Dominion Strategy Forum

Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Weekly Design Contest => Topic started by: 4est on May 09, 2021, 09:44:22 pm

Title: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: 4est on May 09, 2021, 09:44:22 pm
WDC #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One

Hello everybody! Here's this week's challenge:

Design a card that can gain one or more copies of itself

Acceptable submissions include:
Other rules and suggestions:

Judgement Details:


Have fun! This is a pretty open ended challenge with a lot of different directions people can go. I'm excited to see your designs!



Entries:


Idiot’s Village by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869552#msg869552)
Foundry by mandioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869556#msg869556)
Mousetrap by venusambassador (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869563#msg869563)
Worker by The Alchemist (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869588#msg869588)
Floating City by emtzalex (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869566#msg869566)
Foundry by Gubump (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869567#msg869567)
Investor by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869587#msg869587)
Tin by grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869596#msg869596)
Suburb by artless (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869665#msg869665)
Riot by naitchman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869617#msg869617)
Parish by xyz123 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869620#msg869620)
Rabbit by mxdata (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869627#msg869627)
Consulate by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869662#msg869662)
Village of Secrets by Aquila  (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869669#msg869669)
Locket by faust (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869671#msg869671)
Tools by Shael (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869672#msg869672)
Hydra by X-tra (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869706#msg869706)
Jewelry by fika monster (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869707#msg869707)
Irregulars by Xen3k (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869725#msg869725)
Pier by LastFootnote (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869792#msg869792)
Scriptorium by gambit05 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869806#msg869806)
Scaffolding by Timinou (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869820#msg869820)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: NoMoreFun on May 10, 2021, 01:43:25 am
Idiots Village
Action - $3
+1 Card
+2 Actions
This turn, at the start of Clean up, if you have no Actions remaining, return this to the supply. Otherwise, gain an Idiots Village.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: mandioca15 on May 10, 2021, 05:24:25 am
Foundry (Action, $4)

Gain a card costing up to $4.

This turn, when you gain a card, +1 Card.

This requires a bit of thought to use correctly. Get it right and you can go mad with your drawing. If you're careless, you might end up drawing a card you can't play...
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: fika monster on May 10, 2021, 08:58:55 am
Foundry (Action, $4)

Gain a card costing up to $4.

This turn, when you gain a card, +1 Card.

This requires a bit of thought to use correctly. Get it right and you can go mad with your drawing. If you're careless, you might end up drawing a card you can't play...

Made a mockup of the card (https://i.imgur.com/EZyLOYe.png)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: fika monster on May 10, 2021, 09:08:55 am
hm this card kinda sucks. redrawing it for now.


There are 4 Wild Citys per player. So in a 2 player game its 8, in a 3 player game its 12, and etc.

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

My submission: A city variant that gains itself, but when the pile is empty and No more Wild Citys can be gained, it becomes a very expensive woodcutter. I imagine that in most games the pile will run out quickly, and it becomes a dance between players.


Edit 1
(https://i.imgur.com/k2BiXZC.png)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: LastFootnote on May 10, 2021, 10:08:00 am
Made a mockup of the card (https://i.imgur.com/EZyLOYe.png)

That was nice of you, but it shouldn't have a dividing line.

There are 4 Wild Citys per player. So in a 2 player game its 8, in a 3 player game its 12, and etc.

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

My submission: A city variant that gains itself, but when the pile is empty and No more Wild Citys can be gained, it becomes a very expensive woodcutter. I imagine that in most games the pile will run out quickly, and it becomes a dance between players.

Reading it, I thought you got the +1 Buy and +$2 if you did gain a Wild City. I don't think you need that second "If you did" at all, even if it will sometimes matter.

"Gain a Wild City. If you did, +2 Cards and +2 Actions. Otherwise, +1 Buy, +$2, and return this to its pile."
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: faust on May 10, 2021, 10:12:19 am
There are 4 Wild Citys per player. So in a 2 player game its 8, in a 3 player game its 12, and etc.

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

My submission: A city variant that gains itself, but when the pile is empty and No more Wild Citys can be gained, it becomes a very expensive woodcutter. I imagine that in most games the pile will run out quickly, and it becomes a dance between players.
This seems extremely snowball-y if one player happens to draw Silver + 4 Coppers in the second shuffle and the others do not.

Another problem is that the card doesn't really create a back-and-forth between players. I imagine that once the pile is empty, players will only use the Woodcutter effect if they know that they can play another Wild City afterwards.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: fika monster on May 10, 2021, 10:15:11 am
Made a mockup of the card (https://i.imgur.com/EZyLOYe.png)

That was nice of you, but it shouldn't have a dividing line.

There are 4 Wild Citys per player. So in a 2 player game its 8, in a 3 player game its 12, and etc.

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

My submission: A city variant that gains itself, but when the pile is empty and No more Wild Citys can be gained, it becomes a very expensive woodcutter. I imagine that in most games the pile will run out quickly, and it becomes a dance between players.

Reading it, I thought you got the +1 Buy and +$2 if you did gain a Wild City. I don't think you need that second "If you did" at all, even if it will sometimes matter.

"Gain a Wild City. If you did, +2 Cards and +2 Actions. Otherwise, +1 Buy, +$2, and return this to its pile."

ah sorry, here is the proper version then(https://i.imgur.com/BZIyFbm.png)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: venusambassador on May 10, 2021, 11:20:08 am
Hello Dominion Strategy Forum- long time lurker, first time poster! Thanks very much to all the people in the dominion discord (especially crlundy) for giving feedback and helping with wording :)

(https://i.imgur.com/R3WHcvD.png)

Obviously, the clearest comparison here is to Lurker. Like Lurker, this card is nonterminal and can gain you a CQ/King's Court/Prince/what-have-you (even a Fortune!); unlike Lurker, though, it takes an extra play to do so if you want to make sure that your opponents' Mousetraps aren't seriously powered up, and also, a hand of five Mousetraps will get you four goodies, rather than two.

Mousetrap can also be used as a junker, though- here's where I worry about the balance of the card. Is a 3-coin nonterminal curser too busted? Maybe, especially since it doesn't facilitate thinning like Ambassador; however, it's also a stop card, and if you don't want to get cursed right back, at least one of them per turn is going to have to be played as a dud.

I'm accepting feedback on all fronts (balance, fun-ness, theme).
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: The Alchemist on May 10, 2021, 11:27:04 am
(https://imgur.com/v1vlS2k.png)

Terminal draw that gets stronger the more you play, chaining together if they find each other.  The more workers you have on your assembly line, the more work you can do! Chaining effect is similar to library's interaction with actions, but playing instead of discarding. Playing 5 workers averages out to 5 smithies, but for a quarter the cost!

This card has been updated from a previous version in my industrial revolution fan expansion (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20619), this was one of the 1-cost cards that needed buy-support/alternate gain to be viable, and I think this version dealt with that nicely.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: emtzalex on May 10, 2021, 12:35:48 pm
My Submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/CwWagCTh.png)


Quote from: Floating City
FLOATING CITY  --  $13
ACTION
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
Choose one: +$3; or +2 Coffers; or +1VP.


When you buy this, gain two more Floating Cities.
     

Floating City is a card I have been toying with different versions of for a while. It is both incredibly powerful and incredibly expensive. If you do manage to pay the cost, you get 3 of them, whereas if you take a shortcut like playing Lurker twice or using Displace on a Colony, you only get one at a time.

Like with Port, there are 12 copies of Floating City in the Supply.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Gubump on May 10, 2021, 12:46:36 pm
My Submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/QAd2DpJ.png)

A mini-Forge.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: scolapasta on May 10, 2021, 12:51:28 pm
My Submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/CwWagCTh.png)


Quote from: Floating City
FLOATING CITY  --  $13
ACTION
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
Choose one: +$3; or +2 Coffers; or +1VP.


When you buy this, gain two more Floating Cities.
     

Floating City is a card I have been toying with different versions of for a while. It is both incredibly powerful and incredibly expensive. If you do manage to pay the cost, you get 3 of them, whereas if you take a shortcut like playing Lurker twice or using Displace on a Colony, you only get one at a time.

Like with Port, there are 12 copies of Floating City in the Supply.

So this costs more than any official card, barring debt costs. I think in many games this would just get ignored.

