Dominion Strategy Forum

Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Weekly Design Contest => Topic started by: pubby on April 19, 2021, 10:02:45 pm

Title: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: pubby on April 19, 2021, 10:02:45 pm
WDC 112: Steal the Show

Design an Attack card that steals from other players.

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Thief.jpg/200px-Thief.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/46/Bandit.jpg/200px-Bandit.jpg)

Rules:
- It must have the Attack type, but it doesn't have to be an Action.
- Other players must lose something that persists across multiple turns and you must gain something that persists across multiple turns. You do not have to gain the exact thing they lost - Bandit and Pirate Ship are OK, but Jester is not.
- The effect can be delayed - Rogue is OK.
- The stealing can involve any resource that persists across turns - cards, tokens, states, etc. Effects that only last a turn (e.g. you get $2) do not count. Effects that go away almost instantly (-1 coin token or Coffers), are discouraged.
- It's fine if you want to do a split pile or non-supply card , but please cap entries at 2 designed cards max.

Judge's Opinion:
- Don't give players the option to steal from 1 player only. They should steal from everyone (like official cards).
- If I must squint, you have too much text
- The rules are loose. You can get away with many designs if they have thieving flavor
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 19, 2021, 10:15:31 pm
WDC 112: Steal the Show

Design an Attack card that steals from other players.

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Thief.jpg/200px-Thief.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/46/Bandit.jpg/200px-Bandit.jpg)

Rules:
- It must have the Attack type, but it doesn't have to be an Action.
- Other players must lose something and you must gain something. You do not have to gain the exact thing they lost - Bandit and Pirate Ship are OK, but Jester is not.
- The effect can be delayed - Rogue is OK.
- The stealing can involve any resource - cards, tokens, turns, VP, etc.
- It's fine if you want to do a split pile or non-supply card , but please cap entries at 2 designed cards max.

Judge's Opinion:
- Don't give players the option to steal from 1 player only. They should steal from everyone (like official cards).
- If I must squint, you have too much text

What would it mean to steal a "turn"?  How would that differ from simply "take another turn"?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: pubby on April 19, 2021, 10:21:11 pm
Ha, that's up to you decide. I put that on there in case someone had a crazy idea, without thinking through what it actually meant. I'll remove the line from the OP, but anyone is welcome to try and answer the question, "How can one steal a turn?"
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: ConMan on April 19, 2021, 11:24:14 pm
Ha, that's up to you decide. I put that on there in case someone had a crazy idea, without thinking through what it actually meant. I'll remove the line from the OP, but anyone is welcome to try and answer the question, "How can one steal a turn?"
Maybe something more like Possession, but without all the reasons why Possession wouldn't count for this contest?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: emtzalex on April 19, 2021, 11:33:30 pm
MY SUBMISSION:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZIeLYPKh.png)


Quote from: Magic Wardrobe

MAGIC WARDROBE  (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/32px-Coin6.png)
TREASURE - ATTACK
+1 Buy
Name an Action or Treasure card. Each other player reveals the top card of their deck, and if it's the named card, trashes it. You Exile the trashed cards.
                                                               

Hey! Where did that go? If you know how to use it right, the Magic Wardrobe can make your opponents' stuff disappear. Being a Treasure makes it non-terminal, but it does little besides the Attack. Being able to target both Actions and Treasures makes it more versatile, but the wishing well mechanic makes it less certain. And Exiling the card (instead of gaining it) delays the benefit to the player using the Attack, but provides the extra option of depriving an opponent of a card without putting it in your deck. With some Landmarks (Fountain, Museum, Orchard) or Alt-VP (Gardens, Fairgrounds), having cards in Exile may actually be of benefit.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Timinou on April 20, 2021, 01:15:22 am
Would Bridge Troll qualify?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 20, 2021, 01:44:11 am
Would Bridge Troll qualify?

I wouldn't think so.  You're not actually stealing anything from your opponents, you're just making it harder for them to buy cards and easier for you to
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: faust on April 20, 2021, 02:32:16 am
It's unclear to me what "lose something" and "gain something" means in this context. If I play Cardinal, the opponent loses a card to the Exile and I gain $2, but somehow i feel like Cardinal wouldn't qualify for this. Do the gained and lost things have to be actual physical entities?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: pubby on April 20, 2021, 03:19:17 am
The rules are going to be somewhat loose, but I want to see long-lasting effects, not effects that last 1 turn only.

Exiling your opponent's cards fits this contest (it can harm them for several turns). Getting $2 is not (it benefits you for this turn only). Stuff like the -1 tokens, or even Coffers, can be long-lasting and so will be allowed in the contest, but they are not ideal entries.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 20, 2021, 03:39:11 am
- The stealing can involve any resource that persists across turns - cards, tokens, states, etc. Effects that only last a turn (e.g. you get $2) do not count. Effects that go away almost instantly (-1 coin token or Coffers), are discouraged.
- It's fine if you want to do a split pile or non-supply card , but please cap entries at 2 designed cards max.

Judge's Opinion:
- Don't give players the option to steal from 1 player only. They should steal from everyone (like official cards).
- If I must squint, you have too much text
- The rules are loose. You can get away with many designs if they have thieving flavor

Does this 2-card max include any non-card entities, like states or markers?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: fika monster on April 20, 2021, 03:59:08 am
Edit: was a bad card idea. no longer my submission

Probably a stupid card idea, but i wanted to do a card based on the swedish term "Björntjänst"

(https://i.imgur.com/uUaixpW.png)
Quote
Björntjänst
2$ - Action Attack
Each other player reveals the top 3 cards of their deck.
They may trash any of the cards, and if they do, You may gain a copy of them to your hand. They then discard the rest.


Edit

Added +3$ so theres a benefit
(https://i.imgur.com/KWCDKSX.png)

This is probably unplayable but eh. wanna explore the idea a bit

Edit 2
Made it +2$ instead, and now you can gain 1 of the revealed cards regardless of if they trashed it
(https://i.imgur.com/QWvMpkX.png)

Edit3
(https://i.imgur.com/iWV5wVr.png)

edit 4:

Added to that it cant gain victory cards
(https://i.imgur.com/aqsxIba.png)[/s]
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 20, 2021, 04:03:52 am
Probably a stupid card idea, but i wanted to do a card based on the swedish term "Björntjänst"

(https://i.imgur.com/uUaixpW.png)
Quote
Björntjänst
2$ - Action Attack
Each other player reveals the top 3 cards of their deck.
They may trash any of the cards, and if they do, You may gain a copy of them to your hand. They then discard the rest.

https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/?title=Bj%C3%B6rntj%C3%A4nst&description=Each%20other%20player%20reveals%20the%20top%203%20cards%20of%20their%20deck.%20%0AThey%20may%20trash%20any%20of%20the%20cards%2C%20and%20if%20they%20do%2C%20You%20may%20gain%20a%20copy%20of%20them%20to%20your%20hand.%20They%20then%20discard%20the%20rest.&type=Action%20-%20Attack&credit=%3F%3F%3F&creator=v%201%20fika%20monster&price=%242&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=-0.38&picture-zoom=1.2&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.bonnier.cloud%2Ffiles%2Fhis%2Fproduction%2F2019%2F10%2F02024719%2Fbjoernetjeneste-7mwmvkiy-tow9eedn5inq.jpg%3Fauto%3Dcompress%26q%3D30%26fit%3Dcrop%26crop%3Dfocalpoint%26fp-x%3D0.5%26fp-y%3D0.5%26w%3D1920%26ixlib%3Dimgixjs-3.4.2&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0 (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/?title=Bj%C3%B6rntj%C3%A4nst&description=Each%20other%20player%20reveals%20the%20top%203%20cards%20of%20their%20deck.%20%0AThey%20may%20trash%20any%20of%20the%20cards%2C%20and%20if%20they%20do%2C%20You%20may%20gain%20a%20copy%20of%20them%20to%20your%20hand.%20They%20then%20discard%20the%20rest.&type=Action%20-%20Attack&credit=%3F%3F%3F&creator=v%201%20fika%20monster&price=%242&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=-0.38&picture-zoom=1.2&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.bonnier.cloud%2Ffiles%2Fhis%2Fproduction%2F2019%2F10%2F02024719%2Fbjoernetjeneste-7mwmvkiy-tow9eedn5inq.jpg%3Fauto%3Dcompress%26q%3D30%26fit%3Dcrop%26crop%3Dfocalpoint%26fp-x%3D0.5%26fp-y%3D0.5%26w%3D1920%26ixlib%3Dimgixjs-3.4.2&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0)
(ink to the card image file, so i can edit this later at another computer

Wouldn't this typically help other players?  After all, chances are, any cards they choose to trash are not going to be cards you want to gain
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: spineflu on April 20, 2021, 06:16:16 am
Withdrawing this
(https://i.imgur.com/wrXPbJL.png)
Quote
Sheriff • $4 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, put a card from your discard pile into your hand.
Until then, the first time each other player plays a Treasure other than Copper on their turn, you may discard a card from your hand to steal it.

defining a new key word that should be fairly intuitive: steal - when you steal a card, the player you are stealing from trashes it, then you gain the copy from the trash. As always, if a part of that fails, the parts after it do not happen.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: grep on April 20, 2021, 11:40:01 am
(https://i.ibb.co/ykDRb5V/image.png)
Goblin Workshop
$4 - Action - Attack
Each other player reveals top 2 cards from their deck, trashes one costing $3 or $4 and discards the rest.
Gain a non-Victory card with the same name as a card in Trash.
-
Setup: put a Silver to Trash.



The real masters steal ideas :)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: silverspawn on April 20, 2021, 12:07:34 pm
Are you sure about the 'has to have the attack type' criterion? You didn't say that you have to steal something valuable, so technically, a card that steals in a non-attack way but attacks in an unrelated manner would pass. This doesn't seem ideal.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Mahowrath on April 20, 2021, 01:50:20 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/6JOlvA7.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XPOZfFI.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/tDzUbDk.png)
Quote
Beguiler - $5
Action - Attack - Duration

+$2
Each other player takes Hoodwinked

At the start of your next turn, you may gain to your hand an Action or Treasure from the Trash
Quote
Hoodwinked
State

The next time you play a non-Duration Action or Treasure card from your hand: trash it, and gain a different, non-Victory card with the same cost.
Return Hoodwinked



Duration Swindler variant, with the key difference that other players are free to choose their alternative. However, it must be a different card, and non-victory, so most often it will still be unbeneficial. Coppers are still in most circumstances hoodwinked to Curses. Likely, another player will have to trash an engine piece you can make use of.

Edit: added "from hand" to the Hoodwinked trigger condition. This makes Beguiler more Prince-friendly (as per mxdata's comment below), along with giving more flexibility to delayed effect users wishing to hoodwink their terminals.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 20, 2021, 03:11:06 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/6JOlvA7.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XPOZfFI.png)
Quote
Beguiler - $5
Action - Attack - Duration

+$2
Each other player takes Hoodwinked

At the start of your next turn, you may gain to your hand an Action or Treasure from the Trash
Quote
Hoodwinked
State

The next time you play a non-duration Action or Treasure card: trash it, and gain a different, non-Victory card with the same cost.
Return Hoodwinked



Duration Swindler variant, with the key difference that other players are free to choose their alternative. However, it must be a different card, and non-victory, so most often it will still be unbeneficial. Coppers are still in most circumstances hoodwinked to Curses. Likely, another player will have to trash an engine piece you can make use of.

