Dominion Strategy Forum

Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: Asper on August 24, 2013, 12:25:40 pm

Title: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 24, 2013, 12:25:40 pm
I created these over the course of several years with the main goal to bring original but relatively easy to understand concepts to life. The cards can be split up into several groups:
For work in progress concepts, check out the current discussion. Click images to embiggen.

Legacy:
(http://i.imgur.com/RUWOqwJ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/yTqYSrL.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/pzJIiAl.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/tfxQbnv.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/eR2gthg.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/oTPE2Ga.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/UCrOqP8.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/0y8927V.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/LfmfH1e.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/5nGOfv8.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Zc9gMHG.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Euyx8nr.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/P3QxVGx.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/TYEw0O9.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/5wKvqGH.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/HH6OFK7.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/ubcsDVE.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Y6trLwh.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/gVnEmni.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/OlSu7Xb.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/4ptXsUM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/8r2vhVw.png) (http://i.imgur.com/6xMPTQr.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/70dLVCV.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/rdWjjf3.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/c0y1Ame.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/KkQU5w1.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/ndOz7Rm.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/JYFh5D2.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Ph0Eppz.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/aGgfC24.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/PgSEUsC.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Rh00kkJ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/HX0pKv7.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/RxQ3tTc.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/AHmPhVw.jpg)

Extra cards:
(http://i.imgur.com/Ugzr1MQ.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Fu9Y7us.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/DOpuhei.jpg)

Events:
(http://i.imgur.com/aysrZxj.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/KjADSey.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/T3wOsfG.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/ZCZ8DmN.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/079arHy.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/sWSege1.png) (https://i.imgur.com/kfutI4C.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/P86urvq.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/1sOuzh7.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/6q1JTVS.jpg)

Fame cards and the Feat board(check for rules below):
(https://i.imgur.com/8O12xX4.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Vq5EaRL.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/MHoODAP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/WQ59u3D.jpg)

Spellcasters & Spells (check for rules below):
(https://i.imgur.com/xvHBIdW.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/PbRD4vs.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/fy23D90.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/NaSJWKQ.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/TVhAXRL.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/8myPzqY.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/ogAgKjQ.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/K84dVAp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/IjC2XlS.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/RfWsYku.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/l0dd5rH.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/6DM4z9x.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/RrUaPI7.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/g1Pwgy9.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/tO3oOlm.jpg)


Seasons (check for rules below, go here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14570.0) to check out the original thread by Co0kieL0rd and me):
(http://i.imgur.com/7dqmxad.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/pjjzU2X.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/TXnLEuj.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/6zPr6uI.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/CR1Tg19.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/2juO53b.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/VMQhMrV.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/e2Wg0yF.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/eWTnyHg.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/wwr3GIN.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/WuEntey.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/VGzwM1F.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/kgHHgHy.jpg)


Team cards (check for rules below):
(https://i.imgur.com/0n9xTFa.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/YF3J78n.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/xGefevf.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/sogMDVG.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/kic65G5.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/2s4HlX6.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/pzuEkb6.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/X9hkegF.jpg)

Edicts (check for rules below):
(https://i.imgur.com/xH7oDQL.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/kIXSc33.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/iYb8vQT.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Q0DA9ym.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/DyIlJNV.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Dj1acc0.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/WeGMFdM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/f2M3Ck4.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/ZtZZusp.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/HRoaoGZ.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/bYRfdAk.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/bafU2Ma.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/tF78OPO.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/DKPgq7A.jpg) (http://) (https://i.imgur.com/VHXG5AI.jpg)


Outtakes:
(http://i.imgur.com/tEhKg2O.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/cDDOD4u.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/NZTkDC4.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/8hsxQSb.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/ROgGPmB.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/wpJqxlc.jpg)




Individual cards:

Normal Kingdom Cards

(http://i.imgur.com/RUWOqwJ.jpg)

A very, very old idea that predates Dark Ages. It has never been a problem and is surprisingly fun to play in my experience. Few tests with serious Dominion players but a classic with the family.



(http://i.imgur.com/yTqYSrL.jpg)

A Silver that forces you to topdeck cards. Making the topdecking optional would have created a boring old Silver+ for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), so i went with mandatory. Not really inspired by any particular expansion.



(https://i.imgur.com/pzJIiAl.jpg)

Guilds was the only expansion that didn't have a junker which used an expansion-specific mechanic back in the day. Sheriff is my attempt at one. I suggest to use Embargo Tokens for Sheriff, because they don't get enough love. Might be a bit too powerful even...



(http://i.imgur.com/tfxQbnv.jpg)

A Ruined Village or Village now, a Herald next turn. It might be a bit strong at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png), but its unreliability is quite some downside. Also i suggest you build your deck first if you want to turn over more than just Coppers.



(https://i.imgur.com/eR2gthg.jpg)

Spooky! Imps, Wisps and Ghosts haunt these here Swamps. Probably too great with Wisps currently and not so great with the other two. I considered a version that gives +2$ instead, and I would have used it, but Sheriff kind of took that spot already :/
Consider this a bit half-baked for now.



(http://i.imgur.com/oTPE2Ga.jpg)

A Reserve-Island. I dropped the cost to 3$ for now, but may have to cost 4$ after all. Probably best with Workshop variants.



(https://i.imgur.com/UCrOqP8.jpg)

Similar to LastFootnote's Wanderer, in that it moves from player to player. However, I made my version give a nonterminal bonus so it's never harmful to a player, and increased the on-gain bonus to something that's always useful. Also allowed me to do the "coin token for pay" concept with a natural limitation on how often you can do it. Predates Renaissance.



(http://i.imgur.com/0y8927V.jpg)

Based on GeeJo's Gambling Den (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13634.msg513193#msg513193), Sawmill is a Workshop that can gain (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) cards and cycles, but trades reliability for that. It was called Mill before an official card took that name.



(http://i.imgur.com/LfmfH1e.jpg)

I wanted a card that uses Debt as a drawback. Originally this was a Lab+ (with +3 Cards), but somehow the smaller versions always seem easier to balance. I tried this at $2, but it was just too easy to pick up that way.



(https://i.imgur.com/5nGOfv8.jpg)

Shrine is the illegitimate child Secret Chamber and Chapel tried to hide from you for so long. For a while, I considered giving it a Reaction against Militia-type attacks or an overpay variant of Expedition - it ended up being nonterminal instead, which enables some cute tricks with draw-to-X and looks so much less cluttered. I think it's cute.



(https://i.imgur.com/Zc9gMHG.jpg)

A card that exchanges one card from your hand for another card. It only gains differently named cards to make sure Well isn't abused to burn down the Province pile. The top part is just something that wasn't there at that time. +3 Actions on their own are hard to cost, but this version works decently. Was named Fountain before Empires came along.



(https://i.imgur.com/Euyx8nr.jpg)

A workshop you can play again and again and again. Made this somewhere in 2018.



(http://i.imgur.com/P3QxVGx.jpg)

Farmer is a Smithy variant that draws less, but better cards. Or at least they are better if your deck has a lot of variety. In case the wording confuses you: You don't have to pick up the duplicates, it can be any 2 cards revealed while searching for a duplicate. Less duplicates, more choice, more Cornucopia. One would assume it can go really bananas, but has worked out fine so far. Part of that is that, when your engine is fully set up, Smithy will likely draw the same cards, just more of them. It was called Blacksmith before Royal Blacksmith came up.



(https://i.imgur.com/TYEw0O9.jpg)

"Those Witches are giving our Villages Curses! Let them hang!! No, not the Witches, the Curses!"
~the Villagers who built these Gallows, apparently.



(http://i.imgur.com/5wKvqGH.jpg)

I'm giving this another shot because it used to be relatively popular. Will the Baron's and/or Duchess' kid finally break through?



(http://i.imgur.com/HH6OFK7.jpg)

Before Wine Merchant was revealed, i assumed a Reserve would need you to buy a Victory card so it could return from your Tavern Mat. When that didn't come, i made Hunter. As the play effect sifts, it counters the VP gain.



(https://i.imgur.com/ubcsDVE.jpg)

This is based on an idea eHalcyon had. It's a milder Swamp Hag that makes cards more expensive by adding debt to their cost.



(http://i.imgur.com/Y6trLwh.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Ugzr1MQ.jpg)

Originally a kingdom card, Road has become non-supply to make sure there's always a Village to play it with, as kingdoms without one would really have made the card look bad. Also, as it's not in the supply, you can't put your +1 Action token on it, hooray! Champion still works, though.



(https://i.imgur.com/gVnEmni.jpg)

This started out as a suggestion for Kudasai's Barbarian Village (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18616.msg763766#msg763766). Originally I wanted it to gain a Copper in order to be topdecked, but the obscure lose-track rule makes this impossible.



(http://i.imgur.com/OlSu7Xb.jpg)

Assemble had to be nerfed for the endgame by putting its cards on top. Originally it just allowed you to gain two cards that together costed 3$ more than the trashed card, but boy, was that hard to word. Also, nobody ever did it. It's now one of the few base-inspired cards.



(https://i.imgur.com/4ptXsUM.jpg)

I first wanted this to cost 4$, so I considered a version that gave each other player a Coin Token on buy. Maybe debt would also have been a solution. It's a very strong 5$ without the player interaction, but would still have implied interesting play, I think. Now it's a tiny bit more board dependant, but I think the slight increase in strategical depth is worth it.



(https://i.imgur.com/8r2vhVw.png)

Still not loving them Night cards, and honestly, this could be a Treasure. It does have its perks, not to need "When you play this" and two (or three?) zero-value-coin symbols on the card, though.



(http://i.imgur.com/6xMPTQr.jpg)

This started out gaining you Silvers, which usually couldn't compete. Now it has you gain any $3, which still includes Silver. Was called Paddock originally, then Artisan, until an official card... Well, i probably should get used to it. Also, it wasn't optional for a long time. Why the hell was that?



(https://i.imgur.com/70dLVCV.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Fu9Y7us.jpg)

I wanted a card that adds an additional card to your deck at startup, and it had to be a cantrip to keep openings the same. The rest more or less came by itself...



(https://i.imgur.com/rdWjjf3.jpg)

I wanted a Victory-Attack, so here it is. It's very, very simple, and the bottom part interacts ever-so-slightly with the top. I like it, even though it doesn't look as special on first glimpse. Fun fact: Maze in german is "Irrgarten", which translates to "Insane Garden". Just in case you wondered where the name comes from.



(http://i.imgur.com/c0y1Ame.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/DOpuhei.jpg)

Werothegreat complained there was no card starting with Z, so i made Zombie. Obviously, you need a Necromancer first, who resurrects Zombies, which in turn kill your opponents' cards so they can again be resurrected by Necromancer. The fact that Necromancers can't play Necromancers is mostly to avoid a situations where several players trash each other's Necromancers, and the first to play one gains them all.
This was created before Nocturne came along.



(https://i.imgur.com/KkQU5w1.jpg)

Used to be "Olympic Village" (designed to look like a promo), but I decided to make it a bit more Dominion-y.



(https://i.imgur.com/ndOz7Rm.jpg)

You won't believe through how many versions this went before it became the simple thing you see here. Might be a bit too Big-Money-ish.



(https://i.imgur.com/JYFh5D2.jpg)

An attack that lets you choose whether your opponents can keep their hand or have to draw a new one. For a long time I was convinced that it enabled you to make your opponent's hand too much worse, so it had a complex second part to avoid pins. I'm trying it without that now. At least it cycles...



(http://i.imgur.com/Ph0Eppz.jpg)

Yet another really simple one. Making a Werewolf card that you can reveal Silver to has been in my head a long time, but only recently it came together in the most obvious way.
This was created before Nocturne came along.



(https://i.imgur.com/aGgfC24.jpg)

What can I say? Some people just want to see the piles burn.



(http://i.imgur.com/PgSEUsC.jpg)

Cost reduction and gaining on one card is good. So good i had to salvage my old idea from Vampire and make Minister a card that curses you. I'm happy to had a use for this idea, after all. For a while this gave out VP every time you gained a card, but uh, that wasn't fun and the VP on gain is already discouraging enough. I did this long before Renaissance, of course.



(https://i.imgur.com/Rh00kkJ.jpg)

Being an optional cantrip trasher, Homunculus is slowed down in how you gain it. On a board without other (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) cards, you practically buy this in two steps - first when you buy the Potion, and secondly when you exchange that Potion for the Homunculus. This went through a lot of versions, and at one point got nerfed by being set aside on buy to be gained after your next shuffle. Later i realized that i could avoid introducing a new mechanic by costing it at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) and trashing the Potion when you got it. The name just had to be - after all, it hatches from a bottle.



(http://i.imgur.com/HX0pKv7.jpg)

Alacazam! That Copper in your hand is now a Potion. Incantation "sacrifices" a card in your hand to call in another card. For Curses, it chancellors your deck and triggers all your Tunnels. Looks like those alchemists finally found a way to make Gold, after all.



(https://i.imgur.com/RxQ3tTc.jpg)

This started out costing 5$, and some people complained it was strictly better than Duchy. Well, it is, but so is buying Duchy in a Duchess game. You still get the Duchy. Anyhow, it was also too strong, and that was no fun. So now we can all be at peace.



(https://i.imgur.com/AHmPhVw.jpg)

New Throne Room variant. Totally bonkers, might be annoying and broken. Might throw it away.




Events & Landmarks

(http://i.imgur.com/aysrZxj.jpg)

Trashers and junkers rarely are skippable. Let's make it a bit harder for them once in a while. This started out as an Event, then became an Edict, then went back to being an Event. Being an Edict means that buying order isn't important anymore, but it can be done as an Event, so I decided to stay with my principle of doing stuff with existing mechanics, if possible.



(https://i.imgur.com/KjADSey.jpg)

This started out as a Duchy variant that could be paid with debt or by trashing an Action.



(https://i.imgur.com/T3wOsfG.jpg)

Not much to say here...



(http://i.imgur.com/ZCZ8DmN.jpg)

All Villages gone? Time to move to the City.



(http://i.imgur.com/079arHy.jpg)

Allows you to buy a more expensive thing in two steps, hence the name.



(https://i.imgur.com/sWSege1.png)

Started out as an Edict. It got the token to be easier to remember, and then I decided that being able to move it would be more interesting.



(https://i.imgur.com/kfutI4C.jpg)

The Remodel-Event... Didn't work. I mean, if you have 4$ in your opening, it's a no-brainer to use it on Estate, and 5$ seems a bit too much for that. The solution was to make it an Expand and cost it higher.
This used to be named "Improve" before Renaissance came along.



(https://i.imgur.com/P86urvq.jpg)

This started as an event that costed $2 and gave a buy as well as a coin token. It ruined the game. Not giving the buy helped, but not that much. This would work, as you can't just stack up tokens that easily without actually playing the game. Also, yes, I'm aware this is the fourth of my Events that allows gaining 5$ cards. Ah well.



(https://i.imgur.com/1sOuzh7.jpg)

Just a little thing I thought of when doing Edicts.



(https://i.imgur.com/6q1JTVS.jpg)

A (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) cost Event, simply because i thought it would be something interesting to try. This one makes any card you played this turn behave like Alchemist, but of course you need to include that Potion in your deck. Will that be worth it? You tell me.
This used to be named "Research" before Renaissance came along.



Fame cards and Feats
When a Fame card is out, each player gets their own Feat board to put in front of them. Fame cards care about how many of the "Feats" tracked by the board a player achieved. Whenever they fulfill one of the conditions on the board, players put a coin token on that spot of their board to mark the Feat as achieved. However, only the bottommost feats can be achieved at the start. To achieve a higher level one, a player must first achieve one of the lower level that points towards it. If a player fulfills a condition too early, they will have to re-do it again later to check that feat.
(https://i.imgur.com/8O12xX4.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Vq5EaRL.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/MHoODAP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/WQ59u3D.jpg)



Spellcasters & Spells
When at least one Spellcaster card is in the kingdom, add 2 random Spells to the game and each player gets 5 Spell tokens. Spells can be bought like Events and take one buy to purchase. When you buy a Spell, you "prepare" it - this means you take one of your five Spell tokens and place it on the Spell card. Each Spellcaster allows you to "cast" a Spell. This means removing one of your Spell tokens from a Spell and then doing what the Spell says. Spells are not cards and can never be gained, and you can have a max of 5 prepared. Generally, they are relatively strong effects to add on your card, but you have to re-stock on them regularly - make sure to not run out of buys.
(https://i.imgur.com/xvHBIdW.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/PbRD4vs.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/fy23D90.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/NaSJWKQ.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/TVhAXRL.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/8myPzqY.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/ogAgKjQ.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/K84dVAp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/IjC2XlS.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/RfWsYku.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/l0dd5rH.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/6DM4z9x.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/RrUaPI7.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/g1Pwgy9.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/tO3oOlm.jpg)





Seasons
Seasons is an expansion Co0kieL0rd and I did together. In it, you use the Season board above (left), which spans 4 Seasons wih 5 sections each. The Season Token starts on the first section of Spring, and is moved forward after the last player in order did their turn (if you want to be picky, it's actually right before the first in play order does their regular turn). Therefore, Spring marks the opening and early phase, Summer the buildup phase, Autumn the late phase and Winter the part where the game will probably end. The cards do different things depending on the current Season. Use the Season Reminder above (right) to make sure you don't forget to move the token.
The cards in this thread are my re-takes of Seasons. Check out the original cards (some of which are more similar to the current take than others) by following this link. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14570.msg678041#msg678041)

(http://i.imgur.com/7dqmxad.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/pjjzU2X.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/TXnLEuj.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/6zPr6uI.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/CR1Tg19.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/2juO53b.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/VMQhMrV.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/e2Wg0yF.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/eWTnyHg.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/wwr3GIN.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/WuEntey.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/VGzwM1F.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/kgHHgHy.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/9Z0YldY.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/XJXvwZn.jpg)




Team cards
These cards are designed for players who'd like to try out team Dominion. Just seperate the players into teams before the beginning of the game, with the team with the most total points at the end winning. You can also have single players participate, so if your family thinks you're all too good a Dominion player and wants to gang up on you, by all means, let them. The single player may buy these cards, but won't get as much out of them. I know this isn't something everybody will want to play, but hey, here it is. Have fun.

(https://i.imgur.com/0n9xTFa.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/YF3J78n.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/xGefevf.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/sogMDVG.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/kic65G5.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/2s4HlX6.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/pzuEkb6.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/X9hkegF.jpg)




Edicts
Edicts are rules changes that go further than Events or Landmarks, triggering at any possible time. Just treat them like Landmarks apart from that.

(https://i.imgur.com/xH7oDQL.jpg)

This first one makes Estates pseudo-Moats at the start of your game. You can only defend once with each Estate, but that should greatly increase your chances of keeping an early Militia or Witch at bay.



(https://i.imgur.com/kIXSc33.jpg)

A newer one. Originally it removed the Estate pile to shorten the game, but this goes a more strategical way.



(https://i.imgur.com/iYb8vQT.jpg)

Maybe this should be mandatory? It might throw a bit too much of a wrench into engines, though. It still harms them quite a bit.



(https://i.imgur.com/Q0DA9ym.jpg)

Diplomacy gives you a bit of sifting during the entire game. Why is it called Diplomacy? Ah well, some just get the name because of fun interactions they have.



(https://i.imgur.com/DyIlJNV.jpg)

A simple take on Alt-Curses. Certainly not the best idea, but well, some people like that kind of thing.



(https://i.imgur.com/Dj1acc0.jpg)

Now you won't have to worry about colliding terminals anymore. Just sucks if the Peddler in your hand drew a Village either way.



(https://i.imgur.com/WeGMFdM.jpg)

Do you have one of those relatives that ask you to play giga Dominion with more than 10 kingdom cards in the game? Make them happy with this Edict. Inspired by Nflicker, who suggested 2 additional cards. I went with 3, because if you are overdoing it already, overdo by a lot.



(https://i.imgur.com/f2M3Ck4.jpg)

Nflicker also suggested to do an Edict that adds Platinum to the game, possibly without Colony. Well, why not? We already can have super-Colony without Platin thanks to Dominate, you see.



(https://i.imgur.com/ZtZZusp.jpg)

Not much to say here.



(https://i.imgur.com/HRoaoGZ.jpg)

A simple one, except to make it once per turn it needed some tracking mechanic.



(https://i.imgur.com/bYRfdAk.jpg)

Oh well, these Dukes suddenly got a lot more time. And a few points more to challenge them. More turns = More time to build an engine = more junk to choke on = profit? Also, yes, in a hypothetical real edition this would come with 3 additional Provinces. Which still is just 4 cards, so I'm alright with that.



(https://i.imgur.com/bafU2Ma.jpg)

It's all really simple now, isn't it? Originally this just gave each of your turns +1 Action, but that was very redundant with Explore. Well, it still is, who am I kidding?



(https://i.imgur.com/tF78OPO.jpg)

5/2 opening on a Mounteband/Chapel board? Don't mind if I do. This used to be called Equality, but the picture didn't fit it and so I changed it to something else.



(https://i.imgur.com/DKPgq7A.jpg)

Noo!! Not my money!! Aaaaaargh!!!



(https://i.imgur.com/VHXG5AI.jpg)

Finally you can open double-Throne-Room! Hurrah! Well, actually this goes quite a bit beyond opening. Maybe you want double-Baron, instead? Just, where did those Estates go?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Archetype on August 24, 2013, 12:29:45 pm
First!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Archetype on August 24, 2013, 01:02:40 pm
Contraption: With the trash option, it may be a bit too strong. But the on-gain clause is unique and looks like it may help counter that. This one needs to be play tested to determine its strength.

Archive/Cryptograph: Interesting! I think the Crytograph should be 1$, 1 VP. I'd almost never let you keep it and Archive may be a bit too strong.

Hospital: Hm, I'm not sure I like this. Seems highly board dependent, which I don't really like. It may be too strong, but I personally would dislike playing with this if it were a printed card.

Parliament: This is so cool! I'd add another row: $5......play it once. Also, change the text to 'an Action card'. 'A card' is a bit too ambiguous.

Charter: This is pretty cool. Usually having the ruins go to players hand is useless, but it's a small nerf that may be needed. Nice one!

Clearance: I'm not exactly seeing the utility of this. I mean, it's good if you're falling behind someone who's rushing Provinces, but it really changes up the dynamic of the games it's in. But if you dont mind those kind of games, then I'd say use it. I can't think of any good replacements for the top, but the placeholder is good enough.

Swamp: So it's an alternate to Curses and Ruins, in a way.  Hm. I don't like that it has 3 sections, and I'm almost not sure you need that second part. And if not, then the third. I just think you need 2 different cards for each idea than trying to shove the two together. But if you don't mind the 3 spaces, then go for it!

Grand Vizier: Cool concept. I've never seen one like it before. 'Gain a Victory $6 or less' is a little clunky and I think you can get away with 'Gain a Duchy'. But you'd know better than me if you can. Really like the concept of having a small hand size, increasing it, but then discarding a card to fuel another one. The top part rocks so I think the only thing that can potentially be changed is the Victory part.

Hedge Maze: Name may need to be changed, but the idea is nice. To simplify it, I'd remove the "on top of your deck" clause.

Dragon: Nifty. Not sure what else to say.

Unicorn: Looks balanced. I'd remove the "Put your deck into your discard pile" and put in "+2 Buys"

Siren: Eh, it's a bit too similiar to Ghost Ship for me. But it's probably alright.

Chameleon: The Setup clause is interesting, but I think that a lot of people already play that way.

Overall, some cool cards here. My favorite has be Grand Vizior, but my least favorite is Hospital. Cool collection, thanks for posting!






Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 24, 2013, 01:47:13 pm
Wow, thank you for your feedback. I'm glad you like most of them.

Contraption: Will do :)

Cryptograph: The choice is so cards like Thief and Pirate Ship can still trash it.

Hospital: I understand why you wouldn't like it printed - it takes pretty long to resolve it, especially when you have several cards to choose from. I'll playtest and reconsider it.

Parliament: Oops, is of course supposed to be "action card". I figured a 5$ card usually will be played directly, unless you go for Conspirators or handsize matters. I'm really glad you like it :)

Swamp: I put it together that way because both parts are pretty irrelevant on some boards. I'll playtest and rethink this, too. Maybe it's really better to split it for simplicity.

Grand Vizier: Thank you, though i stole the top part from Oasis... I'd really like to give a choice which victory card to gain, so that it interacts with Harem, Nobles and such... Hm...

Hedge Maze: There are not many situations where you'd want it on your deck (Outpost), so probably you're right and it's better without that part or even better directly putting the Curse in hand.

Unicorn: Hmm... Yeah, why not. Not a Trusty Steed bonus, but pretty nice. Thanks for the idea :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: scott_pilgrim on August 24, 2013, 07:22:28 pm
For now I'll just comment on the ones that jump out at me:

Hospital - Cantrip victory token gainers don't really work in general; I'm sure you've heard of the problems with it before.  So you gave it a drawback.  I'm not sure that any sufficient drawback for the cantrip victory token card exists, but I'm pretty sure that your solution won't be enough to balance it.  I mean, maybe on many boards it will be, but there's always going to be a board where none of the (non-Hospital) cards costing $4 or less are appealing, and then Hospital just becomes a normal cantrip victory token gainer.

Charter - Non-terminal junking is crazy good.  Familiar limits itself by costing potion (meaning you usually only get one once per shuffle at maximum).  Cultist is at least kind of terminal in that it can only chain with itself, and it can also be drawn dead by other cards.  Charter is a treasure so you can't draw it dead, and there's no restrictions on how many times you can play it per turn.  Gaining to hand is a nice nerf though.  It's probably a power card but maybe not worse than Cultist.

Dragon - I am totally baffled by what you are trying to say in that comment.  If you get to choose whether they discard one card or their whole hand, doesn't that make it stronger than if there was no choice?

Siren - Terminal gold with a plus for $5 probably compares too favorably to Harvest.  Also, the wording is a little weird.  I would say "Each other player sets aside cards from his hand until he has 3 cards in his hand..."  I agree that it's a lot of text for a not-so-exciting effect.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 24, 2013, 08:29:35 pm
Thank you for your feedback too, scotty :)

Hospital: Yeah, i'm not really happy with it right now, and that both of you share this view shows it needs work. I'll try to think of something else, but i still like the idea of a cantrip VP card.

Dragon: You don't get to choose the card he discards, just how many. So if a player has a good hand, he will have to discard it, but if he has been hit by several Dragons and now has a terrible hand, he may still discard his worst card and draw a new one (you won't let him discard all those terrible cards). I assume the wording had you think you could choose the card to discard, so i'll make it a bit clearer. (Actually i wasn't sure whether the wording was clear enough and it shows it was not).

Siren: Wording changed and Vanilla placeholder added instead of +3$. I don't know what i was thinking there.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 24, 2013, 08:45:57 pm
So would Swamp look better this way, maybe?

Swamp
0$, Action
+2 Actions
Discard a card. If this is the first time you play a Swamp this turn: +2 Buys
----
In games using this, when you would gain a card and this is in the supply, you may gain this, instead
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AJD on August 24, 2013, 09:23:11 pm
So, I misread Hospital and thought it said you gain a card costing up to $4.

But I wonder how that would actually work out, on a cantrip VP-token earner? The problem with non-terminal token earners, right, is that you can just keep playing them and nothing else and never end the game. But having cantrip VP with mandatory gain solves both those problems: you can't just trash your deck down to those and nothing else, because they re-bloat your deck for you (though okay, if you're lucky you can get a bunch of Sages or Pearl Divers or something), and it definitely forces the game toward an end on piles.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: scott_pilgrim on August 24, 2013, 09:34:12 pm
Dragon: You don't get to choose the card he discards, just how many. So if a player has a good hand, he will have to discard it, but if he has been hit by several Dragons and now has a terrible hand, he may still discard his worst card and draw a new one (you won't let him discard all those terrible cards). I assume the wording had you think you could choose the card to discard, so i'll make it a bit clearer. (Actually i wasn't sure whether the wording was clear enough and it shows it was not).
That is a good explanation of how the card plays out (I didn't quite think through it upon first reading), although I'm still a little confused by the comment.  I guess I don't know what the one card choice was added to (if I've seen the original card it's been a while), so maybe that is the source of the confusion?

I was just thinking that the original must have read "+3 cards; Each other player discards his hand. He then draws the same number of cards he discarded." in which case the new version is strictly better.  But maybe that's not what the original card said.

Anyway, I think the wording was clear as it was.  It's a very interesting card, though it may be too weak for $5.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 24, 2013, 11:40:32 pm
Dragon: You don't get to choose the card he discards, just how many. So if a player has a good hand, he will have to discard it, but if he has been hit by several Dragons and now has a terrible hand, he may still discard his worst card and draw a new one (you won't let him discard all those terrible cards). I assume the wording had you think you could choose the card to discard, so i'll make it a bit clearer. (Actually i wasn't sure whether the wording was clear enough and it shows it was not).
That is a good explanation of how the card plays out (I didn't quite think through it upon first reading), although I'm still a little confused by the comment.  I guess I don't know what the one card choice was added to (if I've seen the original card it's been a while), so maybe that is the source of the confusion?

I was just thinking that the original must have read "+3 cards; Each other player discards his hand. He then draws the same number of cards he discarded." in which case the new version is strictly better.  But maybe that's not what the original card said.

Anyway, I think the wording was clear as it was.  It's a very interesting card, though it may be too weak for $5.

Well, the former version was this:
+3 Cards
Each other player reveals his hand. You decide whether he has to discard it and draw 5 new cards.

The problem here was that you could keep playing Dragons until everybody had a terrible hand. The decision between two alternatives was a nerf. I'll add it to the comment for others. And yeah, it might be a bit weak because of it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 24, 2013, 11:44:07 pm
So, I misread Hospital and thought it said you gain a card costing up to $4.

But I wonder how that would actually work out, on a cantrip VP-token earner? The problem with non-terminal token earners, right, is that you can just keep playing them and nothing else and never end the game. But having cantrip VP with mandatory gain solves both those problems: you can't just trash your deck down to those and nothing else, because they re-bloat your deck for you (though okay, if you're lucky you can get a bunch of Sages or Pearl Divers or something), and it definitely forces the game toward an end on piles.

