You could just make cards that modify the rules. I considered it way back when; it's a thing I've done in many games. I didn't do it because Dominion has kingdom cards filling that rule; they change the rules plenty. Dominion doesn't need other rules-changing cards. I considered it again later and still didn't want them. But I do have Events and now Landmarks. Events can change the rules, but only via the Event-buying mechanism, which is like buying a card without the card; it felt like a reasonable extension. Landmarks can change the rules, but only in these VP-making ways. While they are each a step towards just having randomizer cards that change the rules, they still both try hard to stay within limits, to only affect the game in a way best done via these mechanisms. In general the best way to change the rules in Dominion is still to have kingdom cards that do different things.
Haggling • Edictwhat if everything had overpay?
When you buy a non-Victory card that does not already have an overpay effect, you may overpay for it. For each $3 you overpay, gain an additional copy of it.
For Week 13, we will be exploring Edicts (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13605.0)!
Edicts are landscape-shaped cards that introduce straight-up rule changes. Unlike Events and Projects they don't need to be bought, and apply to all players. They are similar to Landmarks, but in order to ensure that they could not be a Landmark instead, one of the rules this week will be that Edicts should not be tied to VP-scoring.
FYI, some Secret History on Landmarks:Quote from: Donald X.You could just make cards that modify the rules. I considered it way back when; it's a thing I've done in many games. I didn't do it because Dominion has kingdom cards filling that rule; they change the rules plenty. Dominion doesn't need other rules-changing cards. I considered it again later and still didn't want them. But I do have Events and now Landmarks. Events can change the rules, but only via the Event-buying mechanism, which is like buying a card without the card; it felt like a reasonable extension. Landmarks can change the rules, but only in these VP-making ways. While they are each a step towards just having randomizer cards that change the rules, they still both try hard to stay within limits, to only affect the game in a way best done via these mechanisms. In general the best way to change the rules in Dominion is still to have kingdom cards that do different things.
It's a simple enough concept, but I think the tricky part will be coming up with an Edict that wouldn't be better off as an Event or Project, and to come up with something that is subtle enough to maintain the essence of Dominion but meaningful enough to offer a fun and varied gameplay experience.
Judgement will be based on balance, uniqueness, and fun.
I will set the deadline for submissions at 11:59PM UTC on June 23rd.
What is the color code for Edicts?
What is the color code for Edicts?
Good question...I’m not actually sure if LastFootNote had one. Perhaps spineflu can share the colour scheme that they used for Haggling.
A suggestion for a naming convention on these: name them after a continuous-tense verb, so that people can say, like, "we played a game with Juggling and Plowing" and it sounds pretty normal, but also isn't confused for regular cards/landscapes.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/60c90916ac551f8f7ea6f9f6/927603410ba5212c1bf8894848700512/image.png)QuoteHaggling • Edictwhat if everything had overpay?
When you buy a non-Victory card that does not already have an overpay effect, you may overpay for it. For each $3 you overpay, gain an additional copy of it.
now, admittedly, is it a good overpay? not fantastic. but it's also not gamebreaking, which I thought was more important.
but that works with overpay cards. mine doesn't.A suggestion for a naming convention on these: name them after a continuous-tense verb, so that people can say, like, "we played a game with Juggling and Plowing" and it sounds pretty normal, but also isn't confused for regular cards/landscapes.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/60c90916ac551f8f7ea6f9f6/927603410ba5212c1bf8894848700512/image.png)QuoteHaggling • Edictwhat if everything had overpay?
When you buy a non-Victory card that does not already have an overpay effect, you may overpay for it. For each $3 you overpay, gain an additional copy of it.
now, admittedly, is it a good overpay? not fantastic. but it's also not gamebreaking, which I thought was more important.
Don't wanna be that guy but... I think this works better as a $3 costing Event. "+1 Buy. The next time you buy a non-Victory card this turn, gain a copy."
Looks like I used pink with a gold border for Edicts.
| (https://i.imgur.com/dgsgXUPh.png) | |
Quote from: Progress PROGRESS |
Circular Economy
Edict
When you buy the last card from a pile, return all copies of it from the trash to the supply
Then this doesn't do anything. This is not a problem; neither does Tomb.Circular Economy
Edict
When you buy the last card from a pile, return all copies of it from the trash to the supply
What if there are no cards that can trash at all in the kingdom?
Edicts are landscape-shaped cards that introduce straight-up rule changes. Unlike Events and Projects they don't need to be bought, and apply to all players. They are similar to Landmarks, but in order to ensure that they could not be a Landmark instead, one of the rules this week will be that Edicts should not be tied to VP-scoring.
It's a simple enough concept, but I think the tricky part will be coming up with an Edict that wouldn't be better off as an Event or Project, and to come up with something that is subtle enough to maintain the essence of Dominion but meaningful enough to offer a fun and varied gameplay experience.