My opponent buys Reap.  I play Beguiler.  At the start of their turn, Reap causes Gold to be played which gets trashed.  Next turn I gain that Gold to my hand
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 20, 2021, 03:12:31 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/6JOlvA7.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XPOZfFI.png)
Quote
Beguiler - $5
Action - Attack - Duration

+$2
Each other player takes Hoodwinked

At the start of your next turn, you may gain to your hand an Action or Treasure from the Trash
Quote
Hoodwinked
State

The next time you play a non-duration Action or Treasure card: trash it, and gain a different, non-Victory card with the same cost.
Return Hoodwinked



Duration Swindler variant, with the key difference that other players are free to choose their alternative. However, it must be a different card, and non-victory, so most often it will still be unbeneficial. Coppers are still in most circumstances hoodwinked to Curses. Likely, another player will have to trash an engine piece you can make use of.

I just realized that this would make Prince completely useless
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Mahowrath on April 20, 2021, 04:18:56 pm
I just realized that this would make Prince completely useless

Yes, this is a good point! Fortunately I think it's relatively easy to fix while keeping the spirit of the card, by adding "from hand" to the Hoodwinked trigger condition.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Gubump on April 20, 2021, 05:35:19 pm
I think the better solution is to just not use Prince or Reap on Beguiler boards. I think it's fine to allow those interactions. It's not any more broken than Swindling Province->Peddler or Province->Prince.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 20, 2021, 06:35:50 pm
I think the better solution is to just not use Prince or Reap on Beguiler boards. I think it's fine to allow those interactions. It's not any more broken than Swindling Province->Peddler or Province->Prince.

I agree, actually.  I wasn't meaning to say that that made the card broken.  I just thought the Reap interaction was kind of hilarious, and with Prince, it's already very situational anyways.  Lots of boards have no really good cards for Prince anyways, so one more case where Prince is useless isn't a problem
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 20, 2021, 06:58:41 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/VveD09u.png)
Quote
Siege
Action - Attack
Cost: $4 1D
Each other player reveals cards from their deck until revealing one costing $3 or $4, trashing that card and discarding the rest.  You may gain any or all of the trashed cards
Similar to Thief in that it directly steals trashed cards, but unlike Thief, it is not restricted to Treasures, but instead digs for a specific cost range.  It has a nice interaction with cost reduction, which lets you steal more expensive cards.  The cost includes debt in order to ensure that a Siege can't steal another Siege, even with cost reduction
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Mahowrath on April 20, 2021, 07:14:46 pm
I think the better solution is to just not use Prince or Reap on Beguiler boards. I think it's fine to allow those interactions. It's not any more broken than Swindling Province->Peddler or Province->Prince.

I agree that unfun one-off interactions don't ruin a card, but I think the change is an improvement, and covers enough cases to be worth the additional text.
For example, letting Captain get a supply card trashed for a free gain is another amusing case best avoided. But letting these cards provide an opportunity to trash your terminals without killing your turn is a nice interaction.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 20, 2021, 07:45:16 pm
I think the better solution is to just not use Prince or Reap on Beguiler boards. I think it's fine to allow those interactions. It's not any more broken than Swindling Province->Peddler or Province->Prince.

I agree that unfun one-off interactions don't ruin a card, but I think the change is an improvement, and covers enough cases to be worth the additional text.
For example, letting Captain get a supply card trashed for a free gain is another amusing case best avoided. But letting these cards provide an opportunity to trash your terminals without killing your turn is a nice interaction.

I don't think Captain would've worked that way anyways with the old version, since Captain specifically says to leave it in place.  Wouldn't the stop-moving rule apply here?  Beguiler expects to find the card in play, but it's not, so it can't trash it, same as, for example, Counterfeiting a Spoils or Processioning a Horse

On the other hand, either version would be a lot of fun with Fortress.  Play Fortress, it gets trashed, going back to your hand, you get a free $4 card, and you get to play that same Fortress again!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Mahowrath on April 20, 2021, 08:21:19 pm

I agree that unfun one-off interactions don't ruin a card, but I think the change is an improvement, and covers enough cases to be worth the additional text.
For example, letting Captain get a supply card trashed for a free gain is another amusing case best avoided. But letting these cards provide an opportunity to trash your terminals without killing your turn is a nice interaction.

I don't think Captain would've worked that way anyways with the old version, since Captain specifically says to leave it in place.  Wouldn't the stop-moving rule apply here?  Beguiler expects to find the card in play, but it's not, so it can't trash it, same as, for example, Counterfeiting a Spoils or Processioning a Horse

On the other hand, either version would be a lot of fun with Fortress.  Play Fortress, it gets trashed, going back to your hand, you get a free $4 card, and you get to play that same Fortress again!

Captain: Not sure; stop moving rule might not prevent the trash as the "leaving it there" only applies to the play, and the Hoodwink is an external, prior effect on that card due to you playing it. Perhaps the explicit wording for this should be "first trash it", as on-play is kind of ill-defined in precedence with the actual playing of the card.
Regardless, the gain trigger would occur, as it is not conditional on trashing, so you would gain a card out of it.

Fortress on the other hand is perfectly entitled to its fun as always!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Xen3k on April 20, 2021, 09:47:16 pm
NOT AN ENTRY

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51128457976_f42ef150dc_b.jpg)

Quote
Bodysnatcher - $4
Night - Attack - Reaction - Fate
+1 Coffers
Take a Boon. Receive it now or at the start of your next turn.
----
After another player plays a non-Duration Action card, you may trash this from your hand, to trash that card. Then, gain to your hand an Action card from the trash.

A one shot Reaction that steals an Action card. Otherwise, it is a slow Night card that gives you a Coffer and a Boon. It may be overpriced, but I was worried about making a card that can steal any cost of Action card too cheap. It will have an interesting effect on boards that have very appealing expensive Action cards as stealing one would be a pretty big swing. I appreciate any feedback or criticism.

Edit: Changed the below line text to not use the exchange wording.

Old Version
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51128454884_9ba956e364_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 20, 2021, 09:58:14 pm
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51128454884_9ba956e364_b.jpg)

Quote
Bodysnatcher - $4
Night - Attack - Reaction - Fate
+1 Coffers
Take a Boon. Receive it now or at the start of your next turn.
----
After another player plays a non-Duration Action card, you may reveal this from your hand, to trash that card. Then, if it is in the trash, exchange this for it.

A one shot Reaction that steals an Action card. Otherwise, it is a slow Night card that gives you a Coffer and a Boon. It may be overpriced, but I was worried about making a card that can steal any cost of Action card too cheap. It will have an interesting effect on boards that have very appealing expensive Action cards as stealing one would be a pretty big swing. I appreciate any feedback or criticism.

I'm not sure the "exchange" keyword really works in that context, since you're not gaining the card from the Supply, but rather, from the trash, so to get that intended effect, you might need to say "Return this to its pile to gain the trashed card".  You also probably don't need the "if it is in the trash" part.  Even if you tried to use it on a Fortress, the only case where the "if it is in the trash" part would fail, it still wouldn't be able to gain it, since it wouldn't be where it expected to find it (in fact, at that point, it wouldn't even be in play any more, it would be in your opponent's hand again)

Also, I'm not convinced you really need the above-the-line part.  This could work as a pure reaction (well, Reaction - Attack, but only those two types)

However, overall, the card seems pretty good to me
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Xen3k on April 20, 2021, 10:08:22 pm
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51128454884_9ba956e364_b.jpg)

Quote
Bodysnatcher - $4
Night - Attack - Reaction - Fate
+1 Coffers
Take a Boon. Receive it now or at the start of your next turn.
----
After another player plays a non-Duration Action card, you may reveal this from your hand, to trash that card. Then, if it is in the trash, exchange this for it.

A one shot Reaction that steals an Action card. Otherwise, it is a slow Night card that gives you a Coffer and a Boon. It may be overpriced, but I was worried about making a card that can steal any cost of Action card too cheap. It will have an interesting effect on boards that have very appealing expensive Action cards as stealing one would be a pretty big swing. I appreciate any feedback or criticism.

I'm not sure the "exchange" keyword really works in that context, since you're not gaining the card from the Supply, but rather, from the trash, so to get that intended effect, you might need to say "Return this to its pile to gain the trashed card".  You also probably don't need the "if it is in the trash" part.  Even if you tried to use it on a Fortress, the only case where the "if it is in the trash" part would fail, it still wouldn't be able to gain it, since it wouldn't be where it expected to find it (in fact, at that point, it wouldn't even be in play any more, it would be in your opponent's hand again)

Also, I'm not convinced you really need the above-the-line part.  This could work as a pure reaction (well, Reaction - Attack, but only those two types)

However, overall, the card seems pretty good to me

Yeah, I was not too sure about using the "exchange" effect, but the intended results would have the Bodysnatcher in the Trash and the card you reacted to and trashed in your hand. I will try and work on the wording some more.

As for the above the line text, I agree it is not really necessary, but I would like to have the card do something if a player would want to keep it in their deck as a looming threat and not have the optimal play simply to react to the first Action another player plays.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Gubump on April 20, 2021, 10:28:00 pm
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51128457976_f42ef150dc_b.jpg)

Quote
Bodysnatcher - $4
Night - Attack - Reaction - Fate
+1 Coffers
Take a Boon. Receive it now or at the start of your next turn.
----
After another player plays a non-Duration Action card, you may trash this from your hand, to trash that card. Then, gain to your hand an Action card from the trash.

A one shot Reaction that steals an Action card. Otherwise, it is a slow Night card that gives you a Coffer and a Boon. It may be overpriced, but I was worried about making a card that can steal any cost of Action card too cheap. It will have an interesting effect on boards that have very appealing expensive Action cards as stealing one would be a pretty big swing. I appreciate any feedback or criticism.

Edit: Changed the below line text to not use the exchange wording.

Old Version
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51128454884_9ba956e364_b.jpg)

This doesn't really work as an Attack type, since cards that care about Attacks care when an Attack is played, and Attack cards attack when played. This attacks when you react with it, not when you play it. It shouldn't have the Attack type for the same reason Ill-Gotten Gains doesn't have the Attack type.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Xen3k on April 20, 2021, 10:48:00 pm
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51128457976_f42ef150dc_b.jpg)

Quote
Bodysnatcher - $4
Night - Attack - Reaction - Fate
+1 Coffers
Take a Boon. Receive it now or at the start of your next turn.
----
After another player plays a non-Duration Action card, you may trash this from your hand, to trash that card. Then, gain to your hand an Action card from the trash.