The idea was to give others the choice of bringing the game closer to it's end. Obviously doesn't work out the way i wanted to.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AJD on August 25, 2013, 12:39:19 am
So, I misread Hospital and thought it said you gain a card costing up to $4.

But I wonder how that would actually work out, on a cantrip VP-token earner? The problem with non-terminal token earners, right, is that you can just keep playing them and nothing else and never end the game. But having cantrip VP with mandatory gain solves both those problems: you can't just trash your deck down to those and nothing else, because they re-bloat your deck for you (though okay, if you're lucky you can get a bunch of Sages or Pearl Divers or something), and it definitely forces the game toward an end on piles.

The idea was to give others the choice of bringing the game closer to it's end. Obviously doesn't work out the way i wanted to.

Maybe not. But I wonder what a cantrip VP token card where you gain a card when you play it would be like? Say, "gain a card costing less than this"—so you must either block the cantrip chain or run piles out or both in order to use it. Not sure if it's a $4 or a $5 or what, though.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 25, 2013, 12:53:38 am
Oh yeah, sorry, i got what you wanted but my answer didn't have anything to do with it...  :-[
I'll consider that approach for another version :)
Sorry, i'm very tired...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 25, 2013, 12:10:07 pm
So, I misread Hospital and thought it said you gain a card costing up to $4.

But I wonder how that would actually work out, on a cantrip VP-token earner? The problem with non-terminal token earners, right, is that you can just keep playing them and nothing else and never end the game. But having cantrip VP with mandatory gain solves both those problems: you can't just trash your deck down to those and nothing else, because they re-bloat your deck for you (though okay, if you're lucky you can get a bunch of Sages or Pearl Divers or something), and it definitely forces the game toward an end on piles.

The idea was to give others the choice of bringing the game closer to it's end. Obviously doesn't work out the way i wanted to.

Maybe not. But I wonder what a cantrip VP token card where you gain a card when you play it would be like? Say, "gain a card costing less than this"—so you must either block the cantrip chain or run piles out or both in order to use it. Not sure if it's a $4 or a $5 or what, though.

Hmm... 4$ or 5$, that's tough. I'll playtest it at 5$, it seems still too good at 4$.

Hospital
5$, Action
+1 Card
+1 action
+1 VP
Gain a card costing less than this.

Will also redo the upper half of Swamp, probably. Still have to think about how to push Dragon a bit, +1 Buy seems good, but is too similar to Margrave. And removed Siren for now.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AJD on August 25, 2013, 12:17:50 pm
Hmm... 4$ or 5$, that's tough. I'll playtest it at 5$, it seems still too good at 4$.

Maybe, but note you might rather gain a lot of $4 cards than $3 card. But I suppose it... (wait for it...) depends on the board.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 25, 2013, 02:15:49 pm
Hmm... 4$ or 5$, that's tough. I'll playtest it at 5$, it seems still too good at 4$.

Maybe, but note you might rather gain a lot of $4 cards than $3 card. But I suppose it... (wait for it...) depends on the board.

True, true. But at 4$ it's still a nonterminal cantrip Silver gainer with VP, at the least. The more i think about it, the more i feel it's even stronger than my original version... I'll playtest it at 5$ and, depending on the result, maybe at 4$ and/or 6$.

Edit: Ugh, just playtested it on a random kingdom... And that Kingdom mas Duchess, Develop, Shanty Town, Masquerade, Bishop, Monument, Mining Village, Hospital, Mountebank and Border Village, with Colony. That was soooooooo helpful in estimating the power level of 5$-Hospital...  :-\
(Hospital/Bishop lost to Border Village/Mountebank, but not by much... Probably also didn't help i played terribly. I guess it's too strong, too.)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: scott_pilgrim on August 25, 2013, 03:35:27 pm
Dragon: You don't get to choose the card he discards, just how many. So if a player has a good hand, he will have to discard it, but if he has been hit by several Dragons and now has a terrible hand, he may still discard his worst card and draw a new one (you won't let him discard all those terrible cards). I assume the wording had you think you could choose the card to discard, so i'll make it a bit clearer. (Actually i wasn't sure whether the wording was clear enough and it shows it was not).
That is a good explanation of how the card plays out (I didn't quite think through it upon first reading), although I'm still a little confused by the comment.  I guess I don't know what the one card choice was added to (if I've seen the original card it's been a while), so maybe that is the source of the confusion?

I was just thinking that the original must have read "+3 cards; Each other player discards his hand. He then draws the same number of cards he discarded." in which case the new version is strictly better.  But maybe that's not what the original card said.

Anyway, I think the wording was clear as it was.  It's a very interesting card, though it may be too weak for $5.

Well, the former version was this:
+3 Cards
Each other player reveals his hand. You decide whether he has to discard it and draw 5 new cards.

The problem here was that you could keep playing Dragons until everybody had a terrible hand. The decision between two alternatives was a nerf. I'll add it to the comment for others. And yeah, it might be a bit weak because of it.
Okay, that actually makes a lot of sense now.  Thanks for clearing that up.

With the new Hospital gaining for yourself I would think it's way too strong, even at $5.  I don't think we've had a cantrip gainer before (except Upgrade, but that's dependent on trashing).  It does balance for the fact that it's a cantrip victory token gainer, but the benefit of gaining is probably greater than the amount of nerf it gives to the rest of the card (if that makes sense).  Actually, if there are any cantrips costing $4 or less, you can just spam them (presumably they slightly improve your deck, even if they are something like Spy or Pearl Diver), and that won't slow down your victory tokening at all.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: mail-mi on August 25, 2013, 09:29:47 pm
Dragon: You don't get to choose the card he discards, just how many. So if a player has a good hand, he will have to discard it, but if he has been hit by several Dragons and now has a terrible hand, he may still discard his worst card and draw a new one (you won't let him discard all those terrible cards). I assume the wording had you think you could choose the card to discard, so i'll make it a bit clearer. (Actually i wasn't sure whether the wording was clear enough and it shows it was not).
That is a good explanation of how the card plays out (I didn't quite think through it upon first reading), although I'm still a little confused by the comment.  I guess I don't know what the one card choice was added to (if I've seen the original card it's been a while), so maybe that is the source of the confusion?

I was just thinking that the original must have read "+3 cards; Each other player discards his hand. He then draws the same number of cards he discarded." in which case the new version is strictly better.  But maybe that's not what the original card said.

Anyway, I think the wording was clear as it was.  It's a very interesting card, though it may be too weak for $5.

Well, the former version was this:
+3 Cards
Each other player reveals his hand. You decide whether he has to discard it and draw 5 new cards.

The problem here was that you could keep playing Dragons until everybody had a terrible hand. The decision between two alternatives was a nerf. I'll add it to the comment for others. And yeah, it might be a bit weak because of it.
Okay, that actually makes a lot of sense now.  Thanks for clearing that up.

With the new Hospital gaining for yourself I would think it's way too strong, even at $5.  I don't think we've had a cantrip gainer before (except Upgrade, but that's dependent on trashing).  It does balance for the fact that it's a cantrip victory token gainer, but the benefit of gaining is probably greater than the amount of nerf it gives to the rest of the card (if that makes sense).  Actually, if there are any cantrips costing $4 or less, you can just spam them (presumably they slightly improve your deck, even if they are something like Spy or Pearl Diver), and that won't slow down your victory tokening at all.
OIr you make it cost $3 so you have to take an Estate or Copper or something (Or a $2 action)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Jack Rudd on August 29, 2013, 09:24:27 pm
*sets up five-card hand of Highway-Highway-Parliament-Parliament-some draw card*

EDIT: Ah, that doesn't work: it works on the printed cost, not the modified cost. Neat wording.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on March 01, 2014, 05:11:40 am
Figured i should actually use this thread for my card ideas.

I tried two other takes on my old idea, Hedge Maze. Do you think one of them is balanced? If yes, which is better?

Hedge Maze, Action - Attack - Victory, 5$ (1)
Each other player gains a Curse.
-----
Worth one VP per empty supply pile.


Hedge Maze, Action - Attack - Victory, 4$ (2)
Each other player gains a Curse in hand.
-----
Worth one VP per empty supply pile that is not Province's.


Also a second card: First i wanted to post this in the "Very bad card ideas" thread, but maybe it's not that terrible - might be overpowered when compared to Junk Dealer or Market, though:

Pony, Action, 5$
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1$
Gain a Silver



What do you think?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: silverspawn on March 01, 2014, 06:39:17 am
Figured i should actually use this thread for my card ideas.

I tried two other takes on my old idea, Hedge Maze. Do you think one of them is balanced? If yes, which is better?

Hedge Maze, Action - Attack - Victory, 5$ (1)
Each other player gains a Curse.
-----
Worth one VP per empty supply pile.
Let's see, so it's usually either worth 2VP (curse and Province) or 3VP (3 piles). You'll want to buy it really early, like most junkers. You probably won't get more than 2 of them. So, compared to Witch, you'll lack the +2 card beneift early, but have 4/6 VP's more endgame. That seems weak to me, but I'm not sure. It's defintiely worse than Mountebank, but what card isn't, so that's not an issue.



Hedge Maze, Action - Attack - Victory, 4$ (2)
Each other player gains a Curse in hand.
-----
Worth one VP per empty supply pile that is not Province's.

I don't like this version. Firstly because, following the same logic, it's usually either worth 1VP or 3VP, very swingy. Second, I don't think we need another curser for $4. In games without trashing, it'll be must-buy, a duchy which deals out curses. In games with good trashing, it's an Estate with a slight attack, you'll often get rid of the curse right away. I don't see that being fun. Try the 5$ version.

Also a second card: First i wanted to post this in the "Very bad card ideas" thread, but maybe it's not that terrible - might be overpowered when compared to Junk Dealer or Market, though:

Pony, Action, 5$
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1$
Gain a Silver



What do you think?

I like the name. Aside from that, I think the card is fine. If it were in the game, it would probably be one of the most frequently missused cards, because it kills your engines. It's a BM card, you're flooding yourself with silver, not a card for engines. Because of this, comparing it to market or Junk Dealer doesn't make all that much sense. I think the closest comparison is Jack of all Trades. Both give you a silver, both have you back at 5 cards when playing them. JOAD also trashes your estates and curses and defends against discard attacks, this card simply provides +1$, and it isn't terminal. I could see them working fairly well together, not to the point where you ever buy it over gold, but you might buy it rather than another silver.

Despite what I said, it might be a good addition to some engines, but only after they're set up, to increase their buying power. In that way it'd work similiar to Explorer: if you draw the silver in the turn you get it, it's +3$ for your current turn, +2$ for every following turn, +1 card for your deck. Explorer is +3$ for your current turn, +3$ for every following turn, +1 card for your deck; but it's terminal and you need to already have a province. Explorer also doesn't draw, but it doesn't make you have to draw the gold either, so it's like +1 card in that way.

Might also be good for some other stuff. Anyway, I like it. Needs testing though.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on March 04, 2014, 05:18:49 pm
Thanks for your feedback. The name of Pony comes from the fact that it gives each of Trusty Steed's bonuses, but in a weaker form. I can see why you like it, though ;)

I myself had the feeling that the 5$ version of Hedge Maze was more dull than the other one, so that's why i wanted to have the 4$. I can definitely see you concern about it, though.

I'd still like to have an Attack-Victory, but maybe i can come up with something more clever. Using Ruins seems an obvious choice, but probably that's not good, either.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on March 15, 2014, 08:24:28 am
Junk me, baby!

I noticed two ideas for alt victory cards i had some time ago went in very similar directions. So i combined them:

Demolition, 6$, Victory
Worth 2VP if you still own your Demolition token.
---
Setup: Each player takes a Demolition token. He removes it when he trashes one of his Victory cards.
---
When you gain this, gain a Duchy and an Estate and trash a Province from the supply.


Things worth noting:
This is a Province for 6$ that junks your deck and demands that you don't trash junk.
The Province trashed from the supply is none of your cards and doesn't remove the token or trigger Market Square.
The card is a Victory card that works horribly with Rebuild, maybe against it.
If it seems too weak, i could change Estate and Duchy for "two differently named VP cards costing less than this".

About the 2nd line i don't really know what to do. I feel the idea itself is sufficiently simple, but obviously 2 lines is a no go. If somebody has an idea how i could reach a similar goal with just one, i'd greatly appreciate it. Or do you think the rules allow me to put the first two together? Like: "Setup: Each player takes a Demolition token. He removes that token when he trashes one of his VP cards. This card is worth 2VP for players that still have their token."

I'm really uncertain of what to do with this, so please help me out a bit here :-\
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: clloxin on March 15, 2014, 12:45:26 pm
 
Junk me, baby!

I noticed two ideas for alt victory cards i had some time ago went in very similar directions. So i combined them:

Demolition, 6$, Victory
Worth 2VP if you still own your Demolition token.
---
Setup: Each player takes a Demolition token. He removes it when he trashes one of his Victory cards.
---
When you gain this, gain a Duchy and an Estate and trash a Province from the supply.


Things worth noting:
This is a Province for 6$ that junks your deck and demands that you don't trash junk.
The Province trashed from the supply is none of your cards and doesn't remove the token or trigger Market Square.
The card is a Victory card that works horribly with Rebuild, maybe against it.
If it seems too weak, i could change Estate and Duchy for "two differently named VP cards costing less than this".

About the 2nd line i don't really know what to do. I feel the idea itself is sufficiently simple, but obviously 2 lines is a no go. If somebody has an idea how i could reach a similar goal with just one, i'd greatly appreciate it. Or do you think the rules allow me to put the first two together? Like: "Setup: Each player takes a Demolition token. He removes that token when he trashes one of his VP cards. This card is worth 2VP for players that still have their token."

I'm really uncertain of what to do with this, so please help me out a bit here :-\
I'm not an expert, but it seems that it wouldn't be worth it to not trash when you have the option.
In games without trashing, it is a cheap province which junks your deck, but its a unanimous buy late game.
I might be wrong, but I don't think this card would fit it's purpose, and be just cheap victory points for $6, either a province or a duchy and an estate for $6.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: eHalcyon on March 15, 2014, 01:50:28 pm
@silerspawn -- Hedge Maze is not worth either 1VP or 3VP.  It's worth 1-4 VP usually, with a chance of being worth MORE than 4VP.  If the game ends in a 3 pile, Hedge Maze is worth a net 4VP because of the Curse.  It can be worth an intermediate value because games that end on Provinces often ALSO have another empty pile or two.  It can be worth more because there are sometimes games where more than 3 piles are emptied on the last turn.  For the version that counts the Province pile as well, it's worh a net 2-4VP (because there is a guaranteed empty pile at the end).

Also note that this is a curser itself.  That almost guarantees that the curse pile will empty, further lowering the variance.

Despite the variable VP, I don't think it is that swingy.  Before you buy it, you can reasonably predict how many empty piles there will be.  If it's a powerful engine board with Hamlet or Fishing Village as the only +actions, then you can be pretty sure that that pile will drain quickly.  If it's a dull BM board with no +actions or +buy or gainers, probably no pile will empty.



Despite defending the card on those fronts, I think a bigger problem is that it just wouldn't be that interesting or fun.  Players tend not to like attack cards that give no benefit (e.g. Saboteur, Sea Hag) on play.  I like the VP portion (there's a similar one in one of the mini-set design contests, I think?) but the cursing just isn't exciting at all.








On Demolition -- the double line is off-putting.  I like the general idea (cheap province that junks you a lot more) but I'm not sure about the implementation.  It makes trashing attacks even swingier than they normally are.  Swindler hits your Estate... now your Demolitions are all worthless.  I'm also not sure if it would be fun to feel constricted against trashing.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on March 15, 2014, 03:31:50 pm
Despite defending the card on those fronts, I think a bigger problem is that it just wouldn't be that interesting or fun.  Players tend not to like attack cards that give no benefit (e.g. Saboteur, Sea Hag) on play.  I like the VP portion (there's a similar one in one of the mini-set design contests, I think?) but the cursing just isn't exciting at all.

I think there is one. Originally Hedge Maze was only counting the piles of cards costing 0$, but i felt that was awkward.
I can see why you think it's boring...  :-\


On Demolition -- the double line is off-putting.  I like the general idea (cheap province that junks you a lot more) but I'm not sure about the implementation.  It makes trashing attacks even swingier than they normally are.  Swindler hits your Estate... now your Demolitions are all worthless.  I'm also not sure if it would be fun to feel constricted against trashing.

Yeah, originally it was about trashing cards during your turn, but that was too complex. I guess you just shouldn't buy Demolition on a board with trashing attacks...


As i mentioned it were two cards originally. Maybe i should post them, too:

Rental, 6$, Victory
Setup: Each player puts 6 VP tokens on his rental mat. Whenever he trashes a VP card during his turn, he removes one VP token from the mat.
---
This is worth 1 VP per VP token on your Rental mat.


Headquarters, 6$, Action
+2 Actions
Discard any number of cards. +1$ per card discarded.
----
When you gain this, gain two differently named Victory cards costing less than this and trash a Province from the supply.


Any thoughts? I don't want to have two cards that have so similar goals (though not same), so if i can't combine them i will dismiss one. Which one should i get rid of?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: clloxin on March 15, 2014, 04:07:20 pm
Despite defending the card on those fronts, I think a bigger problem is that it just wouldn't be that interesting or fun.  Players tend not to like attack cards that give no benefit (e.g. Saboteur, Sea Hag) on play.  I like the VP portion (there's a similar one in one of the mini-set design contests, I think?) but the cursing just isn't exciting at all.

I think there is one. Originally Hedge Maze was only counting the piles of cards costing 0$, but i felt that was awkward.
I can see why you think it's boring...  :-\




On Demolition -- the double line is off-putting.  I like the general idea (cheap province that junks you a lot more) but I'm not sure about the implementation.  It makes trashing attacks even swingier than they normally are.  Swindler hits your Estate... now your Demolitions are all worthless.  I'm also not sure if it would be fun to feel constricted against trashing.

Yeah, originally it was about trashing cards during your turn, but that was too complex. I guess you just shouldn't buy Demolition on a board with trashing attacks...


As i mentioned it were two cards originally. Maybe i should post them, too:

Rental, 6$, Victory
Setup: Each player puts 6 VP tokens on his rental mat. Whenever he trashes a VP card during his turn, he removes one VP token from the mat.
---
This is worth 1 VP per VP token on your Rental mat.


Headquarters, 6$, Action
+2 Actions
Discard any number of cards. +1$ per card discarded.
----
When you gain this, gain two differently named Victory cards costing less than this and trash a Province from the supply.


Any thoughts? I don't want to have two cards that have so similar goals (though not same), so if i can't combine them i will dismiss one. Which one should i get rid of?


I don't think the idea of rental is that good. Punishing you for not trashing is bad. and when there is no trashing it's a cheap province. Still, you could try testing it if you really like the idea.
I think the idea for headquarters is better. Except It gives alot of victory points for $6 late game, especially when there is alt. victory cards. If you re-did the card, keeping the main idea though, it probably would be okay, Gimmicky, but still okay.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on April 14, 2014, 10:48:04 am
Another take at a card that was intended to be a mix of Pearl Diver and Native Village:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Action
Choose one:
Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, play this again; Or: Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand.

Edit: This card is basically either a cantrip that draws from the deck's bottom, or, more interestingly, a way to prepare combos by storing cards and then Villaging them.
Thinking about it, the card's a bit too complex, isn't it?



Edit II, cleaner version:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Card
+1 Action
Chose one:
Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand;
Or: Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, chose one again;
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: silverspawn on April 14, 2014, 12:36:01 pm
Another take at a card that was intended to be a mix of Pearl Diver and Native Village:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Action
Choose one:
Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, play this again; Or: Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand.

Edit: This card is basically either a cantrip that draws from the deck's bottom, or, more interestingly, a way to prepare combos by storing cards and then Villaging them.
Thinking about it, the card's a bit too complex, isn't it?




Edit II, cleaner version:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Card
+1 Action
Chose one:
Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand;
Or: Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, chose one again;


a lab+ for 2$? sounds legit ???
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on April 14, 2014, 05:26:01 pm
Another take at a card that was intended to be a mix of Pearl Diver and Native Village:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Action
Choose one:
Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, play this again; Or: Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand.

Edit: This card is basically either a cantrip that draws from the deck's bottom, or, more interestingly, a way to prepare combos by storing cards and then Villaging them.
Thinking about it, the card's a bit too complex, isn't it?




Edit II, cleaner version:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Card
+1 Action
Chose one:
Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand;
Or: Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, chose one again;


a lab+ for 2$? sounds legit ???

Ah crap, i forgot to remove the +1 card when redoing the wording.

Of course that's how it's supposed to be:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Action
Chose one:
Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand;
Or: Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, chose one again;
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: silverspawn on April 14, 2014, 06:47:06 pm
well, it's very similar and a lot worse than haven
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on April 14, 2014, 07:20:24 pm
well, it's very similar and a lot worse than haven

I'm not sure on the worse, but it probably really is too similar. :(
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: silverspawn on April 15, 2014, 07:26:18 am
well, it's very similar and a lot worse than haven

I'm not sure on the worse, but it probably really is too similar. :(

it's worse, with haven you always draw, and if you don't want to set aside a card, you can usually just choose a dead card
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on April 18, 2014, 07:57:05 am
well, it's very similar and a lot worse than haven

I'm not sure on the worse, but it probably really is too similar. :(

it's worse, with haven you always draw, and if you don't want to set aside a card, you can usually just choose a dead card

Probably you're right. Was a bad idea...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 18, 2015, 11:36:46 am
Updated the OP list of cards after some time of being rather unproductive as a fan card designer. As always, i'm grateful for opinions. :)

Edit: If you have no opinions, i take credit cards, too.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Halvard on January 23, 2015, 09:26:45 am

Quote
Politician Action, $3
+$3
For each other player, choose one of the following he may do (choices must be different):
Draw a card; Trash a card from his hand; Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Gain +1VP

Comment one:
When you say "choose one" I would think that "choices must be different" is unnecessary?

Comment two:
The choices you have for what your opponents can do will sometimes be awful for him (and I assume that you want them to be good for him).  Let us say he has built up a strong deck with the use of Chapel or another trashing mechanism, you risk that he has only strong cards in his deck.  And is putting his deck in his discard always a good thing?  I think I would choose "Put his deck in his discard" most of the time.

Comment three:
I really liked the idea of this card.  What if your opponents could choose themselves?  I think that could be cool.  It might set the cost down to $2?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 23, 2015, 11:17:55 am

Quote
Politician Action, $3
+$3
For each other player, choose one of the following he may do (choices must be different):
Draw a card; Trash a card from his hand; Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Gain +1VP

Comment one:
When you say "choose one" I would think that "choices must be different" is unnecessary?

Comment two:
The choices you have for what your opponents can do will sometimes be awful for him (and I assume that you want them to be good for him).  Let us say he has built up a strong deck with the use of Chapel or another trashing mechanism, you risk that he has only strong cards in his deck.  And is putting his deck in his discard always a good thing?  I think I would choose "Put his deck in his discard" most of the time.

Comment three:
I really liked the idea of this card.  What if your opponents could choose themselves?  I think that could be cool.  It might set the cost down to $2?

Thank you for the input.

Comment one: The "choose one" is to make clear that i can't have player one do all five things so player two can't do anything. "choices must be different" makes clear i can't let player one and two do the same thing. But you are right and it can probably be shortened. "For each other player, choose another one of the following he may do".

Comment two: Yes, most of the choices are not exactly great under certain situations. That's on purpose - you can for each opponent pick whatever choice you think helps him the least (well, unless another opponent allready got that benefit). Trashing is awful if all your opponent has is good stuff. Silvers can harm a trimmed engine. Drawing can trigger reshuffles (but is still pretty good). The +1VP is never a drawback, but it's also the only one that can never benefit your economy. The Chancellor effect doesn't stack. That aside, i think people generally underestimate how good it is at speeding you up. Nonetheless you are most certainly right, you don't always want it. That's why players only may do the bonus and are not forced to.

Comment three:
Well, the point of the card is to make it deliberately political, which means that you have to be the one who chooses who gets what. There are quite some "friendly interaction" cards allready, and most of the effects on this card have been on those allready. The fact that you choose is what makes it special.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 07, 2015, 01:58:14 pm
Images!!

(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/6ih5n86m.jpg)(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/v8nv38pt.jpg)(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/bo62m93k.jpg)(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/5a56k4go.jpg)(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150207/468lbxaj.jpg)(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/gzsauyio.jpg)(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/6vob6nm2.jpg)(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/z7jmgs6x.jpg)(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/iimmdjk6.jpg)(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/zqz5wfl5.jpg)(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150207/97xh2zql.jpg)

Figured i could just as well follow my own advice and add images to some of my cards. Naturally, positive feedback should now ensue.

Assassin & Sultan are two new cards. Sultan is vaguely as good as Oasis (i think), being less useful when paired with Estates, Curses, Ruins and dead Actions, but better if you can meet it up with Duchies, Provinces or alt-VP, or if you have no junk in hand at all. As a gainer, it plays actually very differently.
Assassin is a super-powered Militia/Ghost Ship attack. +2$ seemed a logical bonus, but i didn't want it to become a card that just goes "play one of these every turn". If you have no other actions, the bonus is useless, and if you play several, the attack doesn't stack.

Tribunal is the renamed Dragon. A lot of cards don't have (good) art yet, either, so i left those out. They are in the first post, though.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: werothegreat on February 07, 2015, 02:43:22 pm
I like River.  But you have to strike a balance as to how many you get - too many, and you have a bunch of Rivers in hand that you don't need.  Too few, and you'll only see it once a shuffle, though the turn you get it will be awesome.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 07, 2015, 03:05:00 pm
I like River.  But you have to strike a balance as to how many you get - too many, and you have a bunch of Rivers in hand that you don't need.  Too few, and you'll only see it once a shuffle, though the turn you get it will be awesome.

When i suggested it in the "-1 action" thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12098.0), there actually was some discussion as to how strong it was. Like you, i believe that balancing how many you want is tricky (considering you may be unlucky and draw it without Villages), which is why i priced at easily available $3. I don't have people who would playtest cards with me, though, and i find solo playtests terribly unsatisfactory. So maybe i'm totally wrong here.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 07, 2015, 03:33:14 pm
That is a lot of +Actions.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 07, 2015, 08:43:01 pm
That is a lot of +Actions.

Interesting point... I guess Assassin doesn't really need to be one of those. There were some more cards that didn't have +actions, but i had no images.

After some search here's part two. Should reduce the +action percentage ;) Also has a few $4 cards.

(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/eesqhapy.jpg)(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/g5l8urvc.jpg)(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/di886raz.jpg)(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/nwvp3eq5.jpg)(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/r2irelmw.jpg)(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/ck7quabd.jpg)(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/8svppkzx.jpg)(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/ha9ilcqw.jpg)

Assemble is a new card. It's more like "dissemble", actually, but good luck finding images for that :P
Edit: Forgot vampire.
Edited Edit: On second third thought, the picture for that one isn't good enough, though :P
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AJD on February 07, 2015, 09:13:48 pm
I like Assemble, but it's gonna need some clarification. Do you choose both cards before you gain either of them?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 07, 2015, 09:41:29 pm
I like Assemble, but it's gonna need some clarification. Do you choose both cards before you gain either of them?

Good point. I imagined that you would first gain one card costing up to $3 more and after that gain another one costing up to whatever is left, but couldn't find a nice wording for that - i guess i forgot to make it clear in either way  :-[ Anyhow, i think it should only matter if Curses and Coppers both are out, but of course that can happen. Either option works for me, it's all about which wording is better.

I have this: "Trash a card from your hand. Choose two card in the supply that together cost up to $3 more than the trashed card. Gain them"
A bit lengthy, though.

Edit: Changed wording :) It now makes clear you choose both cards, then gain them.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 07, 2015, 10:58:00 pm
I believe with the new wording of Assemble, you cannot gain two copies of the same card, as only the top card in each pile is "in the Supply" for this kind of purpose. Same way you can't use Band of Misfits as Sir Martin if he's buried in the Knights pile.

I think with the old wording, you gained a card costing up to $3 more than the card you trashed, then gain another card costing up to the remainder. If there is no such card, you'd gain nothing, but there almost always will be either a Copper or Curse to gain.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: werothegreat on February 07, 2015, 11:21:35 pm
Politician seems very... political.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 08, 2015, 07:22:47 am
I believe with the new wording of Assemble, you cannot gain two copies of the same card, as only the top card in each pile is "in the Supply" for this kind of purpose. Same way you can't use Band of Misfits as Sir Martin if he's buried in the Knights pile.

I think with the old wording, you gained a card costing up to $3 more than the card you trashed, then gain another card costing up to the remainder. If there is no such card, you'd gain nothing, but there almost always will be either a Copper or Curse to gain.

Would you recommend going back to the old wording? I'd like to give the option of gaining duplicates and wasn't aware the wording wouldn't allow it. Maybe it would be sufficient to go back and only clarify the actual order in a faq - given it will matter very rarely.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 08, 2015, 07:29:21 am
Politician seems very... political.

I don't see where you draw that connection. :P

On a side note, i would be glad to find a better option than the +1VP one, just so the card doesn't ask for material that's otherwise not needed. There's trashing, gaining, drawing, accelerating and i wanted one that gave no economy boost at all. I pondered a few alternatives, including "set aside a Victory card in his hand during the end of the game", "gain a Copper in hand", "discard his hand and draw 5 new cards", but they were too redundant to the existing options.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Jack Rudd on February 08, 2015, 10:00:22 am
Assemble is a new card. It's more like "dissemble", actually, but good luck finding images for that :P
Actually, it's more like "disassemble". "Dissemble" is something completely different.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 08, 2015, 10:42:37 am
I believe with the new wording of Assemble, you cannot gain two copies of the same card, as only the top card in each pile is "in the Supply" for this kind of purpose. Same way you can't use Band of Misfits as Sir Martin if he's buried in the Knights pile.

I think with the old wording, you gained a card costing up to $3 more than the card you trashed, then gain another card costing up to the remainder. If there is no such card, you'd gain nothing, but there almost always will be either a Copper or Curse to gain.

Would you recommend going back to the old wording? I'd like to give the option of gaining duplicates and wasn't aware the wording wouldn't allow it. Maybe it would be sufficient to go back and only clarify the actual order in a faq - given it will matter very rarely.

