Dominion Strategy Forum

Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Weekly Design Contest => Topic started by: LastFootnote on May 17, 2021, 02:47:34 am

Title: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: LastFootnote on May 17, 2021, 02:47:34 am
WDC #115: Don't Count On It

"+3 Cards"
"Choose one"
"Play a card from your hand twice."

Enough with all this mathematical nonsense! Please design a card or landscape that doesn't use numbers in its text.

Specifically:
ē The only numeral on your card should be its cost (EDIT: Having "$0" in the top corners of a Treasure card is also allowed). This means no vanilla bonuses of any kind.
ē Written-out numbers are also not allowed. Your card cannot say "two", "seven", or even "one". Nor can you use the words "once" or "twice".
ē Ordinality is as bad as cardinality! You can't use the words "first", "second", etc.
ē I'll try to be relatively generous with gray areas, but try not to use e.g. "You may play an Action card from your hand" without a good reason it couldn't have been "+1 Action" instead. Something like Imp's "You may play an Action card from your hand that you don't have a copy of in play" would be fine.
ē Entries are allowed to refer to numbers and amounts indirectly. Some examples include Counting House, Forge, Monastery, and Way of the Chameleon.

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Mint.jpg/373px-Mint.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/b6/Band_of_MisfitsDigital2.jpg/376px-Band_of_MisfitsDigital2.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/1/1a/Camel_Train.jpg/375px-Camel_Train.jpg)

Judgment Details:
ē Entries and revisions must be submitted by 7:00 PM CDT (12:00 AM UTC) on Saturday, May 22. I'll do my best to post the results on Sunday, May 23.
ē I value concision pretty highly. Ideally entries should be able to fit with the large font that new Dominion cards use, meaning no more than 7 lines of text for cards or 3 lines for landscapes.

I'm guessing this'll be a tricky one, but hopefully also fun. I'm sure you'll come up with some cool stuff!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: NoMoreFun on May 17, 2021, 09:12:02 am
(https://i.imgur.com/ZNC1UZ6.png)

Socialite
Action - $4
Reveal your hand and discard the Coppers, Estates and Curses.  Afterwards, draw until you have more cards in your hand than any other player.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: LastFootnote on May 17, 2021, 09:53:11 am
If I upvote your entry, it means Iíve read it and it successfully meets the criteria. If your entry doesnít meet the criteria, Iíll let you know ASAP.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mandioca15 on May 17, 2021, 10:46:46 am
Jasmine (Treasure, $4)

Choose any card you have in play (including this). Gain a card costing less than it. If it's a Victory card, trash this.

A Horn of Plenty variant that always gives you a Silver (for example) at the very least.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: LastFootnote on May 17, 2021, 11:11:44 am
Jasmine (Treasure, $4)

When you play this, gain a card costing less than the most expensive card you played this turn that's still in play (including this).
If it's a Victory card, trash this.

A Horn of Plenty variant that always gives you a Silver (for example) at the very least.

This is a cool idea. May I suggest this wording?

"Choose any card you have in play (including this). Gain a card costing less than it. If it's a Victory card, trash this."

These days Treasures are losing the "When you play this" text. The "most expensive card" is actually impossible to determine in some cases since City Quarter is neither more nor less expensive than Market, as an example. Finally, I'm not sure what requiring the card to have been played this turn gets you. It's strong with e.g. Hireling without that clause, but I don't think that's problematic. It's a rare combo. But maybe I'm missing something and there's a good reason for only caring about cards played this turn?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: gambit05 on May 17, 2021, 11:12:43 am
Jasmine (Treasure, $4)

When you play this, gain a card costing less than the most expensive card you played this turn that's still in play (including this).
If it's a Victory card, trash this.

A Horn of Plenty variant that always gives you a Silver (for example) at the very least.

This may have a problem with different currencies, i.e. what is more expensive, a Golem or a Goons?

Also, I think you don't need the "When you play this" anymore. See for example the newest version of Ill-Gotten Gains.

Edit: LastFootnote said basically the same, just 1 minute earlier.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mandioca15 on May 17, 2021, 12:19:03 pm
Jasmine (Treasure, $4)

When you play this, gain a card costing less than the most expensive card you played this turn that's still in play (including this).
If it's a Victory card, trash this.

A Horn of Plenty variant that always gives you a Silver (for example) at the very least.

This is a cool idea. May I suggest this wording?

"Choose any card you have in play (including this). Gain a card costing less than it. If it's a Victory card, trash this."

These days Treasures are losing the "When you play this" text. The "most expensive card" is actually impossible to determine in some cases since City Quarter is neither more nor less expensive than Market, as an example. Finally, I'm not sure what requiring the card to have been played this turn gets you. It's strong with e.g. Hireling without that clause, but I don't think that's problematic. It's a rare combo. But maybe I'm missing something and there's a good reason for only caring about cards played this turn?

Yes, your wording is nicer, thank you - I will use that instead.

I did wonder if the card would be too strong with expensive Durations like Hireling, hence that clause, but maybe itís sufficiently rare not to worry about...
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Shael on May 17, 2021, 01:08:04 pm
The rules have two condition that could be interpreted differently (in red):

WDC #115: Don't Count On It

"+3 Cards"
"Choose one"
"Play a card from your hand twice."

Enough with all this mathematical nonsense! Please design a card or landscape that doesn't use numbers in its text.

Specifically:
ē The only numeral on your card should be its cost. This means no vanilla bonuses of any kind.
ē Written-out numbers are also not allowed. Your card cannot say "two", "seven", or even "one". Nor can you use the words "once" or "twice".
ē Ordinality is as bad as cardinality! You can't use the words "first", "second", etc.
ē I'll try to be relatively generous with gray areas, but try not to use e.g. "You may play an Action card from your hand" without a good reason it couldn't have been "+1 Action" instead. Something like Imp's "You may play an Action card from your hand that you don't have a copy of in play" would be fine.
ē Entries are allowed to refer to numbers and amounts indirectly. Some examples include Counting House, Forge, Monastery, and Way of the Chameleon.

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Mint.jpg/373px-Mint.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/b6/Band_of_MisfitsDigital2.jpg/376px-Band_of_MisfitsDigital2.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/1/1a/Camel_Train.jpg/375px-Camel_Train.jpg)

Judgment Details:
ē Entries and revisions must be submitted by 7:00 PM CDT (12:00 AM UTC) on Saturday, May 22. I'll do my best to post the results on Sunday, May 23.
ē I value concision pretty highly. Ideally entries should be able to fit with the large font that new Dominion cards use, meaning no more than 7 lines of text for cards or 3 lines for landscapes.

I'm guessing this'll be a tricky one, but hopefully also fun. I'm sure you'll come up with some cool stuff!

So I have a question: if we make a treasure that give no coins, we're forced to put "$0" on the preview (on the top corner) so, is this eliminatory because there is a number other than the card cost? or can we make this type of treasure for the contest since all the numbers aren't on the actual text ?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: LastFootnote on May 17, 2021, 01:17:45 pm
So I have a question: if we make a treasure that give no coins, we're forced to put "$0" on the preview (on the top corner) so, is this eliminatory because there is a number other than the card cost? or can we make this type of treasure for the contest since all the numbers aren't on the actual text ?

Good question. I'll allow "$0" in the top corners.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Shael on May 17, 2021, 01:31:44 pm
Good question. I'll allow "$0" in the top corners.
Thank you, I have few ideas and a treasure may be one of them.
Edit: I haven't that treasures have already been post
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: anordinaryman on May 17, 2021, 02:04:45 pm
Does "discard a" count as the number 1?

For example, "discard a card from your hand, if you do, gain a Duchy," would that fit the contest rules? (this is not a submission, just a theoretical question)

What about "gain a card?" Does that count as a number?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: LastFootnote on May 17, 2021, 02:11:22 pm
Does "discard a" count as the number 1?

For example, "discard a card from your hand, if you do, gain a Duchy," would that fit the contest rules? (this is not a submission, just a theoretical question)

What about "gain a card?" Does that count as a number?

No, you may freely use "a", "an", "the", etc. You can see that in some of the examples up top.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: scolapasta on May 17, 2021, 02:36:20 pm
Entry for the week:

(https://i.imgur.com/YrdsQb5.png)

Old version:
(https://i.imgur.com/jV6C3Uh.png)

Quote
Border Crossing - Action - $4
Gain a non-Victory card. Each other player gains a cheaper card.

If you get a Gold, your opponents can get a strong $5 (or in the late game, a Duchy even, as they are not restricted to non Victory). Or maybe you use it to gain a good $2 and make them gain a Copper.

Things I could tweak:
ē the cost (I went with $4, because I like the ability to buy it as an opener)
ē where the gained cards go, both for you and your opponents (if I need to buff or nerf it)

(I realize I could have entered this last week, as well! :) )
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: LastFootnote on May 17, 2021, 02:56:37 pm
Entry for the week:

(https://i.imgur.com/jV6C3Uh.png)

Quote
Border Crossing - Action - $4
Gain a non-Victory card from the Supply.
Each other player gains a cheaper card.

If you get a Gold, your opponents can get a strong $5 (or in the late game, a Duchy even, as they are not restricted to non Victory). Or maybe you use it to gain a good $2 and make them gain a Copper.

Things I could tweak:
ē the cost (I went with $4, because I like the ability to buy it as an opener)
ē where the gained cards go, both for you and your opponents

(I realize I could have entered this last week, as well! :) )

Nice. You don't have to say "from the Supply", though. That's implicit in gaining unless you call out a non-Supply card, type, or pile.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: anordinaryman on May 17, 2021, 03:04:12 pm
My entry

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/3mvsmp4s.png)

Quote
Legate - Action | Command - $4
Gain and play a non-Command Action card. Each other player may set aside a copy of that card. If they do, at the end of their next turn, they gain their set aside card.

I gain now, you gain later. I've played around with a similar concept in several other design contests. Previously I used the Exile mechanic to delay the gain. I like this way more, opponents simply gain the card a turn later.

This is heavy 3-piler enabling card, similar to how stone mason is. I enjoy the occasional cards that enable that, but it's possible to slow this down with a Journey Token flip.

open to feedback, as always.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: spineflu on May 17, 2021, 03:15:08 pm
Entry for the week:

(https://i.imgur.com/jV6C3Uh.png)

Quote
Border Crossing - Action - $4
Gain a non-Victory card from the Supply.
Each other player gains a cheaper card.

If you get a Gold, your opponents can get a strong $5 (or in the late game, a Duchy even, as they are not restricted to non Victory). Or maybe you use it to gain a good $2 and make them gain a Copper.

Things I could tweak:
• the cost (I went with $4, because I like the ability to buy it as an opener)
• where the gained cards go, both for you and your opponents

(I realize I could have entered this last week, as well! :) )

Should this be an attack given the copper-junking potential?


My entry
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/60a2bf8c550c698ccf62cbf2/5837613f4b49a8d22a01c232e41e0436/image.png)
Quote
Conglomerate • $6 • Action - Duration
After shuffling, look at the top card of your draw pile: you may Exile it, discard it, or put it back.
(This stays in play)
I assumed based on the a/an/the question relative ordinals (after) would be ok? Priced at six bc while having one of them is decent, having several of them means your deck gets clean real fast and you have real good control over what you'll be getting. Named after the shipping companies of the 17th through 19th centuries more than the rock, mechanically connected via Warehouse for sifting (although if you want to interpret it as the rock, that's fine too)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: LastFootnote on May 17, 2021, 03:21:27 pm
I assumed based on the a/an/the question relative ordinals (after) would be ok?

Yep, that's fine.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: LastFootnote on May 17, 2021, 03:31:39 pm
Quote
Legate - Action | Command - $4
Gain and play a non-Command Action card. Each other player may set aside a copy of that card. If they do, at the end of their next turn, they gain their set aside card.

This doesn't specify where the other players set aside the card from. I assume it's the Supply.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: anordinaryman on May 17, 2021, 03:44:26 pm
Quote
Legate - Action | Command - $4
Gain and play a non-Command Action card. Each other player may set aside a copy of that card. If they do, at the end of their next turn, they gain their set aside card.

This doesn't specify where the other players set aside the card from. I assume it's the Supply.

Yup, it's from the Supply.

