Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: tristan on March 02, 2016, 05:06:57 am
-
XXX (not sure about the name yet)
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/86/Coin5star.png/16px-Coin5star.png)
+1 Card
+1 Action
-------------
0 VP
When you trash this, +1 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)
While this is in the supply, it costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) less.
I am not sure yet about whether the price should be 0 or 1. Probably doesn't make a big difference except for Upgrade and in case a lot of +buys are in the Kingdom.
I am also not sure about whether I want to add an overpay thingy ("When you buy this, you may overpay for it.
For each 2 you overpaid, gain a Coin token.) as I already something similar on a card of mine (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13915) and as this is similar to Asper's Conserve (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.msg528856#msg528856) which turned out to be too strong. Plus formatting could be an issue (complexity is definitely no reason against it as the card is fairly simple).
I briefly considered to make it an Action-Treasure-Victory with the Treasure part just being a Copper but this is obviously too gimmicky.
The basic idea behind the card is that of a cheap cantrip with some boni. There are already some cheap cantrips but they all have an on-play boni. Compared to them this is cheaper and worse during play. Like all cheap cantrips you want it for Conspirator, Peddler and Scrying Pool. Furthermore this is good with trash for benefit as you get a VP token and as it is worth 5$ when you trash it. Thus is also acts as a defense against Knights and Saboteur. Like all hybrid cards it interacts with Ironworks, Ironmonger and Tribute. There could exist some other combos I am not aware of right now.
If this version doesn't work (if so probably because the Peddler-esque buy/trash price spread is too large and thus too strong with trash for benefit) I might go for:
XXX
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)
+1 Action
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put one of them into your hand and discard the other
-------------
0 VP
When you trash this, +1 VP.
This is inspired by Gubump's Search Party (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14070). If this were a pure action card without the on-trash bonus it would probably be a good 2$ (cantrip sifter sound better than Pearl Diver and is probably more often than not better than Vagrant) which is why I guess that 3$ is the right price.
-
This card cost 1 and is worth 5. (No idea about how to formulate this well.)
I'm sure you mean a peddler-type clause ("During action/buy phase this costs 5/1 respectively", or During buy phase this costs 1$,[and set the the price to 5$], unless you want a synergy with farmland for example, then set the price to 5$ and add a clause: If this is in supply, this is worth 1$)
The 5$ price seems fine to me, since you can at most expand it into a province, but not remodel it. As you mentioned, it looks like a nice defense vs trashing attacks (especially swindler in late game if there's no bad late-game 5$'s). But, the trashing+1$ type seems a bit worrying when you can turn a copper into 5$ card, but we have altar & rats/trash+1$ already, so it doesn't seem that bad. The trash part isn't that overpowered by me, because all you get is just one VP, unless you're using TfB like bishop or salvager, which make this card more powerful. But, we have peddler which lets you do crazy things with TfB's.
The second card is good in my opinion. I like it.
-
I'm sure you mean a peddler-type clause ("During action/buy phase this costs 5/1 respectively", or During buy phase this costs 1$,[and set the the price to 5$], unless you want a synergy with farmland for example, then set the price to 5$ and add a clause: If this is in supply, this is worth 1$)
I don't think it should say that it costs a specific number of coins during a specific phase because then you wouldn't know how much it costs when there's cost reduction. It should have a Peddler-type clause though, specifically "During your Buy phase, this costs $4 less, but not less than $0".
-
My problem with the formulation is due to the fact that I want this to always cost 1$ when it is gained, not just during the buy phase, and 5$ whenever else.
-
This sounds weird, but might work:
If you want to gain or buy this, this costs 1$
-
How about using like Curse?
XXX
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: $0
+1 Card
+1 Action
-------------
0 VP
YYY
Types: Action - Attack
Cost $5
+2 Coins
Each other player gains a XXX.
Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand reveals a Victory card from his hand and puts it on his deck (or reveals a hand with no Victory cards).
-
"If this card is yours, it has a base cost of $5. Otherwise, it has a base cost of $1."
-
"If this card is yours, it has a base cost of $5. Otherwise, it has a base cost of $1."