In games where you want to buy this, I suspect it would suffer from "the first player to buy this gains a major advantage" issue. Even more so, since once you gain the first 3, your odds of getting up to $13 again increase greatly (imagine drawing all 3 the very next turn) and continue to increase that advantage.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: emtzalex on May 10, 2021, 01:04:27 pm
(https://imgur.com/v1vlS2k.png)

Terminal draw that gets stronger the more you play, chaining together if they find each other.  The more workers you have on your assembly line, the more work you can do! Chaining effect is similar to library's interaction with actions, but playing instead of discarding. Playing 5 workers averages out to 5 smithies, but for a quarter the cost!

This card has been updated from a previous version in my industrial revolution fan expansion (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20619), this was one of the 1-cost cards that needed buy-support/alternate gain to be viable, and I think this version dealt with that nicely.

I am fairly certain that your intention with the on-buy effect is that it can only be used once per turn by each player. However, since "this" in "When you first buy this a turn" refers to the specific card, not every copy of Workers, a player could buy 2 of these for each Buy (and $2) they have.

You might want to try
"The first time you buy a copy of this in each of your turns, you may pay $1 to gain another."
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: emtzalex on May 10, 2021, 01:58:48 pm
So this costs more than any official card, barring debt costs. I think in many games this would just get ignored.

In games where you want to buy this, I suspect it would suffer from "the first player to buy this gains a major advantage" issue. Even more so, since once you gain the first 3, your odds of getting up to $13 again increase greatly (imagine drawing all 3 the very next turn) and continue to increase that advantage.

It's more expensive than any official card, but still costs one less than Dominate (at $14). The fact that the card is (1) hard to buy, and (2) very advantageous to the player who manages to buy it is the point of card. As with Dominate, a player has to make the strategic decision of whether to delay greening in order to hit this higher price point; if/when they do, the reward is are substantial, but it has to make up for the lead they will have given the other player(s). If more than one player is going after Floating Cities, they also have to account for the strategic risk that the other player getting their first will likely mean losing the game.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: faust on May 10, 2021, 02:40:00 pm
Edit 1
(https://i.imgur.com/k2BiXZC.png)
This new variant seems... better than Lost City for $4? The gaining effect is net-zero as it affects all players equally (though occasionally it benefits you more). Having to return is isn't much of a drawback as the next Wild City you gain can simply get it back. In some ways, its even a boost as it allows you to play the same Wild City multiple times in a turn. This is way overpowered.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: fika monster on May 10, 2021, 02:41:05 pm
So this costs more than any official card, barring debt costs. I think in many games this would just get ignored.

In games where you want to buy this, I suspect it would suffer from "the first player to buy this gains a major advantage" issue. Even more so, since once you gain the first 3, your odds of getting up to $13 again increase greatly (imagine drawing all 3 the very next turn) and continue to increase that advantage.

It's more expensive than any official card, but still costs one less than Dominate (at $14). The fact that the card is (1) hard to buy, and (2) very advantageous to the player who manages to buy it is the point of card. As with Dominate, a player has to make the strategic decision of whether to delay greening in order to hit this higher price point; if/when they do, the reward is are substantial, but it has to make up for the lead they will have given the other player(s). If more than one player is going after Floating Cities, they also have to account for the strategic risk that the other player getting their first will likely mean losing the game.

Dominate is really good and important as an VP source, but it doesn't give you money or cards or actions, it gives you a province which is a dead card. So I'm not sure the comparison workis. with floating city, getting one buy in means you get a huge long term benefit.

I think Floating city could be compared to kings court? idk
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: emtzalex on May 10, 2021, 03:11:19 pm
Edit 1
(https://i.imgur.com/k2BiXZC.png)
This new variant seems... better than Lost City for $4? The gaining effect is net-zero as it affects all players equally (though occasionally it benefits you more). Having to return is isn't much of a drawback as the next Wild City you gain can simply get it back. In some ways, its even a boost as it allows you to play the same Wild City multiple times in a turn. This is way overpowered.

I think this mechanic is sometimes a meaningful drawback. On the play when you distribute cards to each player, then have to put your back, the net effect is to give the other players (but not you) a copy of the card. Also, there would be the occasion when you play this with an already-empty Wild City pile (if someone bought the last returned WC), at which point you would lose your Wild City. Other than that, I agree that it has little effect, so I do think you're right about the strength. On the other hand, the fact that these would quickly be spread out to the players might make the card being overpowered less of a problem.

However, there is a much larger concern (imo). As you point out, by returning one and gaining another, the other Wild City becomes available to be played. This creates the not-at-all remote possibility of an endless loop. If you were able to draw the rest of your deck (or all but 3 cards) and had two Wild Cities in hand, with a number of Wild Cities left on the Supply not greater than the number of players, you would:

(a) play a Wild City:
(b) play a the other Wild City you started with:

(c) play the Wild City you previously gained:

You can repeat (c) as many times as you want. If you have the +$1 token from Adventures on Wild City, you can get as much $ as you want. Similarly, since you get an extra Action each time you do this, if you had diadem you could also have as much $ as you wanted.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: majiponi on May 10, 2021, 08:01:40 pm
Investor
cost $4 - Action
You may discard a card costing up to $6, to gain a copy of that.
---
When you gain this, gain a Gold.


Plain Gold/Duchy gainer.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: The Alchemist on May 11, 2021, 03:03:11 am
Submission updated with text corrections:

(https://imgur.com/WHE0tZZ.png)

Let me know if you'd prefer I simply modify the original post instead.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: fika monster on May 11, 2021, 05:00:46 am
Submission updated with text corrections:

(https://imgur.com/WHE0tZZ.png)

Let me know if you'd prefer I simply modify the original post instead.

i personally prefer editing the original post , by keeping the original and making it small, and puting the newer version in bigger form under it
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: grep on May 11, 2021, 11:06:37 am
(https://i.ibb.co/WyZ6T8X/image.png) (https://tinyurl.com/2yctn634)
Quote
Tin
$4 - Treasure

Worth $1 per Copper in play.

You may trash a Copper from your hand to gain a Treasure card costing up to $5.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: artless on May 11, 2021, 11:10:14 am
Suburb
Action - $3

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a Suburb from your hand.
---
When you buy this, gain another Suburb.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: grep on May 11, 2021, 12:13:34 pm
Suburb
Action - $3

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a Suburb from your hand.
---
When you buy this, gain another Suburb.
I would choose Hamlet over this most of the time - should cost $2.
Is the pile size standard or 12 like Experiment and Port?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: segura on May 11, 2021, 03:00:29 pm
I agree that it might be too weak for $3 but I don’t think that it is always or on average weaker than Hamlet. Discarding a card hurts in a lot of decks.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: naitchman on May 11, 2021, 03:08:52 pm
Here's a card I found I had made some time back (tweaked it a bit).
(https://i.imgur.com/ZvqaUon.png)
There are 20 Riots in the supply.

It's a self gaining lab, with the important caveat that if you play too many, you won't be able to play anything else (you have to keep the riot under control), so all the cards you draw won't do you good if you overdo it. It works similar to Enchantment except it gives you nothing instead of +1 Card +1 Action.
I allowed for trashing coppers since they'll be useless in a deck like this.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: xyz123 on May 11, 2021, 03:53:34 pm
Parish
Action - Victory
Cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)

1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)

__________________________________________________

You may trash a card from your hand. If you do gain a Parish
__________________________________________________

When you trash this +3(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)


Edit - Decided to add some of my thoughts behind the card.
- I decided to make a card that scored points when you trashed it, whilst at the same time gaining another copy as a replacement.
- To avoid the on trash clause being potentially redundant if there are no trashers in the kingdom, the card itself should be a trasher.
- I added the gain clause to when it trashes, not when it is trashed. I felt the on trash clause is interesting enough and has obvious synergies with trash for benefit cards and cards allow you to gain from the trash. The gain clause gives it that self spamming ability, similar to Rats and Magpie, when used to trash other cards.
- I was very dubious about making the card non terminal or giving it any draw capability. I don't want the potential for monolithic strategies. It can be the centrepiece of a strategy, but it needs the right support
- Later on in my thought processes, I realised it is similar to Distant Lands, except that you trash it to gain the points instead of putting it on your tavern mat. This led me to making it a victory, action card. Unlike Distant Lands, though, I decided the card should also be worth something if it is in your deck at the end of the game, hence 1VP.
- One of the most difficult things I found with this card was pricing it. For a long time I was envisioning a 3 or 4 cost, again it was the similarities with Distand Lands that made me think it should be a 5.