Edit. Removing the following which was me misreading the comment


Workshop, Artisan, Ironworks, Smugglers, University, Horn of Plenty, Hermit, Armory, Dame Natalie, Alter, Artificer, Alms, Ball, Seaway, Engineer, Charm, Advance, Banquet, Cobbler, Vampire,The Earth's Gift, Inventor, Sculptor, Groom,  Falconer, Bargain, and Demand all use "gain" without specifying "from the Supply." Donald X has ruled that "from the Supply" is implied.

Devil's workshop is the most compelling evidence that "from the Supply" isn't needed since it gains the imp "from its pile" and omits any "from" clause for all the gain up to $4 case.

From the Supply was used on other Command cards because it's not normal to play cards from the Supply. This card is a gainer first (literally it gains it before playing it -- in certain circumstances like Changling, the play may fail), so the clause is not necessary.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: scolapasta on May 17, 2021, 03:58:45 pm
Entry for the week:

(https://i.imgur.com/jV6C3Uh.png)

Quote
Border Crossing - Action - $4
Gain a non-Victory card from the Supply.
Each other player gains a cheaper card.

If you get a Gold, your opponents can get a strong $5 (or in the late game, a Duchy even, as they are not restricted to non Victory). Or maybe you use it to gain a good $2 and make them gain a Copper.

Things I could tweak:
ē the cost (I went with $4, because I like the ability to buy it as an opener)
ē where the gained cards go, both for you and your opponents

(I realize I could have entered this last week, as well! :) )

Nice. You don't have to say "from the Supply", though. That's implicit in gaining unless you call out a non-Supply card, type, or pile.

I thought about this, but it looked almost too barren. But you're right, it's the correct text and actually does look even better (i.e. "simpler).

(https://i.imgur.com/YrdsQb5.png)

Should this be an attack given the copper-junking potential?

Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. But I think I prefer it not to be an attack, even for that case. Not exactly the same (since you also have to gain the Copper), but Messenger is not an attack and can give out coppers.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: LastFootnote on May 17, 2021, 03:59:52 pm
Quote
Legate - Action | Command - $4
Gain and play a non-Command Action card. Each other player may set aside a copy of that card. If they do, at the end of their next turn, they gain their set aside card.

This doesn't specify where the other players set aside the card from. I assume it's the Supply.

Yup, it's from the Supply.

Workshop, Artisan, Ironworks, Smugglers, University, Horn of Plenty, Hermit, Armory, Dame Natalie, Alter, Artificer, Alms, Ball, Seaway, Engineer, Charm, Advance, Banquet, Cobbler, Vampire,The Earth's Gift, Inventor, Sculptor, Groom,  Falconer, Bargain, and Demand all use "gain" without specifying "from the Supply." Donald X has ruled that "from the Supply" is implied.

Devil's workshop is the most compelling evidence that "from the Supply" isn't needed since it gains the imp "from its pile" and omits any "from" clause for all the gain up to $4 case.

From the Supply was used on other Command cards because it's not normal to play cards from the Supply. This card is a gainer first (literally it gains it before playing it -- in certain circumstances like Changling, the play may fail), so the clause is not necessary.

Gaining is implicitly from the Supply. Setting aside cards is not, even if you're then going to gain them later. For instance, Camel Train specifies that you Exile cards from the Supply, instead of from your hand or somewhere else.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: spineflu on May 17, 2021, 04:03:41 pm
Should this be an attack given the copper-junking potential?

Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. But I think I prefer it not to be an attack, even for that case. Not exactly the same (since you also have to gain the Copper), but Messenger is not an attack and can give out coppers.

I mean, Messenger is an on-buy, like Noble Brigand. A closer comparison would be Jester or Swindler.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: anordinaryman on May 17, 2021, 04:26:19 pm
Quote
Legate - Action | Command - $4
Gain and play a non-Command Action card. Each other player may set aside a copy of that card. If they do, at the end of their next turn, they gain their set aside card.

This doesn't specify where the other players set aside the card from. I assume it's the Supply.

Yup, it's from the Supply.

Workshop, Artisan, Ironworks, Smugglers, University, Horn of Plenty, Hermit, Armory, Dame Natalie, Alter, Artificer, Alms, Ball, Seaway, Engineer, Charm, Advance, Banquet, Cobbler, Vampire,The Earth's Gift, Inventor, Sculptor, Groom,  Falconer, Bargain, and Demand all use "gain" without specifying "from the Supply." Donald X has ruled that "from the Supply" is implied.

Devil's workshop is the most compelling evidence that "from the Supply" isn't needed since it gains the imp "from its pile" and omits any "from" clause for all the gain up to $4 case.

From the Supply was used on other Command cards because it's not normal to play cards from the Supply. This card is a gainer first (literally it gains it before playing it -- in certain circumstances like Changling, the play may fail), so the clause is not necessary.

Gaining is implicitly from the Supply. Setting aside cards is not, even if you're then going to gain them later. For instance, Camel Train specifies that you Exile cards from the Supply, instead of from your hand or somewhere else.

Ah whoops!! I totally misread your initial message. Thank you.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: 4est on May 17, 2021, 04:30:01 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/KaP3D3z.png)

Here is my submission for this week. Horse Race is an Action-Duration card that can gain Horses and then play any Horses in your hand at the start of your next turn for a village effect. When you play it, you make your ďwagerĒ by discarding Treasures (like Hostelry). The more Horses you bet on, the greater chance youíll have some to play in your next hand, though itíll cost you some buying power this turn. Youíre hoping your horses show up for the raceóif you donít have any in your next hand, Horseraceís Duration effect does nothing. With multiple Horse Races in play, you can play any Horses you draw from the first one with the second, and so on. Youíre of course welcome to play the Horses you gain on this turn instead, but then they definitely wonít show up for the race.

I know DXV had a card early on in Menagerie that was Cellar for Horses, but gained too many HorsesóI think having this work only on Treasures and being a terminal-Duration hopefully mitigates that issue a bit. This can still go nuts but needs support to do so.

Iíve got my money on Sir Barton!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: fika monster on May 17, 2021, 06:13:54 pm
A quick idea i got: Faithful hound meets band of misfits. It's probably pretty weak without its reaction, which is why i added it.

I think this is strongest late game, when you have a lot of douchys or provinces. But early game, you might want two or three if there is no thinning.
This probably likes sifters a lot, and village Green of course. I imagine that it should combo with faithfoul hound a bit.

(https://i.imgur.com/WU3mp63.png)

Edit 2: (v7)

(https://i.imgur.com/ZNl6E31.png)

On play ability has been buffed: You can now, for example, discard a douchy and play a powerful 5$ card. Andon some boards with a 2$ card on them, you might want to get a scribe to exile a copper or estate, and then you can play scribe on an estate to play an 2$.

Added an "When you gain this, you may exile a card in hand". I think this is unique for the card, (the closest equivalent being mints "trash all treasures in play when bought" effect).

very late game, you might want to buy a Srcribe over and estate as you could exile a victory card in hand. This should also give workshops a sort of unique thinning on the boards it's on.

Edit 3: Gambit thought the card was too busy, and editing it further, I think I agree: I removed the treasure part and changed the language a bit on the bottom. I think it looks better like this, while still keeping the spirit of the bottom changes

Edit 4: added "reveal" to the bottom part to have accountability.

(https://i.imgur.com/nJhEAnU.png)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: xyz123 on May 17, 2021, 06:49:17 pm
Stratagem
Night - Duration (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)

Set aside an Action card from your hand. At the start of your next turn play it.
_______________________________________________________________
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).


My thoughts
- This is a really interesting challenging idea for the contest. When thinking through and refining cards, very often you might want to add vanilla bonuses or other tweaks which would not be permitted. This has evolved quite substantially from my original idea as a result. It has retained a common theme of being able to do something with unplayed action cards.
- This is a variation of Scheme that trades not playing an action card one turn for playing it without using up an action the next. It can still be used to bootstrap your turns but more careful deck planning might be required as the Stratagem and the action will be stop cards in your action phase.
- Where it offers more flexibility then Scheme is when action cards are unintentionally drawn dead. The gain clause allows for the possibility of tactically gaining it should cards have been drawn dead on that turn.


Edit - Dropped the price from (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) following feedback with comparisons to Ghost Town.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Xen3k on May 17, 2021, 07:07:49 pm
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51186014411_21099cfa9e_b.jpg)

Quote
Gold Smithy - $4
Action
Discard a card to draw a number of card equal to its cost in coins. If you draw more cards than this costs, trash this to Exile a Gold from the supply. If you draw no cards, gain a Silver.

Terminal draw that requires you to discard a card with a decent cost to actually match something like Smithy. Stops ridiculous draw by trashing itself if you draw too many cards. It still rewards you for doing so. It is a Silver gainer at the very least if you draw nothing. I imagine big money will love this. I hope the wording on the draw is acceptable. Feedback is appreciated.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: segura on May 18, 2021, 01:04:32 am
Stratagem
Night - Duration (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)

Set aside an Action card from your hand. At the start of your next turn play it.
_______________________________________________________________
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).


My thoughts
- This is a really interesting challenging idea for the contest. When thinking through and refining cards, very often you might want to add vanilla bonuses or other tweaks which would not be permitted. This has evolved quite substantially from my original idea as a result. It has retained a common theme of being able to do something with unplayed action cards.
- This is a variation of Scheme that trades not playing an action card one turn for playing it without using up an action the next. It can still be used to bootstrap your turns but more careful deck planning might be required as the Stratagem and the action will be stop cards in your action phase.
- Where it offers more flexibility then Scheme is when action cards are unintentionally drawn dead. The gain clause allows for the possibility of tactically gaining it should cards have been drawn dead on that turn.
Looks like a Necro/Village and not a Scheme variant to me.
I think that it is weaker than Ghost Town. If you drew no Actions dead that you can set aside with this, you'd rather have the +1 Card of Ghost Town.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Shael on May 18, 2021, 06:06:52 am
ok, I think I have my submition for these contest:

(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/20/v2tp.png)

Yes, i've already post a version of this for an other contest (this stay in play) but I've rewok it a litle bit since it was consider too strong and it's a card that I like. My other ideas for this contest seem worth or not as elegant than this so here we go...

Courtyard of Miracle assure you +$1 each turn in exchange of junking your deck. In general, having 3 of these is a garanteed Province each turn (hand full of Copper +3 other with the Courtyards) but between handsize attack, Copper/Treasure synergy or just alt-vp it's usualy not that simple and I think it can lead to different strategy.
Hope you'll like it.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: fika monster on May 18, 2021, 08:28:28 am
A quick idea i got: Faithful hound meets band of misfits. It's probably pretty weak without its reaction, which is why i added it.

I think this is strongest late game, when you have a lot of douchys or provinces. But early game, you might want two or three if there is no thinning.
This probably likes sifters a lot, and village Green of course. I imagine that it should combo with faithfoul hound a bit.

(https://i.imgur.com/WU3mp63.png)

Edit 2: (v7)

(https://i.imgur.com/ZNl6E31.png)

On play ability has been buffed: You can now, for example, discard a douchy and play a powerful 5$ card.

Added an "When you gain this, you may exile a card in hand". I think this is unique, very late game, you might want to buy a Srcribe over and estate as you could exile a victory card in hand. This should also give workshops a sort of unique thinning on the boards it's on.
Buffed Scribe
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: fika monster on May 18, 2021, 08:37:32 am
Stratagem
Night - Duration (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)

Set aside an Action card from your hand. At the start of your next turn play it.
_______________________________________________________________
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).


My thoughts
- This is a really interesting challenging idea for the contest. When thinking through and refining cards, very often you might want to add vanilla bonuses or other tweaks which would not be permitted. This has evolved quite substantially from my original idea as a result. It has retained a common theme of being able to do something with unplayed action cards.
- This is a variation of Scheme that trades not playing an action card one turn for playing it without using up an action the next. It can still be used to bootstrap your turns but more careful deck planning might be required as the Stratagem and the action will be stop cards in your action phase.
- Where it offers more flexibility then Scheme is when action cards are unintentionally drawn dead. The gain clause allows for the possibility of tactically gaining it should cards have been drawn dead on that turn.
Looks like a Necro/Village and not a Scheme variant to me.
I think that it is weaker than Ghost Town. If you drew no Actions dead that you can set aside with this, you'd rather have the +1 Card of Ghost Town.

