Whut? This shouldn't be in the category Weekly Contest: Fan Card Mechanics (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg859500#msg859500) ?
Whut? This shouldn't be in the category Weekly Contest: Fan Card Mechanics (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg859500#msg859500) ?
I figured it was alright after no-one complained about Snow (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20665.0). You also don't need a new mechanic; you can use Debt or Coffers.
If I've misjudged the situation and people have a big problem with this theme, I can change it.
2. When not restricted by the challenge, custom card types and mechanics are allowed, provided that they are explained in the same post as the entry.
I'm not one of the moderator of this topic so I can't ask you to change it; especialy since a participation was already post here. I advice you to check with the organisator if you have any doubt but the "snow" agument seem fine. Maybe the Weekly Contest: Fan Card Mechanics (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg859500#msg859500) didn't exist at these times and that could explain why it have been accepted.
I figured it was alright after no-one complained about Snow (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20665.0). You also don't need a new mechanic; you can use Debt or Coffers.
If I've misjudged the situation and people have a big problem with this theme, I can change it.
Whut? This shouldn't be in the category Weekly Contest: Fan Card Mechanics (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg859500#msg859500) ?
But even before that thread started, there was often Fan Mechanics discussed (and sometimes contests about them, from what I've seen).
What would people think of a new weekly contest specifically dedicated to fan card mechanics (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.25)? (credit to spineflue for starting this "atlas")
Inspired by weekly design content #90*, Steal Ideas! (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855165#msg855165), but in this case every entry would have to use the fan card mechanic chosen by that week's judge.
* and the fact that I was mildly disappointed to see no one expand on my Worshippers (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19722.msg803063#msg803063) mechanic...
WDC #111: Chasing Enlightenment
- Your submission can use this token or any other token. In principle, you can also use existing tokens like Debt or Coffers (but see rules below) . . .
- The card needs to care about the token, and having it must be negative. Swashbuckler wouldn't qualify because there, having Coffers leads to a good thing.
I do have a question about the Contest rules. To clarify, is the issue with Swashbuckler:
(a) that the tokens in question (Coffers) are good (i.e. you want to have them because they provide you a benefit);
(b) that the way in which Swashbuckler cares about the tokens is to reward having them; or
(c) both?
ut another way, would a card that cares about Coffers, but in a way that treats having them as negative, qualify?
Whut? This shouldn't be in the category Weekly Contest: Fan Card Mechanics (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20616.msg859500#msg859500) ?But even before that thread started, there was often Fan Mechanics discussed (and sometimes contests about them, from what I've seen).
Indeed. And in fact, the Weekly Contest: Fan Card Mechanics was inspired by a (fairly recent) Weekly Design Contest:What would people think of a new weekly contest specifically dedicated to fan card mechanics (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.25)? (credit to spineflue for starting this "atlas")
Inspired by weekly design content #90*, Steal Ideas! (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855165#msg855165), but in this case every entry would have to use the fan card mechanic chosen by that week's judge.
One sort of unofficial point (at least as I conceive of it) of the Fan Card Mechanic contest is that it's a way to get others to help you develop a mechanic you really like. This was suggested by scolapasta in the original post:* and the fact that I was mildly disappointed to see no one expand on my Worshippers (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19722.msg803063#msg803063) mechanic...
IMO, if silverspawn had asked us to use their pain tokens in design our submission, that would have looked like the FCM contest. Instead, the pain tokens are just an illustration of one way to meet this week's rule.
Corruption - $3
Event
Once per turn: If you have Blight, put one Blight you have on a Victory supply pile. Otherwise, take 2 Blight from here.
-
Setup: Put 8 Blight here.
Fickle FestivalHow is this a Victory card?
Action/Victory - $5
+$2
+2 Villagers
This turn, at the start of Clean Up, if you have 4 or more Villagers, or spent a Villager this turn and have Actions remaining, the player to your left gains this
Fickle FestivalHow is this a Victory card?