I would use the old wording, yes.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 08, 2015, 11:21:32 am
Assemble is a new card. It's more like "dissemble", actually, but good luck finding images for that :P
Actually, it's more like "disassemble". "Dissemble" is something completely different.

Ah, i didn't know that. Thanks.

I would use the old wording, yes.

Changed it back, thank you.



Also, here's Vampire:
(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/taf85hho.jpg)

Certainly not the best card here, but it's my take on the Self-Curse concept and an older version was pretty popular in my gaming group. Figured i could just as well pick some art and post it here.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 09, 2015, 10:17:42 am
I have changed the wording of Parliament to avoid the somewhat clumsy "printed" clause. It now doesn't distinguish between $2 and $3 cards anymore, but i actually feel that's better balanced. Now it's just a King's Court for weaker and a Throne Room for better cards. Like, Fishing Village and Scout, for example...

(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150209/rau6zyhq.jpg)

The order of the conditions is to avoid cases where a hypothetical cheap cost reducer might be played 5 times with Parliament (play Bridge, play Minibridge three times, Parliament and Minibridge now both cost $0, play it twice). It could still do weird stuff with Actions that only reduce/increase the costs of certain cards, but i'm not going to do one of those and i hope Donald won't, either. Also you can use it as a TR for $5 cards after some cost reduction, but it doesn't go crazy at all.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 09, 2015, 10:43:29 am
I honestly do not understand why you're bending over backwards so that Parliament doesn't combo with cost-reducers. It's a combo, man. Combos are fun! You don't see Prince with wording that prevents you from prince-ing expensive cards after playing Highway. Border Village has the wording so that you can't take the whole stack after one Highway and Band of Misfits has it so that it can't copy itself. Parliament has no such issue with loops.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 09, 2015, 11:07:04 am
I honestly do not understand why you're bending over backwards so that Parliament doesn't combo with cost-reducers. It's a combo, man. Combos are fun! You don't see Prince with wording that prevents you from prince-ing expensive cards after playing Highway. Border Village has the wording so that you can't take the whole stack after one Highway and Band of Misfits has it so that it can't copy itself. Parliament has no such issue with loops.

Well, it started out as a card where the times you played scaled with how cheap it was, which would have meant that a card could be played up to 5 times. In the process of fixing this (terribly overpowered) effect, i changed it so it wouldn't scale. Thinking about it, now that the maximum effect is King's Court, i could actually revert it to $4 and less than $4. "Combos are fun" is a valid concern, after all. Thank you :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 09, 2015, 11:22:39 am
So, here's Parliament with room for cost reduction combos. the wording is a bit less pretty than the one before, sadly. The "3 or less" is mostly to avoid two coins saying "$4", which looks silly. +1 to whoever guesses why i didn't use: "If it costs $4/If it costs ($3 or) less"

(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150209/fck3owwo.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 09, 2015, 11:23:51 am
+1 to whoever guesses why i didn't use: "If it costs $4/If it costs ($3 or) less"

Is it so you don't play Bridge 5 times?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 09, 2015, 11:25:31 am
+1 to whoever guesses why i didn't use: "If it costs $4/If it costs ($3 or) less"

Is it so you don't play Bridge 5 times?

+1 respect was received ;)

Edit: I assume you could actually call that a combo, too... I just felt that it would look really unintended. Like putting revealed and bought Black Market cards back on top of the stack with Trader or stealing an Outpost turn with Possession. It technically works, but it's clearly a rule gap that causes the interaction.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 09, 2015, 01:31:51 pm
Edit: I assume you could actually call that a combo, too... I just felt that it would look really unintended. Like putting revealed and bought Black Market cards back on top of the stack with Trader or stealing an Outpost turn with Possession. It technically works, but it's clearly a rule gap that causes the interaction.

Putting the cheaper one first is best. Playing Bridge 5 times is a little too nuts, I think.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Awaclus on February 09, 2015, 02:16:54 pm
You could have an "otherwise" in there if you wanted to put the more expensive one first. Not worth it, though, unless you're going to come up with a fan card that increases costs because then you need it there anyway.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 09, 2015, 02:30:39 pm
You could have an "otherwise" in there if you wanted to put the more expensive one first. Not worth it, though, unless you're going to come up with a fan card that increases costs because then you need it there anyway.

Yeah, i had it as "If it costs $4/Otherwise, if it costs less" shortly, but that looked plain stupid. I don't think i'll ever make a cost increaser - there's Cutpurse and Embargo, so it's not really novel, and then there are rules issues with Highway etc.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 10, 2015, 06:30:52 am
Guys, about Politician: Do you think it should cost $4? I know it costed $4 before i carried it over to this collection thread, but that had no particular reason as i didn't settle on the vanilla bonus back then. Obviously Parliament/Politician is crazy strong, but i'm willing to accept this as an edge case. Not being able to open with this and another $4 might still be a good idea, though. The question is just whether +$3 and a drawback are actually something you'd consider buying for $4, even if the drawback is just a Chancellor effect...

Alternatively, i could of course change the benefit it gives. For example it could take coin/vp tokens (and give one of the same kind as a possible opponent bonus), which would make sure the card doesn't need tokens just for the possibly rare case you give one to an opponent.

In fact, i could even do both, like:

Politician, Action, $4
Take three coin tokens.
...yadda, yadda, yadda...
He may take a coin token;


Looks pretty strong though, doesn't it? Maybe it's a $5, even. Given that decisions take a while, it maybe shouldn't be easily available.
Edit: On second thought, 3 coin tokens are probably too much at any cost. Not because it's unbalanced, but because it shifts the focus from "political card" to "that one massive coin token card". Maybe this was a bad idea.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 10, 2015, 01:14:48 pm
I think Politician should have at most 3 options. Letting him put his deck into his discard pile is a bad option because it only works once (at most), which matters if you play it multiple times or if it's a game with more than two players.

I personally hate to see just one or two cards that use Coin or Victory tokens in a set. It's like, if you don't own this other set, this card is unplayable :P .

So my three options would be "draw a card; trash a card from his hand; gain a Silver".
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 10, 2015, 02:55:33 pm
I think Politician should have at most 3 options. Letting him put his deck into his discard pile is a bad option because it only works once (at most), which matters if you play it multiple times or if it's a game with more than two players.

I personally hate to see just one or two cards that use Coin or Victory tokens in a set. It's like, if you don't own this other set, this card is unplayable :P .

So my three options would be "draw a card; trash a card from his hand; gain a Silver".

Hmm... I see your points. I wanted it to have 5 options so the card could demand you to give another bonus to each player, without that becoming impossible in a 6 player game. The reason was that i wanted the card to be as political as possible, and forcing different choices was a means to ensure that. If i only have 3 options, i have to drop that clause. Maybe that's not horrible, though. Actually, it might be better. Instead of thinking "how can i distribute the bonuses between my opponents so the uselessness is maxed" it's just "what will be the least useful to Charles". It would certainly reduce analysis paralysis.

And you are clearly right about the non-stacking Chancellor effect. I was aware of that, but i guess it's true that in a 4 player match, where everybody plays Politician, the one guy who was chancellor'd first will receive no bonus for the next two plays, either.

Edit: This is how a 3-option-Politician looks:
(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150210/xdtteg2e.jpg)
I admit it's much more simple. A bit... vanilla-ish, even, but i think that's fine. Thank you for your very helpful consideration, LastFootnote :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 10, 2015, 04:02:20 pm
I will now critique the cards that have images. Yay, images!


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/6ih5n86m.jpg)

I am working under the assumption that this card is not meant to be bought. Yes, you might buy it if it's the only +1 Buy on the board, but maybe not even then. The real thrust of Swamp seems to be that you can gain it instead of a Curse, Ruins, etc. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's worth one of your 10 Kingdom card slots. I don't even think I want Swamp out as an 11th Kingdom pile most of the time. It makes witches weak for a while and it empties fast, and that's about it.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/v8nv38pt.jpg)

I'm not sure this card needs the on-gain "penalty". Is the idea that it's usually a bonus because it's the only Potion card out? If so, that rubs me the wrong way, though I can see the logic behind it coming from the "full random" crowd.

I don't find Homonculus exciting, but it's probably a fine utility card. Small nitpick: it should say, "Trash a Potion you have in play", not, "Trash a [potion symbol] you have in play."


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/bo62m93k.jpg)

This is also unexciting. I wonder if it would be too strong if you looked at the top 3 and drew one, discarded one, and put the last one back. Similar to Lookout, but I still think it's an improvement. The current version is very Pearl Diver; usually doesn't hurt, but not enough cool combos to make it pop.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/5a56k4go.jpg)

Very cool idea. It makes me sad that you need a village to make it activate, though. Conspirator needs non-terminal Actions, but chances are really good that you'll have some of that in your Kingdom. The chance that you'll have a village is way lower, and without one, River is just +2 Cards.


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150207/468lbxaj.jpg)

I am having trouble envisioning a reason to use this other than trashing Estates. I don't think I'm likely to trash a Province for a Gold in hand. I guess I could turn a Duchy into a Silver to buy the last Province, but even that sounds weak. Really the whole card just seems very weak. I'm trying to think of a fix, but I'm coming up short. Even if you put 2 copies of the Treasure into your hand, it has these same issues. That's where i'd start if you want to make this card work, though.

Just noticed it says "discard" instead of "trash". Cool card! I don't think I'd use it on Estates that often, but maybe it makes me want Duchies? Obviously it's great once you have Provinces.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/gzsauyio.jpg)

I would make the trashing mandatory. Suggested rewording:

Quote
+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand, then reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a more expensive card that shares a type with it. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

Cool card. I think I'd like it better with a non-Potion cost and without the +1 Card, but it's definitely a neat concept.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/6vob6nm2.jpg)

I think that the "if you do" is unnecessary. If you have no cards in your hand to discard, then I think you deserve the +1 Card.

The card isn't very interesting to me. The effect needs to be bigger. At minimum, I would have it discard 2 cards, then draw 2 cards.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/z7jmgs6x.jpg)

Probably another vanilla bonus would be better. Sure, there are a lot of Attack cards with +2 Cards or +$2, but they're classics for a reason.

The attack effect itself has potential. It might cause too much AP, but I think it's worth testing as-is. Suggested rewording:

Quote
Each other player reveals all but 3 cards from his hand. You choose whether he discards them or puts them back in an order of his choice.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/iimmdjk6.jpg)

Hmm... I think I like it.


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/zqz5wfl5.jpg)

I don't think I really understand this. First of all, the chancellor effect seems out of place, especially on a card that draws. If you play it multiple times (throne, multiple copies, etc.), your chancellor effect is just prompting extra shuffles and likely hurts you. I also don't understand why the bottom option helps your targets.

I hate Minion. I hate the way that it casually wipes away good hands and makes the game more random in a really frustrating way. Tribunal is at least wiping your hand intentionally, but I'm not sure that's much better. It seems potentially super harsh and very un-fun to me.


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150207/97xh2zql.jpg)

Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.



I'll do the next batch soon. Sorry for the harsh critiques!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 10, 2015, 04:28:12 pm
(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/eesqhapy.jpg)

Hmm, might be fine. Sort of like Jubilee for card drawing.


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150210/xdtteg2e.jpg)

I think this version is worth testing.


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/di886raz.jpg)

Bah, VP chip cards. Well, I guess this is OK. Combos with Copper-trashers and/or alt-VP.


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/nwvp3eq5.jpg)

I would take out the third part to keep it simpler.


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150209/fck3owwo.jpg)

I have seen this sort of idea before (maybe from your other threads, not sure), and I'm not a huge fan of it. I like the idea of combos with cheap cards, but this seems kludgy to me. I'm struggling to come up with a fix, though. Maybe it's fine.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/ck7quabd.jpg)

Cool. If trashing $5 cards into Province/Copper ends up too strong, try having the gained cards go on your deck.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/8svppkzx.jpg)

My problem with VP for empty piles is that it's really hard to get them above 3 in most games. A formula VP card that has a range of 1VP to 3VP just doesn't grab me. I like the outside-the-box thinking with the Curse gaining, but it doesn't fix this particular issue.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/ha9ilcqw.jpg)

Hmm, I wonder if this wouldn't be better as a Treasure/Action. Maybe it being a Reaction is less confusing. The card seems maybe a bit weak, but the flexibility is nice.


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/taf85hho.jpg)

Worth a shot, I guess. The biggest worry is that the tokens run out in a game with lots of players. I guess you could introduce negative VP tokens for just this problem.




That's all for now!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 10, 2015, 04:43:07 pm
A Tribunal engine could be incredibly painful, forcing them to redraw over and over again until they get a shit hand. You do offer them a chance to improve their hand when you let them keep it and at any later Tribunals, but... it'd just be so unpleasant, and could border on pin territory. And think of all the shuffling.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 10, 2015, 04:46:17 pm
I have had an Idea. What if you add Jeweler's reaction to River?

Quote
River (or Jeweler)
Types: Action - Reaction
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Put this into your hand.

At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard this. If you do, +$1.

Way more worth buying without villages. With villages, you feel less bad about picking up multiple copies because at worst they're Coppers.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Jimmmmm on February 10, 2015, 05:05:03 pm
Jeweler should say "you may discard this from your hand" right? As worded you can discard from play and get both the +3 cards and +$2.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: scott_pilgrim on February 10, 2015, 05:07:57 pm
I have had an Idea. What if you add Jeweler's reaction to River?

Quote
River (or Jeweler)
Types: Action - Reaction
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Put this into your hand.

At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard this. If you do, +$1.

Way more worth buying without villages. With villages, you feel less bad about picking up multiple copies because at worst they're Coppers.

I was actually going to suggest the same thing.  Except I think it's actually cleaner as an Action/Treasure.  If you play it as an action, +2 cards and return it to your hand.  If you play it as a treasure, +$1.  I think this might be the first case where an Action/Treasure is really worth doing.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 10, 2015, 05:09:52 pm
Jeweler should say "you may discard this from your hand" right? As worded you can discard from play and get both the +3 cards and +$2.

Discarding is always from your hand unless otherwise stated. Although hey, just another reason to combine River and Jeweler. Then it'd never be in play.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Jimmmmm on February 10, 2015, 05:20:33 pm
Jeweler should say "you may discard this from your hand" right? As worded you can discard from play and get both the +3 cards and +$2.

Discarding is always from your hand unless otherwise stated. Although hey, just another reason to combine River and Jeweler. Then it'd never be in play.

Hmm, I guess you're right.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 10, 2015, 05:41:16 pm
(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/6ih5n86m.jpg)

I am working under the assumption that this card is not meant to be bought. Yes, you might buy it if it's the only +1 Buy on the board, but maybe not even then. The real thrust of Swamp seems to be that you can gain it instead of a Curse, Ruins, etc. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's worth one of your 10 Kingdom card slots. I don't even think I want Swamp out as an 11th Kingdom pile most of the time. It makes witches weak for a while and it empties fast, and that's about it.

I get what you mean and admit it's likely not worth a pile. Maybe i just grew attached to it and probably that's why i didn't scrap it, yet. I mean, it's certainly not on top of my "to print and try" list, so i guess that's a bad sign.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/v8nv38pt.jpg)
I'm not sure this card needs the on-gain "penalty". Is the idea that it's usually a bonus because it's the only Potion card out? If so, that rubs me the wrong way, though I can see the logic behind it coming from the "full random" crowd.

I don't find Homonculus exciting, but it's probably a fine utility card. Small nitpick: it should say, "Trash a Potion you have in play", not, "Trash a [potion symbol] you have in play."

Well, in the Hinterlands contest, i tried this for 2$ and with the penalty that you had to set it aside when bought, putting it in your discard only after your next shuffle. It was called "Artifact" back then, and maybe you remember me constantly pestering you with "No, LastFootnote, the wording has to be exactly this way for ominous reasons, stop fixing my weird wordings.". Anyhow, it was clearly overpowered, and so i went to price it at $3, then $4. That seemed balanced. Thing is, having it cost a Potion and trashing that might be marginally worse, but it solves the delayed gain in a much simpler way than strange "set aside" rules. I allready felt the symbol was off, but didn't see what itched me... Thank you for pointing it out.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/bo62m93k.jpg)
This is also unexciting. I wonder if it would be too strong if you looked at the top 3 and drew one, discarded one, and put the last one back. Similar to Lookout, but I still think it's an improvement. The current version is very Pearl Diver; usually doesn't hurt, but not enough cool combos to make it pop.

It's allready pretty similar to Vagrant, power-wise, and the fact that you might be seing two good cards, being forced to discard one, is mostly what makes it not-strictly-better. I agree that it's unexciting, though. Another one that's probably fine, just not worth the slot.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/5a56k4go.jpg)

Very cool idea. It makes me sad that you need a village to make it activate, though. Conspirator needs non-terminal Actions, but chances are really good that you'll have some of that in your Kingdom. The chance that you'll have a village is way lower, and without one, River is just +2 Cards.

Hmm... I'm not sure whether the "no-Village" scenario isn't really too off-putting... I mean, it's a Moat if there are none... If i was to fix this "issue", it would really have to be a gentle fix, a setup clause seems the most appropriate, but i don't really like even that. A buy, maybe. it's something that you don't really need that many of, anyway...


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150207/468lbxaj.jpg)

I am having trouble envisioning a reason to use this other than trashing Estates. I don't think I'm likely to trash a Province for a Gold in hand. I guess I could turn a Duchy into a Silver to buy the last Province, but even that sounds weak. Really the whole card just seems very weak. I'm trying to think of a fix, but I'm coming up short. Even if you put 2 copies of the Treasure into your hand, it has these same issues. That's where i'd start if you want to make this card work, though.

Just noticed it says "discard" instead of "trash". Cool card! I don't think I'd use it on Estates that often, but maybe it makes me want Duchies? Obviously it's great once you have Provinces.

Did you notice that it's a weaker Oasis with Estates and can discard Harems for Harems? ;)
Actually, this started with the premise "something arabic that can gain Harems", and was "Grand Vizier" for a long time. it went through tens of versions... I know that's the absolutely wrong way to do a card, and i'm kind of surprised that after long time, it actually became something interesting. I'm very glad you like it :)


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/gzsauyio.jpg)

I would make the trashing mandatory. Suggested rewording:

Quote
+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand, then reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a more expensive card that shares a type with it. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

Cool card. I think I'd like it better with a non-Potion cost and without the +1 Card, but it's definitely a neat concept.

Thanks :)
I'm pretty happy with it. I had high hopes for it in the Alchemy contest. I don't even know why it has the Potion cost, i think i just saw it as fitting. No reason not to give your version a try, though :)


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/6vob6nm2.jpg)

I think that the "if you do" is unnecessary. If you have no cards in your hand to discard, then I think you deserve the +1 Card.

The card isn't very interesting to me. The effect needs to be bigger. At minimum, I would have it discard 2 cards, then draw 2 cards.

When playtesting it, it was usually considered a surprisingly strong $5. The "if you do" is the tiniest nerf. I can see the appeal of keeping it as simple as possible, though, but then again, the card is very simple allready. It's pretty standard, i admit.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/z7jmgs6x.jpg)

Probably another vanilla bonus would be better. Sure, there are a lot of Attack cards with +2 Cards or +$2, but they're classics for a reason.

The attack effect itself has potential. It might cause too much AP, but I think it's worth testing as-is. Suggested rewording:

Quote
Each other player reveals all but 3 cards from his hand. You choose whether he discards them or puts them back in an order of his choice.

Yeah, the bonus is a little off. I wanted one that doesn't make this such an obvious Ghost Ship/Militia mashup and one that didn't work best if you just played one of these every turn. Actions ask for other cards to go with them and scale, the attack doesn't. I think it was my idea of how to make it a little more interesting.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150207/iimmdjk6.jpg)

Hmm... I think I like it.

I see nothing wrong with that. Arbitrary piece of information: It's called that way because it incorporates every Trusty Steed bonus in a minor way ;)


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/zqz5wfl5.jpg)

I don't think I really understand this. First of all, the chancellor effect seems out of place, especially on a card that draws. If you play it multiple times (throne, multiple copies, etc.), your chancellor effect is just prompting extra shuffles and likely hurts you. I also don't understand why the bottom option helps your targets.

I hate Minion. I hate the way that it casually wipes away good hands and makes the game more random in a really frustrating way. Tribunal is at least wiping your hand intentionally, but I'm not sure that's much better. It seems potentially super harsh and very un-fun to me.

I'm not very happy with this right now, and you pointed out the reasons pretty accurately. The Chancellor effect is probably the worst part. i wanted it on some cards for some reason (Politician being the other one) and when looking for a way to buff this a bit, i decided against a buy and for this. Obviously not my best choice. Anyhow, the bottom option is so you can not spam this until everybody has the worst possible hand. if somebody allready has a terrible hand, you help him a bit. But i see why that's off on an attack. I might have to scrap this. Maybe there's another way of doing the core attack. Even if you don't like it :P


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150207/97xh2zql.jpg)

Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.

Well, it's one point less than province for $6. Originally, it also trashed a Province from the supply when gained (so you had a chance that the game would end before you choke) but people argued that emptying 4 piles at once was a little too much... I have never playtested it, and if neither this version nor the Province trashing one works out (i haven't tried that one, either), i'll scrap this.


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/eesqhapy.jpg)

Hmm, might be fine. Sort of like Jubilee for card drawing.

It's ooooooold... Actually, this card predates Dark Ages. I was worried it might be too bland, but my gaming group at least enjoys it. Funny how it behaves vastly different to Poor House.


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150210/xdtteg2e.jpg)

I think this version is worth testing.

I'll do that soon, hopefully. :)


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/di886raz.jpg)

Bah, VP chip cards. Well, I guess this is OK. Combos with Copper-trashers and/or alt-VP.

I'll just focus on the "OK", here ;)


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/nwvp3eq5.jpg)

I would take out the third part to keep it simpler.

Hm... I'm worried it might keep the card from being worthwile. On the other hand, i assume that having +actions depend on luck isn't very much fun.


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150209/fck3owwo.jpg)

I have seen this sort of idea before (maybe from your other threads, not sure), and I'm not a huge fan of it. I like the idea of combos with cheap cards, but this seems kludgy to me. I'm struggling to come up with a fix, though. Maybe it's fine.

Yes, the basic idea is old news. I can see that the strength of a combo here isn't mostly dependant on card price, but more on WHICH specific card you play. Chapel and Secret Chamber are horrible, Fishing Village is awesome. Might scrap it, but for now i'll keep it around just to playtest it a bit.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/ck7quabd.jpg)

Cool. If trashing $5 cards into Province/Copper ends up too strong, try having the gained cards go on your deck.

Thanks :)


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/8svppkzx.jpg)

My problem with VP for empty piles is that it's really hard to get them above 3 in most games. A formula VP card that has a range of 1VP to 3VP just doesn't grab me. I like the outside-the-box thinking with the Curse gaining, but it doesn't fix this particular issue.

Well, the Curse gaining is a means to help you buy time. Originally this started out as "Maze" (german: "Irrgarten", literally "Insane Garden") and counted Curses other players had. It was bad, as it would potentially make you target specific players whenever that was possible. It was critizised for being a bit bland before, and i'm willing to let it go if i must. The premise is an attack-victory that gets more valuable by attacking, of course.


(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/ha9ilcqw.jpg)

Hmm, I wonder if this wouldn't be better as a Treasure/Action. Maybe it being a Reaction is less confusing. The card seems maybe a bit weak, but the flexibility is nice.

Actually, Action-Treasure is the premise here. I thought if Donald can make a Duration-Copper (Treasury), i can do an Action-Treasure. The Reaction type is my solution to the rules issues Treasure-Actions generate. It's honestly not much more than that, but it's interesting you believe that it might be weak. I considered it a potential one-card-strategy. If i hadn't, i might have done this:

Quote
Jeweler, Action-Reaction, $5
+3 Cards
----
At the end of your buy phase or when another player plays an attack card, you may set this aside. If you do, at the start of your next buy phase: +$2 and discard this.


(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150208/taf85hho.jpg)

Worth a shot, I guess. The biggest worry is that the tokens run out in a game with lots of players. I guess you could introduce negative VP tokens for just this problem.

I wanted to avoid having to introduce new material for the card, that's why i went with VP instead of Curse tokens. They are technically unlimited anyhow, but i see that it IS an issue in physical Dominion games... Maybe use some coins or stuff as placeholders? I'm actually preferring that to the introduction of VP tokens, i admit.



Thank you for your critique :)
I don't consider it harsh, but very valuable. You actually pointed out some flaws that i was pondering myself, while on other occasions you made some positive remarks on cards that i was still a little worried about :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 10, 2015, 05:47:09 pm
LastFootnote, i like your idea. I'm just not certain whether bringing together two breaks of unwritten Dominion rules isn't a bit too much... Then again, Jeweler is not very exciting but solid, and River might be exciting but sometimes useless. It's actually a neat solution in that respect :)


I have had an Idea. What if you add Jeweler's reaction to River?

Quote
River (or Jeweler)
Types: Action - Reaction
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Put this into your hand.

At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard this. If you do, +$1.

Way more worth buying without villages. With villages, you feel less bad about picking up multiple copies because at worst they're Coppers.

I was actually going to suggest the same thing.  Except I think it's actually cleaner as an Action/Treasure.  If you play it as an action, +2 cards and return it to your hand.  If you play it as a treasure, +$1.  I think this might be the first case where an Action/Treasure is really worth doing.

I really don't think i want to make it an Action-Treasure, sorry :(
All the rules i'd have to break are just not worth it. I'd rather have a reaction that can never happen outside your turn. At least there's ONE precedent with Hovel.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Jimmmmm on February 10, 2015, 05:47:53 pm
I wanted to avoid having to introduce new material for the card, that's why i went with VP instead of Curse tokens. They are technically unlimited anyhow, but i see that it IS an issue in physical Dominion games... Maybe use some coins or stuff as placeholders? I'm actually preferring that to the introduction of VP tokens, i admit.

I doubt it's more of an issue than with Goons - I often use Trade Route tokens as 20 or 25 VP in IRL Goons games.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 10, 2015, 05:54:54 pm
LastFootnote, i like your idea. I'm just not certain whether bringing together two breaks of unwritten Dominion rules isn't a bit too much...

I'm not sure which two rules you mean. I assume you're talking about the two new things it does, which are: a card that returns to your hand when played, and a reaction that always triggers at the start of your buy phase. Do not be afraid of new stuff! New stuff is cool! The important things are:

#1. It's not too confusing.
#2. It plays well (not too many tracking/logistics issues).
#3. It's fun (for at least some players).

Anyway, I don't think the card would be confusing and I think it would play better than River as printed. If it turns out lousy, you can always go back to Jeweler as you have it here. You can try River as you have it here too of course, but I'm not optimistic there. I love how simple River is, but I worry that it's just dead without villages.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 10, 2015, 06:00:05 pm
LastFootnote, i like your idea. I'm just not certain whether bringing together two breaks of unwritten Dominion rules isn't a bit too much...

I'm not sure which two rules you mean. I assume you're talking about the two new things it does, which are: a card that returns to your hand when played, and a reaction that always triggers at the start of your buy phase. Do not be afraid of new stuff! New stuff is cool! The important things are:

#1. It's not too confusing.
#2. It plays well (not too many tracking/logistics issues).
#3. It's fun (for at least some players).

Anyway, I don't think the card would be confusing and I think it would play better than River as printed. If it turns out lousy, you can always go back to Jeweler as you have it here. You can try River as you have it here too of course, but I'm not optimistic there. I love how simple River is, but I worry that it's just dead without villages.

Rats without TfB (and edge cases) is deader than River without villages, and I think there's marginally more villages than TfB? So there are precedents.

Then again I am the guy who campaigned to price River at $5 in that other thread (Counting House argument), so I might be biased.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 10, 2015, 06:04:34 pm
I don't think the Action-Treasure thing would work, either. It'd have two on-play effects, one for playing it as an Action and one for playing it as a Treasure, and the explaining it'd take to lay out both would be much more troublesome than just having it be a Reaction.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 10, 2015, 06:11:15 pm
LastFootnote, i like your idea. I'm just not certain whether bringing together two breaks of unwritten Dominion rules isn't a bit too much...

I'm not sure which two rules you mean. I assume you're talking about the two new things it does, which are: a card that returns to your hand when played, and a reaction that always triggers at the start of your buy phase. Do not be afraid of new stuff! New stuff is cool! The important things are:

#1. It's not too confusing.
#2. It plays well (not too many tracking/logistics issues).
#3. It's fun (for at least some players).

Anyway, I don't think the card would be confusing and I think it would play better than River as printed. If it turns out lousy, you can always go back to Jeweler as you have it here. You can try River as you have it here too of course, but I'm not optimistic there. I love how simple River is, but I worry that it's just dead without villages.

Rats without TfB (and edge cases) is deader than River without villages, and I think there's marginally more villages than TfB? So there are precedents.

Then again I am the guy who campaigned to price River at $5 in that other thread (Counting House argument), so I might be biased.

Well, Rats can also replace Curses with pseudo-Confusions, which might not be great, but as each played Rats gains another one, the opportunity cost is pretty low, too.

Also, here's how Reaction River would look like:

(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150211/mtvanf2y.jpg)

Fun fact: When i made Jeweler, i breifly considered Moat-Copper instead of Smithy-Silver for $3 because i thought the second option could become a monolithic strategy. I dismissed it as having a too high opportunity cost. I'll definitely try this :)

Edit: Effectively giving +2 cards, +$1 on a single play is pretty strong when compared too Smithy, though... Isn't it?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Awaclus on February 10, 2015, 06:11:50 pm
I usually use a cell phone as VP tokens in Goons games.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 10, 2015, 06:25:45 pm
Edit: Effectively giving +2 cards, +$1 on a single play is pretty strong when compared too Smithy, though... Isn't it?

I do think so...

You could try the less exciting "choose one: +1 action, + $1; or +2 cards, return this to your hand."

But I am not convinced River is the card that wants this effect tacked onto it. If there aren't any villages, this doesn't really make it so much more attractive to buy, because the main effect is still only moat. And if there are villages, River is already strong enough. YMMV.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 10, 2015, 06:54:31 pm
Edit: Effectively giving +2 cards, +$1 on a single play is pretty strong when compared too Smithy, though... Isn't it?

I do think so...

You could try the less exciting "choose one: +1 action, + $1; or +2 cards, return this to your hand."