I think its weaker than ghost town too, but I still like this: I think its ok to be a bit weak.

He could make it a bit cheaper: I think a 2$ is fine for this.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: gambit05 on May 18, 2021, 09:12:55 am
A quick idea i got: Faithful hound meets band of misfits. It's probably pretty weak without its reaction, which is why i added it.

I think this is strongest late game, when you have a lot of douchys or provinces. But early game, you might want two or three if there is no thinning.
This probably likes sifters a lot, and village Green of course. I imagine that it should combo with faithfoul hound a bit.

(https://i.imgur.com/WU3mp63.png)

Edit 2: (v7)

(https://i.imgur.com/ZNl6E31.png)

On play ability has been buffed: You can now, for example, discard a douchy and play a powerful 5$ card.

Added an "When you gain this, you may exile a card in hand". I think this is unique, very late game, you might want to buy a Srcribe over and estate as you could exile a victory card in hand. This should also give workshops a sort of unique thinning on the boards it's on.
Buffed Scribe

I think you are trying too many things on one card. I would remove the Treasure part from the top and one of the parts below the line, at least.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: fika monster on May 18, 2021, 09:41:30 am
A quick idea i got: Faithful hound meets band of misfits. It's probably pretty weak without its reaction, which is why i added it.

I think this is strongest late game, when you have a lot of douchys or provinces. But early game, you might want two or three if there is no thinning.
This probably likes sifters a lot, and village Green of course. I imagine that it should combo with faithfoul hound a bit.

(https://i.imgur.com/WU3mp63.png)

Edit 2: (v7)

(https://i.imgur.com/ZNl6E31.png)

On play ability has been buffed: You can now, for example, discard a douchy and play a powerful 5$ card.

Added an "When you gain this, you may exile a card in hand". I think this is unique, very late game, you might want to buy a Srcribe over and estate as you could exile a victory card in hand. This should also give workshops a sort of unique thinning on the boards it's on.
Buffed Scribe

I think you are trying too many things on one card. I would remove the Treasure part from the top and one of the parts below the line, at least.

Did the first and and kindoff the second suggestion. I think it looks a bit better. thanks for the feedback.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: faust on May 18, 2021, 12:34:46 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/Y5bDpKe.png)
Quote
Portcullis - $5
Action/Duration

Exile your hand.
At the start of your next turn, put all Actions and Treasures you have in Exile into your hand.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Chappy7 on May 18, 2021, 01:05:10 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/dUABcar.png)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Aquila on May 18, 2021, 02:33:22 pm
I have a mock-up of this idea already in my files; it has a two on it but it's unnecessary!
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e88b5ebdca4eb2a73be5eec/5e9edb412c6cba4a5c85325d/2129c7e10bc898f0856d4b064bb4a2c3/Tinker.png)
Quote
Tinker - Action Reserve, $6 cost.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you gain a card, you may call this, to trash that card and a card from your hand, then gain a card costing exactly the total cost of the two trashed cards.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: faust on May 18, 2021, 03:34:46 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/dUABcar.png)
An issue with this might be the size of the Horse pile. It only takes 5 Farrier plays revealing Gold to empty to empty the pile. In a multiplayer game, that could leave one player perpetually stranded without Horses.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: gambit05 on May 18, 2021, 03:43:39 pm
My Submission:

Update: Based on the comments of Shael and segura, I changed the cost to $3, but without any other changes (so, the original version is not documented).

(https://i.ibb.co/9vPWjpp/Overlook.png)   
Overlook
$3 Ė Action - Duration
Quote

     Either now or at the start     
 of your next turn: Look
 through your discard pile.
 You may play an Action
 card from it.


ďAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.Ē - Proverb

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Timinou on May 18, 2021, 03:47:16 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/dUABcar.png)
An issue with this might be the size of the Horse pile. It only takes 5 Farrier plays revealing Gold to empty to empty the pile. In a multiplayer game, that could leave one player perpetually stranded without Horses.

It's not that difficult to empty the Horse pile in certain Kingdoms with Livery as well, for what it's worth.  In any case, it's unlikely to happen before your first Farrier play (each of your opponents would need to play Farrier, reveal a high cost card, and not play any Horses in order to empty the pile). 

That said, maybe a cost limitation on the revealed card wouldn't hurt to minimize the risk of snowballing.  For instance, if you're already ahead and were able to buy a Colony, revealing it with Farrier to gain 11 Horses increases the chances of you being able to find both Farrier and Colony again in subsequent turns.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: gambit05 on May 18, 2021, 03:57:41 pm

An issue with this might be the size of the Horse pile. It only takes 5 Farrier plays revealing Gold to empty to empty the pile. In a multiplayer game, that could leave one player perpetually stranded without Horses.

It's not that difficult to empty the Horse pile in certain Kingdoms with Livery as well, for what it's worth.  In any case, it's unlikely to happen before your first Farrier play (each of your opponents would need to play Farrier, reveal a high cost card, and not play any Horses in order to empty the pile). 

That said, maybe a cost limitation on the revealed card wouldn't hurt to minimize the risk of snowballing.  For instance, if you're already ahead and were able to buy a Colony, revealing it with Farrier to gain 11 Horses increases the chances of you being able to find both Farrier and Colony again in subsequent turns.

Victory cards are not targets of Farrier. A cost limitation might be difficult in the context of the rules of this contest round.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: JW on May 18, 2021, 04:23:27 pm
Alchemical Factory
$6
Action - Duration
At the start of your turn, you may trash a card from your hand. If you do, you may gain a card to your hand that costs less than it.
(This stays in play)

A revised version of my entry to a previous contest, with the power level toned down (because the prior version was too powerful).
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Timinou on May 18, 2021, 04:51:34 pm

An issue with this might be the size of the Horse pile. It only takes 5 Farrier plays revealing Gold to empty to empty the pile. In a multiplayer game, that could leave one player perpetually stranded without Horses.

It's not that difficult to empty the Horse pile in certain Kingdoms with Livery as well, for what it's worth.  In any case, it's unlikely to happen before your first Farrier play (each of your opponents would need to play Farrier, reveal a high cost card, and not play any Horses in order to empty the pile). 

That said, maybe a cost limitation on the revealed card wouldn't hurt to minimize the risk of snowballing.  For instance, if you're already ahead and were able to buy a Colony, revealing it with Farrier to gain 11 Horses increases the chances of you being able to find both Farrier and Colony again in subsequent turns.

Victory cards are not targets of Farrier. A cost limitation might be difficult in the context of the rules of this contest round.

Oh right, I missed that wording on the card regarding the limitation to Actions and Treasures.   I think you would still face the same potential issue if you are able to reveal a Platinum though.

Cost limitation could be achieved with something along the lines of "costing less than this" in order to fit the contest rules, but it might not be what's optimal for the card.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Chappy7 on May 18, 2021, 05:13:00 pm

An issue with this might be the size of the Horse pile. It only takes 5 Farrier plays revealing Gold to empty to empty the pile. In a multiplayer game, that could leave one player perpetually stranded without Horses.

It's not that difficult to empty the Horse pile in certain Kingdoms with Livery as well, for what it's worth.  In any case, it's unlikely to happen before your first Farrier play (each of your opponents would need to play Farrier, reveal a high cost card, and not play any Horses in order to empty the pile). 

That said, maybe a cost limitation on the revealed card wouldn't hurt to minimize the risk of snowballing.  For instance, if you're already ahead and were able to buy a Colony, revealing it with Farrier to gain 11 Horses increases the chances of you being able to find both Farrier and Colony again in subsequent turns.

Victory cards are not targets of Farrier. A cost limitation might be difficult in the context of the rules of this contest round.

Oh right, I missed that wording on the card regarding the limitation to Actions and Treasures.   I think you would still face the same potential issue if you are able to reveal a Platinum though.

Cost limitation could be achieved with something along the lines of "costing less than this" in order to fit the contest rules, but it might not be what's optimal for the card.

Yeah I put treasure or action to exclude province specifically.  Plat Colony boards are rare, and in that case I'm okay with this card being bonkers.  It's not the only thing that greatly benefits from certain kingdoms.  I actually thought about saying something like "costing less than this" but in order for the card not to be total garbage, it would have to cost 5 or 6, and then it might be too expensive....idk.  A $6 one might be fine.  I'll think about it a bit but for now I'll leave it how it is
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Timinou on May 18, 2021, 08:17:58 pm

An issue with this might be the size of the Horse pile. It only takes 5 Farrier plays revealing Gold to empty to empty the pile. In a multiplayer game, that could leave one player perpetually stranded without Horses.

It's not that difficult to empty the Horse pile in certain Kingdoms with Livery as well, for what it's worth.  In any case, it's unlikely to happen before your first Farrier play (each of your opponents would need to play Farrier, reveal a high cost card, and not play any Horses in order to empty the pile). 

That said, maybe a cost limitation on the revealed card wouldn't hurt to minimize the risk of snowballing.  For instance, if you're already ahead and were able to buy a Colony, revealing it with Farrier to gain 11 Horses increases the chances of you being able to find both Farrier and Colony again in subsequent turns.

Victory cards are not targets of Farrier. A cost limitation might be difficult in the context of the rules of this contest round.

Oh right, I missed that wording on the card regarding the limitation to Actions and Treasures.   I think you would still face the same potential issue if you are able to reveal a Platinum though.

Cost limitation could be achieved with something along the lines of "costing less than this" in order to fit the contest rules, but it might not be what's optimal for the card.

Yeah I put treasure or action to exclude province specifically.  Plat Colony boards are rare, and in that case I'm okay with this card being bonkers.  It's not the only thing that greatly benefits from certain kingdoms.  I actually thought about saying something like "costing less than this" but in order for the card not to be total garbage, it would have to cost 5 or 6, and then it might be too expensive....idk.  A $6 one might be fine.  I'll think about it a bit but for now I'll leave it how it is

Yeah, ďCosting less than thisĒ would make it too weak unless it was buffed somehow.  Another option could be to discard the revealed card (so if you do reveal a Platinum, you would possibly lose the chance to play it in the same turn).
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: emtzalex on May 18, 2021, 10:22:52 pm
My Submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/3EgLHEhh.png)

Quote from: Grand Feast
GRAND FEAST        (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/32px-Coin6.png)
ACTION
Trash this. If you did, draw any number of cards, then discard that many.
                       

My submission this week is Grand Feast. A high-priced one shot, this is the ultimate sifter, getting the exact cards desired (at the opportunity cost of depriving your deck a Gold, and with the risk of drawing it into a good hand and having it either be wasted or effectively drawn dead).
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: majiponi on May 18, 2021, 10:43:59 pm
Abandoned stone
cost $6 - Action - Duration
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game, look through your discard pile, reveal any number of cards costing less than this, put them onto your deck, discard any number of cards, and draw that many.

(This stays in play.)


EDIT: added the last sentence.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Shael on May 19, 2021, 07:00:24 am

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/2nCV4zS/Overlook-for-4.png)   
Overlook
$4 – Action - Duration
Quote

     Either now or at the start     
 of your next turn: Look
 through your discard pile.
 You may play an Action
 card from it.


“All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” - Proverb

It's a verry cool reference ^^
Since it's a sort of super-cantrip, maybe it should cost $3 no?
$4 seem a litle bit expensive for this effect, especialy if you compare it to Throne Room (witch also "copy" an action card).

Abandoned stone
cost $6 - Action - Duration
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game, look through your discard pile, reveal any number of cards costing less than this, put them onto your deck, discard any number of cards, and draw that many.
I think it need a (This stay in play)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Chappy7 on May 19, 2021, 11:50:07 am

An issue with this might be the size of the Horse pile. It only takes 5 Farrier plays revealing Gold to empty to empty the pile. In a multiplayer game, that could leave one player perpetually stranded without Horses.

It's not that difficult to empty the Horse pile in certain Kingdoms with Livery as well, for what it's worth.  In any case, it's unlikely to happen before your first Farrier play (each of your opponents would need to play Farrier, reveal a high cost card, and not play any Horses in order to empty the pile). 

That said, maybe a cost limitation on the revealed card wouldn't hurt to minimize the risk of snowballing.  For instance, if you're already ahead and were able to buy a Colony, revealing it with Farrier to gain 11 Horses increases the chances of you being able to find both Farrier and Colony again in subsequent turns.