I don't quite like "base cost" because it's not a defined Dominion thing.
I would just set the price to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/86/Coin5star.png/16px-Coin5star.png), and have a clause "while this is in the supply, it costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) less (but not less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png))."
-
This sounds weird, but might work:
If you want to gain or buy this, this costs 1$
That's terrible.... "Want to gain" is pretty subjective. I might "want" to gain a card that I already gained. Or I might gain a card that I don't want to gain.
-
"If this card is yours, it has a base cost of $5. Otherwise, it has a base cost of $1."
I don't quite like "base cost" because it's not a defined Dominion thing.
I would just set the price to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/86/Coin5star.png/16px-Coin5star.png), and have a clause "while this is in the supply, it costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) less (but not less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png))."
This will work, as already @Awaclus mentioned.
-
I'd drop the Victory type. It gives you a few extra interactions with Ironworks, etc. but that's not worth having to put in the big VP shield with 0 on it and having 2+ dividing lines. The card text will be tight even without the 0VP on there.
-
"If this card is yours, it has a base cost of $5. Otherwise, it has a base cost of $1."
I don't quite like "base cost" because it's not a defined Dominion thing.
I would just set the price to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/86/Coin5star.png/16px-Coin5star.png), and have a clause "while this is in the supply, it costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) less (but not less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png))."
I didn't mean for that to be the exact wording, but just something similar. What you said is basically what I was looking for, other than the fact that it costs differently in others' decks (which doesn't matter too much).
-
"If this card is yours, it has a base cost of $5. Otherwise, it has a base cost of $1."
I don't quite like "base cost" because it's not a defined Dominion thing.
I would just set the price to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/86/Coin5star.png/16px-Coin5star.png), and have a clause "while this is in the supply, it costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) less (but not less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png))."
Thanks, I will use this.
I'd drop the Victory type. It gives you a few extra interactions with Ironworks, etc. but that's not worth having to put in the big VP shield with 0 on it and having 2+ dividing lines. The card text will be tight even without the 0VP on there.
Just noted that the card is also good with the most overpowered card in Dominion, Rebuild. It definitely should be an Action-Victory and formatting is not a big issue as I will only use one dividing line (IMO 2+ dividing lines look like crap) so it is only one dividing line, the VP thingy and 3 lines of text.
-
Well, you've got at least four lines of text - the two vanilla bonuses, the on-trash, and the line explaining the cost. The cost text will likely take 2 lines, judging from Peddler. And if you want to stick to convention, you'd have to use two dividing lines because the VP shield is always separated (see all the alt VP with the big shields), vanilla bonuses go on top (see Great Hall), and the other stuff would go on the bottom (see Farmland). I guess you could make the 0VP shield extra small and also omit one of the dividing lines.
I was going to say that it's really no big deal if you can actually fit it on a card, but now that you've pointed out the interaction with Rebuild, that seems like a legit balance reason to drop the Victory type. Rebuild is already OP, why would you want a combo that makes it so much stronger? :|
-
And if you want to stick to convention, you'd have to use two dividing lines.
You are totally right, although there are no rules for dividing lines the rules for them are implied in the ways they are used. But I think that more than one dividing line looks like crap (which is probably why no official card features two lines) so I do not use them.
I mainly want the card to be a Victory card for thematic reasons (on-trash effect) and because I came from this design-wise from the lunatic idea to do an Action-Treasury-Victory.
-
And if you want to stick to convention, you'd have to use two dividing lines.
You are totally right, although there are no rules for dividing lines the rules for them are implied in the ways they are used. But I think that more than one dividing line looks like crap (which is probably why no official card features two lines) so I do not use them.
I mainly want the card to be a Victory card for thematic reasons (on-trash effect) and because I came from this design-wise from the lunatic idea to do an Action-Treasury-Victory.
The general purpose of the dividing lines is to separate things with different timing. On-play, on-trash, when-gain (cost effect), end of game (VP value) all have different timing, so they should be separated. In practice, I think on-play is the main one that needs to be separated from the rest. I don't mind putting on-trash and when-gain in the same section because there's no precedence for that (probably because it should get another dividing line, which has been avoided for aesthetic and maybe complexity reasons) but I'd personally hate to break convention and not separate the VP shield from the rest, even more than having to include the extra line.
