Print

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

[Davio]

I was wondering about certain cards where they would rank if they were a bit simpler.

Take Inn for example. If you remove the "shuffle action cards" part, is it $4? A mediocre $5?
I find myself sometimes buying it cards mostly for its small Warehouse effect instead of its one-time thing, although I do use the one-time thing obviously when I can find a good spot.

Noble Brigand is $4, but I doubt it could cost $3 without the instant attack, could it?

How much does Soothsayer "need" the card draw for the opponents? Would it be $6 without it or an even stronger $5?

[terminalCopper]

Some guesses:

Inn is a solide $4 without the bonus;

Noble Brigand would be a rather weak $3.

Soothsayer should cost $7 if the opponent doesn't draw a card.


Some more:

Masquerade would still be a strong $3 without the passing.

Mint is probably worth $3 to $4 without on-gain-trashing.

IGGs would lose a lot of its strength without the copper-gaining-option, but it should still cost $5.

 
There are also some other cards where I don't understand why they are so complex:

Fool's Gold doesn't need its reaction part.

Cultist doesn't need its on-trash-ability, same holds for Catacombs.

JOAT would still be strong enough without the discarding option.

[soulnet]

I think Farming Village would work just fine at $3 by just drawing a card instead of digging for a Treasure or Action. Hunting Party could also be simplified by just drawing an extra card instead of that ridiculous digging for a different one, and it does not seem it would be underpowered at $5 at all.

[2.71828.....]

I think Farming Village would work just fine at $3 by just drawing a card instead of digging for a Treasure or Action. Hunting Party could also be simplified by just drawing an extra card instead of that ridiculous digging for a different one, and it does not seem it would be underpowered at $5 at all.

That makes it "village" and "laboratory"
Which cost 3 and 5, so your cost estimates are probably spot on.

[Awaclus]

I think Farming Village would work just fine at $3 by just drawing a card instead of digging for a Treasure or Action. Hunting Party could also be simplified by just drawing an extra card instead of that ridiculous digging for a different one, and it does not seem it would be underpowered at $5 at all.

That makes it "village" and "laboratory"
Which cost 3 and 5, so your cost estimates are probably spot on.

That's the joke.

[Davio]

I'm also interested in the design process with these cards.

Say you have a card which is simply: +4 Cards, +1 Buy.
Now you're thinking "how much should it cost?"
If you make it $5, it's too strong compared to Smithy. Just $1 extra gets you both a Card αnd a Buy?! Wowza! Going from 3 to 4 cards is a pretty big deal and the buy is just icing to make the most out of your huge hands.
Okay, so maybe it needs to cost $6. But if it does, well, maybe it has the Adventurer problem of being too expensive for its own good.

So we end up at $5 with a card for each opponent.

Now, along comes Hunting Grounds, which originally was considered as: +3 Cards, +1 Buy (with the trashing part) for $5. The trashing part is cute, but doesn't come into play all that often I think. Apparently Donald thought that getting an extra card and giving one to your opponent was roughly equal (he still did with Governor). I think giving a card to your opponent is worth a bit more than getting one extra yourself, but okay, I can understand they're roughly similar. So Donald ended up switching the Buy out for an extra card and making it $1 more expensive. Personally, I think the +Buy is worth more than the card when you're already drawing 3, but oh well.

[Witherweaver]

I'm also interested in the design process with these cards.

Say you have a card which is simply: +4 Cards, +1 Buy.
Now you're thinking "how much should it cost?"
If you make it $5, it's too strong compared to Smithy. Just $1 extra gets you both a Card αnd a Buy?! Wowza! Going from 3 to 4 cards is a pretty big deal and the buy is just icing to make the most out of your huge hands.
Okay, so maybe it needs to cost $6. But if it does, well, maybe it has the Adventurer problem of being too expensive for its own good.

So we end up at $5 with a card for each opponent.