Victory cards are not targets of Farrier. A cost limitation might be difficult in the context of the rules of this contest round.

Oh right, I missed that wording on the card regarding the limitation to Actions and Treasures.   I think you would still face the same potential issue if you are able to reveal a Platinum though.

Cost limitation could be achieved with something along the lines of "costing less than this" in order to fit the contest rules, but it might not be what's optimal for the card.

Yeah I put treasure or action to exclude province specifically.  Plat Colony boards are rare, and in that case I'm okay with this card being bonkers.  It's not the only thing that greatly benefits from certain kingdoms.  I actually thought about saying something like "costing less than this" but in order for the card not to be total garbage, it would have to cost 5 or 6, and then it might be too expensive....idk.  A $6 one might be fine.  I'll think about it a bit but for now I'll leave it how it is

Yeah, ďCosting less than thisĒ would make it too weak unless it was buffed somehow.  Another option could be to discard the revealed card (so if you do reveal a Platinum, you would possibly lose the chance to play it in the same turn).

If that was the case I'd need to allow victory cards, I think.  It feels really weak if you have to choose between gaining horses or playing your expensive card.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: segura on May 19, 2021, 12:18:51 pm

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/2nCV4zS/Overlook-for-4.png)   
Overlook
$4 Ė Action - Duration
Quote

     Either now or at the start     
 of your next turn: Look
 through your discard pile.
 You may play an Action
 card from it.


ďAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.Ē - Proverb

It's a verry cool reference ^^
Since it's a sort of super-cantrip, maybe it should cost $3 no?
$4 seem a litle bit expensive for this effect, especialy if you compare it to Throne Room (witch also "copy" an action card).

Abandoned stone
cost $6 - Action - Duration
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game, look through your discard pile, reveal any number of cards costing less than this, put them onto your deck, discard any number of cards, and draw that many.
I think it need a (This stay in play)
I agree that this is a $3. Sure, later in the game it is better than Sage but unlike Sage, you cannot open with this to sift and cycle.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Timinou on May 19, 2021, 12:39:19 pm
If that was the case I'd need to allow victory cards, I think.  It feels really weak if you have to choose between gaining horses or playing your expensive card.

It wouldn't be terrible, IMO.  As-is, Farrier could be pretty weak early in the game if you only have Coppers and Estates in hand.  You would open up the possibility of it gaining a bunch of Horses with Provinces or Colonies, but is it that much worse than being able to reveal a Gold or a Platinum?   
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: gambit05 on May 19, 2021, 12:39:34 pm

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/2nCV4zS/Overlook-for-4.png)   
Overlook
$4 Ė Action - Duration
Quote

     Either now or at the start     
 of your next turn: Look
 through your discard pile.
 You may play an Action
 card from it.


ďAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.Ē - Proverb

It's a verry cool reference ^^
Since it's a sort of super-cantrip, maybe it should cost $3 no?
$4 seem a litle bit expensive for this effect, especialy if you compare it to Throne Room (witch also "copy" an action card).

I agree that this is a $3. Sure, later in the game it is better than Sage but unlike Sage, you cannot open with this to sift and cycle.

I've spent (and still do) way more time on thinking about the cost of the card than about its ability. What "scared" me was the ability to relatively often play a powerful terminal drawer at the start of the next turn, like Smithy or Witch (which could have been gained just in the current turn). Aside of games where the whole deck is drawn, Overlook should be quite reliable to pick a good card from the discard. It has of course the drawback of being a Duration if the ability is used for the next turn. On the other hand, I don't see a big difference of (strong) $3 and (weak) $4 cost cards and I guess that Overlook would be frequently bought at $4 anyway.

Are you still convinced that $3 is the better cost?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: gambit05 on May 19, 2021, 12:49:00 pm
If that was the case I'd need to allow victory cards, I think.  It feels really weak if you have to choose between gaining horses or playing your expensive card.

It wouldn't be terrible, IMO.  As-is, Farrier could be pretty weak early in the game if you only have Coppers and Estates in hand.  You would open up the possibility of it gaining a bunch of Horses with Provinces or Colonies, but is it that much worse than being able to reveal a Gold or a Platinum?

I like your idea of discarding cards for gaining Horses and including Victory cards sounds like a bad idea to me, which makes it less interesting. As far as I see it, the main targets would be Silvers and Horses, and occasionally higher cost Action cards when there is no +Action left. Your suggestions would keep most craziness at bay. It somehow reminds me of Scrap. I like it.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On i
Post by: segura on May 19, 2021, 01:48:06 pm

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/2nCV4zS/Overlook-for-4.png)   
Overlook
$4 Ė Action - Duration
Quote

     Either now or at the start     
 of your next turn: Look
 through your discard pile.
 You may play an Action
 card from it.


ďAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.Ē - Proverb

It's a verry cool reference ^^
Since it's a sort of super-cantrip, maybe it should cost $3 no?
$4 seem a litle bit expensive for this effect, especialy if you compare it to Throne Room (witch also "copy" an action card).

I agree that this is a $3. Sure, later in the game it is better than Sage but unlike Sage, you cannot open with this to sift and cycle.

I've spent (and still do) way more time on thinking about the cost of the card than about its ability. What "scared" me was the ability to relatively often play a powerful terminal drawer at the start of the next turn, like Smithy or Witch (which could have been gained just in the current turn). Aside of games where the whole deck is drawn, Overlook should be quite reliable to pick a good card from the discard. It has of course the drawback of being a Duration if the ability is used for the next turn. On the other hand, I don't see a big difference of (strong) $3 and (weak) $4 cost cards and I guess that Overlook would be frequently bought at $4 anyway.

Are you still convinced that $3 is the better cost?
I donít think that this scenario is very scary. Cargo Ship does the same with 2 Coins instead of an implicit Action.

Also, there is frequently no discard pile (or if there is one, there is often more junk in it due to junking and sifting). When I first saw Settlers I thought that this absolutely has to be a $3. Then I played some games and realized how often there is no discard pile when you play Settlers.
Then there is Harbinger, definitely an overpriced card that also looked decent the first time you saw it and sucked when you first used it (in Kingdoms without Vassal).

Sure, you neatly hedged against that risk via making it a Duration but Durations have their own weaknesses.

At the end of the day, the delta between $3 and $4 is fairly irrelevant. You buy that Mining Village for $4 even if you never blow it up. But a cantrip that digs for an Action in the discard pile seems to me to be a clear $3. It is nice but doesnít do any essential work like splitting, drawing or sifting. Sure, it increases consistency to some degree but Scheme is probably easier to use in this respect.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: X-tra on May 19, 2021, 02:36:36 pm
Do not count this entry, it does not match this contest's criteria

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqFM9NqY/Preacher-v1.png)

Started pretty simple, then realized it needed some fluff. "Non-Duration", "On their turn", etc.

Still. Go on. Play your Militia. Do it. I'm eagerly waiting  :) . Something as naÔve as playing a Village is helpful. Gives you a hand of 6 cards. Then trashing a card from your hand on your next turn becomes even more appealing. Imagine your opponent playing a King's Court first on their turn, lol. Their turn? Your turn now.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On i
Post by: gambit05 on May 19, 2021, 02:54:16 pm

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/2nCV4zS/Overlook-for-4.png)   
Overlook
$4 Ė Action - Duration
Quote

     Either now or at the start     
 of your next turn: Look
 through your discard pile.
 You may play an Action
 card from it.


ďAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.Ē - Proverb

It's a verry cool reference ^^
Since it's a sort of super-cantrip, maybe it should cost $3 no?
$4 seem a litle bit expensive for this effect, especialy if you compare it to Throne Room (witch also "copy" an action card).

I agree that this is a $3. Sure, later in the game it is better than Sage but unlike Sage, you cannot open with this to sift and cycle.

I've spent (and still do) way more time on thinking about the cost of the card than about its ability. What "scared" me was the ability to relatively often play a powerful terminal drawer at the start of the next turn, like Smithy or Witch (which could have been gained just in the current turn). Aside of games where the whole deck is drawn, Overlook should be quite reliable to pick a good card from the discard. It has of course the drawback of being a Duration if the ability is used for the next turn. On the other hand, I don't see a big difference of (strong) $3 and (weak) $4 cost cards and I guess that Overlook would be frequently bought at $4 anyway.

Are you still convinced that $3 is the better cost?
I donít think that this scenario is very scary. Cargo Ship does the same with 2 Coins instead of an implicit Action.

Also, there is frequently no discard pile (or if there is one, there is often more junk in it due to junking and sifting). When I first saw Settlers I thought that this absolutely has to be a $3. Then I played some games and realized how often there is no discard pile when you play Settlers.
Then there is Harbinger, definitely an overpriced card that also looked decent the first time you saw it and sucked when you first used it (in Kingdoms without Vassal).

Sure, you neatly hedged against that risk via making it a Duration but Durations have their own weaknesses.

At the end of the day, the delta between $3 and $4 is fairly irrelevant. You buy that Mining Village for $4 even if you never blow it up. But a cantrip that digs for an Action in the discard pile seems to me to be a clear $3. It is nice but doesnít do any essential work like splitting, drawing or sifting. Sure, it increases consistency to some degree but Scheme is probably easier to use in this respect.

Thank you for the thorough analysis of Overlook. I am really impressed and I'll change its cost to $3.
 
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: gambit05 on May 19, 2021, 03:11:56 pm
(https://i.postimg.cc/XqFM9NqY/Preacher-v1.png)

Started pretty simple, then realized it needed some fluff. "Non-Duration", "On their turn", etc.

Still. Go on. Play your Militia. Do it. I'm eagerly waiting  :) . Something as naÔve as playing a Village is helpful. Gives you a hand of 6 cards. Then trashing a card from your hand on your next turn becomes even more appealing. Imagine your opponent playing a King's Court first on their turn, lol. Their turn? Your turn now.

I think this is too crazy. I presented Scriptorium (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869806#msg869806) in the last round of this contest and although it got a honorable mention, both LastFootnote (the current judge) and 4est (judge of that contest) suggested a simpler version, and at least in the case of 4est, it was because to avoid crazy situations (LastFootnote didn't specify his reason). My wild guess is that Scriptorium causes such crazy situations in less than 10% of the cases. Your Preacher is basically prone to such situations almost every time, or alternatively, causes the game to stall. This could be maybe rescued in some way, but the combination with optional trashing seems to be way too much.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: X-tra on May 19, 2021, 03:17:26 pm
I think this is too crazy. I presented Scriptorium (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869806#msg869806) in the last round of this contest and although it got a honorable mention, both LastFootnote (the current judge) and 4est (judge of that contest) suggested a simpler version, and at least in the case of 4est, it was because to avoid crazy situations (LastFootnote didn't specify his reason). My wild guess is that Scriptorium causes such crazy situations in less than 10% of the cases. Your Preacher is basically prone to such situations almost every time, or alternatively, causes the game to stall. This could be maybe rescued in some way, but the combination with optional trashing seems to be way too much.

Difference being, it only ever works on one card. No matter how many Preachers you have played in one turn. They'll all Preach for one card. In most case, actually, this is fine and easily resolvable. However, there is the King's Court case and well. If King's Court's got some form of "counter", uh, it won't make me sympathetic for it.  :D
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: gambit05 on May 19, 2021, 03:29:06 pm
I think this is too crazy. I presented Scriptorium (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20787.msg869806#msg869806) in the last round of this contest and although it got a honorable mention, both LastFootnote (the current judge) and 4est (judge of that contest) suggested a simpler version, and at least in the case of 4est, it was because to avoid crazy situations (LastFootnote didn't specify his reason). My wild guess is that Scriptorium causes such crazy situations in less than 10% of the cases. Your Preacher is basically prone to such situations almost every time, or alternatively, causes the game to stall. This could be maybe rescued in some way, but the combination with optional trashing seems to be way too much.

Difference being, it only ever works on one card. No matter how many Preachers you have played in one turn. They'll all Preach for one card. In most case, actually, this is fine and easily resolvable. However, there is the King's Court case and well. If King's Court's got some form of "counter", uh, it won't make me sympathetic for it.  :D

Okay, but why do you combine this with a double-optional trashing?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: LastFootnote on May 19, 2021, 03:31:06 pm
Sorry X-tra, but your card says ďfirstĒ on it.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: X-tra on May 19, 2021, 03:41:27 pm
Okay, but why do you combine this with a double-optional trashing?

