Print

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

[pacovf]

LastFootnote, i like your idea. I'm just not certain whether bringing together two breaks of unwritten Dominion rules isn't a bit too much...

I'm not sure which two rules you mean. I assume you're talking about the two new things it does, which are: a card that returns to your hand when played, and a reaction that always triggers at the start of your buy phase. Do not be afraid of new stuff! New stuff is cool! The important things are:

#1. It's not too confusing.
#2. It plays well (not too many tracking/logistics issues).
#3. It's fun (for at least some players).

Anyway, I don't think the card would be confusing and I think it would play better than River as printed. If it turns out lousy, you can always go back to Jeweler as you have it here. You can try River as you have it here too of course, but I'm not optimistic there. I love how simple River is, but I worry that it's just dead without villages.

Rats without TfB (and edge cases) is deader than River without villages, and I think there's marginally more villages than TfB? So there are precedents.

Then again I am the guy who campaigned to price River at $5 in that other thread (Counting House argument), so I might be biased.

[TheOthin]

I don't think the Action-Treasure thing would work, either. It'd have two on-play effects, one for playing it as an Action and one for playing it as a Treasure, and the explaining it'd take to lay out both would be much more troublesome than just having it be a Reaction.

[Asper]

LastFootnote, i like your idea. I'm just not certain whether bringing together two breaks of unwritten Dominion rules isn't a bit too much...

I'm not sure which two rules you mean. I assume you're talking about the two new things it does, which are: a card that returns to your hand when played, and a reaction that always triggers at the start of your buy phase. Do not be afraid of new stuff! New stuff is cool! The important things are:

#1. It's not too confusing.
#2. It plays well (not too many tracking/logistics issues).
#3. It's fun (for at least some players).

Anyway, I don't think the card would be confusing and I think it would play better than River as printed. If it turns out lousy, you can always go back to Jeweler as you have it here. You can try River as you have it here too of course, but I'm not optimistic there. I love how simple River is, but I worry that it's just dead without villages.

Rats without TfB (and edge cases) is deader than River without villages, and I think there's marginally more villages than TfB? So there are precedents.

Then again I am the guy who campaigned to price River at $5 in that other thread (Counting House argument), so I might be biased.

Well, Rats can also replace Curses with pseudo-Confusions, which might not be great, but as each played Rats gains another one, the opportunity cost is pretty low, too.

Also, here's how Reaction River would look like:



Fun fact: When i made Jeweler, i breifly considered Moat-Copper instead of Smithy-Silver for $3 because i thought the second option could become a monolithic strategy. I dismissed it as having a too high opportunity cost. I'll definitely try this

Edit: Effectively giving +2 cards, +$1 on a single play is pretty strong when compared too Smithy, though... Isn't it?

[Awaclus]

I usually use a cell phone as VP tokens in Goons games.

[pacovf]

Edit: Effectively giving +2 cards, +$1 on a single play is pretty strong when compared too Smithy, though... Isn't it?

I do think so...

You could try the less exciting "choose one: +1 action, + $1; or +2 cards, return this to your hand."

But I am not convinced River is the card that wants this effect tacked onto it. If there aren't any villages, this doesn't really make it so much more attractive to buy, because the main effect is still only moat. And if there are villages, River is already strong enough. YMMV.

[Asper]

Edit: Effectively giving +2 cards, +$1 on a single play is pretty strong when compared too Smithy, though... Isn't it?

I do think so...

You could try the less exciting "choose one: +1 action, + $1; or +2 cards, return this to your hand."

But I am not convinced River is the card that wants this effect tacked onto it. If there aren't any villages, this doesn't really make it so much more attractive to buy, because the main effect is still only moat. And if there are villages, River is already strong enough. YMMV.

I don't know. As you said, without Villages, this is still a bad card. So it makes the card more complex without solving its main issue.

I don't really want it to cost $4, either. But i do feel it almost certainly needs to cost that as printed. I mean, it's not strictly better than Smithy, but with the discard for Copper, you can open double-River at practically no risk at all at get more than from Smithy. The only minor deficit is that the +$1 doesn't happen if you play it several times, but the fact that it highly pushes the first play destroys my reason to cost it at $3 in the first place.

I'd rather have it give a buy. Buys don't really scale much, either, and they are also often pretty useless in the early game, contrary to Jeweleriver.
Edit: Of course, the problem here is that you have to count buys without a card in play. Ugh. On the other hand, you have to count Actions, so you might be able to figure it out retrospectively, even if you lose track of the number of buys itself. Official cards also allready have that problem.

[LastFootnote]

I think it's fine at $3. Compare to Courtyard.

[Asper]

I think it's fine at $3. Compare to Courtyard.

I'll try it. Like its older incarnations, it still has the problem of being rather bad if you want those actions for something else. I will also try a version that is just blank River with a buy and see which works better. I really find myself unable to judge its power at this point.