The game does not end with 3 empty Supply piles, but with 5.
Setup: for each Kingdom Supply pile, use only half as many of each uniquely named card as usual (rounded up).
Then this doesn't do anything. This is not a problem; neither does Tomb.Circular Economy
Edict
When you buy the last card from a pile, return all copies of it from the trash to the supply
What if there are no cards that can trash at all in the kingdom?
Looking at some of the submissions so far, it does seem a bit difficult to design an Edict that wouldn't be better served as a Project or Event (or at least couldn't easily be turned into one):
* Haggling, with its overpay, is effectively an opportunity cost like an Event (though the recommended change by grrgrrgrr doesn't fully capture the original design intent, but it could be modified a bit).
* Smelting could very easily be a Project (even a 0-cost one, but could also probably work at $2 or $3).
* Progress, being optional, could also be a Project.
The opportunity cost to turn an Edict into a 0-cost Project is one missed Buy, which is very minimal.
Smelting could be an event costing $0 that says, once per turn: +1 buy, +1 buy per gold you have in play.Looking at some of the submissions so far, it does seem a bit difficult to design an Edict that wouldn't be better served as a Project or Event (or at least couldn't easily be turned into one):
* Haggling, with its overpay, is effectively an opportunity cost like an Event (though the recommended change by grrgrrgrr doesn't fully capture the original design intent, but it could be modified a bit).
* Smelting could very easily be a Project (even a 0-cost one, but could also probably work at $2 or $3).
* Progress, being optional, could also be a Project.
The opportunity cost to turn an Edict into a 0-cost Project is one missed Buy, which is very minimal.
I disagree with this. First, I don't think a Project should ever cost $0 (or, to put it another way, I think a $0 Project is as much a departure from the official game as an Edict). It's no accident that there are no $0 Projects (as opposed to Events, which had $0 costs from their introduction in Adventures). Indeed, not only are there no $0 Projects, there are none costing less than $3, meaning you are always giving up not just a buy, but the buying of at least a Silver. This also means that on a $5/$2 open you cannot just get the Project with your otherwise (often) wasted $2 buy. The only way doing
With these specific Edicts, Smelting definitely could not be $0 (or even $1 or $2). It would obviously not need to be $6, and $5 is also probably too high, but I'm not certain that it should cost less than Fair (in most games, there is a very strong correlation between playing Golds and wanting extra Buys, and the potential for additional buys to help you get a 3-pile end is not nothing). With Progress, the option to use it on one or both of your opening buys (by opening Silver - Tunnel, for example) is an important part of the Edict's design, which is lost if it is a Project.
(https://i.imgur.com/h0kR4K9.png)
A landscape that attacks and might be occasionally useful. The king does after all love his Gardens.
(https://i.imgur.com/h0kR4K9.png)
A landscape that attacks and might be occasionally useful. The king does after all love his Gardens.
I assume this is only supposed to trigger on your own turn? As worded each player would have to do it each turn I think; unless there's a general rule about how edicts work that I don't know.
I'm impatient to find out the correct color, so I'm just gonna post this. Oh well, this week's competition will be colorful.
This is one I had made a little while ago (don't know if I ever posted it).
You can only buy the most expensive if you have the cheapest card in play.
(https://i.imgur.com/YA0gmRw.png)
Edict
Select an unused Kingdom card costing $2 or $3. Each player replaces one of their starting Coppers with a copy of that card.
*I've been going back and forth on this. Should I specify a Shelter to be replaced, or leave it as is?
(https://i.imgur.com/rCGLi1W.png)
My edict: curses are now necropolises! yay!!!
... that you can't trash. boooh!
(https://i.imgur.com/oYPU40n.png)
Shoutout to Unjer on the dominion discord for playtesting this with me on the TableTop Simulator mod he is making!
Curses are also Actions with "+2 Actions." When you trash a Curse, put it into your discard pile.
(https://i.imgur.com/rCGLi1W.png)
I like it, but... why can't it work for $0 costs?
(https://i.imgur.com/rCGLi1W.png)
I like it, but... why can't it work for $0 costs?
It could, but I think it would be too game changing at that point. For me, these edicts seem to have the most potential to be fun if they change the game but not too much. Being able to easily get rid of coppers/curses/ruins in addition to estates (etc.) seems like too big of an effect for something that is free and you always have. I'd really need to play with it a few times to see for sure, though. Maybe I'll try to do that this week.
*I've been going back and forth on this. Should I specify a Shelter to be replaced, or leave it as is?
I would go even further and allow them to replace any card in their deck. Most of the time it will be shelter or estate anyway, and it won't have any problems if the game evolves and Donald decides to make a new mechanic that allows you to start with no estates or shelters.
(https://i.imgur.com/rCGLi1W.png)
I like it, but... why can't it work for $0 costs?