Well, I felt like it was a pretty unique feat to do that. Closest card that mimics that kind of idea is Amulet (only one turn though). But it does other stuff too, and it costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png).

I also needed something to happen next turn with Preacher, to justify the "Until then", and well, why not double trash? It's concise and easy to remember. Trash first, something might happen, then trash. It starts with a trash and end with one (well, if you want to), so it's pretty elegant at that.


Sorry X-tra, but your card says ďfirstĒ on it.

Oh, right right. Forgot about that. Funnily enough, it says "first" twice. I don't think this is patchable, because it really does need to point toward one and only once card played to not go out of hand. The second "first" can be removed (ex: "you may do its effects after."), but the the first "first" (lol) is a tough nut to crack indeed.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: The Alchemist on May 19, 2021, 04:45:24 pm
Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. But I think I prefer it not to be an attack, even for that case. Not exactly the same (since you also have to gain the Copper), but Messenger is not an attack and can give out coppers.

I think this needs to be an Attack. Messenger is not an attack because (usually) its given to all players including yourself. Meanwhile with this, on a board with no $2's for example, this is basically an ambassador in its junking and a silver gainer for you.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: The Alchemist on May 19, 2021, 04:47:21 pm
ok, I think I have my submition for these contest:

(https://www.zupimages.net/up/21/20/v2tp.png)

Yes, i've already post a version of this for an other contest (this stay in play) but I've rewok it a litle bit since it was consider too strong and it's a card that I like. My other ideas for this contest seem worth or not as elegant than this so here we go...

Courtyard of Miracle assure you +$1 each turn in exchange of junking your deck. In general, having 3 of these is a garanteed Province each turn (hand full of Copper +3 other with the Courtyards) but between handsize attack, Copper/Treasure synergy or just alt-vp it's usualy not that simple and I think it can lead to different strategy.
Hope you'll like it.

Minor correction: its "gain to your hand".
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mxdata on May 19, 2021, 04:57:56 pm
Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. But I think I prefer it not to be an attack, even for that case. Not exactly the same (since you also have to gain the Copper), but Messenger is not an attack and can give out coppers.

I think this needs to be an Attack. Messenger is not an attack because (usually) its given to all players including yourself. Meanwhile with this, on a board with no $2's for example, this is basically an ambassador in its junking and a silver gainer for you.

Alternately, you could add a "may" to the other players' gaining
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mxdata on May 19, 2021, 08:21:18 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/T3wXZHf.png)
Quote
Recycle
Night - Reaction
$5
Trash a card you have in play to gain a cheaper card onto your deck.
-
When you gain a card, you may reveal this to trash that card and gain a card costing less than it.

Lets you get one last use out of a card before trashing it, and then gives you a cheaper card, which you can use on your next turn. It has obvious synergies with cards that have on-trash abilities.  You can, for example, get a free $3 card out of a Fortress.  Near the end of the game, you can also cannibalize Golds into Duchies, or Hunting Grounds into two Duchies (or a Duchy + some other $5 card), although those Duchies will go straight onto your deck.  You could also use it to trash Coppers, and receive nothing, but it's not exactly the most efficient Copper-trasher.  You can't trash curses or Estates with it, though

The reaction's usefulness is heavily contingent on the rest of the kingdom. It would synergize *very* well with Fortress, especially with Workshop variants, as you'd simultaneously receive a Fortress to hand and another $3 card. Rats would also work great with it, since you can trash the gained Rats with the reaction, and then trash the played Rats with the Night phase ability. And cards with on-gain bonuses, such as Flag Bearer, would be useful with this too. Get the flag and a $3-cost card for $4.  With cards like Soothsayer that allow you to gain a Gold, you can use them now to gain Duchies. And, of course, it can trash incoming $0-cost junk like a Watchtower
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: The Alchemist on May 20, 2021, 12:24:31 am
(https://imgur.com/SzxEBM2.png)

Simple card to send to exile any greens you don't want clogging your deck, but don't worry, any actions or treasures that might have gone along for the ride can be shipped back at a later date.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: faust on May 20, 2021, 01:11:12 am
Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. But I think I prefer it not to be an attack, even for that case. Not exactly the same (since you also have to gain the Copper), but Messenger is not an attack and can give out coppers.

I think this needs to be an Attack. Messenger is not an attack because (usually) its given to all players including yourself. Meanwhile with this, on a board with no $2's for example, this is basically an ambassador in its junking and a silver gainer for you.
The reason that Messenger is not an Attack is that it doesn't affect other players on play, not that it gives stuff to everyone.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: spheremonk on May 20, 2021, 02:58:20 am
THIS IS NOT AN ENTRY, BUT I'D LOVE TO ARGUE ABOUT WHETHER IT QUALIFIES.

(https://abload.de/img/fibonaccis_rabbits5rjz8.png)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: faust on May 20, 2021, 03:55:45 am
THIS IS NOT AN ENTRY, BUT I'D LOVE TO ARGUE ABOUT WHETHER IT QUALIFIES.

(https://abload.de/img/fibonaccis_rabbits5rjz8.png)

Given this statement in the OP:
Enough with all this mathematical nonsense!
I would assume it's not quite in the spirit of the contest  ;)

I think the idea is that in a way, you are not referring to numbers explicitly because there is no formula relating the number of Villagers to the number of Debt you take. I would argue that it doesn't really work since there is a closed-form expression of the Fibonacci numbers, so your entry is equivalent to writing

"Pick any number n. Take (https://texclip.marutank.net/render.php/texclip20210520100539.png?s=%5Cbegin%7Bequation*%7D%0A%5Cfrac%7B%5Cvarphi%5En%20-%20(-%20%5Cvarphi)%5E%7B-n%7D%7D%7B2%5Cvarphi%20-1%7D%0A%5Cend%7Bequation*%7D&f=c&r=300&m=p&b=f&k=f) Villagers and (https://texclip.marutank.net/render.php/texclip20210520100700.png?s=%5Cbegin%7Bequation*%7D%0A%5Cfrac%7B%5Cvarphi%5E%7Bn%2B1%7D%20-%20(-%20%5Cvarphi)%5E%7B-n-1%7D%7D%7B2%5Cvarphi%20-1%7D%0A%5Cend%7Bequation*%7D&f=c&r=300&m=p&b=f&k=f) Debt, where (https://texclip.marutank.net/render.php/texclip20210520100827.png?s=%5Cbegin%7Bequation*%7D%0A%5Cvarphi%5Cend%7Bequation*%7D&f=c&r=300&m=p&b=f&k=f) is the Golden Ratio."

It would be different if you used prime numbers. But of course you'd have to pause the game a couple of years until someone builds a better supercomputer if one of you decides to name the largest known prime number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_known_prime_number).
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: The Alchemist on May 20, 2021, 04:55:07 am
THIS IS NOT AN ENTRY, BUT I'D LOVE TO ARGUE ABOUT WHETHER IT QUALIFIES.

(https://abload.de/img/fibonaccis_rabbits5rjz8.png)

I declare foul! There are numbers in the picture! The picture is fundamental to the identity of a card I say!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: scolapasta on May 20, 2021, 11:58:19 am
Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. But I think I prefer it not to be an attack, even for that case. Not exactly the same (since you also have to gain the Copper), but Messenger is not an attack and can give out coppers.

I think this needs to be an Attack. Messenger is not an attack because (usually) its given to all players including yourself. Meanwhile with this, on a board with no $2's for example, this is basically an ambassador in its junking and a silver gainer for you.
The reason that Messenger is not an Attack is that it doesn't affect other players on play, not that it gives stuff to everyone.

The problem with making Border Crossing an attack card is that actually makes it stronger, since other players would need to react before knowing what card the player gained. So for example in a two player game, if I play Border Crossing and you react with a Moat, I can just gain a Gold (or better) and you don't gain anything to balance.

mxdata suggested adding "may" but that takes away the ability to gain a $2 and force the Copper gaining, which I liked. And I think if you are doing this regularly, then you're not really doing much as you may be giving your opponents Coppers, but not getting much yourself out of it. This does become, as The Alchemist pointed out, a bigger issue if there are no $2s, but in those cases, I'd think that means there are probably a lot of good $5s ands that could still be a better move than gaining a Silver to give your opponent(s) a Copper.

I'd be curious to playtest this and see how it would go with Player 1 trying to junk the Player 2, while Player 2 used it to gain strong $5s (and allow Player $1 to get $4s).

Also I just noticed a bonus to it's cost of $4 is that if you do use it to get a $5, the other player can then gain their own Border Crossing.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: faust on May 20, 2021, 12:10:11 pm
Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. But I think I prefer it not to be an attack, even for that case. Not exactly the same (since you also have to gain the Copper), but Messenger is not an attack and can give out coppers.

I think this needs to be an Attack. Messenger is not an attack because (usually) its given to all players including yourself. Meanwhile with this, on a board with no $2's for example, this is basically an ambassador in its junking and a silver gainer for you.
The reason that Messenger is not an Attack is that it doesn't affect other players on play, not that it gives stuff to everyone.

The problem with making Border Crossing an attack card is that actually makes it stronger, since other players would need to react before knowing what card the player gained. So for example in a two player game, if I play Border Crossing and you react with a Moat, I can just gain a Gold (or better) and you don't gain anything to balance.
This example is bad; if unmoatable Border Crossing was worse, then your opponents could just always choose to not reveal Moat, and have that experience.

It is a real problem with blocking that is non-voluntary however, i.e. Lighthouse and Guardian. These would really be weird with Attack-Border Crossing.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mathdude on May 20, 2021, 03:41:12 pm
Here's a gainer that can get you $5 cards, either into your hand or onto your deck, depending on when you play it.
(https://i.imgur.com/NiTTRvJ.png)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Timinou on May 20, 2021, 05:42:49 pm
I bounced a few ideas off the folks on Discord.  There were many directions I could have gone with this, but decided on this version for this week's contest:

(https://i.imgur.com/md3OwiK.png)

Metamorphose will allow you to exchange cards you have in play at the start of Clean-up (including Treasures and Night cards) for other cards with the same cost. 

Metamorphose could be useful if there are cursers or junkers that you want to swap out of your deck once the Curse or Ruins pile runs out, or if you have trashers that have overstayed their welcome.  Or perhaps you wanted those Lackeys or Skulks for their on-gain bonus and would now prefer something else in your deck instead.  This could be attractive with Magpies or Rats if there are other useful $4-cost cards in the Kingdom that you would rather have.  You could even swap out your Coppers for Curses, if that's what floats your boat.  There is a non-Victory card limitation, so if you were hoping to trade in all your Labs for Duchies on your final turn, you're out of luck.

Being able to exchange a Treasure for another non-Victory card would create a strong combo with Capital, but I think there's room for another crazy Capital combo. 
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: emtzalex on May 20, 2021, 06:02:34 pm
I bounced a few ideas off the folks on Discord.  There were many directions I could have gone with this, but decided on this version for this week's contest:

(https://i.imgur.com/md3OwiK.png)

Metamorphose will allow you to exchange cards you have in play at the start of Clean-up (including Treasures and Night cards) for other cards with the same cost. 

Metamorphose could be useful if there are cursers or junkers that you want to swap out of your deck once the Curse or Ruins pile runs out, or if you have trashers that have overstayed their welcome.  Or perhaps you wanted those Lackeys or Skulks for their on-gain bonus and would now prefer something else in your deck instead.  This could be attractive with Magpies or Rats if there are other useful $4-cost cards in the Kingdom that you would rather have.  You could even swap out your Coppers for Curses, if that's what floats your boat.  There is a non-Victory card limitation, so if you were hoping to trade in all your Labs for Duchies on your final turn, you're out of luck.

Being able to exchange a Treasure for another non-Victory card would create a strong combo with Capital, but I think there's room for another crazy Capital combo.