[Drab Emordnilap]

You could word Parliment as

"You may play an action card from your hand. If it costs 4 or less, play it again. If it costs 3 or less, play it a third time."

[Asper]

You could word Parliment as

"You may play an action card from your hand. If it costs 4 or less, play it again. If it costs 3 or less, play it a third time."

It looks nicer than my wording and also doesn't go crazy with cost reducers, but i'd still rather avoid the edge case of cost reducers getting played more often because they altered their own cost on the first play. Maybe i'm too stubborn here, but i experience that cost reduction is one of the most confusing topics (especially to inexperienced players), and i'd like to avoid a wording that opens that door if not necessary.

Edit: but i'll think about it tomorrow and maybe give it a shot. Thank you for the suggestion
I'm off for now, it's 03:26. Good night and thank you all for your great ideas and considerations.

[AJD]

Regarding Dungeon and Paddock, I know it's not always meaningful to blue-sky compare costs based on changing vanilla bonuses, but:

I think Paddock (Peddler + gain a Silver) seems pretty strong for $5. Compare Explorer, which is usually "terminal silver, gain a Silver" for $5; Peddler is a lot stronger than terminal silver. I dunno, I recognize that Explorer has a shot at Gold-gaining, so maaaaybe it evens out.

Dungeon (curser + Victory card per empty pile) sounds balanced to me. It's a scaling victory card, yes; but don't think of it as a scaling card because it doesn't scale very much. Think of it as more like Nobles or Harem or Tunnel, a functional Victory card worth about 2 points. This makes Dungeon : Witch :: Dame Josephine : Sir Destry, which seems like a fair $5 card. Dame Josephine is on the weak side, but Dungeon has the added bonus that you have a shot at getting it up to 3 points in some games.

[Asper]

Regarding Dungeon and Paddock, I know it's not always meaningful to blue-sky compare costs based on changing vanilla bonuses, but:

I think Paddock (Peddler + gain a Silver) seems pretty strong for $5. Compare Explorer, which is usually "terminal silver, gain a Silver" for $5; Peddler is a lot stronger than terminal silver. I dunno, I recognize that Explorer has a shot at Gold-gaining, so maaaaybe it evens out.

Dungeon (curser + Victory card per empty pile) sounds balanced to me. It's a scaling victory card, yes; but don't think of it as a scaling card because it doesn't scale very much. Think of it as more like Nobles or Harem or Tunnel, a functional Victory card worth about 2 points. This makes Dungeon : Witch :: Dame Josephine : Sir Destry, which seems like a fair $5 card. Dame Josephine is on the weak side, but Dungeon has the added bonus that you have a shot at getting it up to 3 points in some games.

Well, Explorer looks weak when compared to Squire, too. $1 coin for what, a cost decrease of $3, two additional options and an on-trash clause? O-okay... I think we have to consider the Gold gaining as something big, even if it isn't, just so Explorer doesn't look bad in comparison to a lot of cards, especially Silver gainers. Think of Ironworks, too. Paddock can draw dead cards, which is made up by the fact that it can draw Silvers. It has an action but can't get you Gold. I know it's a close call, but i wouldn't really like to make Paddock worse only because Explorer is weak. If it playtests as too strong (which might still be the case), that's something different. Some people have pointed out that it's an engine component that clogs engines.

About Dungeon, i can't really add much to what you said. I need to try it a bit. I'm certainly more concerned about fun than about cost, here.

Edit: If Paddock turns out too good, i could still make a version for $4 without th +$1... Bye bye, Trusty Steed bonus...

[Asper]

You could word Parliment as

"You may play an action card from your hand. If it costs 4 or less, play it again. If it costs 3 or less, play it a third time."

Thinking about this, i can really see its appeal. It's about as simple as my "the same as this/less than it" wording, just with cost reduction possible. The mid-execution cost change with Bridge and Highway really feels a bit off to me though... Then again, crazier things can happen, and it DOES tell you what to do right on the card. I might just as well give this a try :-)

[Drab Emordnilap]

You could word Parliment as

"You may play an action card from your hand. If it costs 4 or less, play it again. If it costs 3 or less, play it a third time."

Thinking about this, i can really see its appeal. It's about as simple as my "the same as this/less than it" wording, just with cost reduction possible. The mid-execution cost change with Bridge and Highway really feels a bit off to me though... Then again, crazier things can happen, and it DOES tell you what to do right on the card. I might just as well give this a try :-)

At least it doesn't play Bridge 5 times. :p

[TheOthin]

"Gain a Silver in hand" seems like a $4 effect, especially in comparison to Squire. Which puts Explorer in a strange spot but we knew that.