Action/Victory - $5
+$2
+2 Villagers
This turn, at the start of Clean Up, if you have 4 or more Villagers, or spent a Villager this turn and have Actions remaining, the player to your left gains this
Question for silverspawn: does a card like this count for the contest? my expectation is that the answer is no, since this gives a bad effect when you gain it, that goes away after two turns, rather than having a bad effect for having a token when played
Disappearing VillageThe Snow token (the name inspired by Snowy Village), represented with a snowflake icon, reduces the number of Actions given to you by Disappearing Village, almost like an anti-Villager, but only affecting this card (although if this were part of an expansion, there'd probably be at least a few other cards that used it). The first time you play this, you get +3 Actions, but if you let your Snow tokens build up, it becomes increasingly less useful, netting negative Actions if you have 4 or more Snow tokens (but, as with Poor House and coins, the total Action count can never go negative). You can get rid of your Snow tokens by discarding Action cards. The name is a reference to how its village effect gradually disappears if you don't do anything about the tokens
Action
$3
+1 Card
+3 Actions
-1 Action per Snow (you can't go below 0 Actions)
Take 1 Snow, then you may discard any number of Action cards, revealed, to lose 1 Snow per card discarded
Chainsmith - $4
Action - Duration - Reaction
+3 Cards
+1 (https://i.ibb.co/k1Q390C/pain-small.png)
At the start of your next turn, you may discard any number of cards, to remove that many (https://i.ibb.co/k1Q390C/pain-small.png)
-
At the start of your turn, if you have no (https://i.ibb.co/k1Q390C/pain-small.png), you may play this from your hand
(https://i.imgur.com/QbF3bSH.png) (https://i.imgur.com/BX37lvR.png) (https://i.imgur.com/MhW8jIL.png)
My entry is an heirloom which is connected to a split pile . . . The first card in the split pile is Banker . . . Coin Collector is the second card in the split pile . . . I went back and forth on the cost . . . I think $4 is probably a fair price over all.
Coronation $5 Action
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
You may take +1 Heir; If you do, play an Action card from your hand twice, then trash this.
I actually had two different versions of my submission I was going back and forth on, and was wondering if I could ask which you prefered?
SilverSpawn
(https://i.imgur.com/QbF3bSH.png) (https://i.imgur.com/BX37lvR.png) (https://i.imgur.com/MhW8jIL.png)
My entry is an heirloom which is connected to a split pile . . . The first card in the split pile is Banker . . . Coin Collector is the second card in the split pile . . . I went back and forth on the cost . . . I think $4 is probably a fair price over all.
The official rules (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Split_pile#Official_Rules) for split piles say that you "always put the cheaper card on top," during set up. You could, of course, vary from those rules, but you might want to think carefully about doing so. There is a reason they exist. By the time 5 $5 cards have been purchased (if that ever happens), players will rarely be at a point in the game where buying $4 Action cards makes sense.
What are Heirs? Each Heir you have reduces the number of points of your highest scoring victory card by 1. So in Colony games, colonies are worth 9vp if you have one heir; If you run the Castles pile, the King's Castle will be worth 1 less. If it's a regular province game, and you get eight heirs, those provinces are worth 0vp.
Disappearing VillageSo, the Snow token, represented with a snowflake icon, reduces the number of Actions given to you by Disappearing Village, almost like an anti-Villager, but only affecting this card (although if this were part of an expansion, there'd probably be at least a few other cards that used it). The first time you play this, you get +3 Actions, but if you let your Snow tokens build up, it becomes increasingly less useful, netting negative Actions if you have 4 or more Snow tokens (but, as with Poor House and coins, the total Action count can never go negative). You can get rid of your Snow tokens by discarding Action cards. The name is a reference to how its village effect gradually disappears if you don't do anything about the tokens
Action
$3
+1 Card
+3 Actions
-1 Action per Snow (you can't go below 0 Actions)
Take 1 Snow, then you may discard any number of Action cards, revealed, to lose 1 Snow per card discarded
(https://i.imgur.com/jnfo6NYh.png) | Quote from: Loki's Bargain LOKI'S BARGAIN (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/32px-Coin5.png) | |
What are Heirs? Each Heir you have reduces the number of points of your highest scoring victory card by 1. So in Colony games, colonies are worth 9vp if you have one heir; If you run the Castles pile, the King's Castle will be worth 1 less. If it's a regular province game, and you get eight heirs, those provinces are worth 0vp.
This raises multiple questions, most of which I think I know the answer to, but at least one of which I don't.
(1) You said "Each Heir you have reduces the number of points of your highest scoring victory card by 1." Do you mean individual Victory card, or differently named card? That is, if your Victory cards are 4 Provinces and a Duchy and you have 2 Heirs, is that worth 25 (taking 2VP from one Province) or 19 (taking 2 VP from each of the Provinces).