This Event really likes Highway. Drop 3 of them and you can turn your Coppers into Silvers (and mix in a Workshop to start gaining discounted cards). It also lets you get your hands on a Lost City or Cursed Village without the on-gain penalty (this would be especially attractive if you could use a $5 with +Buy, like Market or Contraband, for the swap).
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mxdata on May 20, 2021, 06:25:51 pm
Here's a gainer that can get you $5 cards, either into your hand or onto your deck, depending on when you play it.
(https://i.imgur.com/NiTTRvJ.png)

Seems like you'd rarely want to play it at night, if you can avoid it, since the earlier it's played, the more options you have.  By the time you get to your Night phase, there's a good chance that you'll have already played any cards you'd want to gain with it, at least after the first few plays of this.  On the other hand, if you can play it early in your Action phase, it becomes basically a stronger Artisan.  This would work great with things like Way of the Turtle or Scheme
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mathdude on May 20, 2021, 06:41:19 pm
Here's a gainer that can get you $5 cards, either into your hand or onto your deck, depending on when you play it.
(https://i.imgur.com/NiTTRvJ.png)

Seems like you'd rarely want to play it at night, if you can avoid it, since the earlier it's played, the more options you have.  By the time you get to your Night phase, there's a good chance that you'll have already played any cards you'd want to gain with it, at least after the first few plays of this.  On the other hand, if you can play it early in your Action phase, it becomes basically a stronger Artisan.  This would work great with things like Way of the Turtle or Scheme
I agree, but things don't always work out as planned. So maybe this is drawn "dead", but you can still gain a $5 card for next turn. Or if it would be your final action for your turn and you'd rather pick up a $5 Action for next turn instead of a Silver to hand now.

I was comparing mainly to Vampire for the $5 gain. But comparing to Artisan, maybe it does need to cost $6?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mxdata on May 20, 2021, 06:47:12 pm
Here's a gainer that can get you $5 cards, either into your hand or onto your deck, depending on when you play it.
(https://i.imgur.com/NiTTRvJ.png)

Seems like you'd rarely want to play it at night, if you can avoid it, since the earlier it's played, the more options you have.  By the time you get to your Night phase, there's a good chance that you'll have already played any cards you'd want to gain with it, at least after the first few plays of this.  On the other hand, if you can play it early in your Action phase, it becomes basically a stronger Artisan.  This would work great with things like Way of the Turtle or Scheme
I agree, but things don't always work out as planned. So maybe this is drawn "dead", but you can still gain a $5 card for next turn. Or if it would be your final action for your turn and you'd rather pick up a $5 Action for next turn instead of a Silver to hand now.

I was comparing mainly to Vampire for the $5 gain. But comparing to Artisan, maybe it does need to cost $6?

No, I think it's probably fine at $5. I think that restriction to cards you don't have in play probably weakens it enough relative to Artisan to justify the $5 cost.  It's certainly stronger if you get to play it at the start of your turn, but if you don't draw it until you've already played a few strong cards, it becomes weaker than Artisan
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Timinou on May 20, 2021, 07:02:50 pm
This Event really likes Highway. Drop 3 of them and you can turn your Coppers into Silvers (and mix in a Workshop to start gaining discounted cards).

Yes, with enough cost reduction, you could swap out Coppers (or potentially any card, but that requires more setup) for expensive stuff.     

I don't know if that's broken, as it would depend on what cards are available.  I mean if there are good $2-cost cantrips in the Kingdom, I think you would happily swap out your Coppers for them with just two Highways in play. 

Quote
It also lets you get your hands on a Lost City or Cursed Village without the on-gain penalty (this would be especially attractive if you could use a $5 with +Buy, like Market or Contraband, for the swap).

That's true; exchanging instead of returning and then gaining does avoid on-gain penalties; at the same time, it also prevents you from getting on-gain bonuses (e.g. with Silk Merchant or Lackeys).  The card could have made players return cards to the supply and then gain the other cards, but it took less text to say "exchange" and I figured that's already a keyword that players are already accustomed to.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: emtzalex on May 20, 2021, 10:50:32 pm
This Event really likes Highway. Drop 3 of them and you can turn your Coppers into Silvers (and mix in a Workshop to start gaining discounted cards).

Yes, with enough cost reduction, you could swap out Coppers (or potentially any card, but that requires more setup) for expensive stuff.     

I don't know if that's broken, as it would depend on what cards are available.  I mean if there are good $2-cost cantrips in the Kingdom, I think you would happily swap out your Coppers for them with just two Highways in play. 

I don't think it's broken. With 3 Highways you can do far crazier things than swapping some Coppers for Silvers (like setting aside King's Court with Prince and playing it every turn for the rest of the game).

I think combo that is closest to broken would be to use 2 Highways to swap numerous Coppers for Fool's Golds. That's not that many Highways to have, and the FGs are inherently more potent when you get a bunch of them. But even that I don't think is broken as it still requires (a) 3 different Kingdom entries to all be present, and (b) colliding 2 $5 cards (which, in addition to being challenging, probably means a lower concentration of Coppers by the time it happens).

When you start talking about many more Highways, there is a much more potent official combo, which is Highway and Seaway. If you can use Seaway to put the +1 Buy token on your Highway, pile the card (or come close), then play 8 of them, you can empty the Province pile (at least in a 2 player game) without spending a single $.


Quote
It also lets you get your hands on a Lost City or Cursed Village without the on-gain penalty (this would be especially attractive if you could use a $5 with +Buy, like Market or Contraband, for the swap).

That's true; exchanging instead of returning and then gaining does avoid on-gain penalties; at the same time, it also prevents you from getting on-gain bonuses (e.g. with Silk Merchant or Lackeys).  The card could have made players return cards to the supply and then gain the other cards, but it took less text to say "exchange" and I figured that's already a keyword that players are already accustomed to.

I think this has less capacity for overpowering than return and gain. My first thought on this (before I remembered that exchanging did not count as gaining) was that Skulk was ridiculous combined with this, because you could use its +Buy and spend $2 to return the Skulk and gain another Skulk, meaning the on-gain ability effectively became an on-play ability (albeit at the cost of $2). With Lost City or Cursed Village, you still have to buy, then play, another $5 card, and then buy the event that turn. Depending on what's in the Kingdom, the penalty you are avoiding isn't that much more of a disadvantage (especially, in some cases, Cursed Village, which could be a handsize attack that has no effect by the time you're buying cards).
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: The Alchemist on May 21, 2021, 12:20:38 am
Here's a gainer that can get you $5 cards, either into your hand or onto your deck, depending on when you play it.
(https://i.imgur.com/NiTTRvJ.png)

Seems like you'd rarely want to play it at night, if you can avoid it, since the earlier it's played, the more options you have.  By the time you get to your Night phase, there's a good chance that you'll have already played any cards you'd want to gain with it, at least after the first few plays of this.  On the other hand, if you can play it early in your Action phase, it becomes basically a stronger Artisan.  This would work great with things like Way of the Turtle or Scheme

You'd want to play it at night if you don't have the terminal space for it, which is very often. Its terminal in the Action phase, but non-terminal in the Night phase, that's plenty reason enough to often want to play it at night. Also, sometimes setting up for your next turn is a much greater benefit than having a slightly better current turn. A Lab at the start of your next turn is  very often better than a Lab now.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mxdata on May 21, 2021, 02:06:06 am
Here's a gainer that can get you $5 cards, either into your hand or onto your deck, depending on when you play it.
(https://i.imgur.com/NiTTRvJ.png)

Seems like you'd rarely want to play it at night, if you can avoid it, since the earlier it's played, the more options you have.  By the time you get to your Night phase, there's a good chance that you'll have already played any cards you'd want to gain with it, at least after the first few plays of this.  On the other hand, if you can play it early in your Action phase, it becomes basically a stronger Artisan.  This would work great with things like Way of the Turtle or Scheme

You'd want to play it at night if you don't have the terminal space for it, which is very often. Its terminal in the Action phase, but non-terminal in the Night phase, that's plenty reason enough to often want to play it at night. Also, sometimes setting up for your next turn is a much greater benefit than having a slightly better current turn. A Lab at the start of your next turn is  very often better than a Lab now.

True, but you can only get a Lab if you haven't played a Lab already.  By your night phase, there's a good chance you've already played the cards you'd want to gain, especially if you have a strong engine
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: emtzalex on May 21, 2021, 10:59:04 am
Here's a gainer that can get you $5 cards, either into your hand or onto your deck, depending on when you play it.
(https://i.imgur.com/NiTTRvJ.png)

Seems like you'd rarely want to play it at night, if you can avoid it, since the earlier it's played, the more options you have.  By the time you get to your Night phase, there's a good chance that you'll have already played any cards you'd want to gain with it, at least after the first few plays of this.  On the other hand, if you can play it early in your Action phase, it becomes basically a stronger Artisan.  This would work great with things like Way of the Turtle or Scheme
I agree, but things don't always work out as planned. So maybe this is drawn "dead", but you can still gain a $5 card for next turn. Or if it would be your final action for your turn and you'd rather pick up a $5 Action for next turn instead of a Silver to hand now.

I was comparing mainly to Vampire for the $5 gain. But comparing to Artisan, maybe it does need to cost $6?

Vampire is an interesting comparison. At first blush I thought this was too powerful, comparing it Artisan and Altar. Vampire's limitation is that you can only play it (at best) every other time it/Bat comes around (and less frequently if you don't want to trash when you get Bat). But, I

One note on wording. For the Action version, I believe it should say "put it into your hand." (See Wishing Well, Patrol, Fortress, Villa).


True, but you can only get a Lab if you haven't played a Lab already.  By your night phase, there's a good chance you've already played the cards you'd want to gain, especially if you have a strong engine

Because of this, I think this card would have strong synergies with (a) one-shot or otherwise disappearing Action cards; and (b) Kingdom Treasure cards. In the first category, Wine Merchant stands out, as does Distant Lands (which you can gain later in the game and feel confident you'll be able to put away). It would also work well with Pillage (which you could play on every turn following the turn you played this as a Night), and even Experiment. In the latter category, there are multiple really solid $5 Treasures (Venture, Counterfeit, Relic, Idol), and you can play this terminally during your Action phase and still use the Treasure you gain to your hand. (I would point out that if you had flipped the phrasing and said "If it's your Night phase...onto your deck. Otherwise...your hand" (which is the construction Werewolf uses) then on your first play of this you could use it to pile out Scepter, playing it during your Action phase to gain the first, then using each Scepter to replay IW and gain another Scepter).


You'd want to play it at night if you don't have the terminal space for it, which is very often. Its terminal in the Action phase, but non-terminal in the Night phase, that's plenty reason enough to often want to play it at night. Also, sometimes setting up for your next turn is a much greater benefit than having a slightly better current turn. A Lab at the start of your next turn is  very often better than a Lab now.

Along these lines (and maybe this is what you are saying), I could imagine that it would frequently be the case that you have an Action to use, but only one, and you want to gain an Action card (even a non-terminal one), you would rather topdeck it than effectively gain it dead to your hand.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mxdata on May 21, 2021, 01:32:04 pm
Because of this, I think this card would have strong synergies with (a) one-shot or otherwise disappearing Action cards; and (b) Kingdom Treasure cards. In the first category, Wine Merchant stands out, as does Distant Lands (which you can gain later in the game and feel confident you'll be able to put away). It would also work well with Pillage (which you could play on every turn following the turn you played this as a Night), and even Experiment. In the latter category, there are multiple really solid $5 Treasures (Venture, Counterfeit, Relic, Idol), and you can play this terminally during your Action phase and still use the Treasure you gain to your hand. (I would point out that if you had flipped the phrasing and said "If it's your Night phase...onto your deck. Otherwise...your hand" (which is the construction Werewolf uses) then on your first play of this you could use it to pile out Scepter, playing it during your Action phase to gain the first, then using each Scepter to replay IW and gain another Scepter).

That wouldn't work though, because that Scepter is in play, so it would be unable to gain a second Scepter
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: segura on May 21, 2021, 01:44:54 pm
Because of this, I think this card would have strong synergies with (a) one-shot or otherwise disappearing Action cards; and (b) Kingdom Treasure cards. In the first category, Wine Merchant stands out, as does Distant Lands (which you can gain later in the game and feel confident you'll be able to put away). It would also work well with Pillage (which you could play on every turn following the turn you played this as a Night), and even Experiment.
Sure, Wine Merchant and Distant Lands are cards you really want severals off. But we know from Artisan how hard it is to immediately play the hand-gained card, it only works if you played two villages before. Experiment is a good point as this makes the card effectively a Hunting Grounds (you just gotta count the net effects) for $5 .