It could, but I think it would be too game changing at that point. For me, these edicts seem to have the most potential to be fun if they change the game but not too much. Being able to easily get rid of coppers/curses/ruins in addition to estates (etc.) seems like too big of an effect for something that is free and you always have. I'd really need to play with it a few times to see for sure, though. Maybe I'll try to do that this week.
Mmm, this might be better on a second thought. I mean, without +Buy this will be somewhat mediocre, but it might be a little automatic with +Buy. (it's pretty terrible at getting rid of Ruins)
Urbanizing • EdictFAQ: it's not recursive. Doesn't affect villagers or the barracks project - they aren't cards. Turn all the cantrips into villages.
When a card gives you +Actions, you get twice as many.
since shael's card is kinda cramping my style on haggling, I'm changing my entry:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/60cd13b18b751347f5e396a2/1da67aaa97e9e5361a4edeccc7ac2a3a/image.png)QuoteUrbanizing • EdictFAQ: it's not recursive. Doesn't affect villagers - they aren't cards. Turn all the cantrips into villagers.
When a card gives you +Actions, you get twice as many.
yes / yes, but it still hamstrings further actions / yes, not a cardsince shael's card is kinda cramping my style on haggling, I'm changing my entry:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/60cd13b18b751347f5e396a2/1da67aaa97e9e5361a4edeccc7ac2a3a/image.png)QuoteUrbanizing • EdictFAQ: it's not recursive. Doesn't affect villagers - they aren't cards. Turn all the cantrips into villagers.
When a card gives you +Actions, you get twice as many.
So a regular village now gives you +4 Actions and Snowy Village is +8 Actions?
I take it it doesn't affect the +Action token either?
(https://i.imgur.com/cJ4G0Fl.png)QuoteEdict
Select an unused Kingdom card costing $2 or $3. Each player replaces one of their starting Estates or Shelters with a copy of that card.
Kinda like Heirlooms in that each player starts off with one copy of a particular card. It replaces starting Estates (or Shelters), however, and can be any Kingdom card costing $2 or $3. In a Shelters game, each player gets to choose which of their Shelters to replace*. Whichever card is chosen, it has no pile, making one-shots like Experiment much more powerful, not unlike Way of the Mouse in that respect, except you only get the one
Unlike Mouse, though, it does not have to be an Action card. You can, for example, have a Victory card (Tunnel is currently the only one that would qualify) or Treasure card such as Ducat or Coin of the Realm, or even a Night card such as Monastery. Any set-up for the chosen card would be done as usual - which in some cases could mean that you'd have a mat used only by the selected card
The FAQ would have to clarify how to handle cards from split piles. My thought is that any card that has enough copies for the number of players would be eligible. Thus, cards like Catapult would qualify except in 6-player games, while Humble Castle would qualify in a 2-player - and only in 2-player - game (of course, Humble Castle would be pretty useless in such a game, being nothing more than a Copper with 1 VP)
*I've been going back and forth on this. Should I specify a Shelter to be replaced, or leave it as is?
(https://i.imgur.com/cJ4G0Fl.png)QuoteEdict
Select an unused Kingdom card costing $2 or $3. Each player replaces one of their starting Estates or Shelters with a copy of that card.
Kinda like Heirlooms in that each player starts off with one copy of a particular card. It replaces starting Estates (or Shelters), however, and can be any Kingdom card costing $2 or $3. In a Shelters game, each player gets to choose which of their Shelters to replace*. Whichever card is chosen, it has no pile, making one-shots like Experiment much more powerful, not unlike Way of the Mouse in that respect, except you only get the one
Unlike Mouse, though, it does not have to be an Action card. You can, for example, have a Victory card (Tunnel is currently the only one that would qualify) or Treasure card such as Ducat or Coin of the Realm, or even a Night card such as Monastery. Any set-up for the chosen card would be done as usual - which in some cases could mean that you'd have a mat used only by the selected card
The FAQ would have to clarify how to handle cards from split piles. My thought is that any card that has enough copies for the number of players would be eligible. Thus, cards like Catapult would qualify except in 6-player games, while Humble Castle would qualify in a 2-player - and only in 2-player - game (of course, Humble Castle would be pretty useless in such a game, being nothing more than a Copper with 1 VP)
*I've been going back and forth on this. Should I specify a Shelter to be replaced, or leave it as is?
I'd honestly just replace a starting Copper in the opening phase. This is probably the cleanest and also the most "future proof". Also, anything that produces $1 will leave opening theory mostly intact. Of course, stop cards that don't trash or produce $$ will slow the opening phase, but having a Kingdom deck already in your deck somewhat makes up for it.
Underlords - Edict
At the start of your turn, you may trash a card costing $2 or less from your hand. If you don't, gain such a card from the trash.