I THINK THE ANSWER IS: You also say "If it's a regular province game, and you get eight heirs, those provinces are worth 0vp." So it does seem clear that each copy of the highest scoring differently named Victory card is weakened.
(2) You say "in Colony games, colonies are worth 9vp if you have one heir; If you run the Castles pile, the King's Castle will be worth 1 less." Do you mean " . . . King's Castle will be worth 1 less instead"? Also, am I correct in understanding that Colony is only worth 9VP if you have one? If your highest scoring Victory card is a Province (even in a Colony game), then that is what is reduced.
I THINK THE ANSWER IS: Yes. When you said Colonies were worth 9VP, it was inferred from the context that Colonies would be a player's highest scoring Victory cards.
(3) How does this work with scaling Alt-VP cards (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Alt-VP#Scaling_Victory_cards) like Gardens, Fairgrounds, Vineyard, etc.?
I THINK THE ANSWER IS: When scoring at the end of the game, you see what each such card is worth. If any end up being the highest-scoring VP card(s), that/those are affected by the Heirs.
(4) What happens if two different VP cards tie for the highest? This might happen if you managed to rush the Harems, Nobles, and Islands piles, but it is much more likely to happen using Alt-VP. It is not at all unusual for Fairground to be worth 6 VP (if the player can get 15 differently-named cards, something very possible on many boards). If a player has 2 Provinces, 7 Fairgrounds each worth 6VP, and 2 Heirs, do the Heirs reduce the VP value of (a) the 2 Provinces, (b) the 7 Fairgrounds, (c) all 9 Victory cards (d) either the Provinces or the Fairgrounds depending on some additional criteria (although I am not sure what that would be)?
This one I genuinely do not know the answer to. I suppose the most obvious answer is (c), but that makes what is already an almost unbearably harsh mechanic even worse. That being said, I don't really have a good way to pick between (a) and (b).
However you deal with ties, the existence of scaling Alt-VP also creates the possibility that increasing your underlying VP could actually result in losing VP. For example, if you have 5 Vineyards, 1 Province, 16 Action cards, you would have 31 VP. If you also had 4 Heirs, you would have 27 VP. If you then bought the Event Populate and gained 7 Action cards, without the Heirs, you would go from 31 VP to 41 VP. However, with the Heirs, you would go from 27 VP to just 21 VP. While this seems like an unlikely scenario, I actually don't think that it is, because I would guess that if you are going to take Heirs, the only viable strategy will generally be to buy 1 Province/Colony, and then try to win with Alt-VP. This puts the player in the position of having to very carefully track the value of their scaling card, as making it go too high could cost them the game.
(https://i.imgur.com/uxj3VqF.png)
I have a bit of a wacky idea, but I think it works.This is going to lead to trivial infinite combos with +card/+action/+$/+buy tokens and Ruins or cost reduction.
(https://i.imgur.com/uxj3VqF.png)
I was debating whether it should only allow you to play cards costing up $4. In Shelter games, you would be able to play a $5 cost card from the Supply with Necropolis in Turn 1 or 2, but it's not clear to me that taking 5 debt would always be optimal (maybe if something like Trading Post is in the Kingdom). In terms of power level, you will only be able to play one Action card per turn as Way of the Octopus, unless there are cards in the Kingdom that allow you to return to your Action phase after your Buy phase [EDIT: or if you are able to get enough cost reduction cards into play e.g. Highways or Bridge Trolls, or Quarries with Black Market or Storyteller].
wait, how? could you give examples? I thought that since you cant use Way of octopus that that's impossibleI have a bit of a wacky idea, but I think it works.This is going to lead to trivial infinite combos with +card/+action/+$/+buy tokens and Ruins or cost reduction.
+$ token on Ruins.wait, how? could you give examples? I thought that since you cant use Way of octopus that that's impossibleI have a bit of a wacky idea, but I think it works.This is going to lead to trivial infinite combos with +card/+action/+$/+buy tokens and Ruins or cost reduction.
Freak - Action Command, $6 cost.Command a $5 on a cantrip! But you can't play anything else from that pile during your turn, even cards from it in your deck, and they instead become Ruined Villages.
+1 Card
+1 Action
Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing less than this, leaving it there. If its pile isn't marked, mark it until the end of your turn; when you play a card from a marked pile, get +1 Action instead of following its instructions.