Quote
In the latter category, there are multiple really solid $5 Treasures (Venture, Counterfeit, Relic, Idol), and you can play this terminally during your Action phase and still use the Treasure you gain to your hand. (I would point out that if you had flipped the phrasing and said "If it's your Night phase...onto your deck. Otherwise...your hand" (which is the construction Werewolf uses) then on your first play of this you could use it to pile out Scepter, playing it during your Action phase to gain the first, then using each Scepter to replay IW and gain another Scepter).
Sure, this is neat, but in general you want to gain engine pieces with gainers. It is quite likely that you played your villages, Smithies and Labs before you played Inventor's Workshop and there are only so many stop cards that your deck wants.

Handgaining is only strong if terminal space is not scarce but this gainer is worse at gaining splitters than nearly all other gainers so its handgaining is not as strong as it looks at the first glance.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: naitchman on May 21, 2021, 04:12:44 pm
(https://i.postimg.cc/XqFM9NqY/Preacher-v1.png)

Started pretty simple, then realized it needed some fluff. "Non-Duration", "On their turn", etc.

Still. Go on. Play your Militia. Do it. I'm eagerly waiting  :) . Something as naÔve as playing a Village is helpful. Gives you a hand of 6 cards. Then trashing a card from your hand on your next turn becomes even more appealing. Imagine your opponent playing a King's Court first on their turn, lol. Their turn? Your turn now.

Isn't this disqualified because it says "first time"?
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: LastFootnote on May 21, 2021, 05:07:37 pm
Isn't this disqualified because it says "first time"?

Yes, it was already disqualified for that reason.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: The Alchemist on May 21, 2021, 07:35:41 pm
I would like to change my submission to this:

(https://imgur.com/TBAj4OI.png)

Part Cardinal, part Monastery, part Hermit, Excommunicate is a great way to quickly banish away large swaths of your deck in the dead of night, but be careful, sometimes you can accidentally exile the baby with the bathwater. Being played in the Night phase, the Actions and Treasures you play will be safe from its indiscriminate removal, however the same can't be said of any dead actions in your hand or cards gained in that turn. This can be a great boon by shuffling away your greens before you can even see them, but for any actions or treasures you're going to need to buy them again to discard them from Exile on a turn you don't play Excommunicate, otherwise back into exile they go!

(Although this is replacing my previous submission Harbor, I would still like feedback on that card if anyone would be so keen as to do so)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mxdata on May 21, 2021, 08:51:36 pm
I would like to change my submission to this:

(https://imgur.com/TBAj4OI.png)

Part Cardinal, part Monastery, part Hermit, Excommunicate is a great way to quickly banish away large swaths of your deck in the dead of night, but be careful, sometimes you can accidentally exile the baby with the bathwater. Being played in the Night phase, the Actions and Treasures you play will be safe from its indiscriminate removal, however the same can't be said of any dead actions in your hand or cards gained in that turn. This can be a great boon by shuffling away your greens before you can even see them, but for any actions or treasures you're going to need to buy them again to discard them from Exile on a turn you don't play Excommunicate, otherwise back into exile they go!

(Although this is replacing my previous submission Harbor, I would still like feedback on that card if anyone would be so keen as to do so)

This + any deck-drawing engine would make an instant golden deck.  Draw your deck, play all your cards, buy some Victory cards, and instantly Exile them.  Heck, you don't even need to draw your whole deck, you just need to trigger a reshuffle during your turn, to ensure that only the cards you bought that turn are Exiled
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mxdata on May 21, 2021, 09:04:05 pm
(https://imgur.com/SzxEBM2.png)

Simple card to send to exile any greens you don't want clogging your deck, but don't worry, any actions or treasures that might have gone along for the ride can be shipped back at a later date.

Interesting idea.  It's most useful late in the game when you're greening.  It would be of little use early in the game, when you're mostly gaining cards you don't *want* in Exile.  Its $2 cost is interesting in that aspect - a cheap card that you typically want to wait to buy, similar in that aspect to Black Cat

And speaking of Black Cat, it would be interesting with that card.  If your opponent plays a Black Cat while you have this out, then those Curses go straight to your Exile mat instead of into your discard pile
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: bootymancer on May 21, 2021, 09:35:50 pm
My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/FjXjsF5.png)
Quote
Way of the Opossum: Way-Night

Set aside any number of cards from your hand face up. Then, shuffle this and all cards set aside this way into your deck.

Those unplayed cards aren't dead - they are 'playing opossum'
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mxdata on May 21, 2021, 10:28:03 pm
My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/FjXjsF5.png)
Quote
Way of the Opossum: Way-Night

Set aside any number of cards from your hand face up. Then, shuffle this and all cards set aside this way into your deck.

Those unplayed cards aren't dead - they are 'playing opossum'

"Night - Way" doesn't work by the rules of Ways.  A Way can be used only when an Action card itself can be played (which is usually during your Action phase, but things like Crown played during your Buy phase, or a Reaction played on another person's turn can still be played with a Way), but it can't change when an Action card can be played
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: anordinaryman on May 22, 2021, 12:28:53 am
Updated entry

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/k272reej.png)

Quote
Legate | Action | $4
Gain and then play a non-Command Action card. Each other player may set aside a copy of that card from the Supply to gain that card at the end of their next turn.

Fixed the ambiguity of where the card is set aside from that LastFootnote pointed out (thanks again!). Also the card is now more succinctly phrased. Huzzah!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: NoMoreFun on May 22, 2021, 12:32:54 am
I would like to change my submission to this:

(https://imgur.com/TBAj4OI.png)

Part Cardinal, part Monastery, part Hermit, Excommunicate is a great way to quickly banish away large swaths of your deck in the dead of night, but be careful, sometimes you can accidentally exile the baby with the bathwater. Being played in the Night phase, the Actions and Treasures you play will be safe from its indiscriminate removal, however the same can't be said of any dead actions in your hand or cards gained in that turn. This can be a great boon by shuffling away your greens before you can even see them, but for any actions or treasures you're going to need to buy them again to discard them from Exile on a turn you don't play Excommunicate, otherwise back into exile they go!

(Although this is replacing my previous submission Harbor, I would still like feedback on that card if anyone would be so keen as to do so)

This + any deck-drawing engine would make an instant golden deck.  Draw your deck, play all your cards, buy some Victory cards, and instantly Exile them.  Heck, you don't even need to draw your whole deck, you just need to trigger a reshuffle during your turn, to ensure that only the cards you bought that turn are Exiled

To slow it down, perhaps it should Exile itself too.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: bootymancer on May 22, 2021, 03:20:12 am
"Night - Way" doesn't work by the rules of Ways.  A Way can be used only when an Action card itself can be played (which is usually during your Action phase, but things like Crown played during your Buy phase, or a Reaction played on another person's turn can still be played with a Way), but it can't change when an Action card can be played

Ah, good point! I misunderstood. I see now that 'Way-Night' is not really possible without some explicit text which would just over-complicate things. Here's the updated submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/A3b0Y6G.png)
Quote
Way of the Opossum: Way

Set aside any number of cards from your hand face up. Then, shuffle this and all cards set aside this way into your deck.

Dropping 'Night' altogether still allows Way of the Opossum to keep much of its original functionality, albeit at the proper cost of an action (and a little bit of flavor).
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: The Alchemist on May 22, 2021, 07:27:59 am
(https://imgur.com/TBAj4OI.png)

This + any deck-drawing engine would make an instant golden deck.  Draw your deck, play all your cards, buy some Victory cards, and instantly Exile them.  Heck, you don't even need to draw your whole deck, you just need to trigger a reshuffle during your turn, to ensure that only the cards you bought that turn are Exiled

Many Exiling cards can already create a Golden deck, this is no exception. Sanctuary and 3 golds is golden. Remember exiling a single card on gain is roughly equivalent to drawing a card then exiling it (if you can draw your whole deck). And sanctuary gives a +buy, so it can easily make a 2 province golden deck on its own with a little draw, where this can't. I believe this is about as strong as sanctuary, since it is a much riskier thinner than sanctuary cause of the self-cardinalling effect early on while you're trying to thin.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: segura on May 22, 2021, 07:51:39 am
I think the problem is that this is early on something like a Chapel and later on something like a Bounty Hunter.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Shael on May 22, 2021, 12:40:45 pm
I would like to change my submission to this:
(https://imgur.com/TBAj4OI.png)
Part Cardinal, part Monastery, part Hermit, Excommunicate is a great way to quickly banish away large swaths of your deck in the dead of night, but be careful, sometimes you can accidentally exile the baby with the bathwater. Being played in the Night phase, the Actions and Treasures you play will be safe from its indiscriminate removal, however the same can't be said of any dead actions in your hand or cards gained in that turn. This can be a great boon by shuffling away your greens before you can even see them, but for any actions or treasures you're going to need to buy them again to discard them from Exile on a turn you don't play Excommunicate, otherwise back into exile they go!

(Although this is replacing my previous submission Harbor, I would still like feedback on that card if anyone would be so keen as to do so)

This + any deck-drawing engine would make an instant golden deck.  Draw your deck, play all your cards, buy some Victory cards, and instantly Exile them.  Heck, you don't even need to draw your whole deck, you just need to trigger a reshuffle during your turn, to ensure that only the cards you bought that turn are Exiled
I think golden deck is only a problem if this is the only way to win a game. Like every potential combo GD have to be monitor carefully; however, the principle of making a golden deck isn't something that make a card alowable or not. the only point is "are they OP / too easy to setup with this card"
Like a lot of strategy, it will have board where these types of deck are just dominant, but it's already the same with a lot of card. The only things we have to care about is: are they too usual and are they too easy to setup?

in a  certain way, I think my preocupation is more comparable as segura's one:
I think the problem is that this is early on something like a Chapel and later on something like a Bounty Hunter.
the fact that it make a golden deck could just be the tree that hide the forest (idk if this expresion exist in english btw)
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: LastFootnote on May 22, 2021, 08:08:44 pm
Submissions are closed. See you on the other side.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: The Alchemist on May 23, 2021, 06:13:55 am
If its not too late, I'd like to rescind my second submission. If you could judge Harbor instead, that would be preferred. Though if its too late no worries.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: LastFootnote on May 23, 2021, 09:35:54 pm
Iím really impressed with the quality of entries, especially considering the stringent limitations for this contest. Thanks to everybody who participated! Here are the entries in alphabetical order:

Abandoned Stone (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870159#msg870159) by majiponi
Itís interesting to think about more cards like Champion and Hireling, and that sort of card is tough to balance. Sadly, I think Abandoned Stone is too complex. I think thereís some merit to the premise though. Being able to fish a card (or cards) out of your discard pile each turn seems like an interesting effect. Thereís got to be a simpler way to do it, though.

Alchemical Factory (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870140#msg870140) by JW
I like this concept a lot. For $6, I think it should probably gain a differently named card costing as much or less. As it is, I think Alchemical Factory should be cheaper. I think there are times youíd use the effect, but would you use it often enough to be worth buying Alchemical Factory? I honestly donít know. Cool idea, though.

Border Crossing (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg869989#msg869989) by scolapasta
Now this is one elegant card. Itís hard to judge whether $4 is a good cost for it. The main thing Iím thinking is: itís so cheap that if people get a bunch, the piles are going to go very quickly. So Iíd almost suggest charging more and giving a vanilla bonus but whoops, obviously that wonít fly in this contest. So I canít hold that against it. Making the gain optional for other players would remove some of its functionality, but that functionality probably shouldnít be on a card without the Attack type. Also itís pretty nuts with e.g. City Quarter. Anyway Iím criticizing it a lot, but I really like this card.

Conglomerate (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg869992#msg869992) by spineflu
Another ďstays in playĒ entry here. I like how simple it looks, but I think it interacts strangely with shuffles. The way the rules of Dominion currently work, if you need to do something with X cards on your deck, and you have fewer than X cards in your deck AND have cards in your discard pile, you shuffle your discard pile and put it under your deck. Because Conglomerate can discard a card right after you shuffle, it can prompt you to immediately shuffle again! So Iíd probably remove the discard option. I recognize thatís a nerf (canít get past your payload without exiling it), but I think itís necessary. I guess you could put the card on the bottom of your deck instead of discarding it, if you wanted to keep that option. Anyway, cool card.