I can appreciate the design direction, but you've already dropped the Treasure typing to improve it. Why not do the same with the mostly superfluous Victory typing? I don't really understand the thematic reasoning, especially since you haven't named it yet to give it a theme. If you do stick with it though, I'd consider having it be worth 1VP on its own just so there's a clear reason for it. That, or find a name that gives it some explanation, like Overgrown Estate.
-
And if you want to stick to convention, you'd have to use two dividing lines.
You are totally right, although there are no rules for dividing lines the rules for them are implied in the ways they are used. But I think that more than one dividing line looks like crap (which is probably why no official card features two lines) so I do not use them.
I mainly want the card to be a Victory card for thematic reasons (on-trash effect) and because I came from this design-wise from the lunatic idea to do an Action-Treasury-Victory.
The general purpose of the dividing lines is to separate things with different timing. On-play, on-trash, when-gain (cost effect), end of game (VP value) all have different timing, so they should be separated. In practice, I think on-play is the main one that needs to be separated from the rest. I don't mind putting on-trash and when-gain in the same section because there's no precedence for that (probably because it should get another dividing line, which has been avoided for aesthetic and maybe complexity reasons) but I'd personally hate to break convention and not separate the VP shield from the rest, even more than having to include the extra line.
I can appreciate the design direction, but you've already dropped the Treasure typing to improve it. Why not do the same with the mostly superfluous Victory typing? I don't really understand the thematic reasoning, especially since you haven't named it yet to give it a theme. If you do stick with it though, I'd consider having it be worth 1VP on its own just so there's a clear reason for it. That, or find a name that gives it some explanation, like Overgrown Estate.
I am very well aware of the reasons for the dividing line and you are totally right that objectively speaking the right way to do it would be several dividing lines. But personally I will never ever use two dividing lines for aesthetic reasons so there is for me no need to get rid of the 0 VPs for formatting reasons.
Mechanic-wise the card should combo a little bit, otherwise it is too boring, and you get more combos if it is a hybric hard. Thematic-wise its on-trash bonus is a VP token so it makes thematic sense that it is a Victory card.
About the 1VP instead of 0VP, it obviously cannot provide 1VP as this would imply that it has to cost more than 3$ which would imply that I'd have to get rid of the buy-trash price spread and my intention was not to make a superior version of Great Hall.
-
Good call on Great Hall comparison. Oh well.
Theme-wise, giving a VP on trash says "Victory type" to me about as much as Bishop does. As for combos, it's already got plenty with TfB. Making it a Victory type when it doesn't need to be seems like a rather artificial way to prop up combo potential.
But I'll stop poking at this because it's really not a big deal either way. :P
-
Agree it should not be a Victory card. If it should, then Monument and the like should too.
I do like the idea though. Only one issue I can see: it’s useless unless there is a trasher and it is not one itself.
-
Agree it should not be a Victory card. If it should, then Monument and the like should too.
Monument gains a VP and Bishop gains a VP conditionally on trashing another card. This is more akin to Overgrown Estate, when you trash you get a little something.
Only one issue I can see: it’s useless unless there is a trasher and it is not one itself.
Of course a 1$ card is not a powercard but the on-trash thingy is just one part of the card. Mostly you want it for trash for benefit or because you require cantrips in your engine.
-
I second, or rather, third, making it non-victory. It's worth no VP and there is no compelling flavour reason to have it (Overgrown Estate just makes sure you still start with one Victory card in your deck), while the dividing line (which i agree would be needed) is a compelling reason against it.
-
It's worth no VP.
Mechnically the idea is that the VPs are hidden; you gotta "crack the card open" to get at the 1VP.
Theme-wise, I will probably name the card Cottage so it has to be a Victory card.
And, just personal nonsense, hey, I like me some hybrid cards!
-
It's worth no VP.
Mechnically the idea is that the VPs are hidden; you gotta "crack the card open" to get at the 1VP.
You mean, like Hunting Grounds?
-
It's worth no VP.