Note - Further edit to add a second dividing line after feedback.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: mxdata on May 11, 2021, 04:36:21 pm
(https://i.ibb.co/WyZ6T8X/image.png) (https://tinyurl.com/2yctn634)
Quote
Tin
$4 - Treasure

Worth $1 per Copper in play.

You may trash a Copper from your hand to gain a Treasure card costing up to $5.

The self-gaining on this seems to be of very limited use to me.  Its worth $0 if you have no Coppers in play, so once you've trashed your Coppers, it becomes a junk card.  The upgrading would be useful with certain kingdom treasures, or with cost reduction, which would allow you to upgrade a Copper to a Gold, so having one could be handy, but having two wouldn't be very useful most of the time, outside of a few cases like kingdoms with Mountebank
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: mxdata on May 11, 2021, 05:14:30 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/6DHu0ek.png)

A self-gaining Peddler variant.  You normally need to gain at least 2 of these before the self-gaining kicks in, but once you do, they can potentially multiply quickly, especially in games with strong draw.  The "exactly 1 other Rabbit" provision is to limit the self-gaining, so that most of the time, the self-gaining only kicks in once per turn.  There are, of course, a few situations where it can activate more than once.  If you Throne your second Rabbit, for example, then there's still only 1 other Rabbit in play on the second play.  Likewise, you can use multiple Overlords or Necromancers (or Captain with cost reduction) and gain a Rabbit each time, if you have only one Rabbit in play.  Those command cards can also allow the self-gaining to kick in without gaining a second Rabbit first

I'm debating whether to make it a standard 10-card pile or more than 10, and if more, how many?  More than 10 would also fit nicely with the name, since rabbits can quickly increase their numbers

EDIT: Eliminated the unnecessary dividing line and "when you play"
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Gubump on May 11, 2021, 09:09:07 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/j2onabp.png)
Quote
Rabbit
Action
$5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
-
When you play this, if you have exactly 1 other Rabbit in play, gain a Rabbit.

A self-gaining Peddler variant.  You normally need to gain at least 2 of these before the self-gaining kicks in, but once you do, they can potentially multiply quickly, especially in games with strong draw.  The "exactly 1 other Rabbit" provision is to limit the self-gaining, so that most of the time, the self-gaining only kicks in once per turn.  There are, of course, a few situations where it can activate more than once.  If you Throne your second Rabbit, for example, then there's still only 1 other Rabbit in play on the second play.  Likewise, you can use multiple Overlords or Necromancers (or Captain with cost reduction) and gain a Rabbit each time, if you have only one Rabbit in play.  Those command cards can also allow the self-gaining to kick in without gaining a second Rabbit first

I'm debating whether to make it a standard 10-card pile or more than 10, and if more, how many?  More than 10 would also fit nicely with the name, since rabbits can quickly increase their numbers

It shouldn't have the dividing line, and it shouldn't say "when you play this." Both parts of it are on-play.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: mxdata on May 11, 2021, 10:12:14 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/j2onabp.png)
Quote
Rabbit
Action
$5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
-
When you play this, if you have exactly 1 other Rabbit in play, gain a Rabbit.

A self-gaining Peddler variant.  You normally need to gain at least 2 of these before the self-gaining kicks in, but once you do, they can potentially multiply quickly, especially in games with strong draw.  The "exactly 1 other Rabbit" provision is to limit the self-gaining, so that most of the time, the self-gaining only kicks in once per turn.  There are, of course, a few situations where it can activate more than once.  If you Throne your second Rabbit, for example, then there's still only 1 other Rabbit in play on the second play.  Likewise, you can use multiple Overlords or Necromancers (or Captain with cost reduction) and gain a Rabbit each time, if you have only one Rabbit in play.  Those command cards can also allow the self-gaining to kick in without gaining a second Rabbit first

I'm debating whether to make it a standard 10-card pile or more than 10, and if more, how many?  More than 10 would also fit nicely with the name, since rabbits can quickly increase their numbers

It shouldn't have the dividing line, and it shouldn't say "when you play this." Both parts of it are on-play.

Oh, right, of course.  Not sure why I was thinking it needed to have a dividing line
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: fika monster on May 12, 2021, 01:01:23 am
new submission: hopefully this isnt terrible

nope this didn't work either

(https://i.imgur.com/9oGrrFj.png)

Edit 1

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

Now you cant gain other cards when Antiques run out, and its basically a curse then. I tried to make it so you don't necessarily want to autopile

Edit 2: Its no longer a cantrip, but if the game is 3 piled, y
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Gubump on May 12, 2021, 01:29:13 am
new submission: hopefully this isnt terrible

(https://i.imgur.com/9oGrrFj.png)

I'd say Cantrip Workshop is already pushing it for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), and this is better than that by a massive margin.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: spineflu on May 12, 2021, 02:39:44 am
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/609b76bac93e298aa416c348/c5623558c732529c93b51afe4119c2cf/image.png)
Quote
Consulate • $5 • Action
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
-
When you buy this, gain another Consulate, then each other player gains a Consulate.
twelve to the pile in 2, 3 and 5player. fifteen to the pile in 4p, fourteen in 6p.
will pile in
4 buys in 2p
3 buys in 3 + 4p
2 buys in 5+6p

Lost City version of Port that also gives everyone else the card.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: mxdata on May 12, 2021, 02:41:32 am
new submission: hopefully this isnt terrible

(https://i.imgur.com/9oGrrFj.png)

What's it worth with no empty piles?  Granted, that situation wouldn't happen very often, since the self-gaining would usually ensure that its own pile empties before the end of the game (and being a cantrip workshop, most of the time you'd probably end up with more than one empty pile, and 3-pile endings would probably be quite common), but it's certainly not impossible (for example, someone Possessing you could use Way of the Butterfly on your Antique on the same turn they buy the last Province, causing its pile to no longer be empty)

(Also, minor grammatical nitpick: it should be "there are" with the numbers 2 and 3)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Timinou on May 12, 2021, 02:54:17 am
new submission: hopefully this isnt terrible

(https://i.imgur.com/9oGrrFj.png)

What's it worth with no empty piles?  Granted, that situation wouldn't happen very often, since the self-gaining would usually ensure that its own pile empties before the end of the game (and being a cantrip workshop, most of the time you'd probably end up with more than one empty pile, and 3-pile endings would probably be quite common), but it's certainly not impossible (for example, someone Possessing you could use Way of the Butterfly on your Antique on the same turn they buy the last Province, causing its pile to no longer be empty)

(Also, minor grammatical nitpick: it should be "there are" with the numbers 2 and 3)

The Province pile would still be empty though, right?  I don’t see any situation where the game ends without empty piles.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: artless on May 12, 2021, 03:06:41 am
Edited:

Suburb
Action - $3

+1 Card
+1 Action
If you played two or more actions this turn, +1 Action
---
When you buy this, gain another Suburb.

There are 12 Suburbs in the supply.

I kept the two half villages equals one village concept, and increased its flexibility.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Timinou on May 12, 2021, 03:09:02 am
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/609b76bac93e298aa416c348/c5623558c732529c93b51afe4119c2cf/image.png)
Quote
Consulate • $5 • Action
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
-
When you buy this, gain another Consulate, then each other player gains a Consulate.
twelve to the pile.
Lost City version of Port that also gives everyone else the card.

In a 3-player game, the pile gets emptied after it is bought three times, right?  In a 4-player game, the third time it is bought, three players will get stiffed, since there won’t be enough left in the supply.  I’m wondering if the pile size should vary based on the player count, as it could otherwise be quite swingy.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: mxdata on May 12, 2021, 03:32:47 am
new submission: hopefully this isnt terrible

(https://i.imgur.com/9oGrrFj.png)

What's it worth with no empty piles?  Granted, that situation wouldn't happen very often, since the self-gaining would usually ensure that its own pile empties before the end of the game (and being a cantrip workshop, most of the time you'd probably end up with more than one empty pile, and 3-pile endings would probably be quite common), but it's certainly not impossible (for example, someone Possessing you could use Way of the Butterfly on your Antique on the same turn they buy the last Province, causing its pile to no longer be empty)

(Also, minor grammatical nitpick: it should be "there are" with the numbers 2 and 3)

The Province pile would still be empty though, right?  I don’t see any situation where the game ends without empty piles.