Censorship - EdictTrying to add player interaction, but this probably makes sad times. It would be terrible with discard attacks, so it gives draw to 5 to soften them. It buffs Outpost and Borrow, only a few things.
At the start of each of your turns, reveal your hand, and the player to your left chooses one for you to discard. Then, draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
I struggled here with finding something that is best justified as an Edict over Event, Project, Act or kingdom card!
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5f5a8e8e7ed38b522f25641a/60c99671d086476fca5346a2/f607c53b1fdaf7b79d67d17620e7abbe/Censorship_(1).png)QuoteCensorship - EdictTrying to add player interaction, but this probably makes sad times. It would be terrible with discard attacks, so it gives draw to 5 to soften them. It buffs Outpost and Borrow, only a few things.
At the start of each of your turns, reveal your hand, and the player to your left chooses one for you to discard. Then, draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
My edict: curses are now necropolises! yay!!!
... that you can't trash. boooh!
(https://i.imgur.com/oYPU40n.png)
Shoutout to Unjer on the dominion discord for playtesting this with me on the TableTop Simulator mod he is making!
Edit: Updated wording per emtzalex suggestion
(https://i.imgur.com/AhF2Qwa.png)
Underlords - Edict'Such a card' is a $2- cost, hope that's self-intuitive.
At the start of your turn, you may trash a card costing $2 or less from your hand. If you don't, gain such a card from the trash.
After some playtesting, I have decided to alter my entry to this version:
(https://i.imgur.com/B420BRu.png)
Yeah, thanks for the feedback. Here's something that's still a bit interactive that shouldn't have bad moments:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5f5a8e8e7ed38b522f25641a/60c99671d086476fca5346a2/2254da77a4d6c773167560c4f3df920e/Underlords.png)QuoteUnderlords - Edict'Such a card' is a $2- cost, hope that's self-intuitive.
At the start of your turn, you may trash a card costing $2 or less from your hand. If you don't, gain such a card from the trash.
My edict: curses are now necropolises! yay!!!
... that you can't trash. boooh!
(https://i.imgur.com/oYPU40n.png)
Shoutout to Unjer on the dominion discord for playtesting this with me on the TableTop Simulator mod he is making!
Edit: Updated wording per emtzalex suggestion
(https://i.imgur.com/AhF2Qwa.png)
made an edit
After some playtesting, I have decided to alter my entry to this version:
(https://i.imgur.com/B420BRu.png)
Do you have to trash a copy to prevent the gaining?
After some playtesting, I have decided to alter my entry to this version:
(https://i.imgur.com/B420BRu.png)
Do you have to trash a copy to prevent the gaining?
Good call. I will try to come up with a wording so that the answer is yes. Maybe just add "if possible" before "you may."
Once per turn, when you buy a card, you may trash a copy of it from your hand. If you did, don't gain it.
My edict: curses are now necropolises! yay!!!
... that you can't trash. boooh!
(https://i.imgur.com/oYPU40n.png)
Shoutout to Unjer on the dominion discord for playtesting this with me on the TableTop Simulator mod he is making!
Edit: Updated wording per emtzalex suggestion
(https://i.imgur.com/AhF2Qwa.png)
made an edit
People don't seem very interested in tribulations: May I ask why? feedback would be interested
My edict: curses are now necropolises! yay!!!
... that you can't trash. boooh!
(https://i.imgur.com/oYPU40n.png)
Shoutout to Unjer on the dominion discord for playtesting this with me on the TableTop Simulator mod he is making!
Edit: Updated wording per emtzalex suggestion
(https://i.imgur.com/AhF2Qwa.png)
made an edit
People don't seem very interested in tribulations: May I ask why? feedback would be interested
Makes the whole game about whether you can survive the curse split, degenerates into a slog. Like +2 Actions is not the worst - at least you'll have plenty of actions - but I'd change them to cantrips instead, if they're stuck in your deck.
My edict: curses are now necropolises! yay!!!
... that you can't trash. boooh!
(https://i.imgur.com/oYPU40n.png)
Shoutout to Unjer on the dominion discord for playtesting this with me on the TableTop Simulator mod he is making!
Edit: Updated wording per emtzalex suggestion
(https://i.imgur.com/AhF2Qwa.png)
Edit 2: People don't seem excited for this edict. so I'm turning up the volume on this: Now Every curse is a village, but they are worth -2vp instead of -1 vp.
(https://i.imgur.com/lZwxScE.png)
Here are my two submission ideas, still deciding between them:
(https://imgur.com/MCEyEzS.png)
(https://imgur.com/BbEgehY.png)
The first is a direct inspiration from one of Asper's original edicts, where an Estate or Shelter is replaced with a Copper. Since that does to the opening functionally the same thing as baker (without choice), I thought turning it up a notch would be more game-changing and fun. Accelerated games for an accelerating industrializing kingdom!