+$ token on Ruins.wait, how? could you give examples? I thought that since you cant use Way of octopus that that's impossibleI have a bit of a wacky idea, but I think it works.This is going to lead to trivial infinite combos with +card/+action/+$/+buy tokens and Ruins or cost reduction.
Play any Action as Way of the Octopus, choose Ruins, play Ruins as Way of the Octopus, choose Ruins, etc.
In fact this combo also works with cards that do not cost $0, since you only take the Debt once playing the card is finished. It's probably not useful this way though.
Seedy Village - $3
Action - Looter
+1 Card
+3 Villagers
----
When you discard this from play, if you have any Villagers or actions (not Action cards) remaining, gain a Ruins.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51114309873_fe558e3569_b.jpg)QuoteSeedy Village - $3
Action - Looter
+4 Villagers
----
While this is in play, you may not use Villagers if you have any actions remaining.
When you would discard this from play, if you have any Villagers, gain a Ruins and leave this in play.
A reusable Acting Troupe, with the catch that you start getting Ruins if you can't use all your actions in a turn. Thankfully you can play those Ruins in the future thanks to all those Villagers this card gives you.
Not really sure if the wording of the below line text actually does what I want it to do. The first half should stop players from using their Villager tokens if they have any actions remaining. The second half intends to keep Seedy Village in play when you would discard it during cleanup and gains you a Ruins as a penalty. I would appreciate any criticism or corrections to this.
I'll allow it. However, I think this does allow an infinite loop. I play two highways, then I play Freak. I choose BoM. I choose Freak. I choose BoM. This is possible because the first BoM hasn't finished resolving yet, so there is no counter on it. You may need the Command type and non-Command clause after all.
Jetty (Action, $4)
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
Return an Embargo token.
------
When you gain this, take 3 Embargo tokens. You can't buy cards while you have any Embargo tokens.
Not really sure if the wording of the below line text actually does what I want it to do. The first half should stop players from using their Villager tokens if they have any actions remaining. The second half intends to keep Seedy Village in play when you would discard it during cleanup and gains you a Ruins as a penalty. I would appreciate any criticism or corrections to this.I don't think the wording works as intended. The "leave this in play" instruction does not come with a time limit, so I would think it stays in play indefinitely. I don't think there is a strong reason for this to stay in play anyways, it could just give the Ruins and be discarded.
+4 Villagers
When you discard this from play: If you have at least one Villager, gain a Ruins; if you have at least 2 Villagers, gain a Copper.
Jetty (Action, $4)
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
Return an Embargo token.
------
When you gain this, take 3 Embargo tokens. You can't buy cards while you have any Embargo tokens.
This can kill one player easily.
play Swindler to make your opponent gain Jetty
play another to make your opponent trash that
Maybe gaining a Curse per an Embargo token is better.
"When you gain this on your turn" would be a reasonable fix I think. There are still ways the opponent could mess with you (e.g. playing a Reaction as Way of the Mouse-Ambassador), but they are signficantly less attainable.Jetty (Action, $4)
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
Return an Embargo token.
------
When you gain this, take 3 Embargo tokens. You can't buy cards while you have any Embargo tokens.
This can kill one player easily.
play Swindler to make your opponent gain Jetty
play another to make your opponent trash that
Maybe gaining a Curse per an Embargo token is better.
Thats a good catch. Will have a think on how to fix this - might come up with another card altogether.
I have a bit of a wacky idea, but I think it works.This is going to lead to trivial infinite combos with +card/+action/+$/+buy tokens and Ruins or cost reduction.
(https://i.imgur.com/uxj3VqF.png)
I was debating whether it should only allow you to play cards costing up $4. In Shelter games, you would be able to play a $5 cost card from the Supply with Necropolis in Turn 1 or 2, but it's not clear to me that taking 5 debt would always be optimal (maybe if something like Trading Post is in the Kingdom). In terms of power level, you will only be able to play one Action card per turn as Way of the Octopus, unless there are cards in the Kingdom that allow you to return to your Action phase after your Buy phase [EDIT: or if you are able to get enough cost reduction cards into play e.g. Highways or Bridge Trolls, or Quarries with Black Market or Storyteller].
Thanks for pointing that out! I definitely don't want this to lead to infinite loops, whether trivial or non-trivial.Seems to me that if you play this while having Debt, you can still do the $0-cost loop, as the second part is not dependent on having taken Debt.