But I am not convinced River is the card that wants this effect tacked onto it. If there aren't any villages, this doesn't really make it so much more attractive to buy, because the main effect is still only moat. And if there are villages, River is already strong enough. YMMV.

I don't know. As you said, without Villages, this is still a bad card. So it makes the card more complex without solving its main issue.

I don't really want it to cost $4, either. But i do feel it almost certainly needs to cost that as printed. I mean, it's not strictly better than Smithy, but with the discard for Copper, you can open double-River at practically no risk at all at get more than from Smithy. The only minor deficit is that the +$1 doesn't happen if you play it several times, but the fact that it highly pushes the first play destroys my reason to cost it at $3 in the first place.

I'd rather have it give a buy. Buys don't really scale much, either, and they are also often pretty useless in the early game, contrary to Jeweleriver.
Edit: Of course, the problem here is that you have to count buys without a card in play. Ugh. On the other hand, you have to count Actions, so you might be able to figure it out retrospectively, even if you lose track of the number of buys itself. Official cards also allready have that problem.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 10, 2015, 06:56:42 pm
I think it's fine at $3. Compare to Courtyard.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 10, 2015, 07:03:00 pm
I think it's fine at $3. Compare to Courtyard.

I'll try it. Like its older incarnations, it still has the problem of being rather bad if you want those actions for something else. I will also try a version that is just blank River with a buy and see which works better. I really find myself unable to judge its power at this point.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Drab Emordnilap on February 10, 2015, 08:10:32 pm
You could word Parliment as

"You may play an action card from your hand. If it costs 4 or less, play it again. If it costs 3 or less, play it a third time."
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 10, 2015, 09:24:43 pm
You could word Parliment as

"You may play an action card from your hand. If it costs 4 or less, play it again. If it costs 3 or less, play it a third time."

It looks nicer than my wording and also doesn't go crazy with cost reducers, but i'd still rather avoid the edge case of cost reducers getting played more often because they altered their own cost on the first play. Maybe i'm too stubborn here, but i experience that cost reduction is one of the most confusing topics (especially to inexperienced players), and i'd like to avoid a wording that opens that door if not necessary.

Edit: but i'll think about it tomorrow and maybe give it a shot. Thank you for the suggestion :)
I'm off for now, it's 03:26. Good night and thank you all for your great ideas and considerations. :D
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AJD on February 11, 2015, 12:20:23 am
Regarding Dungeon and Paddock, I know it's not always meaningful to blue-sky compare costs based on changing vanilla bonuses, but:

I think Paddock (Peddler + gain a Silver) seems pretty strong for $5. Compare Explorer, which is usually "terminal silver, gain a Silver" for $5; Peddler is a lot stronger than terminal silver. I dunno, I recognize that Explorer has a shot at Gold-gaining, so maaaaybe it evens out.

Dungeon (curser + Victory card per empty pile) sounds balanced to me. It's a scaling victory card, yes; but don't think of it as a scaling card because it doesn't scale very much. Think of it as more like Nobles or Harem or Tunnel, a functional Victory card worth about 2 points. This makes Dungeon : Witch :: Dame Josephine : Sir Destry, which seems like a fair $5 card. Dame Josephine is on the weak side, but Dungeon has the added bonus that you have a shot at getting it up to 3 points in some games.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 11, 2015, 04:27:16 am
Regarding Dungeon and Paddock, I know it's not always meaningful to blue-sky compare costs based on changing vanilla bonuses, but:

I think Paddock (Peddler + gain a Silver) seems pretty strong for $5. Compare Explorer, which is usually "terminal silver, gain a Silver" for $5; Peddler is a lot stronger than terminal silver. I dunno, I recognize that Explorer has a shot at Gold-gaining, so maaaaybe it evens out.

Dungeon (curser + Victory card per empty pile) sounds balanced to me. It's a scaling victory card, yes; but don't think of it as a scaling card because it doesn't scale very much. Think of it as more like Nobles or Harem or Tunnel, a functional Victory card worth about 2 points. This makes Dungeon : Witch :: Dame Josephine : Sir Destry, which seems like a fair $5 card. Dame Josephine is on the weak side, but Dungeon has the added bonus that you have a shot at getting it up to 3 points in some games.

Well, Explorer looks weak when compared to Squire, too. $1 coin for what, a cost decrease of $3, two additional options and an on-trash clause? O-okay... I think we have to consider the Gold gaining as something big, even if it isn't, just so Explorer doesn't look bad in comparison to a lot of cards, especially Silver gainers. Think of Ironworks, too. Paddock can draw dead cards, which is made up by the fact that it can draw Silvers. It has an action but can't get you Gold. I know it's a close call, but i wouldn't really like to make Paddock worse only because Explorer is weak. If it playtests as too strong (which might still be the case), that's something different. Some people have pointed out that it's an engine component that clogs engines.

About Dungeon, i can't really add much to what you said. I need to try it a bit. I'm certainly more concerned about fun than about cost, here.

Edit: If Paddock turns out too good, i could still make a version for $4 without th +$1... Bye bye, Trusty Steed bonus...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 11, 2015, 04:44:29 am
You could word Parliment as

"You may play an action card from your hand. If it costs 4 or less, play it again. If it costs 3 or less, play it a third time."

Thinking about this, i can really see its appeal. It's about as simple as my "the same as this/less than it" wording, just with cost reduction possible. The mid-execution cost change with Bridge and Highway really feels a bit off to me though... Then again, crazier things can happen, and it DOES tell you what to do right on the card. I might just as well give this a try :-)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Drab Emordnilap on February 11, 2015, 07:43:38 am
You could word Parliment as

"You may play an action card from your hand. If it costs 4 or less, play it again. If it costs 3 or less, play it a third time."

Thinking about this, i can really see its appeal. It's about as simple as my "the same as this/less than it" wording, just with cost reduction possible. The mid-execution cost change with Bridge and Highway really feels a bit off to me though... Then again, crazier things can happen, and it DOES tell you what to do right on the card. I might just as well give this a try :-)

At least it doesn't play Bridge 5 times. :p
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 11, 2015, 10:28:53 am
"Gain a Silver in hand" seems like a $4 effect, especially in comparison to Squire. Which puts Explorer in a strange spot but we knew that.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 11, 2015, 11:03:40 am
Allright, here's Palindrome Bard... um, i mean Drab Emordnilap's Parliament:
(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150211/a2i66e7a.jpg)

Ha! Ha! Ha! I don't know how that happened...
*beat*
Now, seriously:

(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150211/yag3bwa4.jpg)

Edit: I have to say, it's really a version to consider :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 11, 2015, 11:19:17 am
I think the "play it a third time" phrasing is more clear. Also, you should have commas rather than colons in the text.

EDIT: Can I offer you a better template, Asper? Which program are you using to make these images?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 11, 2015, 12:09:23 pm
I think the "play it a third time" phrasing is more clear. Also, you should have commas rather than colons in the text.

EDIT: Can I offer you a better template, Asper? Which program are you using to make these images?

I figured "once more" was sufficient, but i used that mostly to avoid a line break, so there's no good reason against "a third time" if you think that's better. Aren't commas misleading you into believing the lines are alternatives? I know semicolons would do that, but i'm not sure about commas.


I would be very grateful for a better template :)
I made mine using Photoshop and some templates i found online. When i had to print them, i shifted them slightly because it gave better results, but forgot to change it back, which is why they are a bit askew.
Edit: I don't mind using another software, though, if that produces better-looking cards :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 11, 2015, 12:22:04 pm
I figured "once more" was sufficient, but i used that mostly to avoid a line break, so there's no good reason against "a third time" if you think that's better. Aren't commas misleading you into believing the lines are alternatives? I know semicolons would do that, but i'm not sure about commas.

I would say the colons mislead you into thinking the lines are alternatives. The "a third time" clarifies further that they are cumulative.

I would be very grateful for a better template :)
I made mine using Photoshop and some templates i found online. When i had to print them, i shifted them slightly because it gave better results, but forgot to change it back, which is why they are a bit askew.
Edit: I don't mind using another software, though, if that produces better-looking cards :)

My template may be the same as the one you use now, but I've improved it significantly over the years. I'll send it to you later when I have access to my home computer. It's in .xcf format because I use GIMP. Maybe Photoshop can read that format, I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 11, 2015, 12:38:23 pm
I figured "once more" was sufficient, but i used that mostly to avoid a line break, so there's no good reason against "a third time" if you think that's better. Aren't commas misleading you into believing the lines are alternatives? I know semicolons would do that, but i'm not sure about commas.

I would say the colons mislead you into thinking the lines are alternatives. The "a third time" clarifies further that they are cumulative.

That's a good point. "Once more" might technically be mistaken to mean the same as "a second time". Allright, i'll change that.


I would be very grateful for a better template :)
I made mine using Photoshop and some templates i found online. When i had to print them, i shifted them slightly because it gave better results, but forgot to change it back, which is why they are a bit askew.
Edit: I don't mind using another software, though, if that produces better-looking cards :)

My template may be the same as the one you use now, but I've improved it significantly over the years. I'll send it to you later when I have access to my home computer. It's in .xcf format because I use GIMP. Maybe Photoshop can read that format, I'm not sure.

Thank you :)
I'm not very experienced with Gimp, but i'm sure it's going to work out one way or another.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 11, 2015, 03:49:24 pm
Ah, i see i misundertood you point before because i mistook "colon" for "period". Confused me a bit. So i believe this is what we are talking about.

(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150211/vgnljuqi.jpg)

It might be okay. Bridge and Highway are only two cards, anyhow. Well, and you could play Herald/Throne Room/ Parliament/King's Court to play Black Market to play 1-2 Quarries and be able to play Herald/Throne Room/Parliament/King's Court two more times... But i think that's it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on February 11, 2015, 03:59:32 pm
Although even 2-card combos are not that common, it's worth noting that Parliament-Parliament-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge is as good as KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge except that Parliament costs 4 instead of 7. So I'm guessing that almost any board with both cards (and and sort of draw to help them combine) is going to be a race to play that.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 11, 2015, 04:10:55 pm
I blame Bridge. I really wish its cost reduction were "while in play" like all the others.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 11, 2015, 05:26:16 pm
Although even 2-card combos are not that common, it's worth noting that Parliament-Parliament-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge is as good as KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge except that Parliament costs 4 instead of 7. So I'm guessing that almost any board with both cards (and and sort of draw to help them combine) is going to be a race to play that.

Oh my, good point. That's really not something i'd want.

You can reduce the effect of Parliament-Parliament-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge a little if you change the wording to first distinguish between costs and only then play the card a set number of times: "If it costs $3 or less: Play it three times. If it costs $4: Play it twice. If it costs $5 or more: Play it once." I tried something like that before, and, well, the wording wasn't very elegant. Anyhow, it reduces the Bridge count to 5 plays instead of nine. It gets bumped up to 7 if you start your PPBBB hand with a spare action, and becomes 9 again if you somehow played a Bridge before.

The other option, which i posted earlier, would be to compare the price of the action with Parliament itself, effectively killing any cost reduction combos: "If it costs more than this: Play it once. If it costs the same: Play it twice. If it costs less: Play it 3 times."

And then of course there's scrapping the card alltogether...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 11, 2015, 05:34:27 pm
Pretty sure that the option to play a card from your hand once should only be there if it makes the card simpler to word.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 11, 2015, 06:07:19 pm
Pretty sure that the option to play a card from your hand once should only be there if it makes the card simpler to word.

Hmm, yeah... I saw the benefit of adding it in the fact that it covers all cases, making the card possibly easier to grasp. You won't sit there, wondering "Huh, and what does it do if the card costs more?". I might be wrong, though, and i'm far from unwilling to remove this part if that's better.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 11, 2015, 06:13:26 pm
Have you considered adding underline text?

"In games using this, bridge costs $17P."

EDIT: just to be safe.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 11, 2015, 08:27:20 pm
(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150212/j9wmod5v.jpg)(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150212/dbg9rjnx.jpg)

Allright, i think i have narrowed it down to these two. I like the wording on the right better, but the left one allows more combos and i'm leaning a bit more towards it for this reason.

A PPBBB hand can still get crazy if you play a Highway first, but that's a 3-card-combo. You can also play a Bridge before setting up that hand, but you'd either have to use Prince (another 3-card-combo) or have PPBBBB in hand and an action to spare, which is quite a bit harder to do. Either way, i can live with those possibilities. Highway can get played up to 3 times depending on how many you played before, but it doesn't do anything Pawn can't on those additional plays, so that's fine.

And Princess... Um, well... Let's just say she's very much into politics.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on February 11, 2015, 08:35:51 pm
I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 11, 2015, 08:52:56 pm
I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.

Yes, that's better. I have looked through the pages and was sure i had it there at some point, but it turns out i never had. Good catch.

Edit: Ah, no, i just assumed there wouldn't be such cards because of the rules confusion with Highway. Anyhow, it's still probably better.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on February 11, 2015, 08:58:58 pm
I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.

Yes, that's better. I have looked through the pages and was sure i had it there at some point, but it turns out i never had. Good catch.

Edit: Ah, no, i just assumed there wouldn't be such cards because of the rules confusion with Highway. Anyhow, it's still probably better.

I agree that making cards more expensive is unlikely for the reason you state, but making a card cheaper until sometime other than end of turn seems possible.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 11, 2015, 09:28:59 pm
I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.

Yes, that's better. I have looked through the pages and was sure i had it there at some point, but it turns out i never had. Good catch.

Edit: Ah, no, i just assumed there wouldn't be such cards because of the rules confusion with Highway. Anyhow, it's still probably better.

I agree that making cards more expensive is unlikely for the reason you state, but making a card cheaper until sometime other than end of turn seems possible.

Well, it could also happen if you did a card that only makes some cards cheaper. There even is a precedent with Quarry.

I'm leaving for now, it's pretty late here. Anyhow, here's my latest take on Parliament. I reordered it so the $4 option comes first. Now the bonus scales up, and "otherwise, if it costs less" seems a lot less weird than "otherwise, if it costs $4" in my opinion.
(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150212/dbaiidc8.jpg)

Thanks for the tips and considerations :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 11, 2015, 09:48:22 pm
I sent Asper the template just now, but I also mocked up River just for fun (I might test it myself eventually). So I thought why not post my version of it.

(http://i.imgur.com/kMzqn2T.png)

It has two exotic concepts, but it really is a dead simple card.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 12, 2015, 12:44:31 pm
I sent Asper the template just now, but I also mocked up River just for fun (I might test it myself eventually). So I thought why not post my version of it.

(http://i.imgur.com/kMzqn2T.png)

It has two exotic concepts, but it really is a dead simple card.

This really looks much better than my template.
Thank you again for sharing :)

I also allready tried it out a bit. Very nice :)
Here's something i did with it, a variant that gives you the choice to take a buy instead of returning it to your hand. Without Villages, it's a Woodcutter that draws instead of giving coins, so it's pretty weak. Ah, maybe it's really too weak...

(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150212/rpqaybir.jpg)

Anyhow, i will test both the version you mocked up and this as soon as i can. If it shows Jeweleriver isn't too superior to Smithy, i'll go with it, but it's nice to have an alternative, i guess. I can't tell when my next playtest will be, though, i'm procrastinating my studies right now as is... ;)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 12, 2015, 04:23:12 pm
Throne Room could have some weird interactions with that wording, although it's not like an excess of buys would matter too often.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Awaclus on February 12, 2015, 04:27:18 pm
I don't think the +buy makes sense. How often do you even need +buy if there isn't a village?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 12, 2015, 05:34:47 pm
I don't think the +buy makes sense. How often do you even need +buy if there isn't a village?

You're playing... um... uh... Big Money, maybe? Or... a slog? Yeah... a slog, that's it!

Allright, i know a buy isn't awesome. I'd just like to have a buff over blank River that doesn't make Smithy obsolete or make the card overly complex. LastFootnote's fix does the second thinkg, and if the first turns out allright, i'll use it. There might be something Smithy can that River can't, and i may be blind for it right now. Playtesting will tell. I could also cost it at $4, but because the majority of Villages now costs $4 or more, i'd like to avoid that too, if possible.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 12, 2015, 08:01:39 pm
I don't think the +buy makes sense. How often do you even need +buy if there isn't a village?

I thought about this. Let's just assume there's no Village. What could make you buy a River with a buy? A cantrip engine? Hardly. Would you buy Smithy for a cantrip engine? I don't know about you, but i probably wouldn't. River doesn't need to be good on any board. Smithy isn't, either. It's okay if you have actions to spend or if you are basically playing big money. The buy adds a few Alt-VP scenarios. I think that's sufficient. But i might want to price it at $2 with the version i suggested. I really don't know. Which is why i'll make a few solo playtests now. It's far from as good as multiplayer, but hey, it's 2 in the morning here, i probably shouldn't wake the neighbors for testing my card. Or should i...? Hm...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 12, 2015, 08:07:39 pm
it's 2 in the morning here, i probably shouldn't wake the neighbors for testing my card. Or should i...? Hm...

I'm sure they will understand, if you explain that it's a matter of life and death. I mean, every second you spend thinking that basic River could reasonably cost $2 is one second of high heart attack risk for me.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 12, 2015, 11:00:06 pm
it's 2 in the morning here, i probably shouldn't wake the neighbors for testing my card. Or should i...? Hm...

I'm sure they will understand, if you explain that it's a matter of life and death. I mean, every second you spend thinking that basic River could reasonably cost $2 is one second of high heart attack risk for me.

Silly pacovf, we're not talking basic River costing $2. We're talking River-with-a-buy costing $2.
But i wouldn't want you to die, so let's just claim i never said that. Unless of course, playtesting reveals that's actually reasonable.

About playtesting, did i mention how unsatisfying solo playtests are? I just played a game with River-plus-buy for $3, and while there were no Villages, there was Highway, and all other cards giving buys costed $5 or more. River-Highway barely won against Wharf-Big Money and Stewart-Counterfeit-supported Grand Market. Why? Because solo playtesting sucks. Or at least i do suck at solo playtesting. Curse those neighbors and their petty "need for sleep".
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on February 13, 2015, 12:01:58 pm
You got some pretty cool ideas there, Mister Asper ;) I am kind of surprised how multiple creators of fan cards differ in their preferred concepts and ideas and all of them can make reasonable cards that rarely overlap with what other people do. I don't see a comprehensive concept among your cards but that's not a problem nor is that the point of your ideas, I assume.

I will give you my thoughts on your cards, always referring to the most recent version of them I can find.

Swamp: The basic thought behind it is neat but I don't like how it just makes every cursing attack so much weaker with literally no downside to it. Maybe you can come up with something better? Something that makes it a non-trivial decision whether you really want the Swamp over Curse. I was thinking about a side-effect that harms you right now, like "While this is in the Supply, when you gain a card, you may gain this instead. If you do, discard 2 cards."

Homunculus: I like the options you have with it. I just don't see why (a) you should trash a Potion on-gain, (b) it should be a Potion-cost card in the first place, and (c) it should be a cantrip. That doesn't mean I consider these bad decisions. I would be glad if you clarified, though, because I cannot seem to follow your explanation for it.

Ranger: I agree with LFN, it's not very exciting but it's something that you should still go for because it's not bad. And it would be even better and probably a little more exciting if you looked at 3 cards, drew one, discarded one and put one back. That should still work for $2. Pretty strong, though.

River (the version by LFN): I love how simple and clever and useful it is. I totally want to play-test this :D

Sultan: Great idea! Some nice synergies, e. g. with Fool's Gold, Harem (nice one) and many Treasures from Prosperity. I will probably play-test Sultan, too.

Incantation: Another cool concept, although I also prefer LFN's suggestion "+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand, then reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a more expensive card that shares a type with it. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest." I know you're happy with the original but the man knows what he's talking about ;) Simpler is better in this case.

Aqueduct: Dunno, seems fine but... needs more oomph, I suppose.

Assassin: Another cool idea and I personally don't mind the break it causes because the decisions really matter (unlike with Spy, which we all know is more of nuisance to all players than an attack). The vanilla bonus seems weird at first but hey, it doesn't say anywhere you can't or shouldn't do that. The attack doesn't stack so it's fine imo. It's even adequate for such a strong attack.

Paddock: Cute. Somehow, I like it more than Aqueduct - not that they're related anyway.

Tribunal: You are open towards political cards! This is meant as an accusation! Jokes aside, I think there are cases where you can do such things but this is the wrong place for it. Each player should be treated the same way and maybe they could reveal only a part of their hand, though I'm not sure about that. Anyway, if you see cards from each other player's hand and then have to make one decision for all of them, that would (perhaps) be less frustrating and really make the attacking player think about it. The Chancellor option has no place on that card.

Meadow: Too many gains. I don't have a better suggestion at the moment. I just think one gain shouldn't come with two more gains, especially when all of them are Victory cards.

Alley: Seems fine and balanced. Sorry, I can't say more right now but I might play-test it eventually.

Politician: This is the right way to do a political card ;) You don't know anything about the hands of other players without the help of other cards and that's good. It encourages attention and strategic gameplay. Tribunal, on the other hand gives you too much information and power. It should do only one of the things.

Hospital: It's good that Hospital has a limitation to how many VP you can get with it. It's bad that diluting your deck with Coppers will drag out the game because Hospitals will be played less frequently while players still might be unwilling to end it as long as there are Coppers in the Supply. So I'm not okay with it.

Nouveau Riche: I like it. Dominion has some cards that mitigate or even reward greening, and those are necessary, within limits. While I don't have a problem with the third paragraph, I still suggest at least testing the card without it for previously stated reasons.

Parliament: I can't estimate how balanced it is but you're probably way ahead of me in that regard. So I'll just say, it's a good TR-variant. I'd like to play-test that.

Assemble: I would say the exact same thing as LFN^^ ("Cool. If trashing $5 cards into Province/Copper ends up too strong, try having the gained cards go on your deck.")

Dungeon: Similarly to Meadow, too much self-synergy, plus it's really bland and lackluster.

Jeweler: I assume this fused with the old River into the new River? Anyway, Jeweler seems fine as a Reaction. Maybe too weak but maybe not. I also regret that the Dominion rules make it very difficult to properly implement an Action/Treasure card, although there could have been some elegant solutions for this, I'm sure.

Vampire: Yeesh, I saw these kinds of cards manifold before and they all seem so MtG and so anti-Dominion (the name and image of the card add to that sensation). Balance and tactics aside, I don't like it. Sorry, it's not Dominion for me.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 13, 2015, 03:47:22 pm
You got some pretty cool ideas there, Mister Asper ;) I am kind of surprised how multiple creators of fan cards differ in their preferred concepts and ideas and all of them can make reasonable cards that rarely overlap with what other people do. I don't see a comprehensive concept among your cards but that's not a problem nor is that the point of your ideas, I assume.

I like to do new things, i guess. Some of them end up good, others not so much. I'm glad you think some ideas are cool :)
At some point i tried to make a fan set or two, but half of the cards were always not good enough, and so i was left with a random mix. It's why this thread is "Asper's cards" and not "Asper's Fan Expansion" ;)
Also your post reminds me that i should probably update my Opening Post.



Swamp: The basic thought behind it is neat but I don't like how it just makes every cursing attack so much weaker with literally no downside to it. Maybe you can come up with something better? Something that makes it a non-trivial decision whether you really want the Swamp over Curse. I was thinking about a side-effect that harms you right now, like "While this is in the Supply, when you gain a card, you may gain this instead. If you do, discard 2 cards."

I think i saw it as the non-obvious downside that a Curser would give you quite a lot more junk than usual if you gain Swamps. 10 Curses in a 2-player game are bad, but 10 Curses and 10 Swamps are awful. It prolongues the junking. That said, i'm accepting that the overall feedback on Swamp is negative. I wanted it to be bad enough to not destroy junkers completely and at the same time add something you might buy it on your own. Probably that's where the problem comes from, it'll always be too bad or too good.



Homunculus: I like the options you have with it. I just don't see why (a) you should trash a Potion on-gain, (b) it should be a Potion-cost card in the first place, and (c) it should be a cantrip. That doesn't mean I consider these bad decisions. I would be glad if you clarified, though, because I cannot seem to follow your explanation for it.

Well, as i said to LastFootnote, this started out as a cantrip trasher for $2. It always had the exact same text above the line, and was grotesquely powerful. One way to weaken it would be to remove the draw, but then it's just not the same card anymore:

Quote
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you don't, put a card from your hand on top of your deck.
(Left out the discard option for obvious reasons)

For the Hinterlands contest, i instead tried a version that would get set aside when gained, only to be put in your discard after your next shuffle. Well, turns out that a delayed gain doesn't do enough to keep this from being dominating. So i tried it at $3, then $4. That seemed okay, at least you can't normally open double-Homunculus (or Artifact, at that time), anymore. Just, if it costs $4 and is gained with a delay, i could just as well make it cost a Potion and trash that on play. At least you don't have to worry about weird Trader, Inn or whatever interaction, and don't need to introduce new rules. So, this actually wasn't a Potion card for a long time - it just solved two problems at once. I can imagine a lot of reasons why a card shouldn't cost a Potion, but here i saw it as the best option.



Ranger: I agree with LFN, it's not very exciting but it's something that you should still go for because it's not bad. And it would be even better and probably a little more exciting if you looked at 3 cards, drew one, discarded one and put one back. That should still work for $2. Pretty strong, though.

Well, when choosing between only two, this is still commonly better than Vagrant if the first card is worse than the second. It's about equally good if both cards are bad or the second card is worse than the second, as long as you don't consider handsize. Ranger is worse than Vagrant if both revealed cards are something you'd want to draw, or if both at least are better than you can expect from your deck on average. Having said that, i would rather drop this than letting it reveal 3 cards. We'd have another Outlook then (i assume it would have to cost $3), and i think Outlook doesn't need a brother. Considering it's generally viewed as boring, dropping seems appropriate.



River (the version by LFN): I love how simple and clever and useful it is. I totally want to play-test this :D

That would be great. Do so and tell about it :D
I guess we can consider this the preferred version of the card right now (pacovf may disagree ;) ).



Sultan: Great idea! Some nice synergies, e. g. with Fool's Gold, Harem (nice one) and many Treasures from Prosperity. I will probably play-test Sultan, too.

Woo-Hoo! Thanks :)



Incantation: Another cool concept, although I also prefer LFN's suggestion "+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand, then reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a more expensive card that shares a type with it. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest." I know you're happy with the original but the man knows what he's talking about ;) Simpler is better in this case.

Yeah, i guess you two are right. I'll change it.



Aqueduct: Dunno, seems fine but... needs more oomph, I suppose.

i tried to add a bit of complexity by nerfing this before in the Prosperity contest (it made attacks you played while it was out do nothing). It was not well received. Power wise, i think it's more than decent, but it's certainly one of the more boring cards. Anyhow, it's one of the better tested cards, too, and plays nice and easy. As it allready exists, i'm not worrying about card space, either. I can see why you would want something more appealing, though.



Assassin: Another cool idea and I personally don't mind the break it causes because the decisions really matter (unlike with Spy, which we all know is more of nuisance to all players than an attack). The vanilla bonus seems weird at first but hey, it doesn't say anywhere you can't or shouldn't do that. The attack doesn't stack so it's fine imo. It's even adequate for such a strong attack.

Good to hear you don't mind the bonus. As you figured, the attack's strength is why the bonus is not worth much on its own. You need other cards to go with. I imagined it could be interesting to have an attack engine where the attack plays the Village part. It wasn't ever playtested, though, so i wouldn't be surprised if i missed something here. Maybe the attack is just too cruel to be fun, too.



Paddock: Cute. Somehow, I like it more than Aqueduct - not that they're related anyway.

Thanks :)



Tribunal: You are open towards political cards! This is meant as an accusation! Jokes aside, I think there are cases where you can do such things but this is the wrong place for it. Each player should be treated the same way and maybe they could reveal only a part of their hand, though I'm not sure about that. Anyway, if you see cards from each other player's hand and then have to make one decision for all of them, that would (perhaps) be less frustrating and really make the attacking player think about it. The Chancellor option has no place on that card.

The Chancellor effect is rubbish. LastFootnote told me, you tell me, and i kind of saw it coming anyhow. The only reason why this card is still there the way it is is because i didn't undertake any effort to fix it. Probably because i know that the core concept itself isn't very fun (choose whether opponent keeps or discards his hand).
I don't quite see why it's political, though. I mean, you choose the worst option for every opponent. Though i CAN see how you get the idea - it could theoretically be used to actively support a certain player... Generally, i find choosing an option for all players even more political. If four people play and only the leading guy has a good hand, do i let them all draw new cards, even if it helps more players than it hurts?
I'm going to remove this card for now. Maybe i'll bring back the core idea later, but at this time it just has too many issues.



Meadow: Too many gains. I don't have a better suggestion at the moment. I just think one gain shouldn't come with two more gains, especially when all of them are Victory cards.

I see this isn't really popular. Still i kind of want to try this out sooner or later. But you guys have a reason to not like it, and maybe i'm being stubborn. I'll put it on my testing list and take it out for now.



Alley: Seems fine and balanced. Sorry, I can't say more right now but I might play-test it eventually.

That would be awesome :)
My group tested it a bit and it's fairly popular, but of course that doesn't mean anything (as they are mostly relatives without in-depth dominion strategy knowledge).



Politician: This is the right way to do a political card ;) You don't know anything about the hands of other players without the help of other cards and that's good. It encourages attention and strategic gameplay. Tribunal, on the other hand gives you too much information and power. It should do only one of the things.

Thanks :)



Hospital: It's good that Hospital has a limitation to how many VP you can get with it. It's bad that diluting your deck with Coppers will drag out the game because Hospitals will be played less frequently while players still might be unwilling to end it as long as there are Coppers in the Supply. So I'm not okay with it.

Hmm, interesting point. I figured that gaining a Copper would be an incentive to buy something if you allready watered down your deck for that extra coin. I mean, if you don't, your deck will constantly become worse. I might misjudge Hospitals power, but i believed that this would be a rather weak strategy, potentially beatable with things as simple as Big Money+. Of course, if there is decent trashing, you might as well create a timed Golden Deck. If it works, the Copper pile should drain quickly. The worst case would probably be a game where all players attempt such a Golden deck, only to find out that the trashing isn't good enough (and not bad enough to make switching to another strategy better). Then again, you can have a game where everybody thinks an unsupported Poor House/Rats/whatever other support-dependant card was the best choice...