The second was originally all non-kingdom treasures, but I decided better not completely shut down Potion cards that way, so now you just have to reject the 3 default treasures to live a pure and holy life.
My edict: curses are now necropolises! yay!!!
... that you can't trash. boooh!
(https://i.imgur.com/oYPU40n.png)
Shoutout to Unjer on the dominion discord for playtesting this with me on the TableTop Simulator mod he is making!
Edit: Updated wording per emtzalex suggestion
(https://i.imgur.com/AhF2Qwa.png)
Edit 2: People don't seem excited for this edict. so I'm turning up the volume on this: Now Every curse is a village, but they are worth -2vp instead of -1 vp.
(https://i.imgur.com/lZwxScE.png)
Another update. Now curses are -2vp villages you cant get rid of. idk if this is a good idea
My edict: curses are now necropolises! yay!!!
... that you can't trash. boooh!
(https://i.imgur.com/oYPU40n.png)
Shoutout to Unjer on the dominion discord for playtesting this with me on the TableTop Simulator mod he is making!
Edit: Updated wording per emtzalex suggestion
(https://i.imgur.com/AhF2Qwa.png)
Edit 2: People don't seem excited for this edict. so I'm turning up the volume on this: Now Every curse is a village, but they are worth -2vp instead of -1 vp.
(https://i.imgur.com/lZwxScE.png)
Another update. Now curses are -2vp villages you cant get rid of. idk if this is a good idea
Am I the only one that feels like this is too complicated and punishing? A zero-cost Village that is worth -1 VP is fine and I would buy it sometimes but not depend on it. I don't think it needs the -2 VP or the trashing clause.
(https://i.imgur.com/DMPqyk7.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/DMPqyk7.png)
dangit, this is really good and simple: wish I thought of this!
it was the idea, but i didn't know how to write it "correctly". Rules says you draw 5 cards at the en of your Clean Up, so the first hand is an special case making this too wordly(https://i.imgur.com/DMPqyk7.png)
dangit, this is really good and simple: wish I thought of this!
It is a cool idea, but I would instead make it so you just draw 6 cards for every hand.
it was the idea, but i didn't know how to write it "correctly". Rules says you draw 5 cards at the en of your Clean Up, so the first hand is an special case making this too wordly(https://i.imgur.com/DMPqyk7.png)
dangit, this is really good and simple: wish I thought of this!
It is a cool idea, but I would instead make it so you just draw 6 cards for every hand.
Here are my two submission ideas, still deciding between them:
(https://imgur.com/MCEyEzS.png)
(https://imgur.com/BbEgehY.png)
The first is a direct inspiration from one of Asper's original edicts, where an Estate or Shelter is replaced with a Copper. Since that does to the opening functionally the same thing as baker (without choice), I thought turning it up a notch would be more game-changing and fun. Accelerated games for an accelerating industrializing kingdom!
The second was originally all non-kingdom treasures, but I decided better not completely shut down Potion cards that way, so now you just have to reject the 3 default treasures to live a pure and holy life.
Ascetism would be an amazing combo with Beggar, becoming a straight-up +3 Coffers. However, most of the time, this seems like it would slow down the game, especially in kingdoms without any Action cards that give +coin
Forgot to post the 24 hour notice...
Just a reminder that the deadline will be in a few hours.
These are starting to be a "Bi-monthly design contest" haha, contest 12 started Jun 4th.
I think TC had forgotten his duty as judge. Considering he might have gone on vacation with the intention to not log in, I think it's best to not wait much longer. I think Freddy10 should host next week, as his Abundance entry got the highest like count.
Apologies for the radio silence. I was hoping to get to judging last Thursday but have been bogged down with other commitments. I’m fine with having winner decided by popular opinion, otherwise judging will have to wait until the weekend.
Apologies for the radio silence. I was hoping to get to judging last Thursday but have been bogged down with other commitments. I’m fine with having winner decided by popular opinion, otherwise judging will have to wait until the weekend.
I would prefer a judgement sooner: I'm a bit tired of waiting
Apologies for the radio silence. I was hoping to get to judging last Thursday but have been bogged down with other commitments. I’m fine with having winner decided by popular opinion, otherwise judging will have to wait until the weekend.
I would prefer a judgement sooner: I'm a bit tired of waiting
I could do a "short form" judgment tonight - just announce winner and runners up without commentary on all the submissions.
Apologies for the radio silence. I was hoping to get to judging last Thursday but have been bogged down with other commitments. I’m fine with having winner decided by popular opinion, otherwise judging will have to wait until the weekend.
I would prefer a judgement sooner: I'm a bit tired of waiting
I could do a "short form" judgment tonight - just announce winner and runners up without commentary on all the submissions.
Apologies for the radio silence. I was hoping to get to judging last Thursday but have been bogged down with other commitments. I’m fine with having winner decided by popular opinion, otherwise judging will have to wait until the weekend.