I think the following tweaks should prevent loops, but I'd be grateful if anyone can think of any loopholes:
(https://i.imgur.com/5JGqWns.png)
Thanks for pointing that out! I definitely don't want this to lead to infinite loops, whether trivial or non-trivial.Seems to me that if you play this while having Debt, you can still do the $0-cost loop, as the second part is not dependent on having taken Debt.
I think the following tweaks should prevent loops, but I'd be grateful if anyone can think of any loopholes:
(https://i.imgur.com/5JGqWns.png)
The main issue I see with getting rid of that restriction is that it makes this effectively a super-Necropolis. Without that restriction, you can simply choose to spend all your villagers to avoid the penalty, making it no different than a straight-up +4 Actions (well ... unless there's other cards that give you villagers, since in that case you'd also have to get rid of any villagers you'd gotten from those other cards, though if you're getting sufficient villagers from other cards you probably wouldn't bother buying this one anyways). So, I think keeping the restriction would be good. But your proposed penalty seems a lot better to me. Hits you once at the end of the turn, rather than over multiple turns, seems more balanced to meNot really sure if the wording of the below line text actually does what I want it to do. The first half should stop players from using their Villager tokens if they have any actions remaining. The second half intends to keep Seedy Village in play when you would discard it during cleanup and gains you a Ruins as a penalty. I would appreciate any criticism or corrections to this.I don't think the wording works as intended. The "leave this in play" instruction does not come with a time limit, so I would think it stays in play indefinitely. I don't think there is a strong reason for this to stay in play anyways, it could just give the Ruins and be discarded.
On a more general note, I don't think the card needs to be this complicated. The whole restricting when you can use Villagers thing is clunky and not really needed if you give extra penalties for having more Villagers, like so:Quote+4 Villagers
When you discard this from play: If you have at least one Villager, gain a Ruins; if you have at least 2 Villagers, gain a Copper.
Not really sure if the wording of the below line text actually does what I want it to do. The first half should stop players from using their Villager tokens if they have any actions remaining. The second half intends to keep Seedy Village in play when you would discard it during cleanup and gains you a Ruins as a penalty. I would appreciate any criticism or corrections to this.I don't think the wording works as intended. The "leave this in play" instruction does not come with a time limit, so I would think it stays in play indefinitely. I don't think there is a strong reason for this to stay in play anyways, it could just give the Ruins and be discarded.
On a more general note, I don't think the card needs to be this complicated. The whole restricting when you can use Villagers thing is clunky and not really needed if you give extra penalties for having more Villagers, like so:Quote+4 Villagers
When you discard this from play: If you have at least one Villager, gain a Ruins; if you have at least 2 Villagers, gain a Copper.
"When you gain this on your turn" would be a reasonable fix I think. There are still ways the opponent could mess with you (e.g. playing a Reaction as Way of the Mouse-Ambassador), but they are signficantly less attainable.Jetty (Action, $4)
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
Return an Embargo token.
------
When you gain this, take 3 Embargo tokens. You can't buy cards while you have any Embargo tokens.
This can kill one player easily.
play Swindler to make your opponent gain Jetty
play another to make your opponent trash that
Maybe gaining a Curse per an Embargo token is better.
Thats a good catch. Will have a think on how to fix this - might come up with another card altogether.
There is still the issue that with any sort of trashing attack, going for Jetty is extremely risky, and that could make the card super swingy and unfun. Another solution that addresses that would be "When you trash this, return all your Embargo tokens" - though I guess that still does not account for Cardinal.
Couldn't you add "when you trash or Exile this..."If we're being pedantic, there's still the possibility of native village + swindler (when all your jetties are on your NV mat), or masquerade when the alternatives are key victory cards.
(https://i.ibb.co/CQHxKMX/Sentinel-II.png) | Sentinel (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Night - Duration Quote
|
You may want to find a wording that lets this still be useful when you have less than 3 cards in your deck.
My Submission:
(https://i.ibb.co/CQHxKMX/Sentinel-II.png) Sentinel
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Night - DurationQuote
Look at the top 3 cards of your
deck. Discard any number,
taking (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png) for each. Put the rest
back on top in any order.
At the start of your next turn,
+1 Card per (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png) taken with this.
Notes
When a Sentinel doesn't discard any cards, no (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) is taken and that Sentinel is discarded in the same Clean-up phase.
Tracking of how many (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) have been taken due to discarding cards by a Sentinel can be simply done by adding them to the Sentinel card until next turn. This way, they can be easily distinguished from (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) taken by other means.