A one shot Reaction that steals an Action card. Otherwise, it is a slow Night card that gives you a Coffer and a Boon. It may be overpriced, but I was worried about making a card that can steal any cost of Action card too cheap. It will have an interesting effect on boards that have very appealing expensive Action cards as stealing one would be a pretty big swing. I appreciate any feedback or criticism.

Edit: Changed the below line text to not use the exchange wording.

Old Version
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51128454884_9ba956e364_b.jpg)

This doesn't really work as an Attack type, since cards that care about Attacks care when an Attack is played, and Attack cards attack when played. This attacks when you react with it, not when you play it. It shouldn't have the Attack type for the same reason Ill-Gotten Gains doesn't have the Attack type.

Hmm, that is true. I guess my entry is invalid as designed. Very well, I will mark it as such.
Edit: Just noticed that stealing from only one person is also not a valid design, so this goes against that criteria.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 20, 2021, 10:50:29 pm
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51128457976_f42ef150dc_b.jpg)

Quote
Bodysnatcher - $4
Night - Attack - Reaction - Fate
+1 Coffers
Take a Boon. Receive it now or at the start of your next turn.
----
After another player plays a non-Duration Action card, you may trash this from your hand, to trash that card. Then, gain to your hand an Action card from the trash.

A one shot Reaction that steals an Action card. Otherwise, it is a slow Night card that gives you a Coffer and a Boon. It may be overpriced, but I was worried about making a card that can steal any cost of Action card too cheap. It will have an interesting effect on boards that have very appealing expensive Action cards as stealing one would be a pretty big swing. I appreciate any feedback or criticism.

Edit: Changed the below line text to not use the exchange wording.

Old Version
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51128454884_9ba956e364_b.jpg)

This doesn't really work as an Attack type, since cards that care about Attacks care when an Attack is played, and Attack cards attack when played. This attacks when you react with it, not when you play it. It shouldn't have the Attack type for the same reason Ill-Gotten Gains doesn't have the Attack type.

Oh, that's a good point.  I was thinking of Black Cat, but of course, Black Cat is played as its reaction.  Maybe it could work more like Black Cat then.  Something like:
Quote
+1 Coffers
Take a Boon.  Receive it now or at the start of your next turn.  If it is not your turn, trash this and a non-Duration Action card in play.  Then, gain an Action card to your hand from the trash
-
When another person plays a non-Duration Action card, you may play this from your hand

So, it would still work in a similar manner (except for gaining a Coffers and a Boon with its reaction as well).  The "if it is not your turn" part ensures that the attack part only happens as a reaction
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 20, 2021, 10:53:06 pm
Hmm, that is true. I guess my entry is invalid as designed. Very well, I will mark it as such.
Edit: Just noticed that stealing from only one person is also not a valid design, so this goes against that criteria.

Ah, that's true, it does fail that criterion.  But I think it's still got a lot of potential, just not for this contest
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: pubby on April 21, 2021, 12:48:47 am
Does this 2-card max include any non-card entities, like states or markers?
Yep. Please don't design more than 2 components.

Are you sure about the 'has to have the attack type' criterion? You didn't say that you have to steal something valuable, so technically, a card that steals in a non-attack way but attacks in an unrelated manner would pass. This doesn't seem ideal.
I think it's fine.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Shael on April 21, 2021, 02:16:12 am
Glad that I've already made a card with this type of effect:
(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/16/hgqd.png)
Don't hesitate to told me what you think about it.
(Edited)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 21, 2021, 02:44:16 am
Does this 2-card max include any non-card entities, like states or markers?
Yep. Please don't design more than 2 components.

Well, as it turns out that was irrelevant.  I had an idea for a card which would've required both a state and a marker, but it turned out unsatisfactory, and a messy wall of text so I abandoned that idea for the one I've already posted
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 21, 2021, 02:54:12 am
Glad that I've already made a card with this type of effect:
(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/16/uhsm.png)
maybe it's a litle bit on the weak side; don't hesitate to told me what you think about it.

Would this qualify?  Your opponents are losing cards, but they're also gaining cards, and likewise, you're both gaining and getting rid of cards, so in the end you're just redistributing cards, like Masquerade on steroids

The variable cost is quite an interesting twist
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Aquila on April 21, 2021, 03:13:26 am
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5f5a8e8e7ed38b522f25641a/608146bd14ad9e53195b09a8/7f455b5828a54b34173da5d849221433/Wrangler.png)

Quote
Wrangler - Action Attack, $5 cost.
+2 Cards
Each other player returns a Horse from their hand to its pile (or reveals they can't). Gain 2 Horses if anyone did. Those who did draw a card; those who didn't gain a Curse and a Horse.
Steal Horses, or give them out with Curses to those with none.

Edit: I did a mock-up in the end.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Shael on April 21, 2021, 03:23:01 am
Glad that I've already made a card with this type of effect:
...
Don't hesitate to told me what you think about it.

Would this qualify?  Your opponents are losing cards, but they're also gaining cards, and likewise, you're both gaining and getting rid of cards, so in the end you're just redistributing cards, like Masquerade on steroids

The variable cost is quite an interesting twist
I think we can do anything while we follow the rules and give cards to other isn't explicitly forbiden...
More seriously, I understand why you wonder if this really fit here, I personnaly think it's fine but it will probably be interesting to see the opinion of Pubby about this.

For information, I've remake it a litle bit because it was consider as a verry weak card on discord.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Shael on April 21, 2021, 03:49:13 am
Quote
Wrangler - Action Attack, $5 cost.
+2 Cards
Each other player returns a Horse from their hand to its pile (or reveals they can't). Gain 2 Horses if anyone did. Those who did draw a card; those who didn't gain a Curse and a Horse.
Steal Horses, or give them out with Curses to those with none.
It's a cool idea; have you any issue about the card generator or you just don't want to make it a card?
I can halp if you want
(I think that don't make it a card probably give you a disadvantage)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: silverspawn on April 21, 2021, 05:02:19 am
Are you sure about the 'has to have the attack type' criterion? You didn't say that you have to steal something valuable, so technically, a card that steals in a non-attack way but attacks in an unrelated manner would pass. This doesn't seem ideal.
I think it's fine.

Okay, but what's your intention with this rule? My current design is a card that steals without attacking. Are you really encouraging me to come up with a reason to make it an attack to bypass the rule, or would a non-attacking steal be against the spirit of the contest?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: fika monster on April 21, 2021, 05:42:07 am
new card submission

(https://i.imgur.com/YLDteHN.png)

Edit: Removed the "play the exiled card" thing to make the card read simplier, and i think i clarafied that you exile the trashed cards.

(https://i.imgur.com/2R2yNcQ.png)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Timinou on April 21, 2021, 07:06:35 am
new card submission

(https://i.imgur.com/YLDteHN.png)

Could playing a Night card during your Action phase have any unintended consequences? 
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Timinou on April 21, 2021, 07:18:13 am
Glad that I've already made a card with this type of effect:
(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/16/hgqd.png)
Don't hesitate to told me what you think about it.
(Edited)

Passing two cards can be harsh and it could be particularly brutal if played after a handsize attack.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mathdude on April 21, 2021, 09:19:49 am
Glad that I've already made a card with this type of effect:
(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/16/hgqd.png)
Don't hesitate to told me what you think about it.
(Edited)

With the similarities to Masquerade, using the Pass mechanic, I don't know if this would actually be an Attack card.  I guess where Masquerade (if an Attack) could be almost useless/redundant if people use a Moat, this card does make sense to protect against with a Moat, so maybe it's okay.

Would this qualify?  Your opponents are losing cards, but they're also gaining cards, and likewise, you're both gaining and getting rid of cards, so in the end you're just redistributing cards, like Masquerade on steroids

The variable cost is quite an interesting twist

I know I'm not judging.  But it seems to me that even if your/their cards are all "replaced", there is still the concept of "steal" and "gain" here.

Passing two cards can be harsh and it could be particularly brutal if played after a handsize attack.

I agree.  There probably needs to be a restriction on who it affects - maybe "Each other player with 4 or more cards..."?  You could put it at 5, but Legionary already sets a precedent for a player's cards temporarily going down to 2, so I think 4 is okay.

My own additional comment... I think this card borders on a political attack.  Yes, it's attacking everyone.  But the option to give one person 2 Curses and a different person 2 Coppers does allow for directed attacks.  Any time that cards allow for a non-random effect that can harm/hurt a single player, it specifically deals with the person to the Left (or Right), rather than allowing a choice.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mathdude on April 21, 2021, 09:25:53 am
Quote
Wrangler - Action Attack, $5 cost.
+2 Cards
Each other player returns a Horse from their hand to its pile (or reveals they can't). Gain 2 Horses if anyone did. Those who did draw a card; those who didn't gain a Curse and a Horse.
Steal Horses, or give them out with Curses to those with none.

Based on the "rules":
- Other players must lose something that persists across multiple turns and you must gain something that persists across multiple turns. You do not have to gain the exact thing they lost - Bandit and Pirate Ship are OK, but Jester is not.

I don't think your card meets the criteria that you "must gain something".  If no one returns a Horse, then you do not gain anything.

And if we want to get really technical, the Horse that others lose, and the 2 Horses that you could gain - they aren't actually something that "persists across multiple turns", so like the -$1 coin token or Coffers, I guess Horses would be "discouraged" in this contest.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: gambit05 on April 21, 2021, 09:45:50 am

I don't think your card meets the criteria that you "must gain something".  If no one returns a Horse, then you do not gain anything.

If this is true, then Thief wouldn't be eligible either, although it was shown in the original post, just below the title.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mathdude on April 21, 2021, 10:41:13 am
new card submission

(https://i.imgur.com/YLDteHN.png)

"Exile one copy of any trashed cards" needs clarification.  Are you Exiling the actual card from the Trash?  Are you Exiling a copy of it from the Supply (if there are any left)?  Is the "one copy" meant to say that if there are 3 Estates you only get 1?  Or is "one copy" meant to help clarify my earlier question, that it's actually a copy from the Supply rather than the actual card from the Trash - in which case, you should probably say "a copy"?

I think +2 Cards, and a forced trash for all other players (which, granted, may sometimes help them, but later in the game may also be quite harmful) with the option to Exile is probably already strong enough for $4.  I don't think it needs to let you play the Exiled card (let alone twice!)  That option for playing the card makes it very swingy and situational.

As with similar attacks, this can get very powerful in multi-player games (e.g. Pirate Ship more likely to succeed, Thief getting more cards), but that's part of the game.  But imagine someone having to choose between trashing a Silver or Duchy near the end of the game?  They either give you $4 this turn, or a swing of 6 points (they trash 3 points, you Exile 3 points).  If you do want to allow playing the Exiled card, I think once is plenty, and even then may require the card to go up to $5 instead of $4.

On another note - with Emulators (such as Command-type), they generally do not allow the play of Duration cards, for tracking issues.  I think that would be wise to include here, if you keep the option to play the Exiled card.  Especially tracking if Duration cards can be played twice would become troublesome if more than one were played (in 3+ player games), as the Throne Room (or variant) is usually set aside with it, but you can't easily do this with multiple cards.

