Print

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

[jaybeez]

You could simplify Ruined Village into this:

Goggles
Action - Ruins - $0
Do nothing.

(Edit: actually this would be weaker in some cases--Conspirator, Peddler, Shanty Town, and Horn of Plenty come to mind).

[heron]

You could simplify Ruined Village into this:

Ruined Goggles
Action - Ruins - $0
Do nothing.

(Edit: actually this would be weaker in some cases--Conspirator, Peddler, Shanty Town, and Horn of Plenty come to mind).

FTFY

[popsofctown]

It's worth noting, again, that for most of those cards whose effects aren't thronable (Goons, Haggler, Herbalist, Highway, a few others probably), it's not because Donald X decided that throning them would be overpowered, but rather just because he thought the rules would be clearer if the effects were phrased that way. (And Bridge and Coppersmith are throneable just because he hadn't thought of the "while in play" wording by the time Intrigue went to press.)

What's Scheme's story?

So sometimes the Bridge wording is easier.  I wish he would have done that with Highway then: considering the bubble had already been burst for the cost reduction effect, he might as well have made Highway and Bridge match.  Played a KC game with both Highway and Bridge last week, was way confusing, almost caused illegal plays.  I don't think it would even help what few players had Base and Hinterlands, but not Intrigue, since Scheme is in the same set and people would be confused when Throne Rooming a Scheme and Throne Rooming a Highway have different behavior.

[qmech]

I prefer the Bridge model precisely because it makes Throne Room and King's Court more intuitive.  "While this is in play" is also a less local effect, and puts more strain on the "cards are little programs that do their own thing" model I have of Dominion cards.

[Awaclus]

It's worth noting, again, that for most of those cards whose effects aren't thronable (Goons, Haggler, Herbalist, Highway, a few others probably), it's not because Donald X decided that throning them would be overpowered, but rather just because he thought the rules would be clearer if the effects were phrased that way. (And Bridge and Coppersmith are throneable just because he hadn't thought of the "while in play" wording by the time Intrigue went to press.)

What's Scheme's story?

So sometimes the Bridge wording is easier.  I wish he would have done that with Highway then: considering the bubble had already been burst for the cost reduction effect, he might as well have made Highway and Bridge match.  Played a KC game with both Highway and Bridge last week, was way confusing, almost caused illegal plays.  I don't think it would even help what few players had Base and Hinterlands, but not Intrigue, since Scheme is in the same set and people would be confused when Throne Rooming a Scheme and Throne Rooming a Highway have different behavior.

I like the fact that Highway isn't thronable.

[popsofctown]

There's nothing wrong with that opinion but I don't think it's constructive/fun/useful/optimal for the forums to post one liners like that without shedding any light on why you feel that way.

[Awaclus]

There's nothing wrong with that opinion but I don't think it's constructive/fun/useful/optimal for the forums to post one liners like that without shedding any light on why you feel that way.

I don't think that making it two lines would have improved it at all, and I also do not think that it's relevant to know why I happen to like unthronable Highways. You were saying that Donald X. might as well have made Highway thronable because it would have caused less rules confusion that way, I was saying that I disagree because I think that the improvement in gaming experience is worth the extra confusion. It's nice that you explained why you think that it causes more confusion, because there could have been people saying "No, I don't think it causes more confusion, why would you think that?", but I really, really doubt that anyone here is going to say "No, I don't think you like Highways you can't throne!" (inb4 someone actually says it).

[Asper]

JoAT would be less powerful if the things happened in a different order - in fact the given order is the strongest possible one, usually. The weakest order would be exactly the opposite of how it is. Trash first, then draw, then look at the top, then gain. This way if you start with a Militia hand, you have to keep junk in hand to trash it.

I dunno; trash first, then draw leaves you with a 5-card hand, whereas Jack as it is leaves you with a 4-card hand if you trash something.

Good point... I guess it's significantly weaker if you start with a hand without junk, but if you start with junk in hand, it's better. So probably "Draw then Trash" is more plausible for what is supposed to be a after-the-fact-Moat than the opposite. "Trash then draw" goes more into normal deck improvement, because discard attacks harm it more. I guess we can agree that putting the other two things at the end harms the card in general, though.