Nouveau Riche: I like it. Dominion has some cards that mitigate or even reward greening, and those are necessary, within limits. While I don't have a problem with the third paragraph, I still suggest at least testing the card without it for previously stated reasons.

I'll change it for now. If it turns out to be better with that option, i can still add it again, later :)



Parliament: I can't estimate how balanced it is but you're probably way ahead of me in that regard. So I'll just say, it's a good TR-variant. I'd like to play-test that.

Thank you :)
I'd be curious as to how it turns out if you playtest it.



Assemble: I would say the exact same thing as LFN^^ ("Cool. If trashing $5 cards into Province/Copper ends up too strong, try having the gained cards go on your deck.")

I don't mind doing that, if it turns out to be needed.



Dungeon: Similarly to Meadow, too much self-synergy, plus it's really bland and lackluster.

Yeah, another one that's more about the idea than about the card. I think it is balanced, but it's certainly bland. I don't really see the self-synergy with Meadow, though. I mean, i think Farmlands has more of that than Meadow, i think.



Jeweler: I assume this fused with the old River into the new River? Anyway, Jeweler seems fine as a Reaction. Maybe too weak but maybe not. I also regret that the Dominion rules make it very difficult to properly implement an Action/Treasure card, although there could have been some elegant solutions for this, I'm sure.

This was the most elegant way i found, but maybe there's something better. Obviously Jeweler is obsolete if River stays in in the form LastFootnote suggested.



Vampire: Yeesh, I saw these kinds of cards manifold before and they all seem so MtG and so anti-Dominion (the name and image of the card add to that sensation). Balance and tactics aside, I don't like it. Sorry, it's not Dominion for me.

That's fine. I'm aware it's a bit off. It's from a time when i was working on a "Fantasy" expansion and started out as one of those awful "Curse/Actions". Now we all know Curse/Actions are horrible. This was my solution as to how you can avoid the issue with trashing, make it scale with each use, and still not be dependant on the Curse pile or on new tokens. It's a bit like Jeweler. An experiment about whether you can actually make a certain concept work while staying inside Dominion's existing ruleset.



Thank you very much for your critique and suggestions :)

Edit: I'm going to update the OP as soon as i am finished mocking up the current versions with LastFootnote's awesome template. Yay! :D
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 13, 2015, 03:59:55 pm
I'd just like to have a buff over blank River that doesn't make Smithy obsolete or make the card overly complex. LastFootnote's fix does the second thinkg, and if the first turns out allright, i'll use it. There might be something Smithy can that River can't, and i may be blind for it right now. Playtesting will tell. I could also cost it at $4, but because the majority of Villages now costs $4 or more, i'd like to avoid that too, if possible.

I meant to post this awhile ago, but life happens. Posting it now!

Although I haven't tested it yet, I'd say it's pretty likely that $3 Reaction-River isn't just better than Smithy. BM-River may be better than BM-Smithy in the same way that BM-Courtyard is better than BM-Smithy. But if you're building a draw engine, you'd rather have Smithies that Courtyards. Similarly, I think sometimes you'd rather have Smithies than Rivers. If you only have one River in your draw engine deck, you're screwed if you don't get it in your hand. But adding too many Rivers hurts because each additional River you draw in a turn is effectively a Copper, whereas each Smithy you draw is a Smithy. Also, Smithy just cycles 50% more than River, which is very significant.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 13, 2015, 05:31:51 pm
I'd just like to have a buff over blank River that doesn't make Smithy obsolete or make the card overly complex. LastFootnote's fix does the second thinkg, and if the first turns out allright, i'll use it. There might be something Smithy can that River can't, and i may be blind for it right now. Playtesting will tell. I could also cost it at $4, but because the majority of Villages now costs $4 or more, i'd like to avoid that too, if possible.

I meant to post this awhile ago, but life happens. Posting it now!

Although I haven't tested it yet, I'd say it's pretty likely that $3 Reaction-River isn't just better than Smithy. BM-River may be better than BM-Smithy in the same way that BM-Courtyard is better than BM-Smithy. But if you're building a draw engine, you'd rather have Smithies that Courtyards. Similarly, I think sometimes you'd rather have Smithies than Rivers. If you only have one River in your draw engine deck, you're screwed if you don't get it in your hand. But adding too many Rivers hurts because each additional River you draw in a turn is effectively a Copper, whereas each Smithy you draw is a Smithy. Also, Smithy just cycles 50% more than River, which is very significant.

I have thought a bit about this, and the idea you suggested to put Jeweler and River together is just too good. Unless there comes up hard data that says it behaves better in both engines and Big Money, i'd say let's just use the Reaction version.

Also, i'm not even sure River is better for BM. It's like a Smithy that always draws a Copper as the third card. Depending on how your deck looks, it might be worse.

Edit: I updated the OP with new mockups made with your awesome template. Yay! :D
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 14, 2015, 04:59:41 pm
I really wish it was possible to find pictures of medieval nobleman on horses looking fierce and holding a pergament... :(
I mocked up a version for Charter with only pergament (sans fierce guy on horse), but that simply doesn't look like an attack anymore...

(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150214/sahmjx98.jpg)

Edit: Renamed it because without the horse-person "Charter" neither looks nor sounds very attack-like.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: polot38 on February 14, 2015, 06:31:59 pm
A few comments:
1. Ranger. Is the version i am reading right? +1 Card, +1 action, then get another card? Thats far better than a lab, and at 2$ cost…
2. River is just plain OP. Part of the thing about why moat and such aren't good drawers is that all cards have an implicit -1 Card in their effect. This card has no such drawback (essentially becoming a perpetual smithy), aside from the first time you play it in any given turn, and allows engines to fire very easily with very few of these and a lot of villages (the basic village becoming essentially a +3 cards +1 action with this in play…).
3. An attack/treasure? This seems far too spammable, even with the nerf you gave it. I could just buy this a lot, have a good economy, all the while ruining my opponent's deck.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 14, 2015, 06:46:32 pm
2. River is just plain OP. Part of the thing about why moat and such aren't good drawers is that all cards have an implicit -1 Card in their effect. This card has no such drawback (essentially becoming a perpetual smithy), aside from the first time you play it in any given turn, and allows engines to fire very easily with very few of these and a lot of villages (the basic village becoming essentially a +3 cards +1 action with this in play…).

Mwahaha, now there's two of us, Asper... Are you afraid yet?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: XerxesPraelor on February 14, 2015, 06:52:41 pm
I declare there to be three
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 14, 2015, 08:20:06 pm
A few comments:
1. Ranger. Is the version i am reading right? +1 Card, +1 action, then get another card? Thats far better than a lab, and at 2$ cost…

Argh, no... When i mocked up the card with LastFootnotes new template, i accidentally added a +1 Card...
This is how it should look like:

(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150215/spz7koku.jpg)



2. River is just plain OP. Part of the thing about why moat and such aren't good drawers is that all cards have an implicit -1 Card in their effect. This card has no such drawback (essentially becoming a perpetual smithy), aside from the first time you play it in any given turn, and allows engines to fire very easily with very few of these and a lot of villages (the basic village becoming essentially a +3 cards +1 action with this in play…).

I admit i am having a hard time to judge River's power. Originally the card was just "+2 Cards, return this to your hand". There was some discussion as to how strong it was. pacovf argued it was a Smithy plus, and should cost $5. I argued that it was a Moat plus, and should cost $4 or $3. I decided $3 was fine, because double-openings were a horrible idea, obviously.

Then it was pointed out plain River was Moat (minus) in Village-less games, and wouldn't be bought. I considered to ignore it, but then it seemed an issue too big to ignore. LastFootnote suggested to fuse basic River and another card, Jeweler, together, to get this new version of River.

I am starting to think that, while i'm sure that "perpetual Smithy" and "Smithy plus" are misinterpretations of what the card does, this version is too close in power to Smithy, and should cost $4. Maybe it doesn't necessarily need to be - it's not "strictly" better than any $3 card, and in a limited array of situations it's worse than smithy. But i am very much in doubt, and i think that if you treat River like Smithy, playing each copy only once, it's still about on par. Smithy has more cycling, River draws a guaranteed "Copper". So it "should" cost $4. The thing is just, i'm not sure whether a $4 version of River makes sense. I would prefer a version that's easily available and where balancing how many you get is the real issue. This version isn't as easy to get anymore and balancing is less of a problem, as it's still a Copper when drawn dead.

Hmm... The more i'm thinking about this, the less i like that aspect. It just makes the card too easy to play. I considered this as a problem of Jeweler before, but it itches me more with River, which was supposed to be a "clever little card", while Jeweler was supposed to be a "strong $5 card". Shame. It seemed like a really cute fix. Even if it actually could cost $3 (which i'm not saying it can't) i don't like the fact that it loses much of the strategical challenge.

This should keep that aspect:

(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150215/7hh7gpv6.jpg)



3. An attack/treasure? This seems far too spammable, even with the nerf you gave it. I could just buy this a lot, have a good economy, all the while ruining my opponent's deck.

Well, compare it to Mountebank: It gives +$2, has a bane and junks you. Unlike Mountebank, this is spammable. Unlike Mountebank, it gives only only one junk card, causes no victory point loss, and gives you the bane (which also doubles as an actually useable card) in hand.

Then again, a Witch variant with an action - no matter how weak its attack would be - couldn't cost $5, either. Then again, Minion is another nonterminal attack that gives +$2, and that's annoying, but balanced. I admit it doesn't scale, though.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 14, 2015, 08:31:10 pm
2. River is just plain OP. Part of the thing about why moat and such aren't good drawers is that all cards have an implicit -1 Card in their effect. This card has no such drawback (essentially becoming a perpetual smithy), aside from the first time you play it in any given turn, and allows engines to fire very easily with very few of these and a lot of villages (the basic village becoming essentially a +3 cards +1 action with this in play…).

Mwahaha, now there's two of us, Asper... Are you afraid yet?

Consider my jimmies thoroughly rustled.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 14, 2015, 10:57:44 pm
I think Obligations is maybe too similar to Torturer. Otherwise I have no problem with it.


I don't think the +1 Buy solves River's "too weak without villages" problem. But I can understand how you might think the Reaction version is too automatic. Luckily, I have another wonderful solution! What if River weren't a Kingdom card at all? What if it were a card like Madman, Mercenary, or the Prizes, which you could optionally pick up if you fulfilled certain conditions? Then it wouldn't take up a Kingdom card slot on the boards where you didn't want it.

If you go for this solution, probably River should just be [+3 Cards; Put this into your hand]. No Reaction or +1 Buy necessary. It could be +2 Cards rather than +3 Cards, but my assumption is that it'll be non-trivial to get a River, so it should be on the strong side.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: market squire on February 15, 2015, 09:33:43 am
I sent Asper the template just now, but I also mocked up River just for fun (I might test it myself eventually). So I thought why not post my version of it.

(http://i.imgur.com/kMzqn2T.png)

It has two exotic concepts, but it really is a dead simple card.

Why not make it an Action/ Treasure?

Quote
River (Action-Treasure) $3
+2 Cards
Return this to your hand.

When you play this as Treasure, it is worth $1.

This would be possible here because you'd always know whether you played it as Action or as Treasure.
The effect is "Spend X Actions to draw X+1 times 2 cards, +$1." Totally okay for $3 or $4. Sure it makes Villages stronger, but i don't think that's a bad idea. Village + Smithy is also like one card that says +3 Cards +1 Action. But you have to gamble whether you draw them together! River is even more of a gamble because you need only one for the draw, so you have the choice to buy few (and draw less reliable) or to buy more Rivers (and have those almost-dead doubles in hand).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 15, 2015, 09:38:16 am
I think Obligations is maybe too similar to Torturer. Otherwise I have no problem with it.


I don't think the +1 Buy solves River's "too weak without villages" problem. But I can understand how you might think the Reaction version is too automatic. Luckily, I have another wonderful solution! What if River weren't a Kingdom card at all? What if it were a card like Madman, Mercenary, or the Prizes, which you could optionally pick up if you fulfilled certain conditions? Then it wouldn't take up a Kingdom card slot on the boards where you didn't want it.

If you go for this solution, probably River should just be [+3 Cards; Put this into your hand]. No Reaction or +1 Buy necessary. It could be +2 Cards rather than +3 Cards, but my assumption is that it'll be non-trivial to get a River, so it should be on the strong side.

Hmm... A Bandit Camp variant would be the obvious choice.
Quote
Some Village, Action, $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may gain a River.

Anyhow, i'm still preferring a kingdom card variant. Maybe i'll try the last version i posted (the one with a buy) at $2. For Village engines, the problem isn't affordability, but whether you find the right balance, anyhow. Getting a lot of Rivers isn't the problem. Getting the right amount is, i think. Games without Villages would be the ones to really profit: Alchemists, Conspirators, Lab, Stables and many other nonterminals can produce/draw nice amounts of coin without spare actions and often enough could profit from a cheap buy to finish the chain.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 15, 2015, 09:44:01 am
I sent Asper the template just now, but I also mocked up River just for fun (I might test it myself eventually). So I thought why not post my version of it.

(http://i.imgur.com/kMzqn2T.png)

It has two exotic concepts, but it really is a dead simple card.

Why not make it an Action/ Treasure?

Quote
River (Action-Treasure) $3
+2 Cards
Return this to your hand.

When you play this as Treasure, it is worth $1.

This would be possible here because you'd always know whether you played it as Action or as Treasure.
The effect is "Spend X Actions to draw X+1 times 2 cards, +$1." Totally okay for $3 or $4. Sure it makes Villages stronger, but i don't think that's a bad idea. Village + Smithy is also like one card that says +3 Cards +1 Action. But you have to gamble whether you draw them together! River is even more of a gamble because you need only one for the draw, so you have the choice to buy few (and draw less reliable) or to buy more Rivers (and have those almost-dead doubles in hand).

The Reaction effect (originally created for another terminal draw, Jeweler) is specifically to get an Action-Treasure functionality while avoiding the rules confusion and/or weird wordings this makes necessary.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 15, 2015, 10:07:43 am
Hmm... A Bandit Camp variant would be the obvious choice.
Quote
Some Village, Action, $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may gain a River.

If you want to go that route, I think a hermit variant is better:

Quote
Lake Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions

When you discard this from play, if you did not buy any cards this turn, return this to the supply and gain a River from the River pile.

This would require a lot of finetuning, of course.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 15, 2015, 05:41:11 pm
Hmm... A Bandit Camp variant would be the obvious choice.
Quote
Some Village, Action, $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may gain a River.

If you want to go that route, I think a hermit variant is better:

Quote
Lake Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions

When you discard this from play, if you did not buy any cards this turn, return this to the supply and gain a River from the River pile.

This would require a lot of finetuning, of course.

Lake Village is a cute name. How about another clause, though:

(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150215/wv47fcvm.jpg) (http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150215/s9lxt6hv.jpg)

Now you even BUY River with Actions ;D
The really great aspect about this is that it solves the "no-Village" problem while keeping my beloved vanilla River the same <3
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 15, 2015, 08:57:11 pm
River being a non-Supply card gained with a village seems good, but "conditional get it for free" seems odd. Madman and Mercenary seem like the most comparable cards, and they require trading the original for it. Maybe an optional "when you discard this, you may return it to the Supply; if you do, gain a River"?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 15, 2015, 09:40:59 pm
River being a non-Supply card gained with a village seems good, but "conditional get it for free" seems odd. Madman and Mercenary seem like the most comparable cards, and they require trading the original for it. Maybe an optional "when you discard this, you may return it to the Supply; if you do, gain a River"?

The clause may not be perfect yet (or rather, it certainly isn't), but i'd prefer to not have Lakeside Village return to the supply. One thing i don't like about Hermit/Madman is that there's no noticeable connection between the cards. Urchin/Mercenary have the same theme, but they are still vastly different and don't feel like they belong in the same deck. River and Lakeside Village (or however the name will be) belong in the same deck, and support each other. So you wouldn't want to remove one for the other. When you gain Mercenary, chances are you're not missing Urchin at all - actually, removing it makes sense. You'd miss the Village if you gain River, though. Also, i don't see why you shouldn't do something only because there is no precedent.

That's not saying the idea can't have other problems.

Edit: I considered Lakeside Village to be more of a mashup between Walled Village and Bandit Camp, actually.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 15, 2015, 10:00:17 pm
I think the point of the village going back to the supply is more about making the combo harder to achieve than to remove a card you don't need from your deck (and also, it is cute thematically, but names can be changed later).

Your condition is cute, but doesn't seem like much of a condition at all?

Basically the question is, how hard should it be to get a river once you have the village? Especially now that the combo is always available? The village really wants to draw a card to help River draw your deck, but it shouldn't cost more than $5 because you want a lot of them, so we are looking at a $4 cost village, which really isn't much of an increase compared to the vanilla village. How hard it is to gain a River should reflect that.

Of course, I believe River to be a very strong card, so something like TheOthin's suggestion seems good to me. You are paying $4 for a mining village-feast mix that can only gain one kind of card, seems reasonable to me. However, if you think that River is still worth somewhere around $3 even if villages are guaranteed to be in the kingdom, that is going to look like too harsh a condition for you.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on February 15, 2015, 11:43:58 pm
I love ancillary cards and fancy special stuff so I'm in favour of this Lakeside Village+River combo! Although on first look I would agree with pacovf that it seems too easy to get Rivers. After all, it's a strong card that you keep (unlike Madman) and that's gonna be useful the entire game (unlike Mercenary). And just opening with a Lakeside Village would be a guaranteed River after the second reshuffle.
Returning the Village to get a River seems fine, balance-wise. You could still get it easily AND buy a new Lakeside Village before the second reshuffle and you're good to go. There are probably other reasonable ways to do this so continue looking for alternatives.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: werothegreat on February 16, 2015, 12:47:39 am
You could always have Lakeside Village trash another card to get the River.  It's like they're building canals or something.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: cactus on February 16, 2015, 05:44:17 am
I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.

Yes, that's better. I have looked through the pages and was sure i had it there at some point, but it turns out i never had. Good catch.

Edit: Ah, no, i just assumed there wouldn't be such cards because of the rules confusion with Highway. Anyhow, it's still probably better.

I agree that making cards more expensive is unlikely for the reason you state, but making a card cheaper until sometime other than end of turn seems possible.

Well, it could also happen if you did a card that only makes some cards cheaper. There even is a precedent with Quarry.

I'm leaving for now, it's pretty late here. Anyhow, here's my latest take on Parliament. I reordered it so the $4 option comes first. Now the bonus scales up, and "otherwise, if it costs less" seems a lot less weird than "otherwise, if it costs $4" in my opinion.
(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150212/dbaiidc8.jpg)

Thanks for the tips and considerations :)

Point of interest (maybe for some, anyway):

The painting you've used for Parliment is a painting by Tom Roberts of the opening of the first Parliment of the commonwealth of Australia which took place on Melbourne in 1901 in the Royal Exhibition Buildings. Not far from where I live and across the road from where I work. :c)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: werothegreat on February 16, 2015, 10:25:45 am
You could always have Lakeside Village trash another card to get the River.  It's like they're building canals or something.

Actually, I rescind this idea: you gain a River if you have an unused Buy that turn.  Less thematic, but probably more balanced.  Have a wording like "When you discard this from play, if you have any unused Buys, you may use one to gain a River."
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 16, 2015, 10:46:13 am
Hmm. You know, Black Market allows outright buying non-Supply cards. Perhaps this could access River (and only River) through that type of mechanic, even if it was relegated to the Buy phase?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 16, 2015, 11:44:03 am
Your condition is cute, but doesn't seem like much of a condition at all?

About names, there'll be something. Maybe "Post Office" and "Runner"? That would go a bit into the direction i imagined earlier before the card's name was set to River. But for now we got an image, and images are nice, and the name can be changed when the card itself is somehow set on.

You are right about this. I don't like the idea of trashing it, but probably i need another condition.

I thought about an Overpay: "Gain a River from the River pile per $ you overpayed" Doesn't seem that exciting to me, though. Besides, Overpay isn't exactly my favourite mechanic...

Alternatively, a restricted on-gain: "When you gain this, you may put a card from your hand on top of your deck. If you do, gain a River from the River pile." This does allow a few cute options, but you still have to spend $4 on each River you want to get (as you get only one per LV). Also, at the start of the game, this means either wasting a possible $5 turn for a Village and River, or using a $4 turn and harming your next one. On the other hand, hey, there may be some combos here, but i don't mind that.


Hmm. You know, Black Market allows outright buying non-Supply cards. Perhaps this could access River (and only River) through that type of mechanic, even if it was relegated to the Buy phase?

That's something i considered: "While this is in play, you may buy River cards from the River pile during your buy phase.". It's not bad, but i'm a bit worried that River would end up costing $3*/$2* or something like that, and that would make it look like Peddler, a supply card. If it costs $0*, on the other hand, it looks a bit strange that you'd "buy" it. I mean, it neither costs something (like BM cards) nor is it in the supply (like other buyable $0s are).

werothegreat's idea isn't bad either, though i wouldn't have it "spend" the buys. Diadem doesn't "spend" your actions, either. Sure, there is only one Diadem (edge case: Counterfeit), but you don't want to gain massive amounts of River, anyway. The only thing i don't like about the option is that it doesn't really feel different from Hermit. On some boards, it's going to be the same.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: popsofctown on February 16, 2015, 12:30:49 pm
The +buy makes River busted with Villages without making it stronger without villages.

Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: popsofctown on February 16, 2015, 12:34:23 pm
I really would prefer to see River as a standalone pile though, because it's a cool card. That's not mutually exclusive with making a pile that brings it into play specifically.

I think letting you trash it for 1-2$ whenever you play it would be enough to let it keep up in BM games.  It would allow you to use it early on as your terminal and switch over to high quality 5$ terminals later.

Or to make it look super elegant, "+2 cards: Put this in your hand, anywhere in your deck, or the trash pile."
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 16, 2015, 03:26:46 pm
I like the unused Actions idea, but I would require more Actions and try to make it so that you can't get one River per Lakeside Village you played that turn. Perhaps an on-play ability. [+1 Card; +2 Actions; If you have at least 4 Actions (Actions, not Action cards), you may gain a River]
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 17, 2015, 03:02:22 pm
I like the unused Actions idea, but I would require more Actions and try to make it so that you can't get one River per Lakeside Village you played that turn. Perhaps an on-play ability. [+1 Card; +2 Actions; If you have at least 4 Actions (Actions, not Action cards), you may gain a River]

I thought about something like this, though i somehow wanted to put the clause first. "If you have at least one unused action..." Of course, yours won't be nearly as confusing.

Speaking of confusion, today i wondered whether counting unused actions wasn't a bit unelegant, considering Rivers wording  tries to avoid exactly that.

Another idea i had: Simply having to choose between gaining River and the Village bonus. But that feels a bit unsatisfying.

Yet another was allowing the gain only when you played LV and allready had three cards in play. That's very similar to Conspirator, of course - except River itself doesn't count.

I'm seriously considering the topdecking restriction on gain. It harms you at the start, because you'd return an Estate or sacrifice a $5 opening. Later on, you might want to use it on an Action you couldn't play. But, you know, top-decking an action while gaining a Village is nice, problem's just that you gain even another card that spends those actions you obviously didn't have enough of. You could play it? Well, you just didn't. You might even use the effect on a River you allready played this turn. This, too, sounds better than it is, though, as you'd spend $4 and gain another River in the process.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 22, 2015, 11:30:02 am
This is what i'm (probably) going to try:

(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150222/i277zs43.jpg) (http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150222/y8arulb9.png)

The question here is how good Town/Road is. It's a question that i still think i can't answer. If it isn't sufficient to beat most strategies, which i assume, i'm okay with this being an easily available "combo". Unless you want to drown in Roads, you'd need other Villages to reduce the Road/Village ratio, and well, that's a lot of Villages to buy. If you buy Town for the Village itself, you just got another terminal that you might not actually want.

I might cost it at $5 or do the requirement, but for now it's hard to judge. I'll playtest once i get a chance :)

Either way, i like the name "Town" ;)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 23, 2015, 07:46:52 pm
I just playtested Town in the most pathetic imaginable way, solo with four versions of me. Anyhow, as i mentioned, i'm not a very good player, so i decided to have each player follow a distinct strategy:
A: Town/Big Money
B:Town/Engine
C:Big Money
D: Town-less engine

The board was: Poor House, Candlestick Maker, Oasis, Fortune Teller, Town, Horse Trader, Stables, Haggler, Torturer, Upgrade

I think the comparison was harmed because there were no Villages besides Town, which meant that for the Town-less player a lot of strategies were impossible, e.g. Torturer chains. Interestingly, theTown-engine had very poor buying power overall and went in last with 18 VP, while Town/BM won with 27. Big Money and the town-less "engine" both got 21, which alone should be esufficient to show that a lot of this was because of me being awful at building engines. I admit i didn't even have a plan for how either engine should look like, so i bought silly amounts of Candlestick Makers and Oasis' for both... You may laugh at me.

Anyhow, it was obvious that Road was a card you were very happy to have at the right moment - starting your hand without one but with Towns meant "Play Town... Drat! A Copper! Okay, one more chance... Noooo! Another Copper!!! Why meee?", while having a hand without Towns was basically dead (not so much for Town/BM, though).

If you ask me what this test showed, it's that i need a better player than me. I had the feeling that the cards were pretty strong, though that may be because my "engines" were awfully built.

Edited for typing errors.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 24, 2015, 09:09:34 am
Town/Road is an engine-y card, so I don't think 4p, with Town as the only village, is the best way to test it...

With that being said, I don't like this version of Town. The interesting part of Road was to balance how many of them you wanted in your deck. Now you don't get to choose, you get as many as you have villages, which is fairly horrible. Town is effectively a no-draw village, because each one of them (aside from the first) will have to compensate for a dead Road in your deck. And a no-draw village is very poor support for Road.

I think the gain has to be either optional or conditional.

EDIT: Thinking about it a little bit more, another option would be to keep the compulsory gain, and replace the top part of town with "+2 cards, +2 actions, discard two cards", for better synergy with road and extra combos.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 24, 2015, 11:07:25 am
The thing about the draw two, discard two is that it's the same on-play effect as Inn, just with a different on-gain effect.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 24, 2015, 11:11:34 am
Indeed! But in both cases, it's the on-gain effect that is interesting. So it's sort of like saying that Cultist and Ghost Ship are the same, because they both draw two cards.

Something to note is that, if you go with the compulsory on-gain effect (which I am not convinced is the right way to go), you can make Road be the supply card, instead of Town.

Fun puzzle: when would it make a difference which of the two cards is in the supply, and which is a zero-cost extra pile?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 11:14:23 am
I agree with pacovf. Specifically, I think it would be far better to have a conditional gain for Road. I'd like to see something like this:

Quote
Town
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card. +2 Actions.

When you gain this, you may discard a Province. If you do, gain a Road from the Road pile.

Road
Types: Action
Cost: $0*
+3 Cards. Put this into your hand. (This is not in the Supply.)

This way Road is a powerful card you really want to shoot for and you have some better control over how many you gain.

By the way, the reason I keep using "Put this into your hand" instead of "Return this to your hand" in my examples is that there's no guarantee Road was in your hand when you played it. It might have been played by Golem or Herald.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 24, 2015, 11:19:30 am
That's very extreme. What about leaving it at +2 Cards and just having the option of discarding any one card upon gaining Town for it?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 11:20:55 am
That's very extreme. What about leaving it at +2 Cards and just having the option of discarding any one card upon gaining Town for it?

That's like not having an extra cost at all. Extreme can be fun.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 24, 2015, 11:21:49 am
I like LFN's suggestion, although it is moving the card in a different direction altogether.

One problem with that version is that by the time you can discard a province, there might not be any town left to gain, if it's the only village in the kingdom...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 11:22:34 am
I like LFN's suggestion, although it is moving the card in a different direction altogether.

One problem with that version is that by the time you can discard a province, there might not be any town left to gain, if it's the only village in the kingdom...

Yes, I'd thought of that. Better get that Province quickly!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 24, 2015, 11:24:08 am
Don't we already have two cards that let you use Provinces to get cool shit?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 11:24:45 am
Don't we already have two cards that let you use Provinces to get cool shit?

And we have 204 cards that don't! This lets you use Provinces to get cool shit on-gain, which might be interesting.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 24, 2015, 11:25:17 am
Yes, I'd thought of that. Better get that Province quickly!

Mmm... that's just not going to happen in multiplayer games. Are you happy with that?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 11:28:01 am
Yes, I'd thought of that. Better get that Province quickly!

Mmm... that's just not going to happen in multiplayer games. Are you happy with that?

Well, no. But I don't think we should necessarily assume that will happen. I mean it's quite possible that it will. But it's also possible that players will usually want to leave some in the pile so that they can try to snag a Road later. And if you're gunning for a fast Province, you don't necessarily want a lot of villages early.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 24, 2015, 11:33:45 am
Definitely, but if another player just bought an early province, and there's one or two Towns left, you can bet that I am buying them. On the other hand, if you avoid buying Town specifically to avoid that happening, then there might not be that many left after you get your Road, which sort of defeats the point of forcing a village to be in the same kingdom as Road in the first place.

(I am talking about multiplayer games here)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 24, 2015, 11:38:42 am
It just strikes me as very strange to incorporate this kind of Tournament-like luck here.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 11:40:03 am
It just strikes me as very strange to incorporate this kind of Tournament-like luck here.

There's way less luck than Tournament because you only have to collide your Province with a $4 of cash. That's not tough.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 24, 2015, 11:42:48 am
It's less luck-dependent than tournament because you only need to collide the Province with a $4 hand, and because all Roads are identical.

Another idea would be to make Town a 15-card pile or something. You know, just to make the whole Town-Road thing even more crazy.

PPE: ninja'd.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 24, 2015, 11:45:07 am
It's definitely not the same, but hitting $8 first still isn't that easy.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 11:47:56 am
Definitely, but if another player just bought an early province, and there's one or two Towns left, you can bet that I am buying them. On the other hand, if you avoid buying Town specifically to avoid that happening, then there might not be that many left after you get your Road, which sort of defeats the point of forcing a village to be in the same kingdom as Road in the first place.