Oh, right, of course.  Sorry, brain's not working properly today.  Which also means that it's rarely going to be worth the full 5 VP, since most of the time you'll end with either 2 empty piles (Provinces and Antiques) or 3+ in a game that ends on piles
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Aquila on May 12, 2021, 04:01:04 am
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5f5a8e8e7ed38b522f25641a/6099158127c0ae7ad0e401b9/f0b78fa039b56c4f2beafc19ec381e34/Village_of_Secrets.png)
Quote
Village of Secrets - Action Night, $4 cost.
If it's your Action phase, +1 Card and +2 Actions. Otherwise, you may play an Action card from your hand to gain a copy of it.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: faust on May 12, 2021, 04:19:43 am
(https://i.imgur.com/6DHu0ek.png)
Quote
Rabbit
Action
$5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
If you have exactly 1 other Rabbit in play, gain a Rabbit.
This seems very reminiscent of this card from a previous contest:
EDIT: Updated Version
(https://i.imgur.com/IZ3pi7Y.png)

Quote from: Rabbit
$4 - Action-Reaction
+1 Card
+1 Action
If you have exactly 2 Rabbits in play, +$2 and gain a Rabbit.
-
When any player gains a Rabbit, you may return this from your hand to its pile for +2 Cards and +$1.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: faust on May 12, 2021, 05:04:36 am
(https://i.imgur.com/Z3KeSw4.png)
Quote
Locket - $4
Treasure

Gain a card costing up to $4. If it is an Action or Treasure that you have no copies of in play, play it.

Version history:
(https://i.imgur.com/4rmxPbZ.png)
This one might give instructions to play Victory cards and Curses. That weirdness is avoided with the new, clumsier, wording.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Shael on May 12, 2021, 05:56:08 am
This is my card for the contest:

(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/19/vzok.png)

Small precision: Yes, it's intended to work during clean-up; it's even the main point of the card. Even if it's clear on the effect I still say it since the precedent has been the opposite.

It's a sort of Workshop with some litle twist: you don't have to spend action on it, you gain the card at the end of your turn (usualy) and you may play it as a treasure if you really need $2.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Shael on May 12, 2021, 06:04:54 am
Parish
Action - Victory
Cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)
1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)
You may trash a card from your hand. If you do gain a Parish
__________________________________________________

When you trash this +3(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)
I think parrish should have a second dividng line (one between the vp and the action and an other between the action and the on-trash effect)

new submission: hopefully this isnt terrible
(https://i.imgur.com/9oGrrFj.png)
Wait, this can easily autopile right?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Shael on May 12, 2021, 06:09:51 am
(https://i.imgur.com/Z3KeSw4.png)
Quote
Locket - $4
Treasure

Gain a card costing up to $4. If it is an Action or Treasure that you have no copies of in play, play it.
Wow, this card is really cool; it's a verry ellegant one! Great job here!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: spineflu on May 12, 2021, 06:51:14 am
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/609b76bac93e298aa416c348/c5623558c732529c93b51afe4119c2cf/image.png)
Quote
Consulate • $5 • Action
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
-
When you buy this, gain another Consulate, then each other player gains a Consulate.
twelve to the pile.
Lost City version of Port that also gives everyone else the card.

In a 3-player game, the pile gets emptied after it is bought three times, right?  In a 4-player game, the third time it is bought, three players will get stiffed, since there won’t be enough left in the supply.  I’m wondering if the pile size should vary based on the player count, as it could otherwise be quite swingy.

yes to the 3p game question, "yeah i can probably do that" to the 4p question; since 5p/6p wasnt much of a change either i "fixed" the numbers for those as well in the OP
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: fika monster on May 12, 2021, 07:27:05 am
new submission: hopefully this isnt terrible

(https://i.imgur.com/9oGrrFj.png)

Edit 1

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

Now you cant gain other cards when Antiques run out, and its basically a curse then. I tried to make it so you don't necessarily want to autopile

update
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: fika monster on May 12, 2021, 07:27:50 am

new submission: hopefully this isnt terrible
(https://i.imgur.com/9oGrrFj.png)
Wait, this can easily autopile right?

I intended that part: question is if you want to with the new edit
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: scolapasta on May 12, 2021, 10:59:41 am
new submission: hopefully this isnt terrible
(https://i.imgur.com/9oGrrFj.png)
Wait, this can easily autopile right?

I intended that part: question is if you want to with the new edit

Even with the old version, you still wouldn't want to auto pile either right? Since more empty piles made it worth less.

Also, there *is* a way to end the game with 0 empty supply piles with Fleet. i.e. end the game, then on the fleet turn play ambassador and return two Provinces, handing out one. Not sure *why* you'd want to (with official cards at least), since that's an 18 point swing against you, but technically it's possible.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Timinou on May 12, 2021, 11:07:35 am
new submission: hopefully this isnt terrible

(https://i.imgur.com/9oGrrFj.png)

Edit 1

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

Now you cant gain other cards when Antiques run out, and its basically a curse then. I tried to make it so you don't necessarily want to autopile

update

It's an improvement over the previous version, but it seems very tricky to play with because of the self-gaining.  There doesn't seem to be a lot of room for error, and so I'm not sure the potential payoff is worth it.  You would need to pick these up at a stage where you can get optimal use out of Antique, i.e. ensure that you can play some to gain additional Antiques and some other useful cards without emptying any piles. Your opponents could easily sabotage you if that's what you are going for.

I guess in some situations you would get Antiques early and go for a rush and not care about ending up with dead cards, or you could just pick them up as cheap Duchies late in the game if it's safe enough, but it seems like the card will otherwise have fairly limited utility. 

I think you've gone from a version that was overpowered to one that is perhaps very situational.  I like the overall concept but you would probably need to playtest a few versions to get to the right balance. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: grep on May 12, 2021, 11:39:18 am
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5f5a8e8e7ed38b522f25641a/6099158127c0ae7ad0e401b9/f0b78fa039b56c4f2beafc19ec381e34/Village_of_Secrets.png)
Quote
Village of Secrets - Action Night, $4 cost.
If it's your Action phase, +1 Card and +2 Actions. Otherwise, you may play an Action card from your hand to gain a copy of it.

Is the interaction with Scepter, March and other Buy phase Action enablers intended? Werewolf is formulated in an opposite way: "If it's Night phase [...], otherwise [...]"
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: mxdata on May 12, 2021, 12:22:15 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/6DHu0ek.png)
Quote
Rabbit
Action
$5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
If you have exactly 1 other Rabbit in play, gain a Rabbit.
This seems very reminiscent of this card from a previous contest:
EDIT: Updated Version
(https://i.imgur.com/IZ3pi7Y.png)

Quote from: Rabbit
$4 - Action-Reaction
+1 Card
+1 Action
If you have exactly 2 Rabbits in play, +$2 and gain a Rabbit.
-
When any player gains a Rabbit, you may return this from your hand to its pile for +2 Cards and +$1.

Oh, I'd forgotten about that one.  It's not exactly the same, but it's certainly similar.  Maybe I should withdraw this one then?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Timinou on May 12, 2021, 01:44:00 pm

Oh, I'd forgotten about that one.  It's not exactly the same, but it's certainly similar.  Maybe I should withdraw this one then?

Other than the name and being Peddler variants that care about the number of copies of itself in play, I think they are quite different so I don't think you should withdraw it.  My version is really about the Reaction, IMO.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: X-tra on May 12, 2021, 02:36:35 pm
Design of that one got some tweaks from the good folks on the Discord:

(https://i.postimg.cc/TGS1rxzT/Hydra-v2.png)

So, which head will you choose? The one that's a super-Village? Or perhaps the Smithy head? Or why not the Peddler head, it's always been reliable in the past.
Careful though. When you cut a Hydra's head, 2 more pops in its place. A courageous Knight smiting the Hydra will only multiply it in your deck, for instance.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: fika monster on May 12, 2021, 02:46:09 pm
Third times the charm. This is my submission now

Jewelry is a 20 card supply pile, regardless of the numbers of players

(https://i.imgur.com/70ZSHmg.png)

A self gaining gold that hates having other copies of itself in its hand: Can give you a huge boost early on, but tank your deck if you aren't careful

edit 2:

Improved wording courtesy of crlundy

(https://i.imgur.com/O5BvQpo.png)

Edit 3:
(https://i.imgur.com/k8pI6uV.png)
Increased its cost to 4 so players cant double open with jewelry: Buffed it by adding an option to trash itself. Its now a 20 Card pile, similar to Rats
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: silverspawn on May 12, 2021, 03:09:33 pm
I had to read 'either choose all, or one three times' about five times before getting it. That may be just me, there's a lot of variety in how people parse weird grammar. But I really think "Choose one: +3 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +$3; or +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1." would be an improvement. It also fits on three lines.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: fika monster on May 12, 2021, 03:10:51 pm
I had to read 'either choose all, or one three times' about five times before getting it. That may be just me, there's a lot of variety in how people parse weird grammar. But I really think "Choose one: +3 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +$3; or +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1." would be an improvement. It also fits on three lines.

i think I agree here
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Xen3k on May 12, 2021, 06:31:25 pm
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51175312983_879dca0095_b.jpg)

Quote
Irregulars - $3+
Action - Attack
+2 Cards
You may play an Irregulars from your hand to trash this. If you do, gain a Mercenary or 3 Silver. Otherwise, each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
----
When you buy this, you may overpay by $2 to gain an Irregulars.