Now, along comes Hunting Grounds, which originally was considered as: +3 Cards, +1 Buy (with the trashing part) for $5. The trashing part is cute, but doesn't come into play all that often I think. Apparently Donald thought that getting an extra card and giving one to your opponent was roughly equal (he still did with Governor). I think giving a card to your opponent is worth a bit more than getting one extra yourself, but okay, I can understand they're roughly similar. So Donald ended up switching the Buy out for an extra card and making it $1 more expensive. Personally, I think the +Buy is worth more than the card when you're already drawing 3, but oh well.

I think this shows that adding some additional "complicated" properties lets you expand the design space and better interpolate between price points.  When you run into the "this has to cost $6 but it just isn't that powerful" you have to add a creative nerf for $5 or bonus for $6.

[Watno]

I think witch would be quite a lot weaker without the cursing part, and so would Sea Hag

[Awaclus]

I think witch would be quite a lot weaker without the cursing part, and so would Sea Hag

Scout would be OP without the victory card thing, then it would be just like Ruined Village which is the best village in the game (doesn't trigger unwanted reshuffles etc)!

[Witherweaver]

I postulate that Adventurer without the digging for treasure and putting it in your hand part would be an equally important and equally effective card.

[flies]

dominion would be way stronger without victory points.

[Polk5440]

Duchess without the spying would be fine at $2.

Spy without the spying would not be fine at $2.

[AJD]

Duchess without the spying would be fine at $2.

Interestingly, Duchess with the spying but without the free gain with Duchy would also be fine at $2.

[A Drowned Kernel]

I remember from the secret histories that Donald did have Inn at $4 with its on-gain for awhile, and he said it was fine but too boring to put in an expansion, and that Soothsayer without the card draw was originally an alchemy card.

One thing I've wondered about it switching up the order on JoAT and whether that would make it more or less powerful.

[Asper]

I remember from the secret histories that Donald did have Inn at $4 with its on-gain for awhile, and he said it was fine but too boring to put in an expansion, and that Soothsayer without the card draw was originally an alchemy card.

One thing I've wondered about it switching up the order on JoAT and whether that would make it more or less powerful.

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. Then you draw, but you don't know the card you draw, and also can't draw a freshly gained Silver. And if your deck was empty now, gaining the Silver before you spy would allow you to decide whether you want to put it on top of your deck, which you can't if you spy before you gain.

How about Horn of Plenty? Is it too strong without the Victory clause?

[AJD]

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.

[ehunt]

Throneable tactician would be a power five but still I'd sometimes skip it for wharf even in the presence of throne room. Throneable highway is probably op. Throneable outpost is definitely op.

[PSGarak]

I think that Library would not become overpriced or underpowered if the action-skipping part were removed. While I've used that portion of the card, I don't think I've ever relied on it.

Purely in the context of the base set, removing the action-skipping would make it slightly harder to argue that it deserves to be more expensive than Smithy. Disappearing money is not common in Base so Draw-to-X engines are more esoteric. Without Militia or Festival, it doesn't often draw more cards than Smithy does so it needs that extra edge.

[A Drowned Kernel]

I don't think that throneable highway would be anymore op than bridge currently is. I would also argue that making highway throneable would make the card more complicated, not less.

[sudgy]

Throneable Goons...

*shudder*

[Watno]

I don't think Throneable Goons would be significantly better.

[AJD]

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.)

[eHalcyon]

Noble Brigand would be a rather weak $3.

Just from losing the on-gain attack?  Dunno about that.  It's still significantly better than Thief most of the time.  I think it would be a weak $4 (still not as weak as Thief) and a pretty decent $3.

[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?

[AJD]

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?

Well, it can't be "when you discard this from play" like Herbalist, because that would screw up its interaction with Durations. So it has to activate when you discard its target from play. But it can't be "while this is in play, when you discard an Action card from play" because then you could use it on multiple Actions per play just by discarding it last. That means giving it a delayed-acting, on-play triggered effect must have been the simplest way to make it work without rule collisions.

[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.