(I am talking about multiplayer games here)

You are making good points. Here are my counterpoints. First, this concept is pretty unlike anything Dominion has, so it's very hard for us to predict how it would actually play out. I'm sure that, especially in e.g. a 4-player game, Towns would sometimes run out before anybody got a Road. But how often would that really be the case? If they run out first 90% of the time, obviously that's no good. But if it only happens 10% of the time, that's fine. Sometimes there will be other villages, and if you're not getting a Road, those other villages are probably better, so players will be less likely to buy Towns early. Sometimes multiple players will be gunning for that early Province, leaving enough Towns left over. I'm just saying that with something this exotic, it bears testing before we jump to conclusions.

One solution is to have the ability be on-trash or on-gain-or-trash.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 24, 2015, 11:56:42 am
If not for Diadem already having the "trade away all your excess Actions" property, I'd say an especially powerful Road available as a reward for getting Provinces and in need of a Village to be worthwhile may as well just be another Prize. It wouldn't be guaranteed to show up with Villages that way, but you could just pass it up for the other Prizes in that case.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 11:59:31 am
If not for Diadem already having the "trade away all your excess Actions" property, I'd say an especially powerful Road available as a reward for getting Provinces and in need of a Village to be worthwhile may as well just be another Prize. It wouldn't be guaranteed to show up with Villages that way, but you could just pass it up for the other Prizes in that case.

Yes, having it as a Prize is definitely a very plausible option.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 24, 2015, 12:02:40 pm
Note that Diadem transforms villages into peddlers, and that the +3 card Road transforms villages into triple labs.

You know. For power level comparison.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 12:03:39 pm
Note that Diadem transforms villages into peddlers, and that the +3 card Road transforms villages into triple labs.

You know. For power level comparison.

True, although you can draw Diadem anytime during your turn, whereas Road gets way worse the later you draw it.

EDIT: Also, Diadem is usually weak.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 24, 2015, 12:18:29 pm
Haha, gotcha! You were defending Diadem before you realized what you were doing.

Talking about the devil, from the Secret History of Cornucopia:

Quote from: Donald
Diadem started in the large version of Alchemy long ago, as an Action: "+$2. Return this to your hand." It was a cute combo with Villages, but useless without them. I then tried some "choose one" versions, which solved the problem of it sometimes being dead, but didn't make the actions-to-money part any better. I eventually gave up on it, and well here it is at last.

So, will we find another working version of this concept?



PPE:

Note that Diadem transforms villages into peddlers Bazaars, and that the +3 card Road transforms villages into triple labs.

You know. For power level comparison.

ftfy

Not really, though. If you use the extra action, you lose the coin.

EDIT: sorry, too late  :P
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 12:19:35 pm
Note that Diadem transforms villages into peddlers Bazaars, and that the +3 card Road transforms villages into triple labs.

You know. For power level comparison.

ftfy

That's not quite right. With Diadem, you either get the +$1 or the +1 Action from your villages, but not both.

But neither does Road make villages triple Labs. It's more double-Labs. You can't count the Road itself in the draw. The Road just gives you a Smithy after all the conversion is done. Similarly, the Diadem is a Silver after the conversion.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 24, 2015, 12:26:11 pm
I don't get what you are saying. As long as you are holding a Diadem in your hand, any village can be a peddler. As long as you are holding a +3 card Road in your hand, any village can be a triple-lab.

Once you've done the conversion, Road is a smithy and Diadem is a gold, or Road is dead and Diadem is a silver, depending on how you look at it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 24, 2015, 12:27:28 pm
Draw Village and Super-Road, play both, and you end up with an 8-card hand and one Action, just like if you played three Labs. Get another Village through that and play it and you end up with an 11-card hand.

Unlike other Actions, most relevantly Smithy, Road doesn't leave your hand when you play it. It does, however, ensure that whenever you're done playing Roads, you'll still have one left in your hand and likely dead, decreasing the total card gain by 1. But there are still ways of making use of that, such as cards with discarding or top-deck effects.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 12:30:23 pm
Ah, yeah, I think I get it now. You're right. Perhaps +2 Cards is more reasonable. Although, again, you have to draw Road early.

I think the most important thing I learned from Donald while playtesting Adventures is to try the crazy-looking version first. That way, if it works, you get to have something that looks crazy. And it's better to have cool-looking cards than mediocre-looking cards.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 24, 2015, 12:33:10 pm
It's more that you have to draw Road before you run out of non-Road draws. If you play five Villages and draw Road on the last one, you can burn all the Actions you racked up earlier from those Villages.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: XerxesPraelor on February 24, 2015, 01:04:25 pm
What about making it duchy to steer things a different way from normal and to make it easier for Roads to be gotten?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on February 24, 2015, 01:42:18 pm
Note that Diadem transforms villages into peddlers Bazaars, and that the +3 card Road transforms villages into triple labs.

You know. For power level comparison.

ftfy

That's not quite right. With Diadem, you either get the +$1 or the +1 Action from your villages, but not both.

But neither does Road make villages triple Labs. It's more double-Labs. You can't count the Road itself in the draw. The Road just gives you a Smithy after all the conversion is done. Similarly, the Diadem is a Silver after the conversion.

Yeah I realized that and deleted my post, but apparently not in time.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on February 24, 2015, 01:45:17 pm
Ah, yeah, I think I get it now. You're right. Perhaps +2 Cards is more reasonable. Although, again, you have to draw Road early.

I think the most important thing I learned from Donald while playtesting Adventures, it's to try the crazy-looking version first. That way if it works, you get to have something that looks crazy. And it's nice to have cool-looking cards than mediocre-looking cards.

Yes but the cards in Adventures ARE crazy. Especially spoilers and spoilers.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 01:51:12 pm
Ah, yeah, I think I get it now. You're right. Perhaps +2 Cards is more reasonable. Although, again, you have to draw Road early.

I think the most important thing I learned from Donald while playtesting Adventures, it's to try the crazy-looking version first. That way if it works, you get to have something that looks crazy. And it's nice to have cool-looking cards than mediocre-looking cards.

Yes but the cards in Adventures ARE crazy. Especially spoilers and spoilers.

I think the word you're looking for is "awesome". The cards in Adventures are awesome, especially spoilers and spoilers.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Awaclus on February 24, 2015, 02:20:10 pm
Especially spoilers and spoilers.

Oh, you mean Bandit Camp and Marauder? Or is it Pillage?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 24, 2015, 02:51:43 pm
I like the mandatory gain. It makes the card feel more dependant on the board to me. If there are other Villages, you got to balance which and how many of them you gain. Or maybe you just want Town itself, for the action - but how to deal with the appendage? Would you buy one to push your Gardens or Vineyard? Town isn't strictly better than Village and worse for some use cases, so i'm actually considering whether i should try it at $3 some time (though the name isn't very plausible at that point - i guess you can claim Towns are Villages that have Roads leading to them...). It's funny how we once said that Road should cost $4 on its own, and now it seems weak even if you get a Village for free (at least without other Villages). I'm not sure where this will lead.

Making the gain of Road conditional takes a lot of the decision out, i think. Sure, even if something is conditional, you don't always want to do it - but you have to make the decision easier if you want to make sure fulfilling the condition feels like it "pays off". So that's what gets us to the +3 cards variant. My problem: The question isn't anymore about how to handle/balance Roads, but about how to reach that condition. And really, how different are conditions in Dominion? It's always "reach a good deck fast" or "be set back and return to a good deck fast". That's, like, something we try to do every game, isn't it? Well, slogs aside.

One condition i mentioned earlier is to return a card from your hand to your deck. If i do a condition, i think that's the one i'll take. Province discarding just doesn't thrill me. It was on Tournament. And hey, it's on Sultan, too. Actually, i'm currently leaning towards re-adding the third +action part back on Nouveau Riche, and that would be three cards in one set. Besides i like my cards to be multiplayer-friendly, and i don't think this kind of thing is. Towns will run out, it won't feel like it pays, Stan will draw it dead once with his Torturer and tell us how it lost him the game for weeks. It really feels like on-gain Tournament to me, and i don't want another one. Oh, and Explorer reveals them, so i guess i just don't feel the "do stuff with Province" design space is very spacey anymore.

Duchy is a different thing, but again, there's allready Nouveau Riche. While i'm not doing a "set", i wanted to make the cards as easy and different as possible, and this feels a bit like two ideas glued together.

Sorry for being so ignorant of your ideas :-[
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 03:21:06 pm
It's cool, dude. It's your set and you should do what you want. If you don't use the "discard Province on gain", that just means I feel better about doing it in Enterprise. Hmm, "When you gain this, discard any number of Victory cards and take that many Trade tokens."

I like the mandatory gain. It makes the card feel more dependant on the board to me. If there are other Villages, you got to balance which and how many of them you gain. Or maybe you just want Town itself, for the action - but how to deal with the appendage? Would you buy one to push your Gardens or Vineyard? Town isn't strictly better than Village and worse for some use cases, so i'm actually considering whether i should try it at $3 some time (though the name isn't very plausible at that point - i guess you can claim Towns are Villages that have Roads leading to them...). It's funny how we once said that Road should cost $4 on its own, and now it seems weak even if you get a Village for free (at least without other Villages). I'm not sure where this will lead.

The thing is, I think you want fewer Roads than villages, especially now that additional Roads you draw in a turn are basically Confusions. So Road seems weak by itself (without villages available), and not all that strong with an equal number of villages (current version with no other villages available). I think its strength is when you have a couple of Roads and a bunch of villages.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: scott_pilgrim on February 24, 2015, 04:27:32 pm
What about something like "When you buy this, gain a Town or a Road", and then bump it up to $5 if necessary?  I don't like having the Roads forced on you, because you probably end up with more than you want.  Giving you the option to balance it out with more villages makes it easier to get the ideal ratio of actions to roads.  Though I think you would have to be careful with the wording, because you end up gaining the Town you just bought from the on-buy before you gain it from having bought it, so you only end up with one Town when you're clearly intended to get two.

Another option would be to just make it +3 Actions instead of +2 Actions (and probably bump the price up).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 04:39:46 pm
Another option would be to just make it +3 Actions instead of +2 Actions (and probably bump the price up).

This sounds promising.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 24, 2015, 04:48:06 pm
I like the mandatory gain. It makes the card feel more dependant on the board to me. If there are other Villages, you got to balance which and how many of them you gain. Or maybe you just want Town itself, for the action - but how to deal with the appendage? Would you buy one to push your Gardens or Vineyard? Town isn't strictly better than Village and worse for some use cases, so i'm actually considering whether i should try it at $3 some time (though the name isn't very plausible at that point - i guess you can claim Towns are Villages that have Roads leading to them...). It's funny how we once said that Road should cost $4 on its own, and now it seems weak even if you get a Village for free (at least without other Villages). I'm not sure where this will lead.

You're getting this backwards, I think. As LFN said, you don't want many Roads, probably only 2 (+/-1) and tons of villages. By having the gain be compulsory, you get yourself in a tough spot: too few Towns and then Road can't shine, or too many and then you are drowning in stop cards . If there are other villages, then you just get a couple of town/roads and piledrive the other village. Otherwise, town seems like a no-no, since you are effectively cursing yourself with each town you buy.

What I am trying to say is, if you make the gain compulsory, you are not solving the problem of "Road is dead if there are no villages in the kingdom".

That's why I suggest to change town if you want to make the gain compulsory. Adding some sifting into it seems like a natural fit, but there are other possibilities, probably. Also, think about which card you want to be in the supply, because it will illustrate what you think the focus of the card couple should be.

You can also make a relatively simple condition, like "if you have 2 unused Actions", to justify using the +2 card Road. Not something you have to particularly work towards, but that still represents an extra cost to get the "free" card.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on February 24, 2015, 05:28:05 pm
I basically agree with everybody else who said that plain "When you gain Town, gain a Road" is not a good idea, and there have been good reasons named for why it isn't. I would like a conditional on-gain or on-buy decision to gain a Road so it's not too easy to get it. You don't want many Roads anyway. However, I don't particularly like LFN's suggestion to discard a Province. Maybe a Duchy or Victory card in general?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 05:34:22 pm
I basically agree with everybody else who said that plain "When you gain Town, gain a Road" is not a good idea, and there have been good reasons named for why it isn't. I would like a conditional on-gain or on-buy decision to gain a Road so it's not too easy to get it. You don't want many Roads anyway. However, I don't particularly like LFN's suggestion to discard a Province. Maybe a Duchy or Victory card in general?

Victory card in general is sort of a non-cost, since you usually start with 3 Estates. I like Duchy.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 24, 2015, 07:15:12 pm
I thought about this, and i guess you guys are right. I imagined Town to be a Village+, which is why i costed it at $4 before. Problem is, mandatory gain doesn't make Town a Village+,  actually it's worse than default Village on many occasions. As i said, i thought about costing it at $3, but that doesn't solve the main problem. I thought having to "deal" with Roads was a good idea. There are one or two cards that do a thing like this, like Rats, but i can't even claim i actually enjoy those cards, really. So probably that just was a bad idea.

Partly i imagined the mandatory gain as a nerf. There are better ways to achieve that, but part of what i liked was that mandatory gaining was a very simple one.

So... What about just "you may"? Would un-nerfed Town be too good? You are paying $4 for Road (more than i planned originally) but get a free Village. Or you pay $4... for a Village. If this is balanced, i'd like it, i think.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on February 24, 2015, 08:18:12 pm
In whatever way Town enables you to gain a Road, as long as it says "+1 Card. +2 Actions. [Something else.]" it has to cost either more or less than ordinary Village. So it cannot cost $3. DXV wrote somewhere something like "if Village and Village+ (in this case Town) were in the same Kingdom and both cost $3, that would just seem wrong."
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 24, 2015, 08:28:02 pm
So... What about just "you may"? Would un-nerfed Town be too good? You are paying $4 for Road (more than i planned originally) but get a free Village. Or you pay $4... for a Village. If this is balanced, i'd like it, i think.

Seems like a good place to start.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on February 24, 2015, 10:26:50 pm
Fun puzzle: when would it make a difference which of the two cards is in the supply, and which is a zero-cost extra pile?

That's easy... when you use a trash-for-benefit on one of them. But that could be eliminated by giving the non-supply card a cost of $4*.

Second edge case; Band of Misfits can be one of them, but not the other.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: scott_pilgrim on February 24, 2015, 11:50:43 pm
I actually agree with you (Asper) that there are some interesting things that result from the version of Town with the forced Road gain, and it wouldn't be a bad card like that.  It's just that it could be a lot better.  Road is already such a cool card that I feel like it's sort of a waste to use it on the version that gives you too many of them, because you don't really get to take advantage of what makes Road fun.  I feel like Town/Road should be as straightforward (not sure if that's the right word...) as possible, and then if you want to make another card that has that kind of village/terminal balancing act, that should be its own thing.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 25, 2015, 04:57:23 pm
In whatever way Town enables you to gain a Road, as long as it says "+1 Card. +2 Actions. [Something else.]" it has to cost either more or less than ordinary Village. So it cannot cost $3. DXV wrote somewhere something like "if Village and Village+ (in this case Town) were in the same Kingdom and both cost $3, that would just seem wrong."

While i'm not really looking for $3 Town anymore, i don't think that's true. The existing Village alternatives at $3 (Shanty Town,Fishing Village) don't say +1Card, +2Actions, but that doesn't mean such a card wouldn't work. You'd just have to choose an effect that makes the Para-Village equal in power to normal Village. Forced effects are a way to achieve this.

Anyhow, here's voluntary Town with an updated Road featuring LastFootnote's wording:

(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150225/mjszyanm.jpg) (http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150225/9j4rzjxr.jpg)



Also, here's some small idea i had a while ago, added as a setup clause to Ranger:

(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150225/gj3wt4rf.jpg)

I'm aware it doesn't really "fit" on Ranger, but then again i don't think it really "fits" on any specific card - well, maybe Noble Brigand or Nomad Camp... Anyhow, Ranger is nonterminal and costs $2, so it's nice to pair with a $5 - in a way that probably fits, i guess. I'm not exactly sure whether it's a good thing to make the decision for a 2/5 opening easier, but hey, at least you do have a choice. Equal chances and stuff, and who knows, somebody may pick a 3/4. In that way it's not "equal starting hands". I picked "put in any order" over choosing just your five card starting hand because it took me fewer words, mostly.

Meh, now that i wrote this, i'm not that convinced it's a good idea... It doesn't really make Ranger itself more interesting, either.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on February 25, 2015, 05:47:57 pm
In whatever way Town enables you to gain a Road, as long as it says "+1 Card. +2 Actions. [Something else.]" it has to cost either more or less than ordinary Village. So it cannot cost $3. DXV wrote somewhere something like "if Village and Village+ (in this case Town) were in the same Kingdom and both cost $3, that would just seem wrong."

While i'm not really looking for $3 Town anymore, i don't think that's true. The existing Village alternatives at $3 (Shanty Town,Fishing Village) don't say +1Card, +2Actions, but that doesn't mean such a card wouldn't work. You'd just have to choose an effect that makes the Para-Village equal in power to normal Village. Forced effects are a way to achieve this.

You missed my point. I was specifically talking about cards that say "+1 Card. +2 Actions. [Something else]." Fishing Village and Shanty Town don't say that so the "rule" doesn't apply here. If you want Town to cost $3, it cannot have plain "+1 Card. +2 Actions." as a vanilla bonus because with the voluntary (or obligatory, or conditional) Road gain it's different from village (not necessarily better or worse, that's not the point) and it includes everything that Village has. Thus it has to have a different cost. Otherwise you have to exclude something on Town that Village has to balance it out if it's supposed to cost $3.

As for Ranger, I think there are better, more clever ways of alternating opening buys. This is just way too simple. Ranger could allow for a one-time mulligan and reshuffle your deck if you don't like your starting hand, for example.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 25, 2015, 05:55:07 pm
Consider a card that said "+1 Card, +2 Actions, Gain a Copper, putting it into your hand." It does what Village does, plus something else. But does it outclass Village? Absolutely not. Either one could be preferred depending on the situation.

A Village with a required on-gain is the same way. Maybe you want the card, maybe you don't. Some cards are pretty much always good to gain for free, but Road is not one of those cards. Once you have a couple, you'd prefer gaining regular Villages over ones that force a Road on you. This does not apply to cards where the on-gain is optional, like the current Town.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 25, 2015, 09:45:00 pm
Consider a card that said "+1 Card, +2 Actions, Gain a Copper, putting it into your hand." It does what Village does, plus something else. But does it outclass Village? Absolutely not. Either one could be preferred depending on the situation.

A Village with a required on-gain is the same way. Maybe you want the card, maybe you don't. Some cards are pretty much always good to gain for free, but Road is not one of those cards. Once you have a couple, you'd prefer gaining regular Villages over ones that force a Road on you. This does not apply to cards where the on-gain is optional, like the current Town.

Thanks, that was what i was trying to say.

Donald wrote why he is against cards that are (what we have come to call) "strictly better" than others. He never said anything about cards that are "strictly more complex". Mandatory Town is more complex than Village, but not better.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on February 25, 2015, 09:51:22 pm
But the problem is one of perception in the first place. And Mandatory Town looks better than Village to the kind of people that complain about this sort of thing.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 25, 2015, 10:14:11 pm
But the problem is one of perception in the first place. And Mandatory Town looks better than Village to the kind of people that complain about this sort of thing.

Can't really argue about that. I wonder whether there are people that say Rats was better than cantrip trashing because it gains copies of itself.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: TheOthin on February 25, 2015, 10:19:22 pm
It's certainly strange and awkward when the effect of being forced to gain a card that's "supposed" to be desirable turns out to be a noteworthy disadvantage.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 25, 2015, 10:35:34 pm
It's certainly strange and awkward when the effect of being forced to gain a card that's "supposed" to be desirable turns out to be a noteworthy disadvantage.

I don't even disagree, sorry if it sounded like that. Rats IS one of the cards that make Dark Ages the weirdest expansion in my book. Mandatory Town is off the table for a lot of good reasons that were pointed out, and i still do like it better as a Village+, which also means it should be "better" than Village. That also fits the name better. I like the name.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on February 26, 2015, 05:31:59 pm
I'm glad it's off the table. I' starting to chum up with the version of Town that gives you the option of gaining a Road on-gain. It's still often enough going to be a non-trivial decision, while the concept itself is simple which I like. The situation will be a whole lot different with another Village on the board but any terminal draw will look more attractive with a Village on board.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 27, 2015, 03:13:52 pm
(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150207/97xh2zql.jpg)

Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.

I thought a bit about Meadow and whether i could save it, because i kind of like the effect, and i realized i might have given up a bit too early.

What i forgot to point out is: In a game without any alt-VP, the game ends when either the Meadow or the Province pile is empty (because it empties Duchies and Estates at the same time). So on a 2-player board, you'd just have to get to $6 eight times before your opponent manages to get to $8 seven times. It's a bit similar to IGG in how it can end the game, but unlike IGG i'm pretty sure Meadow will choke too easily if there's nothing to support it. That support doesn't have to be Alt-VP, though - strong sifters and cards like Vault that create $6 relatively reliably also work. Actually, as it (currently) works on-gain, you don't even need to do that - Remodeling Meadows into Meadows also works. It might be a problem that your opponent can buy a Duchy or two to weaken your Meadow's central VP source, but then again this would make him green himself. Either way, i think there's room for Meadow rush strategies.

The fact that some don't like the "tripple gaining" is a different thing. I personally don't mind it and think it's okay to have on your board once and a while, but if it turns out too annoying (or automatic, even) i would change it to buy.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: polot38 on March 01, 2015, 11:24:03 pm
(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150207/97xh2zql.jpg)

Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.

I thought a bit about Meadow and whether i could save it, because i kind of like the effect, and i realized i might have given up a bit too early.

What i forgot to point out is: In a game without any alt-VP, the game ends when either the Meadow or the Province pile is empty (because it empties Duchies and Estates at the same time). So on a 2-player board, you'd just have to get to $6 eight times before your opponent manages to get to $8 seven times. It's a bit similar to IGG in how it can end the game, but unlike IGG i'm pretty sure Meadow will choke too easily if there's nothing to support it. That support doesn't have to be Alt-VP, though - strong sifters and cards like Vault that create $6 relatively reliably also work. Actually, as it (currently) works on-gain, you don't even need to do that - Remodeling Meadows into Meadows also works. It might be a problem that your opponent can buy a Duchy or two to weaken your Meadow's central VP source, but then again this would make him green himself. Either way, i think there's room for Meadow rush strategies.

The fact that some don't like the "tripple gaining" is a different thing. I personally don't mind it and think it's okay to have on your board once and a while, but if it turns out too annoying (or automatic, even) i would change it to buy.

Here's an idea to buff it/make it more interesting: make meadow a treasure/victory with this as the treasure part:
worth $0
while this card is in play, meadows cost $3 more

so if you bought 1, you could then buy meadow into province-duchy. You should also make the on-gain effect optional.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on March 02, 2015, 03:12:54 pm

Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.

I thought a bit about Meadow and whether i could save it, because i kind of like the effect, and i realized i might have given up a bit too early.

What i forgot to point out is: In a game without any alt-VP, the game ends when either the Meadow or the Province pile is empty (because it empties Duchies and Estates at the same time). So on a 2-player board, you'd just have to get to $6 eight times before your opponent manages to get to $8 seven times. It's a bit similar to IGG in how it can end the game, but unlike IGG i'm pretty sure Meadow will choke too easily if there's nothing to support it. That support doesn't have to be Alt-VP, though - strong sifters and cards like Vault that create $6 relatively reliably also work. Actually, as it (currently) works on-gain, you don't even need to do that - Remodeling Meadows into Meadows also works. It might be a problem that your opponent can buy a Duchy or two to weaken your Meadow's central VP source, but then again this would make him green himself. Either way, i think there's room for Meadow rush strategies.

The fact that some don't like the "tripple gaining" is a different thing. I personally don't mind it and think it's okay to have on your board once and a while, but if it turns out too annoying (or automatic, even) i would change it to buy.

Here's an idea to buff it/make it more interesting: make meadow a treasure/victory with this as the treasure part:
worth $0
while this card is in play, meadows cost $3 more

so if you bought 1, you could then buy meadow into province-duchy. You should also make the on-gain effect optional.

I don't know about cards that increase costs. I always remember some rules issues that were cited with cost reducers and cards costing $0, and i feel it would mean introducing new rules. It's probably not impossible, but unless there comes an official card that does cost increasing, i'd rather not do it.
Of course you could do it as an overpay "Gain two other VP cards that cost less than the total you paid", but i'm really not an overpay friend. The machanic feels overly complex to me, even though Meadow would be one of the more simple use cases.

About buffs, these are the options i had in mind:

(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150302/oipzjmhp.jpg) (http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150302/ve4o2eaf.jpg)

None of them really makes the card more interesting, though. Probably the crazy second option is more interesting, but i still feel it's a bit lacking. Maybe i just should let it go, after all :-/
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on March 02, 2015, 03:31:15 pm
I would really like to reply more positively but there's just absolutely no way I would appreciate this concept. I'm sorry :(

To me, it just reads "gain a bunch of green" or "gain a Province split in 3 pieces." It's uninteresting and it's too many gains that just come flying in without any twist or condition to it. And trashing a Province from the Supply is terrible per se; if it happens additionally to all that gaining, Meadow just turns into a Kingdom-flattener that destroys the regular course of the game and ends it at a frantic pace with a foreseeable outcome, especially in multiplayer games.
On top of that, it destroys your deck. If you go for Meadows while your opponent goes for Provinces, you will likely choke horribly on green cards while your opponent might not be able to score enough points any more. Towards the end, it will be painfully slow for both of you and your opponent will pray for you to end the game finally.

Wow, I wrote into a frenzy. I guess I'd very strongly advise you against this idea.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on March 02, 2015, 03:57:53 pm
On a positive note, I have recently conducted a non-human-interactive playtest involving your Sultan and Politician. Nobles and Great Hall were also on the board so Sultan should have been really good. But it was just okay which, frankly, surprised me but also relieved me. I was relieved because I thought Sultan would be too good. I like the card and I hope it works out. The real question for me is how does it compare with Explorer? Just the fact it's non-terminal makes me feel like it should cost at least $4, even though my only playtest showed Sultan isn't amazingly good. I mean, Explorer always gives you a Silver but without Villages, Explorer isn't any better at gaining Golds than Sultan. It's even worse because Sultan draws an additional card and you can still play another action after Sultan. That doesn't feel right.
Sultan has a cute concept but being a cantrip might make it too good, even if it's just in comparison with Explorer which isn't a good card but still costs $5. And Sultan is for $3? Yeah it might whiff but it's at least a cantrip then. I hope you can see my point.

Every time I played Politician I subconsciously chose the same option for all 3 other players. Eventually I realised I could have chosen different options for each one. But in 95% of cases, you won't because most player interaction cards are symmetrical in Dominion so there's no point in bothering thinking about who should get what. You always focus on your own deck anyway. So I think you could make Politician simpler by making one decision for each other player. It's still a fun card. That +$3 is really enticing at a cost of only $3 so I expect people to go for it and see how good of a job Politician does for them.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on March 02, 2015, 04:48:57 pm
It's okay. There hasn't been any positive feedback to Meadow, so i guess a clear "It's no good" statement helps me make a cut and let it go. So i'll let it go.

About Sultan, i like to compare it to Oasis: It's worse for Estates, Shelters, Curses and unwanted actions, but better if you have no junk (not even Copper) or with Duchy, Province and alt-VP. Unlike Oasis it only pseudo-sifts, and as it fills your deck with cards it reduces the chance to collide itself with VPs which makes up for the fact it gives a staying advantage. Explorer is terribly weak, even compared to Squire. Unlike Sultan, it at least doesn't need a Duchy normally to gain Silvers.

I'm really grateful and flattered you tested my cards. Really,thank you  :) The fact that Sultan doesn't work awesomely with Great Hall is a bit of an unpleasant surprise, but then again discarding GH negates its main bonus over Estate, being a cantrip. Even though i designed with Harem in mind, i guess "useless" Vp are a better target. Well, Harem gaining at least INCREASES your chance of a collision, so that's that. Anyhow, i guess it being okay is something i can live with. Not every $3 can be Scheme. You can always pick up an early Duchy, though i guess you'd need good sifting to get more out of it than that costs.

About Politician, you raise a very interesting point. Making it one choice might or might not make the card less political. Actually, i can imagine a case where Alice says "Why do you let us gain Silvers? Bob's playing Big Money and you're just helping him! My Torturer chains are the only way to stop his Treasure madness!" (added drama). Long story short, i guess it doesn't harm the intend of the card as much as it improves it.

Edit: I just realized a choice for all makes Politician rather similar to Governor on paper. Though the biggest difference is that for Governor you pick the choice you want, while for Politician you choose what your opponents get the least of... Still, 2 of 3 bonuses are the same. That's rather unsatisfying. Considering i still think that one choice for all might be better, i wonder whether doing Politician is worth it at all  :(
A shame, i was pretty fond of this one...
Edit2: Seems i missed out Nobles also was on the Sultan board... Now that worries me a bit.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: XerxesPraelor on March 02, 2015, 05:59:43 pm
FWIW, I like meadow, and I prefer the option of making it give 2 VP.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on March 02, 2015, 06:14:14 pm
About Sultan, i like to compare it to Oasis: It's worse for Estates, Shelters, Curses and unwanted actions, but better if you have no junk (not even Copper) or with Duchy, Province and alt-VP. Unlike Oasis it only pseudo-sifts, and as it fills your deck with cards it reduces the chance to collide itself with VPs which makes up for the fact it gives a staying advantage. Explorer is terribly weak, even compared to Squire. Unlike Sultan, it at least doesn't need a Duchy normally to gain Silvers.

I'm really grateful and flattered you tested my cards. Really,thank you  :) The fact that Sultan doesn't work awesomely with Great Hall is a bit of an unpleasant surprise, but then again discarding GH negates its main bonus over Estate, being a cantrip. Even though i designed with Harem in mind, i guess "useless" Vp are a better target. Well, Harem gaining at least INCREASES your chance of a collision, so that's that. Anyhow, i guess it being okay is something i can live with. Not every $3 can be Scheme. You can always pick up an early Duchy, though i guess you'd need good sifting to get more out of it than that costs.