I would prefer a judgement sooner: I'm a bit tired of waiting
I could do a "short form" judgment tonight - just announce winner and runners up without commentary on all the submissions.
I think this is the best solution. Just add some comments this weekend.
I think in the future, if something like this comes up, the runner up from the previous week should take over as judge. I'm not such a fan of doing it by popular vote bc there might be some bias.
Apologies for the radio silence. I was hoping to get to judging last Thursday but have been bogged down with other commitments. I’m fine with having winner decided by popular opinion, otherwise judging will have to wait until the weekend.
I would prefer a judgement sooner: I'm a bit tired of waiting
I could do a "short form" judgment tonight - just announce winner and runners up without commentary on all the submissions.
I think in the future, if something like this comes up, the runner up from the previous week should take over as judge. I'm not such a fan of doing it by popular vote bc there might be some bias.
yes, this, correct. all a +1 from me means is it made a good first impression, not anything about balance. Respect voting, because of how easily it can be biased, manipulated, and isn't a direct correlation to quality, should be a last resort.
I know with the WDC we've had contests go 2 week with no judgment, especially around holidays - we should keep that in mind and not harrass the judges for being less logged on than us.
edit: happy 1000th post to me
I think in the future, if something like this comes up, the runner up from the previous week should take over as judge. I'm not such a fan of doing it by popular vote bc there might be some bias.
I think in the future, if something like this comes up, the runner up from the previous week should take over as judge. I'm not such a fan of doing it by popular vote bc there might be some bias.
One problem with that, though, is that the runner up from the previous week could have a submission to the current contest. I don't think it's a great idea to have a contestant also be judging.
Sorry once again for the delay in judging.
Thank you all for your patience and your submissions. I am posting the winner/runners-up below along with my comments, but I will try to provide feedback on the remaining submissions this weekend or sometime next week.
Runners-up:
emtzalex's Progress
The impact will be fairly subtle on most boards, but I think it still brings a nice twist to the game. Because buying Treasures will also help you thin your deck, Progress probably facilitates a Big Money strategy (although not to the extent that it would necessarily beat a good engine). Your Estates become like Hovels, so it might encourage earlier greening especially if good Estate trashers aren't available in the Kingdom. One minor drawback is that this weakens any junkers that give out Ruins, since getting rid of them becomes fairly trivial. Could this have been a Project? Perhaps, but given that the effect is not particularly strong, I think this works better as an Edict.
Sorry once again for the delay in judging.
Thank you all for your patience and your submissions. I am posting the winner/runners-up below along with my comments, but I will try to provide feedback on the remaining submissions this weekend or sometime next week.
WINNER:
mxdata's Patrimony
I think this a cool concept which looks like it could offer some interesting variety. It could be fairly game-warping in some cases (e.g. having a Chapel in your starting deck), although we already have some precedent for this (albeit uncommon) with Way of the Mouse + Shelter boards. Patrimony shakes up the opening not only by virtue of having one less Copper in your deck, but also the possible price points you could hit, and also the possibility of playing a card you gained on turn 1 during turn 2. Patrimony looks fun, but one concern I have is that it could make openings less balanced in some cases. For example, on a Patrimony board with Shanty Town replacing a starting Copper, it is possible that Player 1 has a 5/1 open and buys a Margrave on turn 1, and then on turn 2 is able to play the Shanty Town, and then find and play their Margrave.
Runners-up:
emtzalex's Progress
The impact will be fairly subtle on most boards, but I think it still brings a nice twist to the game. Because buying Treasures will also help you thin your deck, Progress probably facilitates a Big Money strategy (although not to the extent that it would necessarily beat a good engine). Your Estates become like Hovels, so it might encourage earlier greening especially if good Estate trashers aren't available in the Kingdom. One minor drawback is that this weakens any junkers that give out Ruins, since getting rid of them becomes fairly trivial. Could this have been a Project? Perhaps, but given that the effect is not particularly strong, I think this works better as an Edict.
DunnoItAll's Recycling
I'm always intrigued by new ways to thin your deck. In this case, I like that you can use extra Buys to trash cards. I think a version without a once-per-turn limitation would have been more exciting, although that might be too fast in some cases (for instance, you could get thin quite quickly with a few Silk Merchants or Market Squares in your deck). While the effect may not be earth shattering, I think Recycling will still create some interesting decisions during your Buy phase. The main limitation is that it will have very limited utility in Kingdoms without +Buy.