Mechnically the idea is that the VPs are hidden; you gotta "crack the card open" to get at the 1VP.
You mean, like Hunting Grounds?
So because Hunting Grounds makes no thematic sense I should strive to do the same? ???
-
It's worth no VP.
Mechnically the idea is that the VPs are hidden; you gotta "crack the card open" to get at the 1VP.
You mean, like Hunting Grounds?
So because Hunting Grounds makes no thematic sense I should strive to do the same? ???
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Hunting Grounds is not a Victory card because it is not worth VP. It's called Hunting Grounds because it "contains" VP. Your card is not worth VP. It contains VP. It's like Hunting Grounds.
-
It's worth no VP.
Mechnically the idea is that the VPs are hidden; you gotta "crack the card open" to get at the 1VP.
You mean, like Hunting Grounds?
So because Hunting Grounds makes no thematic sense I should strive to do the same? ???
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Hunting Grounds is not a Victory card because it is not worth VP. It's called Hunting Grounds because it "contains" VP. Your card is not worth VP. It contains VP. It's like Hunting Grounds.
That is plain nonsense. If you prefer unthematic cards and narrowly stick to the paradigm of official cards that is your prerogative but it hardly constitutes a sensible argument. If my card has real issues I am all ears. But being a Victory card is a key feature and not a liability.
-
I still don't see how making this a Victory card is more thematic than not making a Victory card...
-
It's worth no VP.
Mechnically the idea is that the VPs are hidden; you gotta "crack the card open" to get at the 1VP.
You mean, like Hunting Grounds?
So because Hunting Grounds makes no thematic sense I should strive to do the same? ???
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Hunting Grounds is not a Victory card because it is not worth VP. It's called Hunting Grounds because it "contains" VP. Your card is not worth VP. It contains VP. It's like Hunting Grounds.
That is plain nonsense. If you prefer unthematic cards and narrowly stick to the paradigm of official cards that is your prerogative but it hardly constitutes a sensible argument. If my card has real issues I am all ears. But being a Victory card is a key feature and not a liability.
You are adding a type for no reason beyond flavour, at the price of making your card either ugly (if you stick to the usual practice of adding a dividing line) or inconsistent with the game's rules (in case you don't), and overly complicated in either case. With your reasoning Golem should be an Attack card because the name sounds like an attack. It's not for the simple reason that types are a mechanical game component, and serve a purpose. If you throw around types for artistic reasons, you are misusing them.
Also, i really don't feel like giving any more feedback on your ideas. I thought you had changed your stance on this, but it appears you are still rather confrontational when one of your ideas is critizised.
-
It's worth no VP.
Mechnically the idea is that the VPs are hidden; you gotta "crack the card open" to get at the 1VP.
You mean, like Hunting Grounds?
So because Hunting Grounds makes no thematic sense I should strive to do the same? ???
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Hunting Grounds is not a Victory card because it is not worth VP. It's called Hunting Grounds because it "contains" VP. Your card is not worth VP. It contains VP. It's like Hunting Grounds.
That is plain nonsense. If you prefer unthematic cards and narrowly stick to the paradigm of official cards that is your prerogative but it hardly constitutes a sensible argument. If my card has real issues I am all ears. But being a Victory card is a key feature and not a liability.
You are adding a type for no reason beyond flavour, at the price of making your card either ugly (if you stick to the usual practice of adding a dividing line) or inconsistent with the game's rules (in case you don't), and overly complicated in either case. With your reasoning Golem should be an Attack card because the name sounds like an attack. It's not for the simple reason that types are a mechanical game component, and serve a purpose. If you throw around types for artistic reasons, you are misusing them.
Also, i really don't feel like giving any more feedback on your ideas. I thought you had changed your stance on this, but it appears you are still rather confrontational when one of your ideas is critizised.
Abuse? Nonsense indeed. Confrontational? Am I the one who is trolling in your threads or vice versa?
You are mistaking your preference for simple and unthematic cards for an objective criterition. As I already pointed out that I want a cantrip that interacts with the Ironfamily I have nothing to add to your claim that being a Victory card serves no purpose.
About Golem, it is a figure from Jewish legend and more of a helper than an aggresive brute ...