Could playing a Night card during your Action phase have any unintended consequences? 

Aside from the fact that I don't think this card needs to even Play cards that were Exiled, yes, I think there could be some consequences.  Looking through the official Night cards - if we remove the ability to play Duration cards, I think that fixes some of the issues.  Here are my comments on how they are all effected:
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mathdude on April 21, 2021, 10:41:37 am

I don't think your card meets the criteria that you "must gain something".  If no one returns a Horse, then you do not gain anything.

If this is true, then Thief wouldn't be eligible either, although it was shown in the original post, just below the title.

Fair enough!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: segura on April 21, 2021, 12:00:47 pm
Glad that I've already made a card with this type of effect:
(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/16/hgqd.png)
Don't hesitate to told me what you think about it.
(Edited)
I don’t get the point of the variable cost. Is this really stronger in 3P?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: anordinaryman on April 21, 2021, 02:00:34 pm
EDIT: This is NO LONGER my submission. Posting my new submission as a new post.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ybg8hxij.png)

Quote
Sack | Action - Attack | $4
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If a card was trashed this way, trash this and choose a card trashed by this to gain a horse per $1 it costs.

Trashing attacks need to be self-limiting in my opinion, so it self trashes like a Knight. When it pops it gives out a bunch of Horses (at least 4, since Sack counts as one of the cards trashed by this. Sometimes you'll hit a Gold and get to gain 6 horses.) Sometimes it misses though and nothing happens. This isn't super strong, which is how I like my trashing attacks. Compare this to Sir Martin, Sir Vander, Pillage, and Stampede and the price point looks right to me.

Open to feedback.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mathdude on April 21, 2021, 02:29:05 pm
My submission is a split pile (with the bottom card being the attack):

(updated versions explained here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20761.msg868078#msg868078) and here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20761.msg868083#msg868083))
(https://i.imgur.com/GxAHCrv.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/w6CbUwu.png)

(older version)
(https://i.imgur.com/EDcGZcm.png)

(original versions)
(https://i.imgur.com/DP2wY4Y.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/VvUUDrL.png)

Quote from: Clutter
$2 - Treasure
$1
+1 Buy
-
While this is in play, when you gain a card costing $3 or less, you may gain a copy of it.
Quote from: Cleaning
$5 - Night-Attack
Each other player reveals the top 3 cards of their deck and trashes a card costing up to $3 that you choose.  Choose one: gain a card costing up to $3 per Clutter you have in play; or gain a card from the trash.

Clutter can make a mess of your deck if you take too much advantage of its "while in play" effect.  However, there are many Village variants that it helps you gain quickly, as well as other $3 or even $2 cards (Lurker, Fool's Gold, Page, Peasant, Encampment).  The +1 Buy can make this gaining (of deck-cluttering cards) even more powerful, if you want.

Cleaning is generally a reference to cleaning out other players' decks, but it can also relate to dealing with your own clutter (in a positive way, though not getting rid of it).  If you can get 3 of the 5 Clutter cards, you can even use Cleaning to gain a Province or Platinum!  And while you can use Cleaning to steal Clutter from other players, they are also going to be trying to do the same from you.  The trash will usually have cards costing up to $3, but if you can match your Cleaning with even 2 Clutter cards, that can get you a Gold or other $5 or $6 card from the Supply instead of digging through the trash.

While designing these cards, I went through a number of different options, but my thought was a split pile, right from the start.  At first, Cleaning was going to be an Action-Duration-Attack, which stole from some set of cards when someone played them, but I couldn't find a good balance.  Then, Clutter was going to be an Action card with +1 Action, +$1, +1 Buy and the "while this is in play" clause, allowing Cleaning to be a Treasure-Attack (so Clutter is played before Cleaning).  Once I realized I could shift that Cleaning card to be Night-Attack instead, it was an easy switch to make Clutter a Treasure, allowing them to be played more reliably.

I was getting close to the current versions, but having troubles with them.  I briefly considered having Cleaning be its own 10-card pile, with Clutter becoming a non-Supply pile, likely with 20 or 30 cards.  Cleaning would look at other players' cards like now, but return any revealed Clutter cards to their pile; and it would have gained a Clutter as well as a card costing up to $2 or maybe $3 per Clutter you had in play.  Unfortunately, that forced gain could result in getting a Copper if you had no Clutter in play, and some decks would be able to gain Provinces too easily.  So I ended up back at the split pile, and added the choice for the gain, landing where the cards are now.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Gubump on April 21, 2021, 03:34:05 pm
As worded, Clutter lets you gain the entire Village pile, since it both triggers on-gain and causes gaining.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: fika monster on April 21, 2021, 03:39:11 pm
new card submission

(https://i.imgur.com/YLDteHN.png)

"Exile one copy of any trashed cards" needs clarification.  Are you Exiling the actual card from the Trash?  Are you Exiling a copy of it from the Supply (if there are any left)?  Is the "one copy" meant to say that if there are 3 Estates you only get 1?  Or is "one copy" meant to help clarify my earlier question, that it's actually a copy from the Supply rather than the actual card from the Trash - in which case, you should probably say "a copy"?

I think +2 Cards, and a forced trash for all other players (which, granted, may sometimes help them, but later in the game may also be quite harmful) with the option to Exile is probably already strong enough for $4.  I don't think it needs to let you play the Exiled card (let alone twice!)  That option for playing the card makes it very swingy and situational.

As with similar attacks, this can get very powerful in multi-player games (e.g. Pirate Ship more likely to succeed, Thief getting more cards), but that's part of the game.  But imagine someone having to choose between trashing a Silver or Duchy near the end of the game?  They either give you $4 this turn, or a swing of 6 points (they trash 3 points, you Exile 3 points).  If you do want to allow playing the Exiled card, I think once is plenty, and even then may require the card to go up to $5 instead of $4.

On another note - with Emulators (such as Command-type), they generally do not allow the play of Duration cards, for tracking issues.  I think that would be wise to include here, if you keep the option to play the Exiled card.  Especially tracking if Duration cards can be played twice would become troublesome if more than one were played (in 3+ player games), as the Throne Room (or variant) is usually set aside with it, but you can't easily do this with multiple cards.

Could playing a Night card during your Action phase have any unintended consequences? 

Aside from the fact that I don't think this card needs to even Play cards that were Exiled, yes, I think there could be some consequences.  Looking through the official Night cards - if we remove the ability to play Duration cards, I think that fixes some of the issues.  Here are my comments on how they are all effected:
  • Guardian - not too bad, but just need to remember that even when in Exile, is it played or just in Exile?
  • Monastery - in most cases, this would serve no purpose when played at this time
  • Changeling - this will usually not allow you to gain a copy of a Treasure anymore by playing it this way, but that's the way it is
  • Ghost Town, Cobbler, Den of Sin, Ghost - the only concern is tracking that these have been played, but remains in Exile instead of in Play
  • Night Watchman - this card may actually be stronger by allowing it to be played with Spoiled Heir
  • Devil's Workshop - this card is definitely stronger, as it will usually allow you to gain a Gold, then later you can still Buy a card this turn (normally, you have to choose not to Buy a card in order to gain the Gold)
  • Exorcist, Bat - functionally, I don't think these card are much different if played now in the Action phase instead of the Night phase, unless Fortress is in the Kingdom
  • Crypt - this card is practically useless when played in your Action phase, unless Storyteller or Black Market are in the Kingdom and even then it's weak
  • Vampire - in general, this probably doesn't affect much, unless you can still draw cards and have a near-empty Deck, then drawing the card you just gained with Vampire can be quite powerful, as well as possibly being able to draw your newly Exchanged Bat and getting it back to a Vampire the same turn
  • Werewolf - would you get a choice between playing the Action-ability or the Night-ability, since you can play either Type with Spoiled Heir, or would it default to only getting the +3 Cards since it is technically the Action phase?
  • Raider - this would force other players to Discard one of the Action cards you have in play, rather than potentially having an option to discard only a Copper if you would have played one of those (alternatively, it also doesn't give you the option of only playing Silver and Gold and hoping people have to discard one of those or a Raider)


 thank you for the detailed critique. ill give it some thought!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 21, 2021, 04:35:45 pm
As worded, Clutter lets you gain the entire Village pile, since it both triggers on-gain and causes gaining.

Or any $3 or less pile.  If you have two of those in play (or just one with some other +buy) with just $5 to spend, you can instantly three pile the game by buying, say, a Silver, a Copper, and an Estate, since you'd gain those entire piles

The obvious fix is to change it to "when you buy", but you could also potentially do something like "When you gain a card costing $3 or less other than with this ..." similar to how Sewer avoids mass-trashing
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 21, 2021, 04:48:28 pm
As worded, Clutter lets you gain the entire Village pile, since it both triggers on-gain and causes gaining.

Or any $3 or less pile.  If you have two of those in play (or just one with some other +buy) with just $5 to spend, you can instantly three pile the game by buying, say, a Silver, a Copper, and an Estate, since you'd gain those entire piles

The obvious fix is to change it to "when you buy", but you could also potentially do something like "When you gain a card costing $3 or less other than with this ..." similar to how Sewer avoids mass-trashing

Add cost reduction and you get really insane.  Imagine a Duke game, with two highways, one Clutter, $6 to spend, and some other +buy.  Pile out the Duchies *and* Dukes and end the game by emptying the Coppers pile with your last buy
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: spineflu on April 21, 2021, 05:40:30 pm
Changing out my entry
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/6085c1802bb814033c7e06f4/8b116ed1a86ab4a2a7c9d334f828bf6b/image.png)
Quote
Masterwork • $4 • Treasure - Attack
+$4
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a Treasure (or reveals they can't).

The player to your left may discard 2 more cards from their hand to gain this from you.

The stealing works in the opposite direction with this (if this still qualifies for the contest). The pile size for this is 5 cards - if you don't get one, wait til the player to your right plays theirs, then take it from them.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mathdude on April 21, 2021, 07:04:26 pm
Ok, I get it. I get it.
When I'm next at a computer instead of on my phone, I'll change it to "when you gain a card costing $3 or less other than with Clutter..."
I don't want an on-buy effect because I want it to be able to trigger with a cheap gain from Cleaning. And "other than with this" wouldn't work if you have 2 Clutters in play, since the gain from one would trigger the other
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: NoMoreFun on April 21, 2021, 10:44:29 pm
Tyrant
Action/Attack - $5
Each other player with 5 or more cards on hand reveals a card from their hand. They either put it onto their deck and gain a Curse, or trash it (you choose).
Gain, onto your deck, either a Silver or a card from the trash costing up to $6.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: fika monster on April 22, 2021, 04:21:42 am
new card submission

(https://i.imgur.com/YLDteHN.png)

Edit: Removed the "play the exiled card" thing to make the card read simplier, and i think i clarafied that you exile the trashed cards.