I've been messing around with ideas for alternate ways to get a Mercenary. This is what I came up with. I had a version where you gain a Copper along with an Irregular in the overpay, but thought it may be too unappealing then. Not sure on what the power level for this is. Feedback is appreciated.

Edit: Changed wording so it actually functions as intended. Changed price to 3 and overpay is limited to allowing you to gain one additional copy at most. Bumped up Silver payout to 3 so getting more than two for a Merc is more appealing. Just realized this kinda behaves like Treasure Map.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: segura on May 13, 2021, 12:54:28 am
Design of that one got some tweaks from the good folks on the Discord:

(https://i.postimg.cc/TGS1rxzT/Hydra-v2.png)

So, which head will you choose? The one that's a super-Village? Or perhaps the Smithy head? Or why not the Peddler head, it's always been reliable in the past.
Careful though. When you cut a Hydra's head, 2 more pops in its place. A courageous Knight smiting the Hydra will only multiply it in your deck, for instance.
Not excited about the vanilla stuff but it is obvious very strong with Remodelers. I’d consider returning it to the Supply when it is trashed.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: fika monster on May 13, 2021, 04:52:52 am
Third times the charm. This is my submission now

Jewelry is a 20 card supply pile, regardless of the numbers of players

(https://i.imgur.com/70ZSHmg.png)

A self gaining gold that hates having other copies of itself in its hand: Can give you a huge boost early on, but tank your deck if you aren't careful

edit 2:

Improved wording courtesy of crlundy

(https://i.imgur.com/O5BvQpo.png)

Edit 3:
(https://i.imgur.com/k8pI6uV.png)
Increased its cost to 4 so players cant double open with jewelry: Buffed it by adding an option to trash itself. Its now a 20 Card pile, similar to Rats

Update
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: anordinaryman on May 13, 2021, 11:57:05 am
(https://i.imgur.com/Z3KeSw4.png)
Quote
Locket - $4
Treasure

Gain a card costing up to $4. If it is an Action or Treasure that you have no copies of in play, play it.

Version history:
(https://i.imgur.com/4rmxPbZ.png)
This one might give instructions to play Victory cards and Curses. That weirdness is avoided with the new, clumsier, wording.

I love the concept of this card. It seems a little too strong. Non-terminal workshop for $4 is a fairly strong 4. Making it a Treasure workshop for $4 is even better than that. And in early game (when you want workshops), it acts as a cantrip workshop where you draw a card you actually want to play.

I think a cost of $5 makes more sense here. You could add a $1 to it even.

If you want to keep it $4, I think you'd have to have to either restrict the clause to just action or treasure card auto-playing (where I think Action is more interesting). Alternatively, you could turn it into a terminal action. I do believe this is well-balanced as a terminal Action card and competes with other $4 gainers decently.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: faust on May 13, 2021, 03:18:24 pm
I love the concept of this card. It seems a little too strong. Non-terminal workshop for $4 is a fairly strong 4. Making it a Treasure workshop for $4 is even better than that. And in early game (when you want workshops), it acts as a cantrip workshop where you draw a card you actually want to play.

I think a cost of $5 makes more sense here. You could add a $1 to it even.

If you want to keep it $4, I think you'd have to have to either restrict the clause to just action or treasure card auto-playing (where I think Action is more interesting). Alternatively, you could turn it into a terminal action. I do believe this is well-balanced as a terminal Action card and competes with other $4 gainers decently.
I don't think Treasure-Workshop is better than non-terminal Workshop, gains in your Action phase that you can still play the same turn more than make up for the threat of being drawn dead.

I'm also kind of unconvinced on your last paragraph. If this were a terminal Action for $4, I think it would be significantly stronger than the current version. The things you want to gain with Workshops are most of the time Cantrips anyways, and that would be very good with the card that you suggest, but it is kind of crappy on Locket.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: LastFootnote on May 13, 2021, 11:49:29 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/8OZNLeP.png)

Quote
Pier: Action, $4
+3 Cards
You may discard a non-Victory card to gain a copy of it.

A card that I had sitting around in my file. I got to test it yesterday with X-tra just as a sanity check to see if it was obviously broken.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Timinou on May 14, 2021, 12:12:27 am
I really want to play with Pier and Village Green!  :D
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: gambit05 on May 14, 2021, 07:40:48 am
My Submission:

Update: With a more precise wording, without changing functionality

(https://i.ibb.co/wY9Pgsc/Scriptorium.png) 
Scriptorium
$5 – Action
Quote

Gain an Action card costing
 up to $5. Each player
     (including you) may set aside     
 a copy of it from their hand
 and either plays it now or at
 the start of their next turn.




Original submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/pJS2mNx/Scriptorium.png) 
Scriptorium
$5 – Action
Quote

Gain an Action card costing
    up to $5. Each player may set   
 aside a copy of it from their
 hand and either plays it now
 or at the start of their turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: anordinaryman on May 14, 2021, 12:28:24 pm
I love the concept of this card. It seems a little too strong. Non-terminal workshop for $4 is a fairly strong 4. Making it a Treasure workshop for $4 is even better than that. And in early game (when you want workshops), it acts as a cantrip workshop where you draw a card you actually want to play.

I think a cost of $5 makes more sense here. You could add a $1 to it even.

If you want to keep it $4, I think you'd have to have to either restrict the clause to just action or treasure card auto-playing (where I think Action is more interesting). Alternatively, you could turn it into a terminal action. I do believe this is well-balanced as a terminal Action card and competes with other $4 gainers decently.
I don't think Treasure-Workshop is better than non-terminal Workshop, gains in your Action phase that you can still play the same turn more than make up for the threat of being drawn dead.

I'm also kind of unconvinced on your last paragraph. If this were a terminal Action for $4, I think it would be significantly stronger than the current version. The things you want to gain with Workshops are most of the time Cantrips anyways, and that would be very good with the card that you suggest, but it is kind of crappy on Locket.

To be honest, I didn't consider that (gaining in treasure phase is weaker). However, I think we can agree that accelerating your deck earlier on is much more powerful than later on, since the earlier you accelerate, the more you have time for those gains to compound. Early on, you use this to gain payload $4 costs (which are just as valuable to play in the Buy phase as they are in the Action phase), and earlier on, you don't have those in play so they get instant-played. It's just strong enough (in my opinion) to make the card less-fun. And later in the game, when you are drawing deck consistently, you can always use one as silver-gainer and just play it before other silvers.

You've convinced me that a $4 action doesn't actually solve this problem (especially since the action version is far more likely to activate the entire game, and the whole gaining cantrips thing). I agree that the action version is in fact even more over-powered.

This means we have to seek other ways to balance it. I think that a $5 cost version that produced 1 money would work just fine. You can also change it to only gain action cards, which would still be a strong 4, but would feel more balanced with other 4 gainers.

It's your card, and you're free to ignore my feedback of course.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Timinou on May 14, 2021, 01:19:19 pm
EDIT: Revised submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/XgC4Ec5.png)

Thanks to LastFootnote, gambit05, and emtzalex for their feedback.

Quote from: Original
(https://i.imgur.com/szCT8dw.png)

Here's my submission for the week.  Scaffolding comes in a pile of 12 cards.

I've toyed around with a few versions, but it still feels a bit unrefined.  The idea behind Scaffolding is a temporary card in your deck that will help you gain additional cards to accelerate and improve your deck. 