Courtyard of Miracles (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870029#msg870029) by Shael
Yet another ďstays in playĒ card. Iím a big fan of effects that gain a Copper to your hand. At first I was thinking, this should trigger at the start of each of your Buy phases instead, since youíd have a better idea then of whether youíd need an extra $1 that turn. But since it triggers at the start of turn, it combos with Cellar and other cards that want a large hand size. I donít think it should give an option between the two times, so I guess itís fine as-is. BUT, people have made a valid point that once you get 3 or 4 of these in play, you can basically just get a Province every turn. I think for that reason, this would work better as a Project.

Farrier (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870063#msg870063) by Chappy7
Whoooooa, no! Thatís too many Horses, my friend. Horses are slow to resolve, is one big thing. Livery already gains too many Horses, and this is worse. It wonít be hard to make a deck that gains at least 6 Horses every turn by revealing a Gold with this, and thatís without villages and more expensive Actions/Treasures (like Platinum).

Gold Smithy (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870013#msg870013) by Xen3k
Hey, I think I used this art for testing an official card that I called Jeweler! It was the one time I used a different name than Donald X.ís version of the card, which he called Stonecutter. Man, thatís too close to ďStonemasonĒ I thought, but also I just couldnít find any good ďStonecutterĒ art. Anyway. This uses a pretty tortured wording in order to not use numbers, I think. It should probably say ďIf you drew more than 4 cardsĒ or whatever. But I think in general itís just a little too complex. Itís got a bunch of clauses to try to even out its power level, but as a result the card has too many concepts and itís hard to remember what all it does.

Grand Feast (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870157#msg870157) by emtzalex
Well, hmmm. Itís a cute idea but I get this feeling it wouldnít play so great in practice. Thatís a lot of cards to draw and discard, and Iím guessing it would take a while, depending on how many cards you started with. This gets a lot of points for elegant wording, but I think probably the ability is too clunky.

Harbor (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870214#msg870214) by The Alchemist
This is a very interesting one. In general, the ability to exile incoming Victory cards is crazy strong. Stronger than Sanctuary even, since you donít have to draw the Victory cards at all. There was actually a Reserve outtake in Adventures that was cut for this very reason. I like the ability to play an Action card from Exile (or to put a Treasure into your hand), but Iím guessing thatís all dwarfed by the Victory card exiling. Probably you mostly get this right before greening and then just go nuts gaining Victory cards. Maybe Iím wrong about that, but either way this card seems incredibly strong for $2.

Horse Race (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870008#msg870008) by 4est
I like how thematic this is, but Iím guessing it does gain too many Horses. Though being a Duration at least means you can only play it every other turn, so that helps. However, one big thing about Horses is that you never (other than Conspirator) have to keep track of how many youíve played. The Duration effect of Horse Race throws that right out the window. Now having untrackable +Actions isnít a deal breaker by itself, but itís a strike against the card. Anyway I do like the concept and I think the flavor ties it all together nicely, despite my complaints.

Inventorís Workshop (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870235#msg870235) by mathdude.
Sorry, this is immediately disqualified because your username makes my think of math, which goes against the spirit of the contest. Iím kidding, of course. But seriously, this should probably say ďup to $5Ē if it werenít an entry for this contest. Also Iím guessing itís extremly strong. I know people often mostly consider the case when youíre drawing your deck, but even in engines, thereís a lot of game where that isnít happening. If you get this as your first $5, your deck is often going to ramp up ridiculously quickly. And then at the end you can spend Actions on it to gain Duchies. Or hey, if youíre ending the game this turn, you donít care if the Duchies go onto your deck!

Jasmine (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg869954#msg869954) by mandioca15
This also seems very strong to me. You wonít always collide it with e.g. Gold, but once you do itís extremely powerful, whether youíre building or greening. Itís nice that it always gives you at least a $3 card, but I think itís too strong overall. I do like the concept, but I wonder if thereís a way to tone it down a bit.

Legate (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870370#msg870370) by anordinaryman
A cool concept for sure. Gain and play an Action card. I think probably Iíd just have the other player gain a copy of the card and balance it around that, rather than having them set it aside. But maybe that makes Legate too weak at any cost, I donít know. Regardless, I think this probably empties piles very quickly, especially because itís effectively non-terminal. And if there arenít enough copies of a card to go around, missing out on a copy with Legate soundsóon averageóway worse than missing out on cards Messenger is distributing.

Metamorphose (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870236#msg870236) by Timinou
This is a good concept and seems well-balanced, but itís just a bit too wordy. I would suggest limiting it to one card and giving it +1 Buy. Of course that still leaves it cramped. It could cost $1 and be once-per-turn, I guess. Anyway itís a good idea.

Overlook (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870111#msg870111) by gambit05
This is clever. I like that you get another chance to activate the ability in case there are no Actions in your discard pile when you play it. Itís possible you wonít have any in your discard pile then either, but hey, sometimes thatís on you. Iíd consider lowering the cost to $2. In many ways itís like a cantrip. The one downside to it is that you have to decide which way to use it before looking through your discard pile, but I sure wouldnít complicate it to fix that issue.

Portcullis (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870058#msg870058) by faust
Hmm, sort of a Tactican-like effect, but can also exile your Victory cards. I think I like it. I mean if youíve drawn your deck itís like a super-Sanctuary, but also you canít play Treasures that turn. Neat. And also in games with other exile effects, it may shunt all your exiled Coppers back into your hand.

Recycle (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870210#msg870210) by mxdata
Combos aside, I think this is pretty weak for a $5 card. I like these sorts of flexible effects, but itís expensive for an effect that only downgrades your cards. Unless thereís something Iím missing, Iíd try this at $2 first.

Scribe (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870010#msg870010) by fika monster
Hmm. Great with cards you want to discard anyway, like Victory cards. When discarding other cards, the extra flexibility is probably not usually worth it. But then you have the bottom half, which seems pretty strong. It works when discarding it from anywhere, including your hand or from in play. But thatís not going to be super clear to a lot of players. All in all, I think Scribe is trying to do too many things at once. Usually Reaction cards have very terse on-play effects, and for good reason.

Socialite (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg869943#msg869943) by NoMoreFun
So part of me thought, man this is sort of a way to weasel around numbers, since youíll usually draw to 6 cards in hand. But actually I really like the fact that it interacts with things that modify othersí hand size. Itís a little twist, but it doesnít make the card super complex. Itís just interesting enough. Two thumbs up.

Strategem (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870012#msg870012) by xyz123
So this is sort of a card version of Delay or Way of the Turtle, but instead of using up a buy or an action, it takes up a card in your hand (except when you first gain it, when it does use up a buy and $2). I like it a lot, but I bet itís weak even at $2. But when not in the context of this contest, Iíd love to see this with a bonus of some sort. Although hey, maybe Iím wrong and itís not weak at $2. It is a village of sorts.

Tinker (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870090#msg870090) by Aquila
A on-demand mini-Forge of sorts. Itís an interesting idea. I guess in some ways itís similar to Salvager, allowing you to use the $ from the cost of a card and apply it to gaining another card. Itís hard to believe it has to cost $6, but maybe Iím just not thinking through all the possibilities.

Way of the Opossum (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870377#msg870377) by bootymancer
Sort of a mega-Way of the Frog, but without the +Action. I think probably itís pretty niche, but maybe thatís fine for a Way. Itís different enough from Frog to co-exist, but it still doesnít jump out at me as particularly exciting. Way of the Frog is already one of the more marginal Ways, in my experience.



These are some really tough calls. I wish Iíd had time to test the top contenders in order to make a more informed choice. As it is Iíll use the time-honored tradtional guesswork, the best way to judge Dominion cards.

Honorable Mentions: Alchemical Factory by JW, Courtyard of Miracles by Shael, Legate by anordinaryman, Overlook by gambit05, Socialite by NoMoreFun, and Strategem by xyz123

Runner Up: Portcullis by faust

Winner: Border Crossing by scolapasta
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: xyz123 on May 24, 2021, 02:40:37 am
Thanks for running the contest LastFootnote.

Congratulations scolapasta
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: faust on May 24, 2021, 04:45:47 am
Personally, I'm disappointed that the judgment comments didn't respect the rules of this contest.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Xen3k on May 24, 2021, 12:18:06 pm
Gold Smithy (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870013#msg870013) by Xen3k
Hey, I think I used this art for testing an official card that I called Jeweler! It was the one time I used a different name than Donald X.ís version of the card, which he called Stonecutter. Man, thatís too close to ďStonemasonĒ I thought, but also I just couldnít find any good ďStonecutterĒ art. Anyway. This uses a pretty tortured wording in order to not use numbers, I think. It should probably say ďIf you drew more than 4 cardsĒ or whatever. But I think in general itís just a little too complex. Itís got a bunch of clauses to try to even out its power level, but as a result the card has too many concepts and itís hard to remember what all it does.

Good judging! I figured that art has been used before, but it is so difficult to get nice artwork for custom card. I wanted to make a terminal draw card without using number, but I agree what I came up with is just too wordy. I may play around with this more to come up with a less wordy card.

Congrats to scolapasta!
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: scolapasta on May 24, 2021, 12:43:50 pm
Woohoo, I should retire now. Runner up last week, Winner of Fan Mechanics last week, and now this one? (I am, however, noticing a pattern that the my entries that do better are always the "simpler" ones). Something to keep in mind going forward...

I'll post a new contest / thread up some time tonight or tomorrow latest.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: Shael on May 24, 2021, 12:52:53 pm
GG to scolapasta, border crossing is a very nice card
ok, thank you for your feedback LastFootnote


Courtyard of Miracles (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20794.msg870029#msg870029) by Shael
Yet another “stays in play” card. I’m a big fan of effects that gain a Copper to your hand. At first I was thinking, this should trigger at the start of each of your Buy phases instead, since you’d have a better idea then of whether you’d need an extra $1 that turn. But since it triggers at the start of turn, it combos with Cellar and other cards that want a large hand size. I don’t think it should give an option between the two times, so I guess it’s fine as-is. BUT, people have made a valid point that once you get 3 or 4 of these in play, you can basically just get a Province every turn. I think for that reason, this would work better as a Project.


Well, the Province thing is intentional and I haven't see anyone that have pointed this, it's even the main way to use the card...
Maybe I haven't been clear when I've describe the ways to use it.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: mathdude on May 24, 2021, 03:25:57 pm
I'll post a new contest / thread up some time tonight or tomorrow latest.

A fun follow-up to Don't Count On It could be Count On It!

Lots of ways to run it, but I think the most logical would be to require a set of (maybe 4 or 5) consecutive numbers in some way.

Maybe the card must use the numbers 1 to 4 (or 1 to 5) somewhere on the card.  Maybe each must only be used once.  Maybe a consecutive set of 4 numbers that does not include the number 1 (could be 2 through 5, or 3 through 6, etc.).  Maybe it uses the same number (greater than 1) at least 3 times on the card.  Maybe 3 consecutive numbers without any vanilla bonuses.

A bunch of places to use numbers:
- vanilla bonuses (other than the last option above)
- card cost
- reveal/look at
- attacks of some sort
- reference to number of cards in hand or cost of a revealed card

Some official examples: Wandering Minstrel and Conspirator (1 through 4, but Conspirator uses "1" twice), Inn, Sacrifice, and Squire (3+ occurrences of the number 2),
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: infangthief on May 24, 2021, 04:19:32 pm
Maybe the card must use the numbers 1 to 4 (or 1 to 5) somewhere on the card.
I'd been planning that one if I ever won again, so I was amused to see LastFootnote's criteria for this one!
I think Seer is the only official card that has all numbers 1 to 5 on it.
Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #115: Don't Count On It
Post by: scolapasta on May 24, 2021, 05:46:54 pm
New contest posted:  WDC #116: Make me *less* special (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20803)

A few comments on Border Crossing:

ē the more I think on it, the more I do realize it may be a good idea to add "may". While it does remove the use of "getting a cheap $2 to force your opponent(s) to gain a Copper", that's probably fine. (or as some suggested adding Attack type, though that may need a different name)

ē LastFootnote is of course correct that this would be crazy with only debt cost cards (and is one of the reason to add the "may"). Not sure if it'd be worth complicating the card though to avoid that, or just let those combos exists. I lean towards the latter.

As with any design, playtesting will be what truly determines what the final form should be, but I am still pleased with this as a v0.2 (and only 0.2 due to removing the extraneous "from the Supply"