(https://i.imgur.com/2R2yNcQ.png)

edited the card
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: faust on April 22, 2021, 05:06:48 am
Ok, I get it. I get it.
When I'm next at a computer instead of on my phone, I'll change it to "when you gain a card costing $3 or less other than with Clutter..."
I don't want an on-buy effect because I want it to be able to trigger with a cheap gain from Cleaning. And "other than with this" wouldn't work if you have 2 Clutters in play, since the gain from one would trigger the other
This wording can still drain the entire Experiment pile. Which granted, is not quite as big a problem, but worth keeping in mind.

I'm more generally worried about the power level of these cards. Clutter seems better than Talisman, a $4 cost, a lot of the time. I feel like even without the while-in-play effect, it would still be a decently strong (if boring) $2. Cleaning's blanket "gain a card from the trash" can be insane, especially since it's a Night, so you can go Salt the Earth - Cleaning. There's a reason that Rogue has a restriction.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Timinou on April 22, 2021, 09:40:24 am
EDIT: Updated submission
(https://i.imgur.com/YGb4e6l.png)

Quote from: Original
(https://i.imgur.com/3mQSdbY.png)

I got some feedback on a few iterations of this on Discord and settled on this one.  Hijacker's attack is fairly weak early in the game as it actively helps your opponent by allowing them to trash Coppers and Estates; however, if they trash a Copper, then Hijacker will give you $5, similar to Death Cart.  Once players have thinned their decks, the attack becomes more brutal especially if you can stack two of these, but the payload will be weaker.  In the endgame, your opponent may want to trash more expensive cards to limit how much $ you gain.  Your opponents will generally be happy to trash Fortresses or Flag Bearers (or even Squires to be able to gain Hijackers), but I imagine this will be a fairly strong card in most kingdoms.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mathdude on April 22, 2021, 10:17:59 am
Ok, I get it. I get it.
When I'm next at a computer instead of on my phone, I'll change it to "when you gain a card costing $3 or less other than with Clutter..."
I don't want an on-buy effect because I want it to be able to trigger with a cheap gain from Cleaning. And "other than with this" wouldn't work if you have 2 Clutters in play, since the gain from one would trigger the other
This wording can still drain the entire Experiment pile. Which granted, is not quite as big a problem, but worth keeping in mind.

I'm more generally worried about the power level of these cards. Clutter seems better than Talisman, a $4 cost, a lot of the time. I feel like even without the while-in-play effect, it would still be a decently strong (if boring) $2. Cleaning's blanket "gain a card from the trash" can be insane, especially since it's a Night, so you can go Salt the Earth - Cleaning. There's a reason that Rogue has a restriction.

Clutter comments - fair enough.  I wasn't aware of Experiment (I don't have Renaissance), but I had forgotten about Talisman.  I was tempted to switch to "when you buy" instead of "when you gain" to partly address these and other concerns, but I really want to keep the interaction between Clutter and Cleaning.  Instead, I have switched to allowing you to only gain a copy of each differently named card once.  I also raised the price to $3 in order to be closer to Talisman (which I think is very weak at $4), but only gaining cards up to $3 cost instead of $4 can allow Clutter to stay cheaper, I believe.

(https://i.imgur.com/GxAHCrv.png)

Following official wordings for each phrase made this very wordy (and text way too small): While this is in play, when you gain a card costing $3 or less that you have not already gained this turn, you may gain a copy of it if.  So I adapted some slightly less conventional text, to reduce the number of words used.

Cleaning - I've significantly changed the trash-gain to only allow you to gain what was trashed with this card (so basically only worthwhile if you have no Clutter in play).

(https://i.imgur.com/EDcGZcm.png)

(edit - updated again)
(https://i.imgur.com/w6CbUwu.png)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: faust on April 22, 2021, 11:11:26 am
Clutter is probably fine at $3. I think Cleaning needs to say "gain a card trashed by this from the trash", as gaining by default is from the supply. And if you argue that this can implicitly gain cards from elsewhere, you might end up in a situation where you're able to gain a Fortress from your opponent's hand.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mathdude on April 22, 2021, 12:16:08 pm
Clutter is probably fine at $3. I think Cleaning needs to say "gain a card trashed by this from the trash", as gaining by default is from the supply. And if you argue that this can implicitly gain cards from elsewhere, you might end up in a situation where you're able to gain a Fortress from your opponent's hand.

Updated in my original submission post
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Shael on April 22, 2021, 04:18:40 pm
Glad that I've already made a card with this type of effect:
(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/16/hgqd.png)
Don't hesitate to told me what you think about it.
(Edited)
I don’t get the point of the variable cost. Is this really stronger in 3P?
you have more choice about wich card you could keep so it's strictly better at 3P than at 2P
Glad that I've already made a card with this type of effect:
<Carnival>
Don't hesitate to told me what you think about it.
(Edited)

With the similarities to Masquerade, using the Pass mechanic, I don't know if this would actually be an Attack card.  I guess where Masquerade (if an Attack) could be almost useless/redundant if people use a Moat, this card does make sense to protect against with a Moat, so maybe it's okay.

Would this qualify?  Your opponents are losing cards, but they're also gaining cards, and likewise, you're both gaining and getting rid of cards, so in the end you're just redistributing cards, like Masquerade on steroids

The variable cost is quite an interesting twist

I know I'm not judging.  But it seems to me that even if your/their cards are all "replaced", there is still the concept of "steal" and "gain" here.

Passing two cards can be harsh and it could be particularly brutal if played after a handsize attack.

I agree.  There probably needs to be a restriction on who it affects - maybe "Each other player with 4 or more cards..."?  You could put it at 5, but Legionary already sets a precedent for a player's cards temporarily going down to 2, so I think 4 is okay.

My own additional comment... I think this card borders on a political attack.  Yes, it's attacking everyone.  But the option to give one person 2 Curses and a different person 2 Coppers does allow for directed attacks.  Any time that cards allow for a non-random effect that can harm/hurt a single player, it specifically deals with the person to the Left (or Right), rather than allowing a choice.
Yes, there is still some problem with this card, but the handsize thing is probably a good way to nerf it.
At the begining I though that Masquerade have also this types of problem (giving a player a certain card in order to encourage him to do things that will be interestng for you) but carnival do it too much. Randomise card seem too swingy so I probably have to think about it one more year...
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Xen3k on April 22, 2021, 05:15:20 pm
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51132362861_d6641a3bab_b.jpg)

Quote
Corrupt Official - $5
Action - Attack
+3 Cards
Each player with 4 or more cards in hand Exiles a card from their hand.
You may trash this to have each other player pass to your hand, from their Exile, a non-Victory card of your choice.

Ok, second attempt. This is a quasi hand-size attack that can be beneficial to everyone as it allows players to exile junk from their deck. Later on it can be trashed to steal non-victory cards from other players exile area for a payload. I am not sure about the wording for the stealing part, but I used Masquerade as a framework for it. The scaling will be a bit strange for it when it comes to the number of players as the payload will be bigger with more players, but the likelihood of getting a large number of copper junking your deck is greater. I did have it only draw 2 card for a while but figured that, between allowing everyone to exile cards and the stealing ability being pretty tame, making it a Smithy variant would make it more appealing. Feedback is appreciated.

Edit: Bumped up cost to $5 per suggestion from mathdude.

Old Version
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51133201385_8fe6a9b855_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Jupaoqq on April 22, 2021, 06:41:35 pm
Submission:

(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/449166977991180299/834519599080931348/AV2v3kxfpgAlAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC.png?width=567&height=869)

The Beast $4* Action/Attack
Choose one: +3 Cards or +$3.
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck. You may trash this. If you do, gain one of those cards costing up to $4 from each player. They discard the rest.
-
This costs $1 more per player.

(psly)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mathdude on April 22, 2021, 06:47:44 pm
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51133201385_8fe6a9b855_b.jpg)

Quote
Corrupt Official - $4
Action - Attack
+3 Cards
Each player with 4 or more cards in hand Exiles a card from their hand.
You may trash this to have each other player pass to your hand, from their Exile, a non-Victory card of your choice.

Ok, second attempt. This is a quasi hand-size attack that can be beneficial to everyone as it allows players to exile junk from their deck. Later on it can be trashed to steal non-victory cards from other players exile area for a payload. I am not sure about the wording for the stealing part, but I used Masquerade as a framework for it. The scaling will be a bit strange for it when it comes to the number of players as the payload will be bigger with more players, but the likelihood of getting a large number of copper junking your deck is greater. I did have it only draw 2 card for a while but figured that, between allowing everyone to exile cards and the stealing ability being pretty tame, making it a Smithy variant would make it more appealing. Feedback is appreciated.

At +3 cards, I think it needs to cost $5. The exiling can be positive or negative so let's call it neutral. But the same way mining village costs more than village, the additional trash ability means this has to cost more than smithy, I think. Scaling is a bit of an issue, but not too bad I think. Otherwise, I think this is a good use of both Exile and the Pass mechanic, combined into an attack.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Xen3k on April 22, 2021, 08:29:43 pm
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51133201385_8fe6a9b855_b.jpg)

Quote
Corrupt Official - $4
Action - Attack
+3 Cards
Each player with 4 or more cards in hand Exiles a card from their hand.
You may trash this to have each other player pass to your hand, from their Exile, a non-Victory card of your choice.

Ok, second attempt. This is a quasi hand-size attack that can be beneficial to everyone as it allows players to exile junk from their deck. Later on it can be trashed to steal non-victory cards from other players exile area for a payload. I am not sure about the wording for the stealing part, but I used Masquerade as a framework for it. The scaling will be a bit strange for it when it comes to the number of players as the payload will be bigger with more players, but the likelihood of getting a large number of copper junking your deck is greater. I did have it only draw 2 card for a while but figured that, between allowing everyone to exile cards and the stealing ability being pretty tame, making it a Smithy variant would make it more appealing. Feedback is appreciated.

At +3 cards, I think it needs to cost $5. The exiling can be positive or negative so let's call it neutral. But the same way mining village costs more than village, the additional trash ability means this has to cost more than smithy, I think. Scaling is a bit of an issue, but not too bad I think. Otherwise, I think this is a good use of both Exile and the Pass mechanic, combined into an attack.