Edit2: Seems i missed out Nobles also was on the Sultan board... Now that worries me a bit.

I mean, whenever I drew Sultan and Nobles or GH together, I would think "would I rather play or discard the Nobles/GH?" For Nobles the choice was almost always play until I drew my deck. I also played most of the Great Halls because I got them later in the game and didn't want any more Silvers. Sultan wasn't a good reason to buy a lot of GHs (which are mediocre at best, even on this board).

Still, although Explorer is very weak, it costs $5 and it's (a little) worse at gaining Golds than Sultan. Since gaining Gold is the only reason one should buy any of the two cards (usually), the huge cost gap between them kinda bothers me. You should check on that, play games with both cards in them, and nerf Sultan if necessary. IMO it doesn't need to be a cantrip. The comparison with Oasis is only superficially applicable because Oasis is often a good opening card but Sultan isn't. Sultan serves a completely different purpose than Oasis so I would rather not compare them.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on March 02, 2015, 08:27:39 pm
FWIW, I like meadow, and I prefer the option of making it give 2 VP.

That's good to hear :)
Hm... I guess i'll try it and see whether Co0kieL0rd is right.

About Sultan, i like to compare it to Oasis: It's worse for Estates, Shelters, Curses and unwanted actions, but better if you have no junk (not even Copper) or with Duchy, Province and alt-VP. Unlike Oasis it only pseudo-sifts, and as it fills your deck with cards it reduces the chance to collide itself with VPs which makes up for the fact it gives a staying advantage. Explorer is terribly weak, even compared to Squire. Unlike Sultan, it at least doesn't need a Duchy normally to gain Silvers.

I'm really grateful and flattered you tested my cards. Really,thank you  :) The fact that Sultan doesn't work awesomely with Great Hall is a bit of an unpleasant surprise, but then again discarding GH negates its main bonus over Estate, being a cantrip. Even though i designed with Harem in mind, i guess "useless" Vp are a better target. Well, Harem gaining at least INCREASES your chance of a collision, so that's that. Anyhow, i guess it being okay is something i can live with. Not every $3 can be Scheme. You can always pick up an early Duchy, though i guess you'd need good sifting to get more out of it than that costs.

Edit2: Seems i missed out Nobles also was on the Sultan board... Now that worries me a bit.

I mean, whenever I drew Sultan and Nobles or GH together, I would think "would I rather play or discard the Nobles/GH?" For Nobles the choice was almost always play until I drew my deck. I also played most of the Great Halls because I got them later in the game and didn't want any more Silvers. Sultan wasn't a good reason to buy a lot of GHs (which are mediocre at best, even on this board).

Still, although Explorer is very weak, it costs $5 and it's (a little) worse at gaining Golds than Sultan. Since gaining Gold is the only reason one should buy any of the two cards (usually), the huge cost gap between them kinda bothers me. You should check on that, play games with both cards in them, and nerf Sultan if necessary. IMO it doesn't need to be a cantrip. The comparison with Oasis is only superficially applicable because Oasis is often a good opening card but Sultan isn't. Sultan serves a completely different purpose than Oasis so I would rather not compare them.

I think neither Sultan nor Explorer should be considered Gold gainers. Sultan can gain Coppers if you're desperate,  but Silver gaining needs some investment, and Sultan itself doesn't help you to get there. Explorer can give you a Silver, no questions asked. Whenever you have no VP card, Sultan does nothing. Explorer is worse at gaining Golds, but it's better at getting you to a point where you can actually buy Provinces - in that respect, you can open Explorer.

All that doesn't change that Sultan does look good compared to Explorer. You are the one who playtested it (thanks again), but your playtests didn't show it to be OP even on an alt-Vp board. If it turns out to be too good after all, i'm not against changing the cost to $4, of course.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on April 03, 2015, 07:55:45 pm
So, for now i removed Politician from my list of cards (it's hardly a set), because its bonuses are too similar to Governor. Also, given recent... Events... it's seems a good thing Road is a non-supply pile. Hooray! No neverending Roads! So Town/Road is what it's at and it's going to stay.

Enjoy your Adventures Time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=113yv-Kdy7I).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on April 25, 2015, 06:23:42 am
Little update:

Now that an official Ranger card exists, i had to change my card's name. Also, as it turned out no Adventures card uses the mechanic of a Reserve that you can call back only on buying a VP card (though Wine Merchant goes in a similar overall direction), i'll use this to make "Hunter" more interesting:

Hunter, Action - Reserve, $4
+1 Action
Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest in your hand. Put this on your Tavern Mat.
----
When you buy a Victory card, you may discard this from your Tavern Mat.

No mockup for now, as i don't have one for Reserves.

Also, Meadow will stay for now (with 2 VP), i killed Politician because of the similarity to Governor, and i renamed (and brought back) Dungeon as "Maze". I think it being a VP card that pushes itself makes it interesting enough, even though it gives no on-play bonus. I suppose not everybody liked Distant Lands, either.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on April 25, 2015, 10:08:27 am
Little update:

Now that an official Ranger card exists, i had to change my card's name. Also, as it turned out no Adventures card uses the mechanic of a Reserve that you can call back only on buying a VP card (though Wine Merchant goes in a similar overall direction), i'll use this to make "Hunter" more interesting:

Hunter, Action - Reserve, $4
+1 Action
Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest in your hand. Put this on your Tavern Mat.
----
When you buy a Victory card, you may discard this from your Tavern Mat.

The top part of Hunter is good but the bottom condition is essentially anti-synergistic and makes the whole card significantly worse. Of course, the top part needs a substantial nerf to justify the cost of $4 but such a narrow condition makes Hunter nearly useless in any strategy that doesn't focus on alt-VP. I could be totally wrong but that's my first impression, sorry.

No mockup for now, as i don't have one for Reserves.

Also, Meadow will stay for now (with 2 VP), i killed Politician because of the similarity to Governor, and i renamed (and brought back) Dungeon as "Maze". I think it being a VP card that pushes itself makes it interesting enough, even though it gives no on-play bonus. I suppose not everybody liked Distant Lands, either.

Who does not like Distant Lands? Maze seems fine but could be more interesting, design-wise. The art is gorgeous.

I just noticed in the first post you write your name is Troy McAsper. Is that your real name? It sounds too cool not to be a pseudonym^^
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on April 25, 2015, 10:38:54 am
Little update:

Now that an official Ranger card exists, i had to change my card's name. Also, as it turned out no Adventures card uses the mechanic of a Reserve that you can call back only on buying a VP card (though Wine Merchant goes in a similar overall direction), i'll use this to make "Hunter" more interesting:

Hunter, Action - Reserve, $4
+1 Action
Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest in your hand. Put this on your Tavern Mat.
----
When you buy a Victory card, you may discard this from your Tavern Mat.

The top part of Hunter is good but the bottom condition is essentially anti-synergistic and makes the whole card significantly worse. Of course, the top part needs a substantial nerf to justify the cost of $4 but such a narrow condition makes Hunter nearly useless in any strategy that doesn't focus on alt-VP. I could be totally wrong but that's my first impression, sorry.

Well, the original card, Ranger, did the same with two cards and costed $2 (without being a Reserve). It was on par with Vagrant but a bit boring. This now is better than Laboratory (most of the time) and costs less. I liked the VP clause (i originally posted it as a prediction for Adventures), and thought it fitted well on a sifter, and Ranger was a sifter but boring, and that's the story. I don't know whether you noticed, but you can of course discard any number of Hunters to the same VP buy. So, one Duchy per shuffle, and you get super-Labs that help with green for $4. Honestly, i thought that was pretty synergetic.

Edit: Given how new the card is, it might still be off on the power level.

No mockup for now, as i don't have one for Reserves.

Also, Meadow will stay for now (with 2 VP), i killed Politician because of the similarity to Governor, and i renamed (and brought back) Dungeon as "Maze". I think it being a VP card that pushes itself makes it interesting enough, even though it gives no on-play bonus. I suppose not everybody liked Distant Lands, either.

Who does not like Distant Lands? Maze seems fine but could be more interesting, design-wise. The art is gorgeous.

I just noticed in the first post you write your name is Troy McAsper. Is that your real name? It sounds too cool not to be a pseudonym^^

I don't know. But i'm sure somebody doesn't like it. I like it, but i'm a bit biased in favour of alt-VP, i think. Hmm... Now that Distant Lands exists, we do have an official VP card that gets better by playing it... Maybe this makes Maze less unique :-\

Sadly, that's not really my name. It was just a shout-out to Troy McLure from "The Simpsons", who would always introduce himself with a list of movies/advertisements/whatever that you might remember him from.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: XerxesPraelor on April 25, 2015, 10:51:03 am
Yeah; I think the new Hunter is much cooler than the old Ranger. Definitely a keeper.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on April 25, 2015, 12:37:21 pm
Thanks :)

I changed the wording a tiny bit. Don't know why i didn't do it like that from the start:

Quote
Hunter, Action - Reserve, $4
+1 Action
Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Put two in your hand. Discard the other one. Put this on your Tavern Mat.
----
When you buy a Victory card, you may discard this from your Tavern Mat.

Only difference is that the first version failed (partially) for the last 1 or 2 cards in your deck, and the new one doesn't.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 13, 2015, 12:05:48 pm
Woohoo! Since i now have post/respect equilibrium, i can finally stop posting memes and cheap jokes. HURRA!

Here are slightly reworked versions of Necromancer and Zombie from Werothegreat's "Flavorful X or Z card" thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13145.msg489315#msg489315). As you can see, i decided for the +2 cards version for now to keep Necromancer from comparing too favourably to Rogue (though it might be too weak now) and gave Zombie an easier to do bane*:

(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150513/w2vnxyus.jpg) (http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150513/2rettlq9.jpg)

*The last version had Necromancer draw 3 cards and gain only action cards, while Zombie allowed opponents to topdeck two cards with the attack taking place either way.

Edit: Spelling mistakes.
Also i just noticed that this might be considered a bit similar to Town/Road, being a supply/non-supply pair of Village/Draw. Hm...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on May 13, 2015, 12:18:20 pm
I have to say that I'm really excited by the concept of having a bunch of cards start in the trash; it's very flavorful. I also like how Necromancer and Zombie interact as sort of two halves of Rogue. I don't think Zombie needs to be a Village, and in fact I'm leery of it being non-terminal at all.

To make it more different from Rogue, maybe Necromancer could always gain a Zombie from the trash. And then the Zombies kill each other off. But of course, unlike other trashing attacks, you can always get them back. Hmm...I wonder if it's too oppressive.

Anyway, the concept is very cool and I'm optimistic that some implementation will work out. Great idea!

I wonder if Zombie needs "(This is not in the Supply)"? Shelters don't have it because they're never in a pile on the table, and I think that applies to Zombies, too.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on May 13, 2015, 12:29:24 pm
*cough* Magic the Gathering *cough*

I like the combo of Necromancer and Zombie a lot! Two cool interactive cards that make sense together but aren't that easy to play well, which is a good thing. And they aren't too complicated, either. They instantly jumped to a high position in my mental ranking of your cards only judging by first impression on their effect and design.

Now that Adventures brings so much additional fantasy stuff into Dominion (yeah, Witch and friends, I know) these seem more fitting than before. I still loathe Vampire, just because I think the design is poor. Obviously you can come up with much more interesting ideas, so I would be glad to see that card reworked. Would a Vampire not rather leech from your opponents instead of giving them points? But what do I know about Vampires.

You're probably right about Hunter! I guess I just couldn't grasp its power level, and would have played the card very badly. But I'm also bad with Storeroom although I know it's a good card, so who am I to judge? Just a humble, semi-talented player. I've even been more passionate about fan cards than original card, recently (until Adventures came out).

But enough about me. Just wanted to say, I like Necromancer and Zombie, to end this post on a positive note.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 13, 2015, 12:46:43 pm
I have to say that I'm really excited by the concept of having a bunch of cards start in the trash; it's very flavorful. I also like how Necromancer and Zombie interact as sort of two halves of Rogue. I don't think Zombie needs to be a Village, and in fact I'm leery of it being non-terminal at all.

To make it more different from Rogue, maybe Necromancer could always gain a Zombie from the trash. And then the Zombies kill each other off. But of course, unlike other trashing attacks, you can always get them back. Hmm...I wonder if it's too oppressive.

Anyway, the concept is very cool and I'm optimistic that some implementation will work out. Great idea!

I wonder if Zombie needs "(This is not in the Supply)"? Shelters don't have it because they're never in a pile on the table, and I think that applies to Zombies, too.

Thanks :D

Wow, i didn't even think about Shelters as a precedent. Will fix this.

I think you have a good point about Zombie being a Village. I mainly wanted the cards to not stand in each other's way, and Draw/Village was just an obvious positive interaction to make sure you'd want both of them. I know nonterminal attacks are a bad thing normally, and it might be too much of a no-brainer. Another problem i noticed just now is that Zombie/Necromancer would be my second supply/non-supply Village/Draw pair after Town/Road. And that's far from original...

I'll think about some other options.

*cough* Magic the Gathering *cough*

I like the combo of Necromancer and Zombie a lot! Two cool interactive cards that make sense together but aren't that easy to play well, which is a good thing. And they aren't too complicated, either. They instantly jumped to a high position in my mental ranking of your cards only judging by first impression on their effect and design.

Now that Adventures brings so much additional fantasy stuff into Dominion (yeah, Witch and friends, I know) these seem more fitting than before. I still loathe Vampire, just because I think the design is poor. Obviously you can come up with much more interesting ideas, so I would be glad to see that card reworked. Would a Vampire not rather leech from your opponents instead of giving them points? But what do I know about Vampires.

You're probably right about Hunter! I guess I just couldn't grasp its power level, and would have played the card very badly. But I'm also bad with Storeroom although I know it's a good card, so who am I to judge? Just a humble, semi-talented player. I've even been more passionate about fan cards than original card, recently (until Adventures came out).

But enough about me. Just wanted to say, I like Necromancer and Zombie, to end this post on a positive note.

Never played Magic. Had it explained to me, though, and i'd probably like it.

Thanks to you too :D

I guess you are right. Vampire is a bit anti-thematic, thinking of it. And yes, i know cards like that are generally considered poor design. Sometimes i do cards just to see whether i can implement the idea without the power being off or rules breaking, similarly to why i did Jeweler (which implements Action/Treasure). Vampire is the same about that Curse/Action concept, and actually started out as an Action-Curse. It's an old card, and i'm mostly trying to fix it because it's very popular in my gaming group. I know it doesn't live up to some of the other cards.

Edit: Also i myself am a mediocre player at best.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on May 13, 2015, 01:34:02 pm
I think you have a good point about Zombie being a Village. I mainly wanted the cards to not stand in each other's way, and Draw/Village was just an obvious positive interaction to make sure you'd want both of them. I know nonterminal attacks are a bad thing normally, and it might be too much of a no-brainer. Another problem i noticed just now is that Zombie/Necromancer would be my second supply/non-supply Village/Draw pair after Town/Road. And that's far from original...

I'll think about some other options.

I was thinking that Zombie could be terminal and Necromancer could be non-terminal. Then I was thinking that Necromancer could put the gained Zombie into your hand. Then I realized that's a lot like Barracks. But you know, still an option. It could just be +1 Action, +$2, gain a [Zombie/Attack/card costing from $3 to $6] from the trash.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 13, 2015, 04:49:54 pm
I'm having a hard time finding better bonuses for the cards from the spot. It's less hard for Zombie, which could just give +$2. That way, it becomes a bad idea to load up on Zombies too much, and i think Necromancer would have to give +2 Actions itself so you want Zombies at all. Maybe +$1, too? Problem is, this is even more similar to Town. In a way, i think it's more elegant the other way around, and i'd rather try to find a way of making the attack stack less (or add a bane that doesn't run out). Either way, i sadly don't really have time to think about it right now, but i'll definitely try to improve it.

About the "this is not in the supply": I'm not sure whether it might make some people think of Zombie as a regular kingdom card that's just missing a randomizer if i keep it out. Hmm... I guess having it be both a setup and kingdom card would cause some confusing cases. So probably i could leave it on.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on May 15, 2015, 11:49:20 pm
I was thinking that Zombie could be terminal and Necromancer could be non-terminal. Then I was thinking that Necromancer could put the gained Zombie into your hand. Then I realized that's a lot like Barracks. But you know, still an option. It could just be +1 Action, +$2, gain a [Zombie/Attack/card costing from $3 to $6] from the trash.

I like the Barracks version. It's different enough because, unlike Conscripts, Zombies don't disappear after they attack so you want to balance how many you get (especially if they are terminal), and because Necromancer can eventually gain and play the trashed cards on the same turn. Plus, the attack itself is different, Barracks curses while Necromancer trashes, etc.

Now the question would be to find a good terminal version of Zombies.

I am not terribly convinced by the discard option in Zombie, though.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 16, 2015, 09:23:11 am
I was thinking that Zombie could be terminal and Necromancer could be non-terminal. Then I was thinking that Necromancer could put the gained Zombie into your hand. Then I realized that's a lot like Barracks. But you know, still an option. It could just be +1 Action, +$2, gain a [Zombie/Attack/card costing from $3 to $6] from the trash.

I like the Barracks version. It's different enough because, unlike Conscripts, Zombies don't disappear after they attack so you want to balance how many you get (especially if they are terminal), and because Necromancer can eventually gain and play the trashed cards on the same turn. Plus, the attack itself is different, Barracks curses while Necromancer trashes, etc.

Now the question would be to find a good terminal version of Zombies.

I am not terribly convinced by the discard option in Zombie, though.

The discard option was added so Zombie isn't just Dame Molly for less money and without a trash clause. I know it's never in the supply, but i didn't like the idea of Necromancer always being able to gain a card that was worth $5. Now that i'm thinking about a different Vanilla bonuses either way, it should be possible to balance the card without the discard option.

I'm not really a fan of gaining and playing the card. I could imagine gaining a card and allowing you to play a Zombie a lá Cultist. But that probably makes the synergy too obvious and discourages gaining the cards your Zombies trashed, which i wouldn't like as much, either.

How about:

Necromancer
+2 Actions
You may gain a card costing from $3 to $6 from the trash.

Zombie
+2$
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. If a player trashed a card, he may gain a card costing at least $2 less.


Makes Necromancer rather similar to University, but probably not in a problematic way. At least Zombie doesn't draw, so it's not as Town-ish (i hope). Still not sure this is the solution. I don't know what Necromancer is supposed to cost in this version. I doubt it's worth $5 on its own...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on May 16, 2015, 12:13:23 pm
I think giving +2 Actions to Necromancer is good already, but here are some other ideas anyway. I'm just brainstorming, so this may be very far away from what your idea is, but what about:

Quote
Necromancer:
Play this as if it were an Action card from the Trash that you choose. This is that card until it leaves play.

Setup: Put the Zombie card in the Trash.

Can be tweaked, of course. It's kinda cheating in that it's hiding complexity behind a second card, but oh well. If this would be too strong, you could make it return the chosen card to its Supply Pile too.



Other ideas:

If you don't like (conditional) gain to hand, make Necromancer gain cards to the top of your deck (maybe only if it's an Attack card, to make it more different from Graverobber?).

Make Zombie:

Quote
Zombie
Trash a card from your hand.
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on May 16, 2015, 12:37:09 pm
Not that I care about flavor personally, but for flavor, I think zombie definitely should be non-terminal, because zombies are the type of things that you should be able to play a bunch of at once.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on May 16, 2015, 01:34:37 pm
That's easily fixed: add an "s" to the name of the card. :P
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on May 16, 2015, 02:12:52 pm
Not that I care about flavor personally, but for flavor, I think zombie definitely should be non-terminal, because zombies are the type of things that you should be able to play a bunch of at once.

Necromancer: Action, $5
+1 Action. Gain a Zombie from the trash. Play any number of Zombies from your hand.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $4
+1 Card. [Attack effect here]
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: scott_pilgrim on May 16, 2015, 04:21:54 pm
Zombie
+2$
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. If a player trashed a card, he may gain a card costing at least $2 less.

I think you mean "at most $2 less", otherwise I'm gaining Province every time!  I'm not sure it needs that though, I think Saboteur only has it because it can trash Provinces (without support).

Have you considered having the non-terminal Necromancer gain the card to your hand?  Then you can play Zombies right away, but you can also do fun stuff with the other cards that have been trashed.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on May 17, 2015, 05:53:45 am
Zombie
+2$
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. If a player trashed a card, he may gain a card costing at least $2 less.

I think you mean "at most $2 less", otherwise I'm gaining Province every time!  I'm not sure it needs that though, I think Saboteur only has it because it can trash Provinces (without support).

Have you considered having the non-terminal Necromancer gain the card to your hand?  Then you can play Zombies right away, but you can also do fun stuff with the other cards that have been trashed.

You're right about the phrasing, as it should be in accordance with Saboteur's. But Asper said he wouldn't like for one to be ble to gain and play the card, which I assume meant, play it right away. I would agree as that would make Necromancer a little too simple for my taste.

I like Pacovf's idea of Necromancer being played as if it were a card from the trash, and Zombie trashing a card from your hand. Tha't actually a pretty interesting and flavourful BoM variant. It only has the problem tht Grave Robber and Rogue could easily ruin Necromancer's day and distort the game balance by gaining the only copy of Zombie that exists. This could be prevented by either putting a clause on Zombie such as, "When you gain this, trash it", which would be kind of awkward. Or just giving Necromancer two options;

Quote
Necromancer:
You may play this as if it were an Action card from the Trash that you choose. If you do, this is that card until it leaves play. Otherwise, (trash a card from your hand and)
each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest.

Looks really weird, though. I don't know, I'm also just brainstorming. Have fun, evaluating all the options ;)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on May 17, 2015, 08:49:03 am
Just making zombie cost $0* will stop it from being able to be gained from the trash, if you wanted to go that way.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 17, 2015, 02:43:58 pm
I'll try to describe what i'm trying to achieve with the card duo, because i'm not sure i know myself:



I think giving +2 Actions to Necromancer is good already, but here are some other ideas anyway. I'm just brainstorming, so this may be very far away from what your idea is, but what about:

Quote
Necromancer:
Play this as if it were an Action card from the Trash that you choose. This is that card until it leaves play.

Setup: Put the Zombie card in the Trash.

This is an interesting idea, but it's very far from my original concept. I think it makes having 10 Zombie cards seem silly, considering how few other cards in Dominion could remove them from the trash. So maybe have just one costing $0. But, you know, this basically makes Zombie a "choose one" on Necromancer, where #1 is Zombie's ability and #2 looking at the trash. It kind of makes putting Zombie in the trash moot.

Also this version removes the deckbuilding aspect - instead of gaining an army of Zombies (and their victims) over time, you just expand your Necromancer's ability list. It plays very differently. If you want to do a card like this, i'd rather go with a personalized mat where trashed cards go, and a single card type that chooses between a trashing attack and impersonating a card on the mat:

Necromancererer
Choose one: Play a card from your graveyard mat; Or each other player reveals the top two cards from his deck, chooses one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. Put all chosen cards on your graveyard mat.


Not that I care about flavor personally, but for flavor, I think zombie definitely should be non-terminal, because zombies are the type of things that you should be able to play a bunch of at once.

Necromancer: Action, $5
+1 Action. Gain a Zombie from the trash. Play any number of Zombies from your hand.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $4
+1 Card. [Attack effect here]

I didn't really think about it when i first suggested the card, but i guess what makes it actually reasonable to use the trash in my original concept is this: Necromancer gains cards from a shared pile, Zombies start in that pile and put cards from other player's decks there for Necromancer to gain. You can do this without using the trash - but it's far less trouble using it.

With this version, using the trash becomes pretty unnecessary: Zombies behave just like any other non-supply pile (except for Rogue and Graverobber), and the cards they put in the trash are ignored by Necromancer. If i assume you forgot to put that part there, it still treats Zombie differently - i'm not sure i like that.

I had an idea for a version that could play a Zombie, though:

Necromancerer
(possible vanilla bonus)
(You may) gain a card costing from $3 to $6 from the trash. If it is an action card, you may play a copy of it from your hand.
----
Setup: Put the Zombie cards in the trash.

Zombie
+2$
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. If a player trashed a card, he may gain a card costing at least $2 less.

I think you mean "at most $2 less", otherwise I'm gaining Province every time!  I'm not sure it needs that though, I think Saboteur only has it because it can trash Provinces (without support).

Have you considered having the non-terminal Necromancer gain the card to your hand?  Then you can play Zombies right away, but you can also do fun stuff with the other cards that have been trashed.

I figured it would work this way, because you can translate "at least 2 less" as "less by at least 2", but i see how it's misleading. As "at most" is the wording on Saboteur, that's the way to go, obviously. Thanks for pointing this out :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on May 18, 2015, 03:31:27 pm
Based on your excellent comments and ideas from the above post, how about something like this?

Quote
Necromancer: Action, $5
Play a card from your Graveyard mat.

Your Graveyard mat starts with a Zombie on it.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $0*
+$1. Return this to your Graveyard mat. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure or Action card costing at least $3, and discards the rest. Put one of the trashed cards onto your Graveyard mat.

EDIT: Well as you say, this is still pretty far from your original concept. Hmm...

Quote
Necromancer: Action, $5
Gain an Action or Treasure card from the trash and play it.

Setup: Put the Zombie cards in the trash.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $4
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 19, 2015, 06:20:30 am
Based on your excellent comments and ideas from the above post, how about something like this?

Quote
Necromancer: Action, $5
Play a card from your Graveyard mat.

Your Graveyard mat starts with a Zombie on it.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $0*
+$1. Return this to your Graveyard mat. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure or Action card costing at least $3, and discards the rest. Put one of the trashed cards onto your Graveyard mat.

EDIT: Well as you say, this is still pretty far from your original concept. Hmm...

Quote
Necromancer: Action, $5
Gain an Action or Treasure card from the trash and play it.

Setup: Put the Zombie cards in the trash.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $4
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest.

This isn't bad at all... I'm not sure which variant i like more. The second is so very simple on paper, but allows for a whole lot of options. I just wonder whether it might be too many. It seems balanced, either way, with Necromancer behaving similar to Dame Natalie at the start, possibly becoming Explorer (gain a Silver) or even a limited but more flexible Band of Misfits of sorts. I like it. Thanks for that idea :)

Edit: Here are the mockups:

(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150519/g5niriqr.jpg) (http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150519/ukqlhexk.jpg)

I decided to keep the "not in the supply" on Zombie just to make sure nobody would take it for a kingdom card. On their own i think they'd be a bit boring. Also i dropped their price to 3$ (even though it doesn't matter), because i doubt a card like that would be worth $4 (might also not be worth $3, but whatever). I wouldn't want people to misjudge Zombie's power just because they looked at the price.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on May 19, 2015, 01:45:15 pm
My only problem with this latest version is the terminal thing. You have a terminal action that gains you more terminal actions. Unless you have lots of Villages, or your opponent is trashing lots of non-terminal actions, then you don't want to play this card too many times, because each time you do you just get another terminal. You don't get to play your army of zombies that you've built. Since the only way to get a Zombie is to play the Necromancer, I'm thinking that Zombie might not be too strong if it had +1 action.

And although you probably don't want to make it too much like Knights, I sort of feel like it would make sense if it interacted somehow if a Zombie hits another Zombie.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on May 19, 2015, 01:58:24 pm
My only problem with this latest version is the terminal thing. You have a terminal action that gains you more terminal actions. Unless you have lots of Villages, or your opponent is trashing lots of non-terminal actions, then you don't want to play this card too many times, because each time you do you just get another terminal. You don't get to play your army of zombies that you've built. Since the only way to get a Zombie is to play the Necromancer, I'm thinking that Zombie might not be too strong if it had +1 action.

I think it's worth testing as it is. In retrospect, probably Zombie should have some vanilla bonus like +2 Cards, but I think the ability to easily play lots of Zombies would just be too brutal.

And although you probably don't want to make it too much like Knights, I sort of feel like it would make sense if it interacted somehow if a Zombie hits another Zombie.

Well a Zombie "kills off" another Zombie it hits, like any other trashing attack. More importantly, Zombies can kill off Necromancers. I guess Zombies could be one-shots (with a bonus like +1 Card, +1 Action. Or I guess they could do a Knights-like thing and only trash themselves on any successful attack.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on May 19, 2015, 02:10:44 pm
I also think you should try the terminal versions of Necromancer and Zombie. This way, players are discouraged from getting too many Necromancers, which is good IMO. Zombie is that kind of attack that you really don't want to be hit by too often. But it could do with a vanilla bonus (+$2 I think is fine).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 19, 2015, 05:02:19 pm
I think i'll give the latest version a shot, though i can imagine one action on Zombie might be an improvement. Then again, what's wrong about a card that wants Villages in the kingdom? There are plenty. Not sure i want the self-trashing clause, though.

Either way, it's gonna take a while. Gotta playtest my own game first.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on May 24, 2015, 12:01:30 am
In responce to the other comments, here's my suggestion:

Quote
Zombie
Cost $4*. Action - Attack
+1 Action. +$1.
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If any cards are trashed, trash this.
(This is not in the supply.)
It can have the thematic muti-zombies in one turn thing, but that shouldn't happen very often when they trash themselves on a successful attack. (Added the +$1 to make up for the self-trashing.)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on May 24, 2015, 02:03:57 am
I don't really like Zombie being a one-shot.

I am also partial to (my own idea of) giving Zombie a compulsory "Trash a card from your hand" (maybe with +1 Action). It fits both as a bonus and as a check on the number of Zombies that you want to get.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 25, 2015, 09:24:04 am
I think i really like the version LastFootnote suggested. They are so very, very little text and still clever solutions to my main problems (Necromancer being much better than Rogue, Zombies being better than Knights), while staying true to the original concept. There'd have to be big issues to get me away from this solution - which i wouldn't know for quite a while, cause i don't playtest (Dominion fan cards) currently.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 25, 2015, 06:49:54 pm
Mockup for the new version of Hunter, which was named Ranger before and is now a Reserve. Created using LastFootnote's awesome template.
It's so much more text than i figured the effect would take...

(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150526/ah7u76l9.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on May 25, 2015, 07:50:53 pm
• Usually Dominion cards use numerals for cardinal numbers greater than one.
• I think Hunter would be more compelling and interesting if it searched 4 cards. This would also save text.