If you play a Scaffolding and don't have any others in play, you could trash return it to the Supply to gain two $2-cost cards, which might be nice if there are good $2-cost cards like Pixies in the Kingdom.  If you already have a Scaffolding in play, you could play another Scaffolding and trash return it to the Supply to gain two cards costing up to $4 (including more Scaffoldings).  If you have two in play, you could play a third Scaffolding to trash return it to the Supply and gain two cards costing up to $6.  The duration-draw is primarily intended to help you find additional Scaffoldings in your deck, but could also provide some additional flexibility as the card might otherwise be a bit weak.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: LastFootnote on May 14, 2021, 01:22:45 pm
Here's my submission for the week.  Scaffolding comes in a pile of 12 cards.

I've toyed around with a few versions, but it still feels a bit unrefined.  The idea behind Scaffolding is a temporary card in your deck that will help you gain additional cards to accelerate and improve your deck.

Instead of having 12 in the pile, how about it returns itself to its pile instead of trashing itself? That's a recent change I made to a similar card of mine (a remodel that I was considering for this contest). Returning itself instead of trashing itself worked really well in my test game with it.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: LastFootnote on May 14, 2021, 01:23:54 pm

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/pJS2mNx/Scriptorium.png) 
Scriptorium
$5 – Action
Quote

Gain an Action card costing
    up to $5. Each player may set   
 aside a copy of it from their
 hand and either plays it now
 or at the start of their turn.


I like this, but I think it would be simpler if they just always played it at the start of their next turn.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Timinou on May 14, 2021, 01:26:38 pm
Here's my submission for the week.  Scaffolding comes in a pile of 12 cards.

I've toyed around with a few versions, but it still feels a bit unrefined.  The idea behind Scaffolding is a temporary card in your deck that will help you gain additional cards to accelerate and improve your deck.

Instead of having 12 in the pile, how about it returns itself to its pile instead of trashing itself? That's a recent change I made to a similar card of mine (a remodel that I was considering for this contest). Returning itself instead of trashing itself worked really well in my test game with it.

I had an earlier iteration that did precisely that, but I felt like it was too wordy.  That said, the earlier versions were cantrips so I needed to set it aside first and then return it during clean-up to prevent looping, but I don't know if setting aside would be necessary now that it is terminal.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: gambit05 on May 14, 2021, 01:48:29 pm

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/pJS2mNx/Scriptorium.png) 
Scriptorium
$5 – Action
Quote

Gain an Action card costing
    up to $5. Each player may set   
 aside a copy of it from their
 hand and either plays it now
 or at the start of their turn.


I like this, but I think it would be simpler if they just always played it at the start of their next turn.

Thank you! Before I start to (hopefully) discuss the pros and cons of "now" and/or "next turn", I would like to cautiously ask whether you are aware that this is meant to be for "each player".

I just realized that I forgot the word "next".
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: gambit05 on May 14, 2021, 02:05:36 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/szCT8dw.png)

Here's my submission for the week.  Scaffolding comes in a pile of 12 cards.

I've toyed around with a few versions, but it still feels a bit unrefined.  The idea behind Scaffolding is a temporary card in your deck that will help you gain additional cards to accelerate and improve your deck. 

If you play a Scaffolding and don't have any others in play, you could trash it to gain two $2-cost cards, which might be nice if there are good $2-cost cards like Pixies in the Kingdom.  If you already have a Scaffolding in play, you could play another Scaffolding and trash it to gain two cards costing up to $4 (including more Scaffoldings).  If you have two in play, you could play a third Scaffolding to trash it and gain two cards costing up to $6.  The duration-draw is primarily intended to help you find additional Scaffoldings in your deck, but could also provide some additional flexibility as the card might otherwise be a bit weak.

I also prefer to return it to the Supply. I don't think length is a problem. The last line of the current text just has one word in it. Also, I would change the order, i.e. the "next turn" option as the second option.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: emtzalex on May 14, 2021, 02:06:45 pm
If you play a Scaffolding and don't have any others in play, you could trash it to gain two $2-cost cards

No you couldn't, because the one Scaffolding would be in the trash, not in play. To work as you want it to, it would have to say "...or gain 2 non-Victory cards costing up to $2 per Scaffolding you have in play, then trash this." That would allow the card to be played without trashing using Command cards/Necromancer, but in those cases the copy of Scaffolding being played wouldn't be in play, so it would be weaker.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Timinou on May 14, 2021, 04:26:11 pm
If you play a Scaffolding and don't have any others in play, you could trash it to gain two $2-cost cards

No you couldn't, because the one Scaffolding would be in the trash, not in play. To work as you want it to, it would have to say "...or gain 2 non-Victory cards costing up to $2 per Scaffolding you have in play, then trash this." That would allow the card to be played without trashing using Command cards/Necromancer, but in those cases the copy of Scaffolding being played wouldn't be in play, so it would be weaker.

Ah, good catch!  I'll fix the wording, and I will likely go back to returning it to the supply rather than trashing.  So something like "gain 2 non-Victory cards costing up to $2 per Scaffolding you have in play, then return this to the Supply."
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: LastFootnote on May 14, 2021, 06:45:08 pm
If you play a Scaffolding and don't have any others in play, you could trash it to gain two $2-cost cards

No you couldn't, because the one Scaffolding would be in the trash, not in play. To work as you want it to, it would have to say "...or gain 2 non-Victory cards costing up to $2 per Scaffolding you have in play, then trash this." That would allow the card to be played without trashing using Command cards/Necromancer, but in those cases the copy of Scaffolding being played wouldn't be in play, so it would be weaker.

Ah, good catch!  I'll fix the wording, and I will likely go back to returning it to the supply rather than trashing.  So something like "gain 2 non-Victory cards costing up to $2 per Scaffolding you have in play, then return this to the Supply."

“Gain two non-Victory cards, each costing up to $2 per Scaffolding you have in play, then return this to its pile." That's the wording I recommend.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: fika monster on May 15, 2021, 11:10:08 am
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/609b76bac93e298aa416c348/c5623558c732529c93b51afe4119c2cf/image.png)
Quote
Consulate • $5 • Action
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
-
When you buy this, gain another Consulate, then each other player gains a Consulate.
twelve to the pile in 2, 3 and 5player. fifteen to the pile in 4p, fourteen in 6p.
will pile in
4 buys in 2p
3 buys in 3 + 4p
2 buys in 5+6p

Lost City version of Port that also gives everyone else the card.

nice, this was sorta what i was going for, but it doesnt get infinite loops
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: 4est on May 16, 2021, 12:06:39 am
Submissions are closed to new entries at this point, but please do check the OP (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869550#msg869550) to make sure I've got everyone's card and with the most updated version. Let me know if I'm missing anything!

I'll have my comments on all submissions and the winner posted tomorrow.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Shael on May 16, 2021, 05:17:27 pm
Seem that there is a lot of entry for this one, it was a really cool contest, really inspiring!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: 4est on May 16, 2021, 10:24:29 pm
WDC #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One

Commentary & Results


Thanks everyone for the submissions, there were lots of great ideas, and I loved all the different types of cards this challenge pulled in. It was hard to pick a winner! OPs are linked, shortlisted entries are bolded, enjoy.



Idiot’s Village by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869552#msg869552)
A normal village that disappears if you use all your Actions and gains a copy of itself if you don’t. Having your villages either be one-shots or multiply themselves is an interesting idea, however I’m concerned about the scaling here creating a win-more situation, where the player who gets several in play first, can quickly empty the pile (I’m assuming this is a normal 10-card pile since it’s not specified otherwise). With a bunch of villages, it’s not hard to always leave at least one Action to prevent returning them, while the other player is forced to do the same with fewer Actions to keep the few they have. Adding a clause to prevent gaining more than one Idiots Village per Clean Up phase might mitigate this issue some.

Foundry by mandioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869556#msg869556)
Inventor but with +Cards instead of Bridge. Sounds neat and there’s potential for this to go nuts (something like Bandit Camp would be especially fun), however without +Actions or other gainers, the only time this will activate is when buying something which is usually the very worst time to get +Cards (and even with +Actions/other gainers, unless you’re drawing your deck you likely still aren’t going to want to get the +Cards effect when buying). Without the combos, this is usually going to be worse than Workshop. Perhaps try revising to “This turn, if it’s your Action phase, when you gain a card, +1 Card.”

