaver]

Sure, which is why I'd say the rule should be reworded.  Things that do things with duration cards are supposed to stay out until they're done doing those things for tracking purposes: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/456393/throne-room-duration-cards/page/1, when Donald chimes in about Throne-Throne-Duration and the rest.

[Warfreak2]

I thought the "modify" bit referred to Throne Room, Kings Court and Procession. "If you play or modify a Duration card with another card" = "If you play a Duration card, or modify a Duration card with another card".

[Witherweaver]

I'm pretty sure he put "modify" in to include more general cases, because he may have wanted to make the "Enchant" card work eventually.  In fact he exactly says that:

I talk about "modifying" as a general term for this, rather than say "Throning," because at one point I thought someday I might do stuff like "play an action, increasing numbers in its text by 2" (which has horrible problems but they're not the point now okay), and that kind of thing works the same way, it has to stay out to track what was modified.

Edit: So apparently (upon reading that post until the end), Donald changed his mind about things playing things playing Durations to only the card that immediately played the duration card stays out.  I guess that's how it's implemented online, though I never bothered to check. 

[WanderingWinder]

Moat doesn't modify the attack, it modifies what it does to YOU. This is probably clearer in a 4 player game, where obviously the moat only applies to one of the attacked players. It also seems weird to me that I should have to leave my card with that duration, as usually I get to keep it in my hand so I can play it, defend against other attacks, etc.

[Witherweaver]

The moat's ability is still active when the next turn of the duration comes around, though.  The wording of the rule book doesn't make that clear, but the discussion about tracking things indicates that's what one would want to have happen if it could be made to work out.

It probably couldn't, though.  The only way to handle the tracking thing would be to withhold setting aside Moat until it would leave your hand (since you should be able to reveal it again or play it during your turn), which is what I was saying in the earlier post. But then you have to keep track of when you would discard it, which isn't all that better.  Probably better to scrap the idea of setting it aside at all and just remember that you're immune to the attack. 

So, yeah, this is all probably why Attack-Duration cards don't exist.

[LastFootnote]

It's all too confusing to justify a card that attacks on the next turn, which I believe was the original point.

You could still do an Action — Attack — Duration card, though. Perhaps a card that stole and set aside Treasure cards from other players, then put one of those set-aside cards into your hand at the start of your next turn.

[florrat]

Sure, which is why I'd say the rule should be reworded.  Things that do things with duration cards are supposed to stay out until they're done doing those things for tracking purposes: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/456393/throne-room-duration-cards/page/1, when Donald chimes in about Throne-Throne-Duration and the rest.

Please don't like to threads with outdated answers. The rules Donald states over there are outdated and are wrong (see the last post in that thread).