You may want to find a wording that lets this still be useful when you have less than 3 cards in your deck.
My Submission:
(https://i.ibb.co/CQHxKMX/Sentinel-II.png) Sentinel
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Night - DurationQuote
Look at the top 3 cards of your
deck. Discard any number,
taking (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png) for each. Put the rest
back on top in any order.
At the start of your next turn,
+1 Card per (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png) taken with this.
Notes
When a Sentinel doesn't discard any cards, no (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) is taken and that Sentinel is discarded in the same Clean-up phase.
Tracking of how many (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) have been taken due to discarding cards by a Sentinel can be simply done by adding them to the Sentinel card until next turn. This way, they can be easily distinguished from (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) taken by other means.
Do you mean less than 3 cards between your deck and discard pile, or literally "less than 3 cards in your deck"? Because you do get to shuffle if there are fewer than 3 cards in your deck but more cards in your discard pile. See Sentry and Cartographer.Yes, I meant the former.
You may want to find a wording that lets this still be useful when you have less than 3 cards in your deck.
You may want to find a wording that lets this still be useful when you have less than 3 cards in your deck.
My Submission:
(https://i.ibb.co/CQHxKMX/Sentinel-II.png) Sentinel
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Night - DurationQuote
Look at the top 3 cards of your
deck. Discard any number,
taking (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png) for each. Put the rest
back on top in any order.
At the start of your next turn,
+1 Card per (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png) taken with this.
Notes
When a Sentinel doesn't discard any cards, no (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) is taken and that Sentinel is discarded in the same Clean-up phase.
Tracking of how many (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) have been taken due to discarding cards by a Sentinel can be simply done by adding them to the Sentinel card until next turn. This way, they can be easily distinguished from (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) taken by other means.
I guess I consider Sentinel to be a draw card more than a deck inspector. If you need deck inspection then you're likely not drawing your deck, so yes, this is less of an issue. But if you just want to use Sentinel to start each turn with +3 cards, then I imagine it would be frustrating for it to stop working because you didn't gain enough cards. I don't feel like that drawback is necessary or makes the card more interesting. I imagined a phrasing like this:
You may want to find a wording that lets this still be useful when you have less than 3 cards in your deck.
Unless I miss something important, I think the card is fine as is. There are a lot of deck inspection cards around and to my knowledge none of them has a backup function for the case that the deck is (nearly) empty. If that indeed happens, then either a) Sentinel helped in doing a good job in building a functional engine, and is just useless at that point (but likely helpful later when greening starts), or b) it wasn't a good idea to gain a Sentinel. If Sentinel's ability turns out to be too weak, I would rather consider changing the cost or the range of cards it can inspect.
Can you tell me what I might miss?
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Take up to 3 Debt and discard that many of the cards. Put the rest back on top in any order.
I guess I consider Sentinel to be a draw card more than a deck inspector. If you need deck inspection then you're likely not drawing your deck, so yes, this is less of an issue. But if you just want to use Sentinel to start each turn with +3 cards, then I imagine it would be frustrating for it to stop working because you didn't gain enough cards. I don't feel like that drawback is necessary or makes the card more interesting. I imagined a phrasing like this:
You may want to find a wording that lets this still be useful when you have less than 3 cards in your deck.
Unless I miss something important, I think the card is fine as is. There are a lot of deck inspection cards around and to my knowledge none of them has a backup function for the case that the deck is (nearly) empty. If that indeed happens, then either a) Sentinel helped in doing a good job in building a functional engine, and is just useless at that point (but likely helpful later when greening starts), or b) it wasn't a good idea to gain a Sentinel. If Sentinel's ability turns out to be too weak, I would rather consider changing the cost or the range of cards it can inspect.
Can you tell me what I might miss?QuoteLook at the top 3 cards of your deck. Take up to 3 Debt and discard that many of the cards. Put the rest back on top in any order.
New entry
Taking the "trick token" from the lokis trick entry: i kinda like the idea of a counter, idk
(https://i.imgur.com/D4O0Huv.png)
A powerful Non-terminal workshop, but it gives your opponents a free 4$ card to hand on the third play. Should count for this weeks theme. If it doesn't, ill count on silverspawn saying "nah it doesn't count"
Wanderer | Action | $3
+2 Cards
If you have no §, +1 Action.
Lose a §.
-
When you gain this, take 2§.