Mousetrap by venusambassador (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869563#msg869563)
A non-terminal Workshop or Ambassador, but the thing you gain can shift, fascinating idea. I’m still trying to wrap my head around this one. It’s definitely got Lurker vibes, where if you get one, your opponent kind of has to get one too, but then there’s this awkward dance of not wanting to move the token until you’re confident you can play another one before your opponent. I’m torn on the Ambassador option; it’s certainly cool and opens up some interesting decisions, but I worry this can get oppressive quickly. That said, it needs trashing and draw to get there so perhaps it’s not too bad. It also seems like going for Mousetraps can sometimes be an actual trap (again like Lurker) where an opponent needs only to have one to really mess with the Mousetrap player (by threatening gains or moving the token). While playtesting is necessary to be more confident of the balance, this is a really creative one. Also, welcome to the forum!

Worker by The Alchemist (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869588#msg869588)
Inexpensive terminal draw which chains and gets stronger, and has a pseudo-overpay option to gain a second one (which you’ll likely almost always use since just one of these isn’t super helpful). Seems okay, though obviously requires +Action and trashing/sifting support to be usable. The setting aside then playing feels a little weird—without revealing, there’s not really a way to keep the player honest in playing a Worker they drew vs. one that was in their hand. Is there a reason to not just have it say, “You may play a Worker from your hand.”?  Without that, it’s much harder for Workers to chain off the first play unless your first Worker draws a Worker.

Floating City by emtzalex (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869566#msg869566)
This… is too much, I think. There’s not necessarily anything wrong with super expensive, super powerful cards, and I get the Dominate comparison, but the win-more nature of this as others have noted feels far too prevalent. The first player to get them is practically guaranteed to gain the rest in the next couple turns, and there’s really nothing an opponent can do to stop you once you’ve got a pile of these in your deck. This is also probably broken with trash for benefit. Pay $13, gain THREE $13 costs to Salvage/Bishop/Apprentice/etc.

Foundry by Gubump (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869567#msg869567)
A nice little trasher. The “you may” is a subtle touch which let’s you trash two Coppers and not have to gain a Copper like Forge forces you to. The dream of colliding with exactly two Estates in the second shuffle is going to be uncommon, which makes Remake look much better in the early game (trash Estate-Copper, gain Silver is usually superior to just trash Estate-Copper). It’s stronger than Remake later for turning engine parts into green, but it may suffer from some of Forge’s occasional clunkiness when the card costs don’t quite add up. A solid card, nonetheless.

Investor by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869587#msg869587)
Discard to gain a copy, and it comes with a free Gold like Skulk, which is nice because you definitely don’t want this early without the free Gold. Investor has two main issues: the first being you have to collide it with the thing you want to gain which can be tricky, and more significantly, this suffers from the problem of, cards you want to gain copies of, you usually want to play now and not discard. Being terminal also really hurts—it feels like this could give +1 Action and still reasonably cost $4. The late Duchy gaining is okay, since it doesn’t hurt your hand to gain, but I think for many games, you’ll maybe get one of these for the Gold and otherwise not get a ton of use out of the gaining effect.

Tin by grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869596#msg869596)
Coppersmith is back, this time as a Treasure, which I like. Tin also allows you to trash Coppers into more expensive Treasures, though to do so, you’re giving up $2 this turn (for the Copper and the extra $ Tin would have made). It’s a strong opener in the beginning since it’s often a Gold or better in the first shuffle or two. The mini-Mine effect is nice with Kingdom treasures, but it feels like the two abilities directly conflict with one another (you almost don’t even want to upgrade Coppers to Silvers since your Coppers basically are Silvers when this is in play, and better if there are multiples in play). If you do trash them, eventually your Coppers are gone and this does nothing. Adding +Buy might help a bit since it will interact both with the payload on the top and allow you to buy additional Coppers, but even with that, this still seems of limited utility in a lot of games, for many of the same reasons Coppersmith and Mine are of limited utility.

Suburb by artless (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869665#msg869665)
A cheap Port that’s only a Village if it’s at least the third Action you’ve played, sort of like Conspirator. The fact that they come in pairs helps them activate, though you sure hope you’ve got some other cantrips to make these work, since the first two you get won’t increase your Actions, at least by themselves. Interesting idea, if a little vanilla.

Riot by naitchman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869617#msg869617)
Lab-Rats, though instead of eating your whole deck, it slowly makes your cards stop working. A cheap Lab that gains copies of itself sounds incredible on paper, especially when you add in Copper trashing, but as with Rats, this will quickly destroy your deck if you aren’t careful, especially with a 20-card pile. I suppose you can try to build a deck of mostly $5s and $6s but once you’ve got 10 of these in your deck (which won’t take long) it’s going to be hard to find your playable non-Riots without playing through them all. Obviously, this wants TfB (or just trashing in general), but in games without it, this card looks like a trap.

Parish by xyz123 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869620#msg869620)
A $5 Estate that turns junk into $5 Estates (i.e. more junk). Doesn’t sound great so far. Let’s set aside the on-trash for a second (which yes, I realize that’s the main point of the card)—this is a terminal single-card trasher that doesn’t actually thin your deck at all, and it costs $5. When do you buy this? You certainly don’t want to open with it or make this your first $5 card. By the mid-game, you likely don’t have much junk to trash to activate the self-gaining, and by the end, there’s not time to get the on-trash bonus and these are literally $5 Estates. Of course, the strategy here is to trash them for the VP, however, Parishes alone are far to slow to accomplish this—most other strategies can gain VP much faster than the Parish player can gain and trash. The one place this card might work is with a TfB card like Apprentice or Salvager, but these games are rare. I do really like the +3 VP on trash and there’s definitely something interesting you can do with the card here—perhaps it could be a pure Victory card that trashes on gain like Cemetery? Pretty great combo with Salt the Earth.

Rabbit by mxdata (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869627#msg869627)
A $5 Peddler which can gain a copy of itself when exactly 2 are in play, bonus points for theme. You’re not usually super excited to pay $5 for a plain Peddler (see Treasury or Fisherman), and in this case, you have to get at least two before you can activate Rabbit’s bonus which does slow it down a bit, but the self-gaining is really nice once you can start colliding them every turn. I’m assuming it’s still just a 10 card pile? It’s definitely fine at that count, and is mildly stronger if it’s 12 (more than that feels a bit excessive). I’ve seen a variety of multiplying cards named Rabbit in the variant forums over the years, and this one is definitely my favorite for its simplicity.

Consulate by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869662#msg869662)
Lost City/Port mashup that gives you two copies and everyone else one. At first, I was worried about the first player advantage, but it seems the 12-card pile (and scaled pile size) should help mitigate that a bit. I like that “losing the split” isn’t as bad since you get some too. My bigger issue with this card is how quickly the pile will vanish. It’s slightly slower in 2 player games, but regardless, this pile will likely disappear in 2-4 consecutive turns in just about every game. Lost Cities are always good, so there’s going to be a mad rush for them no matter what, and they will go faster than even Port. I feel like most games with Consulate will play pretty similarly, where everyone just gets 4-6 Consulates no matter what.

Village of Secrets by Aquila  (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869669#msg869669)
Village in the daytime and a Village+Gainer at Night. It’s a unique idea, and I like that this lets you “rescue” dead-drawn Actions, however playing normal Actions at Night is awkward—most resources that Action cards give you, you usually don’t want in the Night phase (+Cards, +Actions, +Buy, +$). It’s also tricky in that some of the cards that most benefit from being played in Night (trashers, gainers, attacks) are often not ones you want to gain a bunch of copies of. Finally, it feels like the two modes don’t interact that well with one another. By being a Village, you should hopefully have the actions you need to not need to play something at Night. 

Locket by faust (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869671#msg869671)
Treasure-Workshop that can play what it gains if there’s not a copy in play which nicely gets around autogaining the pile. Very strong opener—gain Silver, +$2 is always a solid baseline option (makes Explorer look quite silly, but so do a lot of cards at this point). Gain and play in the Buy phase is a little awkward sometimes, since +Cards can draw Actions dead, but I like that it changes up the strategy a bit from typical gainers and encourages you to add variety. As the game goes on, this gets weaker since multiples can’t gain and play the same card, and you’re likely to have already played the Action cards you’d like to gain, and thus won’t be able to activate. Locket is indeed very strong, but I like this as a $4 nonetheless, though I could see removing the Treasure play option if it ends up being too centralizing.