[Asper]

Allright, here's Palindrome Bard... um, i mean Drab Emordnilap's Parliament:


Ha! Ha! Ha! I don't know how that happened...
*beat*
Now, seriously:



Edit: I have to say, it's really a version to consider

[LastFootnote]

I think the "play it a third time" phrasing is more clear. Also, you should have commas rather than colons in the text.

EDIT: Can I offer you a better template, Asper? Which program are you using to make these images?

[Asper]

I think the "play it a third time" phrasing is more clear. Also, you should have commas rather than colons in the text.

EDIT: Can I offer you a better template, Asper? Which program are you using to make these images?

I figured "once more" was sufficient, but i used that mostly to avoid a line break, so there's no good reason against "a third time" if you think that's better. Aren't commas misleading you into believing the lines are alternatives? I know semicolons would do that, but i'm not sure about commas.


I would be very grateful for a better template
I made mine using Photoshop and some templates i found online. When i had to print them, i shifted them slightly because it gave better results, but forgot to change it back, which is why they are a bit askew.
Edit: I don't mind using another software, though, if that produces better-looking cards

[LastFootnote]

I figured "once more" was sufficient, but i used that mostly to avoid a line break, so there's no good reason against "a third time" if you think that's better. Aren't commas misleading you into believing the lines are alternatives? I know semicolons would do that, but i'm not sure about commas.

I would say the colons mislead you into thinking the lines are alternatives. The "a third time" clarifies further that they are cumulative.

I would be very grateful for a better template
I made mine using Photoshop and some templates i found online. When i had to print them, i shifted them slightly because it gave better results, but forgot to change it back, which is why they are a bit askew.
Edit: I don't mind using another software, though, if that produces better-looking cards

My template may be the same as the one you use now, but I've improved it significantly over the years. I'll send it to you later when I have access to my home computer. It's in .xcf format because I use GIMP. Maybe Photoshop can read that format, I'm not sure.

[Asper]

I figured "once more" was sufficient, but i used that mostly to avoid a line break, so there's no good reason against "a third time" if you think that's better. Aren't commas misleading you into believing the lines are alternatives? I know semicolons would do that, but i'm not sure about commas.

I would say the colons mislead you into thinking the lines are alternatives. The "a third time" clarifies further that they are cumulative.

That's a good point. "Once more" might technically be mistaken to mean the same as "a second time". Allright, i'll change that.

I would be very grateful for a better template
I made mine using Photoshop and some templates i found online. When i had to print them, i shifted them slightly because it gave better results, but forgot to change it back, which is why they are a bit askew.
Edit: I don't mind using another software, though, if that produces better-looking cards

My template may be the same as the one you use now, but I've improved it significantly over the years. I'll send it to you later when I have access to my home computer. It's in .xcf format because I use GIMP. Maybe Photoshop can read that format, I'm not sure.

Thank you
I'm not very experienced with Gimp, but i'm sure it's going to work out one way or another.

[Asper]

Ah, i see i misundertood you point before because i mistook "colon" for "period". Confused me a bit. So i believe this is what we are talking about.



It might be okay. Bridge and Highway are only two cards, anyhow. Well, and you could play Herald/Throne Room/ Parliament/King's Court to play Black Market to play 1-2 Quarries and be able to play Herald/Throne Room/Parliament/King's Court two more times... But i think that's it.

[GendoIkari]

Although even 2-card combos are not that common, it's worth noting that Parliament-Parliament-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge is as good as KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge except that Parliament costs 4 instead of 7. So I'm guessing that almost any board with both cards (and and sort of draw to help them combine) is going to be a race to play that.

[LastFootnote]

I blame Bridge. I really wish its cost reduction were "while in play" like all the others.

[Asper]

Although even 2-card combos are not that common, it's worth noting that Parliament-Parliament-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge is as good as KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge except that Parliament costs 4 instead of 7. So I'm guessing that almost any board with both cards (and and sort of draw to help them combine) is going to be a race to play that.

Oh my, good point. That's really not something i'd want.

You can reduce the effect of Parliament-Parliament-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge a little if you change the wording to first distinguish between costs and only then play the card a set number of times: "If it costs $3 or less: Play it three times. If it costs $4: Play it twice. If it costs $5 or more: Play it once." I tried something like that before, and, well, the wording wasn't very elegant. Anyhow, it reduces the Bridge count to 5 plays instead of nine. It gets bumped up to 7 if you start your PPBBB hand with a spare action, and becomes 9 again if you somehow played a Bridge before.

The other option, which i posted earlier, would be to compare the price of the action with Parliament itself, effectively killing any cost reduction combos: "If it costs more than this: Play it once. If it costs the same: Play it twice. If it costs less: Play it 3 times."

And then of course there's scrapping the card alltogether...

[pacovf]

Pretty sure that the option to play a card from your hand once should only be there if it makes the card simpler to word.