Fair evaluation. Gonna bump up the price as suggested.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: spheremonk on April 23, 2021, 12:26:12 am
(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/16/hgqd.png)

This is an interesting, creative concept; however, the card seems rather political in a very un-Dominion-like way: players pass you cards, then you give the Curses to the players you hate and the Silvers to the ones you like.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: segura on April 23, 2021, 03:26:20 am
(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/16/hgqd.png)

This is an interesting, creative concept; however, the card seems rather political in a very un-Dominion-like way: players pass you cards, then you give the Curses to the players you hate and the Silvers to the ones you like.
Or you play rational, keep the good stuff, pass the worst junk to whoever leads and the other stuff to the other dudes and dudettes.
I don't see the issue. An interactive card that makes the game less solitaire-ish, makes you want to memorize hard who leads and enables you to hit whoever leads (to a very mild degree) is more of an asset than a liability.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: spheremonk on April 23, 2021, 04:36:39 am
(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/16/hgqd.png)

This is an interesting, creative concept; however, the card seems rather political in a very un-Dominion-like way: players pass you cards, then you give the Curses to the players you hate and the Silvers to the ones you like.
Or you play rational, keep the good stuff, pass the worst junk to whoever leads and the other stuff to the other dudes and dudettes.
I don't see the issue. An interactive card that makes the game less solitaire-ish, makes you want to memorize hard who leads and enables you to hit whoever leads (to a very mild degree) is more of an asset than a liability.
Would that every game player, in every game, were as enlightened as you, segura – the world would be a much better place. As it is though, Dominion is intended to be as non-political as possible. Just read anything Donald X. has said on the subject. Interactive is awesome; political is not. Carnival is political. Every official card ever made is not. (Or as the master would say: “There are players who like to pick who to hose and, well, there are games out there that cater to them.”)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: segura on April 23, 2021, 05:24:42 am
(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/16/hgqd.png)

This is an interesting, creative concept; however, the card seems rather political in a very un-Dominion-like way: players pass you cards, then you give the Curses to the players you hate and the Silvers to the ones you like.
Or you play rational, keep the good stuff, pass the worst junk to whoever leads and the other stuff to the other dudes and dudettes.
I don't see the issue. An interactive card that makes the game less solitaire-ish, makes you want to memorize hard who leads and enables you to hit whoever leads (to a very mild degree) is more of an asset than a liability.
Would that every game player, in every game, were as enlightened as you, segura – the world would be a much better place. As it is though, Dominion is intended to be as non-political as possible. Just read anything Donald X. has said on the subject. Interactive is awesome; political is not. Carnival is political. Every official card ever made is not. (Or as the master would say: “There are players who like to pick who to hose and, well, there are games out there that cater to them.”)
I am aware of DXV's distaste for "political" games. I never got that term. The games I like least are solitaire-ish, the games I like moderately are indirectly interactive (like Dominion, although I obviously like Dominion quite a lot) and the games I like most are highly interactive (when you feel like you are playing the players and not the game).

So yeah, that card is interactive, it gives you the option to hurt people to a very mild degree (I think this matters, it is not as if we talk e.g. about a Witch that gives you the option to give one player two Curses and the other none). But my argument is that this does not break the game but actually enhances it. The "non-politics" dogma isn't a fundamental design principle that you cannot violate like, don't do a Village+ for $3 or whatever, but more or less just a matter of taste.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: majiponi on April 23, 2021, 12:43:10 pm
Lupin
cost $4 - Action - Attack
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest.  You play one of the trashed Treasure, leaving there; each time that would give you +$ this turn, you get +Coffer instead.


A thief you want to play early.  Instead of junking your deck, you get one-shot Coffer immediately.  Use it to earn $5 or $8!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Timinou on April 23, 2021, 02:41:02 pm
Lupin
cost $4 - Action - Attack
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest.  You play one of the trashed Treasure, leaving there; each time that would give you +$ this turn, you get +Coffer instead.


A thief you want to play early.  Instead of junking your deck, you get one-shot Coffer immediately.  Use it to earn $5 or $8!

This seems a lot better than Pirate Ship.  You can trash an opponent's Platinum and get +5 Coffers during the same turn that you attack, which is amazing.  Or you could trash an opponent's Bank after having a bunch of Treasures in play with Storyteller or Black Market and potentially get a lot more Coffers.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: X-tra on April 23, 2021, 03:13:15 pm
(https://i.postimg.cc/1X0HbnLm/Ambush-v2-2.png)

Yes, it's silly. Effectively the thou-shall-not-do "+2 Cards; +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)" card. Except that it adds a stop card to your deck to do so. And hey, if you snipe your opponent's Ambush, then yes, they lose that card and replace it with two miserable Coppers, but they also get a starting hand of 7 cards, which include a Silver. Oh and if the Attack hits you back, that's something you cannot Moat ("do its effects" =/= "playing a card", Moat cannot do anything about that, similar to Noble Brigand's on-buy Attack). Overall, probably a pretty good Money card.


Edit: Not to say that you wouldn't want to trash this yourself. Imagine feeding this to an Apprentice. +8 Cards (Silver included), +1 Action, +1 Buy and doing an Attack is a pretty swell trade-off for gaining two Coppers.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: anordinaryman on April 23, 2021, 03:23:53 pm
UPDATED SUBMISSION - completely new

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/thievesden.png)

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/burglarized.png)

Quote
Thieves Den | Project | $5
When any other player gains a Victory card in their turn, they take Burglarized. When they return Burglarized, you may gain a non-Victory card from the trash.

Quote
Burglarized | State
At the end of your turn, reveal the top 2 cards of your deck, trash one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discard the rest. Return this.

One of the problems with deck trashers is that it can be unfair. I trash your first $5 card before you get to play it, bad luck. So, what if we delayed trashing, so it triggers in the endgame? Then it will be a lot less swingy!  Once you buy Burglarized, in a two-player game, whenever your opponent gains a victory card on their turn you basically get to Knight-attack them and steal a non-victory card they trashed. (Stealing a duchy is too brutal, that's the main impetus for the Victory card gaining restriction). When there's more than two players, the trashing attack doesn't stack (that's the reason for the State), but each player with Thieves Den gets to pick from the trash, in turn order after the current player's turn. The State makes it not scale too powerful with 2+ players. The state also makes it guarantee to hit (unless you have a golden deck) since it triggers after you have drawn up to 5 cards and your deck/discard can't be empty.

The presence of this Project on the table might make you build a little longer than usual. Even if your opponent never buys it, you have to worry about them buying it. In a single gain board if you rush into Provinces too quickly, your deck can be burglarized away, yikes!

Of course, in the endgame, those extra cards might not help you too much. Or maybe they will. This is definitely one of those projects that won't always be bought. It's price point is rather expensive but I think compares with Road Network decently.

Open to feedback. I originally had the "in their turn" clause to prevent you from attacking opponents by gifting them estates with messenger/ambassador/etc, but perhaps it is not necessary.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 23, 2021, 03:37:36 pm
UPDATED SUBMISSION - completely new

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/thievesden.png)

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/burglarized.png)

Quote
Thieves Den | Project | $5
When any other player gains a Victory card in their turn, they take Burglarized. When they return Burglarized, you may gain a non-Victory card from the trash.

Quote
Burglarized | State
At the end of your turn, reveal the top 2 cards of your deck, trash one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discard the rest. Return this.

One of the problems with deck trashers is that it can be unfair. I trash your first $5 card before you get to play it, bad luck. So, what if we delayed trashing, so it triggers in the endgame? Then it will be a lot less swingy!  Once you buy Burglarized, in a two-player game, whenever your opponent gains a victory card on their turn you basically get to Knight-attack them and steal a non-victory card they trashed. (Stealing a duchy is too brutal, that's the main impetus for the Victory card gaining restriction). When there's more than two players, the trashing attack doesn't stack (that's the reason for the State), but each player with Thieves Den gets to pick from the trash, in turn order after the current player's turn. The State makes it not scale too powerful with 2+ players. The state also makes it guarantee to hit (unless you have a golden deck) since it triggers after you have drawn up to 5 cards and your deck/discard can't be empty.

The presence of this Project on the table might make you build a little longer than usual. Even if your opponent never buys it, you have to worry about them buying it. In a single gain board if you rush into Provinces too quickly, your deck can be burglarized away, yikes!

Of course, in the endgame, those extra cards might not help you too much. Or maybe they will. This is definitely one of those projects that won't always be bought. It's price point is rather expensive but I think compares with Road Network decently.

Open to feedback. I originally had the "in their turn" clause to prevent you from attacking opponents by gifting them estates with messenger/ambassador/etc, but perhaps it is not necessary.

This could be quite painful.  And nearly impossible to avoid.  Un-moatable since it's not an Attack.  It happens after Clean-up, so you can't just top-deck a Silver or something similar, makes cost-reduction much more risky, since any cost-reduction in play when you buy a Victory card is still going to be in play when the State triggers.  Two highways in play creates the risk of losing a Province to Burglarized.  As far as I can tell, the only way to reduce the danger is to make sure your deck has lots of cheap cantrips

EDIT: Also, I'm pretty sure this doesn't qualify.  The contest rules specified that it has to have the Attack type
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: majiponi on April 23, 2021, 08:11:59 pm
Lupin
cost $4 - Action - Attack
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest.  You play one of the trashed Treasure, leaving there; each time that would give you +$ this turn, you get +Coffer instead.


A thief you want to play early.  Instead of junking your deck, you get one-shot Coffer immediately.  Use it to earn $5 or $8!

This seems a lot better than Pirate Ship.  You can trash an opponent's Platinum and get +5 Coffers during the same turn that you attack, which is amazing.  Or you could trash an opponent's Bank after having a bunch of Treasures in play with Storyteller or Black Market and potentially get a lot more Coffers.

Who buys Platinum or Bank in games using Lupin?  In most games, the best Treasure is Gold.  Pirate Ship can earn $5 each time (after playing 5 times), but Lupin can't.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: gambit05 on April 24, 2021, 11:46:12 am
My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/gM4N1VP/Ambush.png)   (https://i.ibb.co/0V6Qt8Y/Purse.png)
Ambush
$5 – Action - Attack
Quote

Each other player trashes
a Purse from their hand
(or reveals they can’t).

          Choose one: Gain a Purse;           
or gain a Purse from the
trash; or +2 Coffers.

 
Purse
$3* – Treasure
Quote

$2

            Trash a Copper you have             
in play, for +1VP.

(This is not in the Supply.)


Update (25. April 2021): I realized that there is no need for Copper trashing of Purse being optional.

Original Purse:

(https://i.ibb.co/qgwxDzm/Purse.png)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: anordinaryman on April 24, 2021, 12:19:17 pm
UPDATED SUBMISSION - completely new

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/thievesden.png)

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/burglarized.png)

Quote
Thieves Den | Project | $5
When any other player gains a Victory card in their turn, they take Burglarized. When they return Burglarized, you may gain a non-Victory card from the trash.

Quote
Burglarized | State
At the end of your turn, reveal the top 2 cards of your deck, trash one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discard the rest. Return this.

One of the problems with deck trashers is that it can be unfair. I trash your first $5 card before you get to play it, bad luck. So, what if we delayed trashing, so it triggers in the endgame? Then it will be a lot less swingy!  Once you buy Burglarized, in a two-player game, whenever your opponent gains a victory card on their turn you basically get to Knight-attack them and steal a non-victory card they trashed. (Stealing a duchy is too brutal, that's the main impetus for the Victory card gaining restriction). When there's more than two players, the trashing attack doesn't stack (that's the reason for the State), but each player with Thieves Den gets to pick from the trash, in turn order after the current player's turn. The State makes it not scale too powerful with 2+ players. The state also makes it guarantee to hit (unless you have a golden deck) since it triggers after you have drawn up to 5 cards and your deck/discard can't be empty.

The presence of this Project on the table might make you build a little longer than usual. Even if your opponent never buys it, you have to worry about them buying it. In a single gain board if you rush into Provinces too quickly, your deck can be burglarized away, yikes!