Honorable mentions:
Freddy10's Abundance
Starting with an extra Copper and Estate in your deck, and playing with a default hand size of 6 is a neat idea for an Edict. I'm definitely curious to try this out. It shakes up the opening, but will also tend to accelerate games. My main concern would be that since a lot of existing cards are designed around a default hand size of 5, Abundance might throw off the balance of certain cards. For example, Ghost Ship becomes arguably stronger, draw-to-X somewhat weaker, activating Menageries and Diplomats becomes harder, etc.
fikamonster's Tribulations
I like the idea of making Curses more useful for your deck but making them "untrashable". The original version was too harsh; the balance on the revised version is much better. Tribulations won't have much relevance in most games without Cursers; however, I think it would be interesting to see what players do if Curses are the only village in a Kingdom.
Congrats, mxdata!
I think in the future, if something like this comes up, the runner up from the previous week should take over as judge. I'm not such a fan of doing it by popular vote bc there might be some bias.
One problem with that, though, is that the runner up from the previous week could have a submission to the current contest. I don't think it's a great idea to have a contestant also be judging.
Obviously he/she wouldn't give feedback on their own card, and wouldn't count it in the winners and runners up. Not perfect, but I think it's better than voting. At least this way we get feedback. With voting you have all the problems that come with voting (spoilers, strategic voting, etc.) and you have people in the running having an impact (through their vote) on who wins.
But then that's unfair to that person. Their card shouldn't be guaranteed to lose just because the judge was too slow.Obviously he/she wouldn't give feedback on their own card, and wouldn't count it in the winners and runners up. Not perfect, but I think it's better than voting. At least this way we get feedback. With voting you have all the problems that come with voting (spoilers, strategic voting, etc.) and you have people in the running having an impact (through their vote) on who wins.I think in the future, if something like this comes up, the runner up from the previous week should take over as judge. I'm not such a fan of doing it by popular vote bc there might be some bias.One problem with that, though, is that the runner up from the previous week could have a submission to the current contest. I don't think it's a great idea to have a contestant also be judging.
| (https://i.imgur.com/8BT8KA6h.png) | Quote from: Ad Astra per Aspera AD ASTRA PER ASPERA |
| (https://i.imgur.com/PYxTP4Zh.png) | Quote from: Annuit Cœptis ANNUIT CŒPTIS |
| (https://i.imgur.com/gRdBZVOh.png) | Quote from: Audentes Fortuna Iuvat AUDENTES FORTUNA IUVAT |
| (https://i.imgur.com/QhYK9n5h.png) | Quote from: Esto Perpetua ESTO PERPERUA |
| (https://i.imgur.com/BRlkz5Dh.png) | Quote from: Fiat Lex FIAT LEX |
| (https://i.imgur.com/wctSf1Ph.png) | Quote from: Labor Omnia Vincit LABOR OMNIA VINCIT |
| (https://i.imgur.com/ev7rnyrh.png) | Quote from: Montani Semper Liberi MONTANI SEMPER LIBERI |
| (https://i.imgur.com/s9f1offh.png) | Quote from: Sic Semper Tyrannis SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS |
| (https://i.imgur.com/Jk6kBTMh.png) | Quote from: Serfdom SERFDOM |
Sorry once again for the delay in judging.
Thank you all for your patience and your submissions. I am posting the winner/runners-up below along with my comments, but I will try to provide feedback on the remaining submissions this weekend or sometime next week.
Get +1 Buy when you play Gold.Smelting makes Gold a lot more attractive, and by extension any gold-gainers. I wonder if this would monolithically favor money strategies, which in my opinion, makes this less interesting. I think this could be more interesting as a Project than an Edict.
At the start of each turn, gain a Copper to your hand or discard a card.This probably could have made the shortlist, but unfortunately I don't believe segura clarified if they really meant at the start of each turn, rather than at the start of your turn (or each of your turns). As worded, I think makes the Edict quite oppressive in games with more than two players. Even if it only applied to the active player's turn, I don't think this would be everyone's cup of tea since it could potentially turn games into slogs. Nevertheless, I still think this would create some interesting decisions at the start of your turn.
You may not buy a Rare Card if you do not have any Luck cards in playAt first glance, the small text is a bit off-putting, but I think there is an interesting idea here. It takes a bit of extra setup at the start of games, which isn't usually a problem as long as the additional set up is worth it. Only being able to buy Rare card if you have a Luck Card in play is intriguing. However, the specific combination of Rare Card and Luck Card may not always lead to interesting decisions in terms of when to buy them. For example, if the Rare Card happens to be a a fairly undesirable $5-cost card then that is much less likely to factor into your decision of whether to buy a Luck Card. My other concern is that if the Luck card isn't one that you would want to have many copies of in your deck, then it could make buying the Rare card quite undesirable (it's almost like tacking a Potion cost on the card). There is also a scenario where the Luck Card happens to be Embargo or Acting Troupe, which pretty much makes it impossible to buy the Rare card in games without Ways (although you can still gain it through workshops or remodelers).