Tools by Shael (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869672#msg869672)
A Silver that’s also a Tunnel-Workshop, but can discard at Clean-up which is neat, this would definitely be way too weak without that. Also non-terminal like Locket, but when using at end of turn, there’s not a way to gain and play. With discarders though, this can get much stronger, and it’s possible to activate the same Tools multiple times in a turn. It’s possible there are some potential loops with things like Forum or Stables which is a little worrisome, but overall this seems balanced and fun to play with. 

Hydra by X-tra (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869706#msg869706)
You’re paying for the flexibility, that’s for sure, but $6 feels right (though this certainly looks much better than Nobles). It’s cool that it can sort of function as whatever missing engine piece you need (draw, village, payload), though I wonder if just three options might be better (I’d eliminate either the Peddler option or the +$3). I agree about the wording—just listing the options is much simpler and more intuitive. The on-trash is of course the most interesting part of Hydra, obviously many cute combos with Remodelers and other TfB. In this regard, it's a little reminiscent of Fortress, but gaining two copies instead of returning to hand. Very neat and definitely wins most thematic award with the kill one, two spring up in its place thing.

Jewelry by fika monster (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869707#msg869707)
Cheap Gold that duplicates itself. Obviously a nice early open, but they will quickly start getting in each other’s way. The self-trash option is helpful and enables you to not always get hosed by having duplicates in your hand (which is going to happen a lot). It feels like the discard option won’t get much use—when would you choose this over making the Jewelry a one shot? These will be especially nice with TfB or sifters, and still workable without. Not sure on the 20-card pile, but maybe it’s fine?

Irregulars by Xen3k (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869725#msg869725)
A reimagined Urchin, with the same discard attack, but with +2 Cards instead of cantrip. You can overpay by $2 to get a second one which neatly makes up for all those games where you wanted to open Urchin-Urchin but opened 5-2. Colliding Irregulars is going to be much easier than Urchins since they draw an extra card, and can chain one after the other (though you don’t get the discard attack when they activate). Mercenary doesn’t play quite as nicely with this as Urchin due to it being terminal, but you’ll get one most games anyway. The three Silvers option feels a bit too strong in my opinion (in this way, it’s actually more akin to Tragic Hero than Treasure Map), though I do like the interaction with Mercenary. Overall, this feels much stronger than Urchin, but I appreciate the unique idea.

Pier by LastFootnote (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869792#msg869792)
A $5 Smithy that can discard a non-Victory card to gain a copy of it. Cute with dead-drawn Actions and can function as a sleek draw-gainer combo with enough thinning and +Action support. Like Investor, the cards you want to gain, you’d usually rather play now instead of discard, but the draw helps make up for that, and make it more possible you’ll get back around to those cards. This looks good in money decks too: Smithy, hit $8, and then discard a leftover Silver or Gold to gain another is a pretty good turn. Pier will be centralizing in some Kingdoms, but even in ones without the engine support, just about any deck can find a use for this. A simple and elegant card. 

Scriptorium by gambit05 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869806#msg869806)
A $5 up-to-$5 Action gainer. When creating Artisan, DXV mentioned initially having the card cost $5 but with a penalty, discard down to 2 cards in hand. Scriptorium feels a much more fun take on this idea, where the “penalty” of other players possibly playing a copy of the card you gain (which is very good for them) you can maybe partake in too. There’s some great decisions and player interaction here of trying to gain things you have copies of in hand, but also trying to gain things you know your opponent doesn’t have. I agree with LF about keeping the opponents play to their next turn—otherwise there’s potential for really weird situations with certain cards (especially Throne-variants and Scriptorium itself) where a player can sort of start playing their own turn within your turn (you gain Crown, they play Crown, play Crown, play Smithy, play Scriptorium, now my brain is starting to hurt). Of course, you want the play now option for you, and there’s likely not a great wording to keep that and make it next turn only for other players. Potential for turnception aside, it’s a very interesting idea!

Scaffolding by Timinou (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869820#msg869820)
So it’s either Enchantress (without the attack) or it returns to the pile to gain two other cards, and the more Scaffoldings in play, the better those cards can be. Making this a duration helps you get more in play which is neat, and gaining two cards means you can always regain a Scaffolding to make this function more like Workshop. +Actions are usually necessary to make this ever gain anything costing more than $4. I think the hardest thing for me with this card is the cost to set up. You have to buy two terminal $4 costs, play one as a duration (which does nothing the turn you play it), and then hope you collide with the other one to gain two $4 costs—which you could have just bought to begin with. I think this can safely cost $3 like Enchantress. Unique idea, but still feels like it needs a little something extra to make it worth going for.



Honorable Mentions: Foundry by Gubump, Tools by Shael, Rabbit by mxdata, Locket by faust, Scriptorium by gambit05, Hydra by X-tra

Runner Up: Mousetrap by venusambassador

WINNER: Pier by LastFootnote


Congrats to LastFootnote and thanks everyone for participating!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: gambit05 on May 17, 2021, 01:57:44 am
Congratulations to LastFootnote for the win and venusambassador for the runner-up, and welcome to the Forums!

Many thanks to 4est for your excellent assessment of the cards.

With respect to my card, Scriptorium: I was aware of the potential craziness that can occur when other players play their copies immediately. My guess is that in the majority of the cases, it wouldn't differ from the more safe way of separating the "reactions" of the active player vs. the opponents. It definitely needs some play testing with real players to see how often crazy situations would occur. If that is only once in a while, then I would keep it as it is. By the way, the wording for separating the "reactions" isn't too complicated and requires just one additional line, e.g. ..."You may play... Each other player may set aside..." I just thought I go for the spicier version here. Anyway, thanks for the evaluation.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: xyz123 on May 17, 2021, 03:25:49 am
Congratulations Footnote.

Thanks for 4est for running the competition.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: venusambassador on May 17, 2021, 10:17:13 am
congrats LFN for the win, and thanks so much to 4est for judging and for the thoughts on my card!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: LastFootnote on May 17, 2021, 11:06:51 am
I'm honestly surprised I won. There were a lot of great entries. Thanks for running the contest, 4est. Hopefully people will enjoy WDC #115.

I've been out of the fan card scene for a lot of years now. It's good to see the Variants forum thriving! This rotating weekly contest idea is really genius. It's great that just one person isn't responsible for keeping the whole thing going.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: Shael on May 17, 2021, 01:01:23 pm
I agree that Pier and Locket are two great cards.
Thank you for your junging ^^

I'm honestly surprised I won. There were a lot of great entries. Thanks for running the contest, 4est. Hopefully people will enjoy WDC #115.

I've been out of the fan card scene for a lot of years now. It's good to see the Variants forum thriving! This rotating weekly contest idea is really genius. It's great that just one person isn't responsible for keeping the whole thing going.
Honnestly, I'm not, your card are one of the best in my opinion too.

Locket by faust (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869671#msg869671)
Gain and play in the Buy phase is a little awkward sometimes, since +Cards can draw Actions dead, but I like that it changes up the strategy a bit from typical gainers and encourages you to add variety.
It's not a huge miss but I think + cards could be usefull during the buy phase: if you play locket, gain a +card action and draw a treasure you can play it since you've bought anything, right?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
Post by: The Alchemist on May 17, 2021, 11:23:59 pm
Worker by The Alchemist (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869588#msg869588)
Inexpensive terminal draw which chains and gets stronger, and has a pseudo-overpay option to gain a second one (which you’ll likely almost always use since just one of these isn’t super helpful). Seems okay, though obviously requires +Action and trashing/sifting support to be usable. The setting aside then playing feels a little weird—without revealing, there’s not really a way to keep the player honest in playing a Worker they drew vs. one that was in their hand. Is there a reason to not just have it say, “You may play a Worker from your hand.”?  Without that, it’s much harder for Workers to chain off the first play unless your first Worker draws a Worker.

It doesn't need a reveal clause because cards set aside are automatically revealed unless otherwise stated ("set aside face down"), this is made explicit in the rule book. Since you can only set aside drawn Workers, that's how you know they're not playing one from their hand. It has the same wording as Library, which likewise does not have a reveal clause for the same exact reason. As for why it doesn't play Workers from your hand, its because that would be a different card. Cultist already does that, and with just +2 cards its already quite strong even without the junking effect. This card would surely not cost $1 if it were to chain from hand, its the difference (upon playing the first worker) of finding a worker in 5 cards in your hand vs 1 on top of your deck. The drawing power as it is now is weak, but that was always the intention of this card, a weak drawer that gets stronger.