Of course, in the endgame, those extra cards might not help you too much. Or maybe they will. This is definitely one of those projects that won't always be bought. It's price point is rather expensive but I think compares with Road Network decently.

Open to feedback. I originally had the "in their turn" clause to prevent you from attacking opponents by gifting them estates with messenger/ambassador/etc, but perhaps it is not necessary.

This could be quite painful.  And nearly impossible to avoid.  Un-moatable since it's not an Attack.  It happens after Clean-up, so you can't just top-deck a Silver or something similar, makes cost-reduction much more risky, since any cost-reduction in play when you buy a Victory card is still going to be in play when the State triggers.  Two highways in play creates the risk of losing a Province to Burglarized.  As far as I can tell, the only way to reduce the danger is to make sure your deck has lots of cheap cantrips

EDIT: Also, I'm pretty sure this doesn't qualify.  The contest rules specified that it has to have the Attack type

In most games, it will only attack you 4-5 times, which isn't even as bad as losing the Knights split. As for it doesn't qualify, well I guess you're right! But then again

The rules are going to be somewhat loose

So I guess, @pubby does my project/state qualify for this contest?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: pubby on April 24, 2021, 02:11:12 pm
I have a strong preference for Attack cards, and think the judging will be more consistent if everyone has Attack card designs.

With that said, I'm not going to disqualify your entry, or similar entries, because as I said, "the rules are loose if the flavor is there".
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Timinou on April 25, 2021, 08:52:29 am
Lupin
cost $4 - Action - Attack
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest.  You play one of the trashed Treasure, leaving there; each time that would give you +$ this turn, you get +Coffer instead.


A thief you want to play early.  Instead of junking your deck, you get one-shot Coffer immediately.  Use it to earn $5 or $8!

This seems a lot better than Pirate Ship.  You can trash an opponent's Platinum and get +5 Coffers during the same turn that you attack, which is amazing.  Or you could trash an opponent's Bank after having a bunch of Treasures in play with Storyteller or Black Market and potentially get a lot more Coffers.

Who buys Platinum or Bank in games using Lupin?  In most games, the best Treasure is Gold.  Pirate Ship can earn $5 each time (after playing 5 times), but Lupin can't.

Platinum and Bank were extreme examples, but hitting an opponent's Gold would be pretty amazing too.  It's true that you can get Pirate Ships to be worth a lot, but that takes time.  Even when you're mostly just hitting Coppers, I think Lupin is much better tempo-wise because of the immediate payoff, and I would probably prefer it over Pirate Ship in many cases. 

 
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: spineflu on April 25, 2021, 03:26:02 pm
made some revisions - card is now cheaper, attack checks handsize first for 5+cards, i found some art and also added the $4 things in the upper corners. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20761.msg868039#msg868039)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: pubby on April 26, 2021, 03:07:50 pm
24 hour warning
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: silverspawn on April 26, 2021, 04:54:58 pm
(https://i.ibb.co/Yf8tKvv/Extortionist.png)

I believe the wording is necessary to stop you from gaining cards form weird places (like your opponent's hand)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 26, 2021, 06:09:37 pm
(https://i.ibb.co/7p6f2xF/Extortionist.png)

I believe the wording is necessary to stop you from gaining cards form weird places (like your opponent's hand)

I think the stop-moving rule would apply without that wording, e.g., you trash a Fortress, it goes back into your opponent's hand, Extortionist expects to find it in the trash, and since it doesn't find it there it can't gain it.  But I could be wrong
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Gubump on April 26, 2021, 07:20:58 pm
(https://i.ibb.co/7p6f2xF/Extortionist.png)

I believe the wording is necessary to stop you from gaining cards form weird places (like your opponent's hand)

I think the stop-moving rule would apply without that wording, e.g., you trash a Fortress, it goes back into your opponent's hand, Extortionist expects to find it in the trash, and since it doesn't find it there it can't gain it.  But I could be wrong

mxdata is correct, stop-moving rule causes you to fail to gain it if it isn't in the trash via e.g. Fortress. Therefore it doesn't need to say "from the trash."
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: silverspawn on April 27, 2021, 05:08:39 am
Okay, cool. I've edited the card.

I also made it so you don't gain it because gaining could actually cause problems. (How do you play it if the gain triggered something and the card is no longer at the top of your discard pile?)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Holger on April 27, 2021, 07:13:22 am
My submission: (updated version 2)

Quote
Dark Knight - Action-Attack, $5
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If they trashed a card costing $5 or more, they get +2 Coffers. You may gain one of the trashed cards other than a Dark Knight.

I've always wondered why there wasn't a thief variant which can steal other cards than treasures. Comparing the Dark Knight to Dame Natalie, I think it should be fine at $5: Dark Knight has the potential to gain better cards than Natalie, but it may not gain anything if no opponent reveals a card in this price range. Since stealing a $5 or $6 card is often quite harsh, I've added the Coffers "compensation" for the affected player(s). 

Edit: Changed from version 1:
Quote
Dark Knight - Action-Attack, $5
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If they trashed a card costing $5 or more, they get +1 Coffers. You may gain one of the trashed cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: segura on April 27, 2021, 09:59:01 am
That is far too harsh, it is like Knight and Rogue combined without any mitigating factors like Knights slaughtering each other.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mxdata on April 27, 2021, 01:29:45 pm
That is far too harsh, it is like Knight and Rogue combined without any mitigating factors like Knights slaughtering each other.

And a Dark Knight can steal other Dark Knights, which could easily snowball
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Holger on April 28, 2021, 04:10:18 am
That is far too harsh, it is like Knight and Rogue combined without any mitigating factors like Knights slaughtering each other.
Rogue alone can also steal a card from an opponent if you play it twice. But unlike Dark Knight, Rogue also gives a +$2 vanilla bonus. So two plays of Rogue roughly equal one play of Dark Knight (minus the Coffers recompensation) plus one play of a terminal +$4 Action card, which on its own would be strictly better than Harvest and probably a reasonable $5 card.

I've considered increasing the recompensation for losing a $5+ card to 2 Coffers, so the attacked player could easily rebuy the lost card on their next turn. But I'm not sure it's necessary, as Rogue and Knight are also fine without any recompensation.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Holger on April 28, 2021, 04:11:19 am
That is far too harsh, it is like Knight and Rogue combined without any mitigating factors like Knights slaughtering each other.

And a Dark Knight can steal other Dark Knights, which could easily snowball

That's true. I'll add "other than a Dark Knight" to the gaining clause.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: faust on April 28, 2021, 04:50:00 am
That is far too harsh, it is like Knight and Rogue combined without any mitigating factors like Knights slaughtering each other.
Rogue alone can also steal a card from an opponent if you play it twice. But unlike Dark Knight, Rogue also gives a +$2 vanilla bonus. So two plays of Rogue roughly equal one play of Dark Knight (minus the Coffers recompensation) plus one play of a terminal +$4 Action card, which on its own would be strictly better than Harvest and probably a reasonable $5 card.
I don't think this is a useful way of analysing cards. The reason you get Rogue is (most of the time) for the attack, and if possible you'd rather have more attacking than more vanilla stuff. As a simpler comparison, consider Witch. Two Witches are equal to one play of Hunting Grounds (a $6) and a card that just says "Each other player gains 2 Curses".

But that doesn't mean that "Each other player gains 2 Curses" would be a reasonable card at $5 (or frankly, at any cost).
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: segura on April 28, 2021, 05:32:35 am
That is far too harsh, it is like Knight and Rogue combined without any mitigating factors like Knights slaughtering each other.
Rogue alone can also steal a card from an opponent if you play it twice. But unlike Dark Knight, Rogue also gives a +$2 vanilla bonus. So two plays of Rogue roughly equal one play of Dark Knight (minus the Coffers recompensation) plus one play of a terminal +$4 Action card, which on its own would be strictly better than Harvest and probably a reasonable $5 card.

I've considered increasing the recompensation for losing a $5+ card to 2 Coffers, so the attacked player could easily rebuy the lost card on their next turn. But I'm not sure it's necessary, as Rogue and Knight are also fine without any recompensation.
Rogue and Knights have mitigating factors. The Knights kill off each other and Rogue oscillates between a trashing Attack and gaining. If you combine a trashing Attack with gaining this is simply too strong. Some Coffers for the opponents do not compensate for total deck annihilation.

It is not like this is new or controversial, we know since Intrigue (Saboteur had the anti-Remodel-ing as mitigating element) how super nasty trashing Attacks are. Your attack would be likely be too harsh even without the gaining (makes it more or less a Dame Josephine).
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Holger on April 28, 2021, 06:14:11 am
That is far too harsh, it is like Knight and Rogue combined without any mitigating factors like Knights slaughtering each other.
Rogue alone can also steal a card from an opponent if you play it twice. But unlike Dark Knight, Rogue also gives a +$2 vanilla bonus. So two plays of Rogue roughly equal one play of Dark Knight (minus the Coffers recompensation) plus one play of a terminal +$4 Action card, which on its own would be strictly better than Harvest and probably a reasonable $5 card.

I've considered increasing the recompensation for losing a $5+ card to 2 Coffers, so the attacked player could easily rebuy the lost card on their next turn. But I'm not sure it's necessary, as Rogue and Knight are also fine without any recompensation.
Rogue and Knights have mitigating factors. The Knights kill off each other and Rogue oscillates between a trashing Attack and gaining. If you combine a trashing Attack with gaining this is simply too strong. Some Coffers for the opponents do not compensate for total deck annihilation.

It is not like this is new or controversial, we know since Intrigue (Saboteur had the anti-Remodel-ing as mitigating element) how super nasty trashing Attacks are. Your attack would be likely be too harsh even without the gaining (makes it more or less a Dame Josephine).

Saboteur wasn't removed for being too nasty, it was removed for being too weak and not giving resources to the player. Giving out Coffers is a similar mitigation as Saboteur's anti-remodeling, but with more flexibility for the attacked player. (I'll change my card to giving 2 Coffers to increase the mitigation.)

Knights only have a "mitigating factor" when both players buy it. But for evaluating the strength of a card, I would mainly consider the non-mirror, in which case Knight's attack is harsher than Dark Knight's (because of the lack of compensation). Without the gaining, Dark Knight would be strictly worse than any Knight in the non-mirror.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: segura on April 28, 2021, 07:00:34 am
Did you ever play a Knights game in which only one player bought Knights?
Unchallenged Knights are stronger than challenged Knighs, which is why everybody contests the piles.

That is why Dark Knight without gaining is stronger than Knights. Add the gaining and the card transforms from already broken to totally crazy.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Gubump on April 28, 2021, 02:53:56 pm
But for evaluating the strength of a card, I would mainly consider the non-mirror

I would consider cases that one would actually reasonably expect to happen. Sure, if your opponent's throwing the game--I mean, not buying Knights--then your Knights are better than a non-gaining Dark Knight. But upwards of 99% of the time, you AREN'T going to be playing a non-mirror! You generally want to mainly consider the vast majority case, not the stars-aligned-under-a-blue-moon case.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: pubby on April 28, 2021, 03:40:00 pm
JUDGEMENT DAY

It's hard to design a card that steals. I mean, look at all the attempts Donald X has made - most are flops! With this in mind, judging will be somewhat harsh this week.