-
Setup: Randomly choose a Kingdom pile for which no other Kingdom pile costs more. Cards from that pile are Rare Cards. Randomly choose a different Action or Treasure Kingdom pile for which no other Kingdom pile costs less. Cards from that pile are Luck Cards"
When you'd normally get +Actions from anything other than Villagers, you get +$ instead. When you gain a card, +1 VillagerOther Dimension looks wacky and potentially fun to try; however, I fear it may be too game-warping. The original version that gave +Cards instead of +Actions was probably broken; the revised version that gives +$ instead of Actions is much better. Since every Action card effectively becomes terminal (although you could argue that all gainers are non-terminal), managing terminal space becomes a different beast. I think Kingdoms without extra gains would really fall flat with Other Dimension. I also worry that this would throw off the balance of existing cards. Other Dimension could work in a curated Kingdom, but I don't know if this will work well for any random Kingdom.
The game does not end with 3 empty Supply piles, but with 5.Rationing introduces some rules twists, making less Kingdom cards available to players and also altering a game-end condition. I don't think this would work well at higher player counts, but it is probably fine for 2 or 3-player games. I'm not sure if I would enjoy games with Rationing more than normal ones. It probably forces players to build their decks with a higher variety of cards and discourages monolithic strategies like a Minion stack, but it will often make building an effective engine harder.
-
Setup: for each Kingdom Supply pile, use only half as many of each uniquely named card as usual (rounded up)"
When you gain a Silver, you may exchange it for a Horse, and vice-versaIn Kingdoms without Silver-gainers or Horse-gainers, Herding would be like having Ride available as an Event, except it would now cost you $3 for a Horse instead of $2. Herding is a lot more interesting and looks quite fun when you have Silver-gainers or Horse-gainers in the Kingdom, but unfortunately I think the majority of Kingdoms will not have either of those. You often don't want too many Silvers in your deck, so Herding significantly buffs cards like Bureaucrat, Trader, and Jack-of-all-Trades. Having the option to gain Silvers from your Paddocks or Sleighs for extra payload would also be nice.
When you buy a card, you may overpay any number of Potion for it. For each overpaid Potion, gain two cheaper non-Victory cardsAlchemy gives you a reason to consider buying a Potion, even if there are no Potion-cost cards in the Kingdom. Potion is now a non-terminal Haggler variant, and I think the effect looks quite good (possibly too good) for a $4-cost Treasure. Since you can choose whether or not to overpay with Potions, you don't have the same potential drawback as with Haggler or Talisman where you may be forced to gain cards that you don't want. I'm not entirely sure that this needs to be an Edict rather than a separate Kingdom card.
When a card gives you +Actions, you get twice as manyUrbanizing will effectively turn any non-terminal Action card into a village. I don't think that having an overabundance of +Actions will necessarily make games more fun, since puzzling out how to manage your terminal space is one of the things I like about Dominion. I also have a similar concern as with Other Dimension that this could disrupt the balance of existing cards.
At the start of each of your turns, you may trash a card costing $2 or less from you hand. If you don't, gain such a card from the trash.Underlords almost made the shortlist. It will allow players to thin their decks fairly quickly and so will tend to accelerate games. If players don't have any junk in hand to trash, they instead must gain a cheap card (usually junk but not always) from the trash. The decision of whether or not to trash a card from your hand will not always be automatic - for instance, if you have 5 Coppers in hand, it won't always be clear whether it is more optimal to be able to buy a $5-cost card (and be forced to gain junk) or to trash a Copper and buy a $4-cost card. There could be some interesting interactions in some games (for example, with cost-reduction you could gain Zombies or other normally more expensive cards out of the trash). There could be a risk of slightly exacerbating a first player advantage during the opening (for example, if player 1 has 5/2 and player 2 has 2/5), but I don't see this as a major flaw.
When you gain a Copper, Silver, or Gold, return it to the Supply and +1 CoffersThe concept of not being able to add non-Kingdom Treasures to your deck is an interesting one. I think one issue, as others have pointed out, is that it could tend to prolong games especially if there aren't any Action cards in the Kingdom that give you economy. Another issue is that if you have lots of +Buy available, I think it makes gaining Coffers fairly trivial, as you could convert all you unused Buys into Coffers. I'm also not sure I like the fact that it nerfs gold-gainers and makes it harder to keep Encampments in your deck or to active Legionaries. I liked the Urbanization Edict (which replaces a starting card with a Silver) better.
I think this works better as a $3 costing Event. "+1 Buy. The next time you buy a non-Victory card this turn, gain a copy."
(https://i.imgur.com/h0kR4K9.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ybL9S1y.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/oYPU40n.png)You guys are wonderful.
Edit: Updated wording per emtzalex suggestion
(https://i.imgur.com/AhF2Qwa.png)
Edit 2: People don't seem excited for this edict. so I'm turning up the volume on this: Now Every curse is a village, but they are worth -2vp instead of -1 vp.
(https://i.imgur.com/lZwxScE.png)