Submission
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/3x8mvd6y.png)QuoteWanderer | Action | $3
+2 Cards
If you have no §, +1 Action.
Lose a §.
-
When you gain this, take 2§.
A reverse Lackeys. The can be cheap labs, but each one you get turns two lab plays into moats temporarily. Unlike Lackeys, buying these early can be problematic -- how willingly are you to draw your other opening card dead? Might want some villages/villagers first. Sometimes your opponent may "gift" you a Wandering via ambassador or messenger so that yours are terminal at the start of your turn. Yikes! Maybe you stock up early, try to win the split, and get lots of § in the hopes of losing them soon enough to make the cheap labs worth it. Your choice. After all, not all who wander are lost.
This reuses Pain tokens §, but this is not designed to balanced or go with other cards that gain/lose pain tokens.
$3$4 - Action
+3 Cards
+1 Action
Take 1 Debt
For each Debt you have, discard a card.
(https://i.imgur.com/hBCH9nA.png)Looks better than Forum. The Debt is better for you then discarding another card.Quote from: Businessman$3 - Action
+3 Cards
+1 Action
Take 1 Debt
For each Debt you have, discard a card.
I think there's some more design potential in this area. I thought about going larger (4 cards, take 2 debt), or switching to Lost City variants (3 cards, 2 actions, 1 or 2 debt), but I figured I'd stick to a fairly simple one for the contest. It's hard to judge how much it should be worth. It looks like a Lab, ending you with 2 cards and 1 action (after 1 discard)... and/or strictly better than a Warehouse. But this card doesn't stack well (play 2 in one turn, your second one now discards 2 instead of 1 leaving you with a cantrip). And on top of the stacking problem, you also have a debt to pay off before you can buy a card.
Looks better than Forum. The Debt is better for you then discarding another card.
Sure, with more copies it becomes more tricky to evaluate but a card that is better than a $5 while only costing $3 if you only run one copy of it is most likely totally out of balance.
Forum is fairly weak in its end result - it's a sifter that ends up resulting as a cantrip. In an optimized deck ("junk" all trashed), Forum is a waste of a $5 purchase. It will always leave you with the same number of cards (default case, I'll say leave you with 5 cards in hand). In its best case, with multiple Forums, you end up getting the 5 best cards from your deck into your hand.That is flat out wrong. Sifters have their use even in a thin decks. Before or while you thin you wanna cycle as hard as you can, sooner or later you will green and you gotta sift through your green and you always wanna match your engine pieces. For example with Dungeon a decent rule of thumb is to always get one and to get two (or sometimes more) if there is no trashing or junking.
overall worse than Forum (even though a single play may be better some of the time). And I think that's okay, since dealing with negative tokens will sometimes have varying power levels, I suspect.That is again flat out wrong. A single copy of Businessman is better than Forum for the very same reason that Laboratory is better than Poacher: discarding one card hurts more than 1 Debt.
I don't think it's broken. Lots of $4 cards are better than it - I'd rather open a Moneylender or Spice Merchant or Shepherd, which tends to be better than a $4 Lab too. Obviously the first copy you buy is strong - perhaps too strong - but you're extrapolating that to mean the whole stack of Businessmen will break the game when in reality it's just a single above-average card in your deck. It's not going to do *that* much.None of the cards you mentioned is easily comparable to another cards and two of them are trashers so of course you want to open with them. Opening double Raze can be a thing on a board, doesn't mean that Raze is super strong.
Quote from: segura... discarding one card hurts more than 1 Debt.
I agree with most of what segura said about Businessman, except:This is a good point and I agree that the delta between Lab and Peddler is larger than that between a cantrip discarding a card and taking 1D. But there is still a positive difference that becomes easily visible if we look at an example.I think in more cases than not, discarding a card is less harsh than taking 1 Debt, e.g. discarding a Victory card or a Curse, picking up the discarded card again, preparing for a draw to X, etc.Quote from: segura... discarding one card hurts more than 1 Debt.
This time we have 18 submissions, so I went with a top 4. I went to labeling them 'Finalist's rather than 'Runner-up's since the winner is also among them.
Verdict: #Approaching Englightenemnt: Disappearing Village by mxdata #Close to Enlightenment: Wanderer by anordinaryman #Almost Enlightened: Way of the Octopus by Timinou #Fully Enlightened... (https://i.ibb.co/WWHbXqs/colonclosingparanthesis.png) Wicked Village by pubby! |