---

Dark Knight by Holger
I like the straightforward stealing, but this is too devastating in its current form. It's good that one can no longer steal oppononent's Dark Knights, but you can still trash them which causes swinginess. Still, handing out +Coffers means Dark Knight is sometimes a trap, and that makes it interesting.

 Extortionist by silverspawn
I'm assuming this version still gains the trashed card. The fact that it costs $5 and only attacks $3 and under is cool. This makes it not too savage, as in most games you can play with more expensive cards and avoid the attack, and also you can steal your cards back by buying your own Extortionists. The only downside is that if nobody has cheap cards, nobody will buy this attack at all, and that may happen fairly often.

Ambush/Purse by gambit05
Purse is a sweet design, and I like the idea of gaining and attacking the purses of others, but it's too swingy in the current form. If someone kills your Purse early, you're losing $2 and a trash that turn. That's too devastating for something out of your control.

Thieves Den/Burglarized by anordinaryman
It's nice how this card triggers only when others buy VP. It avoids the problems similar designs have and prevents the game from getting in weird states. But I'm not sure I understand how the card works in multiplayer. If multiple people have Thieves Den, who gains the card that gets trashed? FWIW I think this card could work as a duration attack.

Ambush by X-tra
This is a funky, funky card. Like gambit05's Purse, it has the problem of being swingy, as trashing good cards out of hand can be really, really devastating. But you can defend against this attack somewhat with your own Ambushes, as trashing them betters your hand. Overall, I like it. Here's a variant to consider btw: "each other plays an Attack from their hand, trashing it (or reveals they can't)." and then drop the bottom text.

Lupin by majiponi
It's really cool how this gives out Coffers, and it's certainly a better design than Thief or PShip. But like Thief and PShip, it has the issue you don't want to trash opponent's Coppers. That's probably fine, but man, if you hit Copper you're helping your opopnent more than yourself.

The Beast by Jupaoqq
Cool design. I love the concept of a one-shot stealer, and think pairing it with +3 cards or +$3 works well. Sounds like fun in multiplayer. In 2P though, it's a quite expensive, as losing a $6 card to gain a $4 card just isn't worth it most of the time.

Corrupt Official by Xen3k
Another cool one-shot design, but the first sentence helps your opponents way too much - they can use it to Exile bad cards early, and VP cards later on. The attack only hurts if they have 5 truly good cards in hand, which is rare, and for that reason it's desperately in need of a buff. I do quite like the concept though.

Clutter/Cleaning by mathdude
Clutter obviously compares to Talisman. Talisman is already weak, and I think Talisman has a better wording, but I like how Clutter cost $3 and can gain victory cards too. Cleaning is interesting. If I understand correctly, it gains a single card of N price, and not N cards costing up to $3. This means you can gain Provinces and such, which is cool. The attack is reasonably balanced, but man, everything just insists on there being lots of good $3 and under cards, and I don't see enough games having those.

Highjacker by Timinou
This design gets trashing from opponent's hand right. It does help your opponent a lot, but the huge amount of coin you get is pretty sweet. It's not at all obvious when you want to go for this or not, which is fantastic. Overall, a nice and innovative design that I would enjoy playing with.

Spoiler Heir by fika monster
It's quite terrible to trash opponent's Estates, but there's a slight consolation prize in getting to Exile them. Overall, this is probably too weak in that you really don't want to trash the bad cards of opponents.

Tyrant by NoMoreFun
Cool design. I suspect most of the time players will top-deck bad cards instead of trash them, which really slows the game down to a slog. I so want to love this, but the total, utter slogginess makes me fearful. 

Masterwork by spineflu
Love the reverse stealing, but +$4 is a crazy amount of coin for a treasure - too much really and too dominant. In every game you'd want these, as 2 copies gives enough coin to buy Province. I suspect the card would be more interesting if it didn't give such crazy amounts of money, as otherwise it's a guaranteed buy.

Wrangler by Aquila
I absolutely adore how this hands out curses and horses at the same time. That's really clever and a nice way to make a weaker-than-witch junker. As per negatives, the stealing part feels a bit tacked-on, and it's confusing to see +2 Cards on a card that gives horses as you can't play any that you drew. Some lovely ideas here, just wish they were packaged differently.

Carnival by Shael
It's nice to see a masquerade-like effect. Unfortunately, this one's too bonkers when discard attacks are involved. If you make opponents discard down to 3, then play this, you're ruining their hand while also stealing good cards. It's also not clear how this behaves when they moat it. But if those two issues were resolved, I'd quite enjoy playing with this card.

Siege by mxdata
It's good to see some Saboteur-like cards! This one's definitely an improvement of the original Saboteur, and hitting $3 to $4 seems like the ideal price. The debt price is kinda clever, but creates an advantage to open 3/4 vs 4/3, and really I think having it cost $5 would be enough. Cost reduction just isn't common enough for the debt cost to be justified. If anything I'd be more worried about the swinginess of stealing villages. If one player gets all the villages, it's very hard to come back from that.

Beguiler/Hoodwinked by Mahowrath
This one's really cool and clever. It's usually only a weak attack - which is a good - and gives interesting decisions to all players in the games. The card has some oddities in multiplayer, which is an issue, but not a very big one. Overall a sweet design.

Goblin Workshop by grep
I love how it gains cards with the same name as those in the trash. That's awesome. The attack side is fairly balanced too. My only complaint is that it can trash copies of itself. Sound frustrating!

Magic Wardrobe by emtzalex
This one takes some building to use. Either you need two copies of Magic Wardrobe, or you need something like Scrying Pool. I like that about it, as it keeps the relatively strong stealing effect from becoming bonkers. Overall, good balance. The big flaw with this card though is that it's political. If you know the top card of each player's deck, you get to decide which one to target. That goes against my advice in the OP to not allow stealing from 1 player only.

---

Winner: Highjacker by Timinou
Runner-up: Beguiler/Hoodwinked by Mahowrath
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: silverspawn on April 28, 2021, 04:11:53 pm
I'm assuming this version [of Excorcist] still gains the trashed card. 

I believe you've interpreted it as intended. By 'not gaining' I just meant that on-gain cards don't trigger. The card still moves to your deck.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Timinou on April 28, 2021, 05:05:31 pm
Thanks, pubby!  I'm glad you liked  my card.  I'm actually not a big fan of trashing attacks, so this was a difficult one.

I'll have the next contest up later tonight.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Timinou on April 28, 2021, 06:31:43 pm
New weekly contest is here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20775.msg868700#msg868700)!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: mathdude on April 28, 2021, 07:49:46 pm
Clutter/Cleaning by mathdude
Clutter obviously compares to Talisman. Talisman is already weak, and I think Talisman has a better wording, but I like how Clutter cost $3 and can gain victory cards too. Cleaning is interesting. If I understand correctly, it gains a single card of N price, and not N cards costing up to $3. This means you can gain Provinces and such, which is cool. The attack is reasonably balanced, but man, everything just insists on there being lots of good $3 and under cards, and I don't see enough games having those.

You are correct that you could gain a Province, if you had 3 Clutter in play.  And there is definitely benefits to having good $3 cards in play (like Village).  But even getting all the Clutter cards, as an alternate way to get the Provinces (and Duchies, when only getting 2 in play) I think can be helpful enough, especially if you're having trouble getting $8 in a single hand (such as when multiple attacks are on the board).
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Mahowrath on April 28, 2021, 07:55:08 pm
Well judged; that was a difficult, but rewarding challenge. Let me know what the multiplayer issues were with Beguiler/Hoodwinked.

Congrats Timinou!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: pubby on April 28, 2021, 11:11:31 pm
Let me know what the multiplayer issues were with Beguiler/Hoodwinked.
Imagine a 3 player game where one player never buys Beguiler. The player to their right can play 2 Beguilers and gain 2 cards from the trash each turn. If they do, the other Beguiler player can gain only 1 from the trash, no matter how many Beguilers they play. Essentially one player gets to double-dip, all because of turn order.

There are some other oddities, but this is the most flagrant situation.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: Mahowrath on April 29, 2021, 05:44:39 am
Aha, good spot pubby! I'm not sure how I'd work around that; there doesn't feel like a good way to stack trashes or unstack trash-gains; will have to have a think...
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: gambit05 on April 29, 2021, 05:47:32 am

(https://i.ibb.co/gM4N1VP/Ambush.png)   (https://i.ibb.co/0V6Qt8Y/Purse.png)

Ambush/Purse by gambit05
Purse is a sweet design, and I like the idea of gaining and attacking the purses of others, but it's too swingy in the current form. If someone kills your Purse early, you're losing $2 and a trash that turn. That's too devastating for something out of your control.

Unfortunately my cards do not get much love anyway, but could you explain me what you would consider "early" in this context?

As far as I can see it, at least 2 players have to hit $5 to gain an Ambush (despite the fact that early on, other $5 cost cards easily have a higher priority), then at least the player who will be at the receiving end later, had to play their Ambush in order to gain a Purse, and that Purse has to cycle through the deck to be in that players hand, and at the same time another player has to play an Ambush. In the mean time, quite a lot has happened to the players decks. To me that looks like most official Attack cards are too swingy and devastating then.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: pubby on April 29, 2021, 07:18:28 am
As far as I can see it, at least 2 players have to hit $5 to gain an Ambush (despite the fact that early on, other $5 cost cards easily have a higher priority), then at least the player who will be at the receiving end later, had to play their Ambush in order to gain a Purse, and that Purse has to cycle through the deck to be in that players hand, and at the same time another player has to play an Ambush. In the mean time, quite a lot has happened to the players decks. To me that looks like most official Attack cards are too swingy and devastating then.
By early I meant having your first Purse trashed before you can even play it, which seemed frustrating. My real critique though was the attack either does nothing, or does something very strong, but there isn't much middle ground. If it could hit other stuff, such as Silver, then I would be much more on-board.

I did like your cards BTW.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
Post by: gambit05 on April 29, 2021, 07:59:25 am
As far as I can see it, at least 2 players have to hit $5 to gain an Ambush (despite the fact that early on, other $5 cost cards easily have a higher priority), then at least the player who will be at the receiving end later, had to play their Ambush in order to gain a Purse, and that Purse has to cycle through the deck to be in that players hand, and at the same time another player has to play an Ambush. In the mean time, quite a lot has happened to the players decks. To me that looks like most official Attack cards are too swingy and devastating then.
By early I meant having your first Purse trashed before you can even play it, which seemed frustrating. My real critique though was the attack either does nothing, or does something very strong, but there isn't much middle ground. If it could hit other stuff, such as Silver, then I would be much more on-board.

I did like your cards BTW.

Thank you very much for your replay and that you like the cards.

While the attack itself might do nothing (isn't this the case for a lot of attacks?), the attacking player always gets something, either a Purse or +2 Coffers.

Edit: Sad.