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck.
Put 2 into your hand; discard the rest.
Put this on your Tavern mat.

EDIT: I really like the card in general. It feels different enough from Wine Merchant to be worth doing.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 25, 2015, 09:16:13 pm
• Usually Dominion cards use numerals for Cardinal numbers greater than one.
• I think Hunter would be more compelling and interesting if it searched 4 cards. This would also save text.

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck.
Put 2 into your hand; discard the rest.
Put this on your Tavern mat.

EDIT: I really like the card in general. It feels different enough from Wine Merchant to be worth doing.

Actually the "call to return" (edit: by VP buy) effect was an Adventures prediction i made before Wine Merchant was revealed. When it turned out no official card used VP cards as a limiter, i basically salvaged it to make Ranger more interesting.

Are you sure 4 cards isn't a bit much? It's allready a super-Lab for $4 as long as you get a single VP card per reshuffle. Then again, the "super" part is needed to deal with those VP cards in the first place - but minus that it's still a Lab for $4. It will eat up a few of your buys, which will give you some VP, so i guess it's worse than a normal Lab most of the time, but then again, it's a $4.

Edit: Of course, the price isn't what the card's about. If 4 seems more interesting but too good for $4, i could still try it at $5.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 27, 2015, 06:31:08 am
I just realized, i don't have a Cornucopia card, yet. I used to have one, but it was rubbish. This one might be better:

(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150527/a5x7w5bu.jpg)

Not sure whether $3 is the appropriate cost. It might be a better Smithy very often. I was just hesistant to cost a card that could turn out as Ruined Market at $4, so i'm going with Donalds "cost lower when in doubt" reasoning for now.


Another Adventures prediction i did was a card that rewards you for guessing which cards our opponents are going to play. Just as i wanted to post the Duration implementation of this, it occured to me that an Event might be the better way to go:

Prophecy, Event, $6
Put one of your Prophecy tokens on an Action card pile in the supply. When another player plays a card, you get +1 Card per Prophecy token in your color on the pile the card is from.

Edit: Probably the name's not very fitting, though, as at the point where you can afford $6 you'll likely have a good idea of what your opponent is having in his deck. So it's less about prediction. Also i have no clue whether $6 is appropriate.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on May 27, 2015, 09:55:00 am
I assume Blacksmith has you reveal cards until you reveal a duplicate of a card that you already revealed. Is there an example of an original card that uses the same wording? Otherwise I would suggest you clarify this in the card text, maybe like this, "until you reveal two duplicates".
As for Blacksmith's effect I'd say it's a better sifter than Smithy although pretty random, like Harvest. In thin-deck engines, it's worse but the +buy may or may not be significant. So, hard to say if it should cost $4 or $3. Try it at $3 first.

For Prophecy the most obvious comparison is Pathfinding which is ridiculously strong and rightfully costs $8. Normally, this would justify a cost of $6 for Prophecy, since your opponent controls how many cards you draw but when the token is on a key card, it's still very powerful. With that said, I think having unlimited Prophecy tokens might be broken. Have you tested the event at all, yet? If not, I'd suggest testing it with only one token per colour.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 27, 2015, 10:36:02 am
Actually, i tend to playtest very, very little. So no, Prophecy was just a shot in the blue, made up while writing. The idea to just have one Prophecy token (or at least only allow one per pile) seems good, though.

Edit: And yes, Blacksmith talks about revealed cards. Maybe it should be "two duplicates"? My english fails here...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on May 27, 2015, 10:59:03 am
Actually, i tend to playtest very, very little. So no, Prophecy was just a shot in the blue, made up while writing. The idea to just have one Prophecy token (or at least only allow one per pile) seems good, though.

Edit: And yes, Blacksmith talks about revealed cards. Maybe it should be "two duplicates"? My english fails here...

Blacksmith should probably say, "Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal two with the same name."
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on May 27, 2015, 11:58:47 am
Actually, i tend to playtest very, very little. So no, Prophecy was just a shot in the blue, made up while writing. The idea to just have one Prophecy token (or at least only allow one per pile) seems good, though.

Edit: And yes, Blacksmith talks about revealed cards. Maybe it should be "two duplicates"? My english fails here...

Blacksmith should probably say, "Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal two with the same name."

^This.

At first I thought Blacksmith had you put the 2 duplicate cards in your hand; now I see that it has you put any 2 you want in your hand. That sounds crazy strong. In a Menagerie style deck; this will let you often find the 2 best cards in your deck, as well as provide massive cycling. Early on it's usually a Woodcutter, but it just gets stronger and stronger as the game goes. I think it could cost $5.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 27, 2015, 12:23:08 pm
Actually, i tend to playtest very, very little. So no, Prophecy was just a shot in the blue, made up while writing. The idea to just have one Prophecy token (or at least only allow one per pile) seems good, though.

Edit: And yes, Blacksmith talks about revealed cards. Maybe it should be "two duplicates"? My english fails here...

Blacksmith should probably say, "Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal two with the same name."

^This.

At first I thought Blacksmith had you put the 2 duplicate cards in your hand; now I see that it has you put any 2 you want in your hand. That sounds crazy strong. In a Menagerie style deck; this will let you often find the 2 best cards in your deck, as well as provide massive cycling. Early on it's usually a Woodcutter, but it just gets stronger and stronger as the game goes. I think it could cost $5.


You have a point and i was about to say you're right, but i'm not sure. I think it could work at $4, maybe. After all, Blacksmith still draws only two cards and getting such a deck isn't trivial. What's more, unlike Menagerie or Scrying Pool, the card's a terminal, which means you have to get Villages, and this in turn means you'll buy duplicates of at least one type of card (unless there are plenty of Villages). In a way, you need to find the right amount of Villages for a Blacksmith deck.

Still no doubt that it is rather strong. If i increase the price to $4 and also remove the buy, we basically get a Smithy that draws less but better cards:

(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150527/iz649wvu.png)

I might still be underestimating it, though.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AJD on May 27, 2015, 12:46:31 pm
I think a good comparison is Embassy: net +2 cards with substantial sifting. Embassy costs $5 and has an on-gain bonus to your opponents; but on the other hand its sifting is a lot more flexible and doesn't depend on a particular deck setup.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 30, 2015, 07:42:27 am
I think a good comparison is Embassy: net +2 cards with substantial sifting. Embassy costs $5 and has an on-gain bonus to your opponents; but on the other hand its sifting is a lot more flexible and doesn't depend on a particular deck setup.

Hmm... The $4/$5 gap is pretty huge... But unlike Smithy and Embassy, Blacksmith is also (depending on your deck) unreliable. Which, unlike Managerie, becomes important in that it is terminal. Two unreliable terminals come to my mind, and those are Harvest and Tribute, usually considered rather bad cards. Maybe Blacksmith for $4 isn't overly strong after all. It certainly is better than Smithy very often, but takes strategy, a bit of luck, and draws less on paper. I think i'm okay with its price point for now.

Edit:
Also, Prophecy with only one token:

Prophecy, Event, $6
Put your Prophecy token on an Action card pile in the supply. When another player plays a card from a pile with your Prophecy token on it, you get +1 Card.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 03, 2015, 11:20:02 am
mail-mi's fan card Invaders (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10996.msg373677#msg373677) is an attack of which you always have one less in your deck than you gained, because one is always in play. Trying to find a wording with less tracking issues, i pondered about a way to implement this using the Tavern Mat, until LastFootnote pointed out that you could simply check whether there allready was a copy set aside/on your Tavern Mat on the card itself and act accordingly (setting it aside/on your Mat if there wasn't).

This in turn made me feel just reducing the number of available cards by one was a bit simple and not worth using the Mat, so i tried thinking of a card that used it meaningfully. This got me to Barkeeper, an idea that i feel is different enough from mail-mi's card to be comfortable about posting here:

(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150603/hpiujxuu.jpg)

It's not a Reserve because it does not always put itself on theTavern Mat, which Reserves apparently do. Also you can't call it, so i felt it would really just confuse people. I put the option to put it on your Mat first (before rewarding you for cards on the mat), so players would feel encouraged to use it from time to time. The name's mostly because, hey, what's a Tavern without a Barkeeper?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on June 03, 2015, 11:31:38 am
I like the card; simple and unique. A few nitpicks:

It should be the Reserve type. There was a card during development that optionally put itself on the Tavern mat, just like Barkeeper. It was a Reserve card.

The "+1 Card" in the text shouldn't be bold. None of the published cards have bold text in the middle of non-bold text and it looks really weird.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on June 03, 2015, 11:35:31 am
I would be tempted to simplify Bartender further.

Barkeeper: Action–Reserve, $3
+1 Buy. You may put this on your Tavern mat. +2 Cards per Barkeeper on your Tavern mat.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on June 03, 2015, 01:54:28 pm
I like the card; simple and unique. A few nitpicks:

It should be the Reserve type. There was a card during development that optionally put itself on the Tavern mat, just like Barkeeper. It was a Reserve card.


I'm still a little annoyed by this. Every other type in Dominion either has actual rules associated with it, or has other cards that refer to the type. (Except maybe Reactions; it's not clear that Moat couldn't behave exactly the same within the rules if it didn't have the reaction type). The Reserve type doesn't do anything. And it's not even consistent on what it really means. It doesn't mean that it can be called (Wine Merchant, Distant Lands). It doesn't mean that it does requires the Tavern Mat (Miser). It doesn't mean that it can be put on the Tavern Mat (Copper because of Miser).

Now I do like the idea of having a card that references the Reserve type. Of course it would need to be a Reserve itself.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on June 03, 2015, 02:03:20 pm
I'm still a little annoyed by this. Every other type in Dominion either has actual rules associated with it, or has other cards that refer to the type. (Except maybe Reactions; it's not clear that Moat couldn't behave exactly the same within the rules if it didn't have the reaction type). The Reserve type doesn't do anything. And it's not even consistent on what it really means. It doesn't mean that it can be called (Wine Merchant, Distant Lands). It doesn't mean that it does requires the Tavern Mat (Miser). It doesn't mean that it can be put on the Tavern Mat (Copper because of Miser).

I hear you and I empathize.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 03, 2015, 02:27:35 pm
I just realized why i'm always tempted to put vanilla bonuses in the middle of a text in bold: The german cards do that. Actually, making them not bold looks weird to me, but obviously that's how it should be.

Which makes me curious how Duration Attacks or Caravan Guard will be solved in the German Adventures: Duration effects were always below a dividing line in german. So will german Adventures be the first Dominion to introduce two dividing lines? I'm a bit surprised Rio Grande Games didn't rectify this when they re-issued Seaside.

Either way, a question about the name: Is Barkeeper something different than the image communicates? You used the name "Bartender", and i wasn't sure how i should call the card. Options were Barkeeper, Innkeeper, Publician and Bartender. I really wasn't sure which fit best, which is probably another problem of not being a native english speaker. The subtleties between those evade me (escape me? slip me?).

Edit 2:
I'll change it to be a Reserve, if you think i should. I'm not entirely sure i like your suggestion (or at least not sure i like it more than the original). +2 Cards seems to make splitting more important and makes the decision to put it on the Mat a bit trivial (for the first few). Also it looks like it should be cheaper that way, making it still a bit more similar to Fool's Gold (given the split allready matters). Also i'd just like to have one more $3, even though my cards hardly form a "set" either way. But i'll think about it.

Edit: "Bartender" Mockup.
(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150603/o4z2zu72.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on June 03, 2015, 02:43:34 pm
Whoops, I meant to say "Barkeeper" each time, but a "Bartender" slipped in. "Barkeeper" isn't a word that gets much use in modern day American English. I couldn't really say if or when it was used much in the past. I think "Barkeep" (without the "-er") sounds more natural while maintaining a medieval/fantasy feel. "Bartender" is the modern word that I believe is ubiquitous in the U.S. now. I would go with one of those.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on June 03, 2015, 02:46:29 pm
Yeah, it's very possible that your version is better than mine. It rubs me the wrong way a little bit that you draw 2 cards first, do something else, and then maybe draw more cards. But that's such a minor thing and I bet it feels natural to play it.

My version does scale more, but I think that would make it more exciting if it worked out. But maybe it would just be too crazy.

Now I'm pondering a version that's just like yours except it gives +$1 per Bartender on your Tavern mat instead of +1 Card. Hmm...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 03, 2015, 02:53:49 pm
Yeah, it's very possible that your version is better than mine. It rubs me the wrong way a little bit that you draw 2 cards first, do something else, and then maybe draw more cards. But that's such a minor thing and I bet it feels natural to play it.

My version does scale more, but I think that would make it more exciting if it worked out. But maybe it would just be too crazy.

Now I'm pondering a version that's just like yours except it gives +$1 per Bartender on your Tavern mat instead of +1 Card. Hmm...

Originally it looked like this:

Bartender, $3
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
+1 Card per Bartender on your Tavern Mat. You may put this on your Tavern Mat.

I figured that it would seem more attractive to put it on the Mat if you got an immediate bonus, like with Mining Village. Later it occured to me that this introduces another problem: You decide to remove a card from your deck, and if you're unlucky you draw junk with that additional card. Which is especially bad if you remove your last Bartender to end the game and fail (or something like that). I can see why +$ is an attractive alternative, or why you might want to put it on the Mat last. Probably this isn't the perfect solution.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 04, 2015, 09:52:10 am
I like the name "Barkeep" best. I like the concept and find the artwork hilarious, just like Wine Merchant. Not sure whether it needs to be a Reserve card but it feels kinda natural this way, also I like the Reserve card colour pattern. I prefer the version that lets you put it on the mat first before receiving the bonus, and the bonus being minor first and stronger later (so either +1 Card or +$1). Both seem reasonable to me but obviously would play very differently. Maybe try both and see which one is more fun.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on June 04, 2015, 10:16:33 am
I agree that the ability to put the Barkeep on your Tavern mat before getting the bonus seems better.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 04, 2015, 11:07:52 am
Allright, so it's Barkeep and putting it on the Mat first. I liked that better either way, it was just having to take a chance that i didn't like.

The coin variant solves this nicely, though i'm still struggeling to accept it's probably the best solution. Coins are just such a standard fix, and surely they are for a reason, but they seem a bit boring. Also i guess technically every terminal draw is taking a chance (though usually you can't lose, unless you have to decide between two terminals). Either way, the coin variant avoids something negative that doesn't need to be, so maybe i should just go with coins. I'd still like the standard bonus to be the way it is, see reasoning below.

(http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150604/gok9obv4.jpg) (http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150604/9qb7urck.jpg)



Things i considered but don't want to go for:

(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150604/tdbntof8.jpg) (http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150604/btjybdpr.jpg)
For the first, i really would have liked to have a +buy card, but obviously having a buy on there makes it strictly better than Woodcutter.
The second is rather useless when you just have one, which i don't really want the card to be.
(Edit: I also considered a version á la Herbalist (just +1$ +1 Buy standard), but that was weak, and a Herbalist version that gave an action, which became too similar to Fool's Gold/Candlestick Maker for my liking.)

Also thanks for your valuable responses, i'm a bit weak on deciding today i'm afraid :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 07, 2015, 06:57:19 pm
Played a testgame today with Co0kieL0rd, and boy it's no fun to have Necromancers on both sides trashed with Zombie, just to have the first player to play a Necromancer get them all. I'm considering to change the wording on Necromancer to something like this:

"Gain an Action or Treasure card from the trash. If it is not a Necromancer, play it"

Alternatively, i could reevaluate versions that give a standard bonus and just gain the trashed card.

Also Necromancer/Zombie prolongues the game a fair bit, so i'm reconsidering a Knight clause on Zombie again. Not sure it will help, because you can still gain Zombies with Necromancer.

To be fair, the game also had Parliament, and Zombies were an attractive target. Needless to say that, like Saboteur, multiple Zombie attacks per turn can destroy a deck. I ended up with 10 cards in mine and Co0kieL0rd ran out of things to steal from me. Ouch. Still a fun game.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 07, 2015, 07:14:56 pm
I think the suggested nerf to Zombie is especially important to make sure the card does not become as frustrating and unpopular as Saboteur, but still as annoying as Knights ;) While I personally enjoyed the game, I can easily see people being frustrated when getting attacked by an engine that plays several Zombies a turn.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on June 07, 2015, 09:07:53 pm
A few options:

• Necromancer could only be able to gain cards costing less than it.
• Zombies could only trash cards costing $3 or $4, like Warrior.
• Zombies could always trash themselves when they trash a card (LibraryAdventurer's suggestion).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on June 08, 2015, 12:50:18 am
The version I ended up printing and using had "If any cards costing more then $4 are trashed, trash this."  :
Quote
Zombie
Cost $4*. Action - Attack
+1 Action. +$1.
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If any cards costing more then $4 are trashed, trash this.
(This is not in the supply.)
I thought it was fun, but we only played one game with it and only once had anyone play more than one Zombie in a turn.

I like your idea of saying "Gain an Action or Treasure card from the trash. If it is not a Necromancer, play it".
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 08, 2015, 06:28:06 am
The version I ended up printing and using had "If any cards costing more then $4 are trashed, trash this."  :
Quote
Zombie
Cost $4*. Action - Attack
+1 Action. +$1.
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If any cards costing more then $4 are trashed, trash this.
(This is not in the supply.)
I thought it was fun, but we only played one game with it and only once had anyone play more than one Zombie in a turn.

I like your idea of saying "Gain an Action or Treasure card from the trash. If it is not a Necromancer, play it".

Wow, thanks for using the card and sharing your experience. :)
Awesome.


We also had another game where Co0kieL0rd's Beachcomb and Money Launderer met my Town and Paddock. There were also Jack and Sea Hag.  Too many good cards for me to see through, but what became apparent was that only a few Roads could be insanely good, even with Town as the only Village. Might have to revisit those two again. Paddock wasn't that bad, but couldn't keep me from losing the game after i made the awful mistakes to skip Sea Hag for Jack and not get any Beachcombs. For reference to Co0kieL0rd's cards see his thread "Roots and Renewal" (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11563.msg406369#msg406369).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 08, 2015, 11:33:20 am
Thanks for referencing my set :)

For Paddock I have to say this: while the card is fine per se, it is rarely a good idea to focus your strategy around Silver. In our game, alt-VP were weak (Island) and engine potential was strong. Paddock had no place in it. I'd be happy to play a game where Paddock is more useful (slog/BM?).

As for Town, it became apparent what I didn't really consider prior to testing it; in a deck full of villages, you basically only need one Road (2-3 to increase your chance of drawing it early) to draw your entire deck. You could nerf it by saying, e. g. "If you played less than [X] actions this turn, put this into your hand." This isn't very elegant, but I have no better idea currently. Maybe it's not that big of an issue, because in practise a deck whose draw power only relies on a few Roads might stall quickly after you start greening. With this in mind, Road might still be fine.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on June 08, 2015, 01:50:43 pm
As for Town, it became apparent what I didn't really consider prior to testing it; in a deck full of villages, you basically only need one Road (2-3 to increase your chance of drawing it early) to draw your entire deck. You could nerf it by saying, e. g. "If you played less than [X] actions this turn, put this into your hand." This isn't very elegant, but I have no better idea currently. Maybe it's not that big of an issue, because in practise a deck whose draw power only relies on a few Roads might stall quickly after you start greening. With this in mind, Road might still be fine.

...Were you here while I vehemently argued that Road (back when it was still called River) should cost 5$? :P

Please don't add that clause, or you'll make kittens cry. :(
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 08, 2015, 02:21:32 pm
As for Town, it became apparent what I didn't really consider prior to testing it; in a deck full of villages, you basically only need one Road (2-3 to increase your chance of drawing it early) to draw your entire deck. You could nerf it by saying, e. g. "If you played less than [X] actions this turn, put this into your hand." This isn't very elegant, but I have no better idea currently. Maybe it's not that big of an issue, because in practise a deck whose draw power only relies on a few Roads might stall quickly after you start greening. With this in mind, Road might still be fine.

...Were you here while I vehemently argued that Road (back when it was still called River) should cost 5$? :P

Please don't add that clause, or you'll make kittens cry. :(

It should cost $5! But unfortunately, with +1 Action tokens now existing, it cannot be a Supply card. Even as a non-Supply card it's still problematic with Champion. Even with neither of those available, when we playtest Road more, it might turn out to be hugely better than we intially thought. And then it might need some kind of nerf or penalty.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on June 08, 2015, 02:25:01 pm
For what it's worth, I don't think Champion is necessarily a deal-breaker for Road. I do agree that it shouldn't be in the Supply because Lost Arts is a problem.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 08, 2015, 02:37:18 pm
For what it's worth, I don't think Champion is necessarily a deal-breaker for Road. I do agree that it shouldn't be in the Supply because Lost Arts is a problem.
Yeah, we (Asper and I) actually already agreed that, at the point where you have a Champion, it doesn't really matter anymore anyway. Nothing does. Just go nuts with your Roads or whatever cards you like.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on June 08, 2015, 02:52:28 pm
It should cost $5!

I dunno, it's going to be really hard to hit $120 on most boards.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on June 08, 2015, 02:55:32 pm
For what it's worth, I don't think Champion is necessarily a deal-breaker for Road. I do agree that it shouldn't be in the Supply because Lost Arts is a problem.
Yeah, we (Asper and I) actually already agreed that, at the point where you have a Champion, it doesn't really matter anymore anyway. Nothing does. Just go nuts with your Roads or whatever cards you like.

Man, I knew there'd be some backlash about Champion in the community, but I didn't expect as much as there seems to be. It absolutely does matter.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 08, 2015, 03:17:53 pm
As for Town, it became apparent what I didn't really consider prior to testing it; in a deck full of villages, you basically only need one Road (2-3 to increase your chance of drawing it early) to draw your entire deck. You could nerf it by saying, e. g. "If you played less than [X] actions this turn, put this into your hand." This isn't very elegant, but I have no better idea currently. Maybe it's not that big of an issue, because in practise a deck whose draw power only relies on a few Roads might stall quickly after you start greening. With this in mind, Road might still be fine.

...Were you here while I vehemently argued that Road (back when it was still called River) should cost 5$? :P

Please don't add that clause, or you'll make kittens cry. :(

When you did that it didn't come with a free Village. Alas, i still must admit that i gravely underestimated the power of the vile monster i hath created.

Edit:
It should cost $5!

I dunno, it's going to be really hard to hit $120 on most boards.

I don't get it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on June 08, 2015, 07:42:13 pm
As for Town, it became apparent what I didn't really consider prior to testing it; in a deck full of villages, you basically only need one Road (2-3 to increase your chance of drawing it early) to draw your entire deck. You could nerf it by saying, e. g. "If you played less than [X] actions this turn, put this into your hand." This isn't very elegant, but I have no better idea currently. Maybe it's not that big of an issue, because in practise a deck whose draw power only relies on a few Roads might stall quickly after you start greening. With this in mind, Road might still be fine.

...Were you here while I vehemently argued that Road (back when it was still called River) should cost 5$? :P

Please don't add that clause, or you'll make kittens cry. :(

When you did that it didn't come with a free Village. Alas, i still must admit that i gravely underestimated the power of the vile monster i hath created.

You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could that you didn't stop to think if you should. :(

Anyhoo, I wouldn't draw conclusions from a single playtest.


Quote
Edit:
It should cost $5!

I dunno, it's going to be really hard to hit $120 on most boards.

I don't get it.

5! = 5*4*3*2*1 = 120.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 08, 2015, 08:41:43 pm
You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could that you didn't stop to think if you should. :(

Anyhoo, I wouldn't draw conclusions from a single playtest.

That's what they told me when i did my experiments on Noble's Isle.

Science is not a should, it's a must. Every little thing you can't grasp is a piece of the world lost, and a piece of the world not lived in. No greater sin than ignorance. Truth, and truth alone... Oh wait, we were talking about fan cards...

*ahem*


Quote
It should cost $5!

I dunno, it's going to be really hard to hit $120 on most boards.

I don't get it.

5! = 5*4*3*2*1 = 120.

Ah. Embarrassing i didn't get that. I used to love stochastics. Thanks for explaining.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 12, 2015, 09:21:49 am
Co0kieL0rd and i played a very interesting game full of fun interactions recently. The kingdom was:

Realm Tax (CL's Roots & Renewal)
PawnPeasant
Sultan (My card)
Floodgate (LF's Enterprise)
Barkeep (My card)
Dungeon
Rats
Benefit (CL's Roots & Renewal)
Mint
Wine Merchant

Practically every card was used, with the exception of Rats and Wine Merchant. We used Shelters, which made Sultan a tad more attractive, and so i actually opened Floodgate/Sultan, trashing my Hovel. Co0kieL0rd went for Pawns.

Fun things were:

Realm Tax counts all card in play, including other player's Dungeons. Barkeep can be put on the Mat if you want to get Realm Tax and kept in play if you want to play one. Floodgate helped align Provinces with Sultan and was a decent target itself. Mint got rid of the Coppers to help Sultan collide with Province, and Sultan in turn provided Golds for Mint. Also it was nice to discard Overgrown Estate for Sultan and still get a Realm Tax in hand.

Benefit was able to gain lots of Barkeeps. At one point Co0kieL0rd asked me why i wasn't choking in Barkeeps, and it was only then that i realized that with a few Barkeeps on the Mat one of them behaves a bit like Cultist (if you ignore the buy) - it's as if one of the cards you drew was a Barkeep and you were allowed to play it immediately. Well, that's probably a bad comparison, especially since we used the version that gives coins, but it gave me a bit of a feel for how powerful it may be.

Co0kieL0rd later teached his Sultan Science to become a Lab, but i was allready ahead by then. I don't think i would have gotten enough Barkeeps without Benefit, or be as sucessful with my Sultans without Floodgate, Mint and Realm Tax.

We also played another fun game yesterday (which i lost... *grumble*), but more about that later. All in all we felt this was a great Sultan/Barkeep board, and that they were sill okay at $3 each.

Edit: Another interaction i forgot was Floodgate/Dungeon. It really was full of these.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 13, 2015, 06:51:36 am
PEASANT, dude, not Pawn ;) Although I find myself confusing those two sometimes, too. They're potentially the new Mint and Mine.

A fun game indeed, as have been all games so far. It's a great idea to mix cards from different sets and thus create a lot of variety. The other game we played had a lot of trash-for-benefit including Asper's Assemble. It may just be too easy to Assemble a $5-cost card into a Province and a Copper which is almost not a penalty toward the end of the game. The gained cards should probably go on top of your deck in Develop's fashion.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 13, 2015, 08:35:13 am
Peasant, Pawn? Those words practically mean the same to me O__o
No wonder i'm confusing them.

Also, yeah, i think LastFootnote suggested the topdecking for Assemble before, and i think it's a nice thing to do. It's not even strictly a nerf, as it only harms you when you trash 5$s for Provinces. For Silvers it's a topdecking Mint, and there might be cases where you want to make a 4$ and a $2 out of a 3$, or even two 4$s out of a 5$. Granted, those cases is a lot less trivial, but shifting the card a bit in that direction makes it potentially more interesting in my book. Assemble should be nice with good/harmless $2s.

Here are the mockups of the new Assemble and the slightly tweaked Necromancer:

(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150613/ikcng57w.jpg) (http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150613/atipf45d.jpg)

I'm still not sure Zombie needs a nerf, as i'm more and more getting the feeling that the problem lies with Parliament, not Zombie. For this reason i'm removing Parliament for now and hope to give Zombie another go sooner or later.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 22, 2015, 07:00:54 am
The Parliament is dead. Long live the Parliamentses.

(Images were killed by host)

The first one seems incredibly strong to me, but maybe it's okay. It's like a Mint for actions... that gives a bonus... and puts them in your hand... But at least it does nothing on gain. Not that much of a TR variant, anymore, though.
The second one is so much worse for terminals, but might have its places.

Probably not my brightest ideas, but whatever. Better than the old one, at least...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 22, 2015, 07:48:44 am
I think the version of Parliament that played an Action twice if it cost $4 and three times if it costs $3 or less was your most creative idea (of all the Parliaments). It didn't seem broken or un-fun to me. The problem when we played with it was just that there was a $3-cost trashing attack which made Parliament seem overpowererd when technically it isn't. But, I mean, it's your cards so if you didn't like that version, that's your decision, man.

In the case of these two new suggestions I'd prefer the simpler one, the right one. I don't think it needs the word "too" on it but if you think it does, there should be a comma before it. Both cards seem less interesting to me than your old parliament. Also both are quite similar to Disciple, the right one in particular. I also had a similar idea for a TR-variant that became obsolete with Disciple.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 22, 2015, 01:38:35 pm
I think the version of Parliament that played an Action twice if it cost $4 and three times if it costs $3 or less was your most creative idea (of all the Parliaments). It didn't seem broken or un-fun to me. The problem when we played with it was just that there was a $3-cost trashing attack which made Parliament seem overpowererd when technically it isn't. But, I mean, it's your cards so if you didn't like that version, that's your decision, man.

In the case of these two new suggestions I'd prefer the simpler one, the right one. I don't think it needs the word "too" on it but if you think it does, there should be a comma before it. Both cards seem less interesting to me than your old parliament. Also both are quite similar to Disciple, the right one in particular. I also had a similar idea for a TR-variant that became obsolete with Disciple.

Ehm... Good point, Disciple is really similar. We allready played with it, but i still didn't remember it that good. Maybe i should just give the old version another shot. I guess Zombie just wasn't a very good situation to... um... test in peace.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 24, 2015, 03:33:44 pm
What time is it? Hammer? Goofy? Adventure? No! It's Asper's CardsTM update time!



1st, i finally found art to put on my very-much-about-name card "Iron Maiden". I wouldn't feel comfortable without pointing out that Sir Peebles had a very similar idea at practically the same time i had this one (a long time ago), and i guess it's apparent why - the card is about the pun, and the pun obviously demands an "Ironworks type" attack - which in turn is something you can only implement in so many different ways. His gave a different bonus when played, though.

(http://i.imgur.com/l5nCleW.jpg)

It's absurdly much text, but really not that complicated. The only choice you make is the bonus you take (which is why i put it at the start of the card - you don't want people to believe they should wait for others to discard before making up their mind), and the attack is just "random" junking.



Parliament is back, for now. I still have to decide how i want it to interact with cost reducers, but i'll give it another try.
Edit: I'm talking about the older concept of playing cheaper cards more often than more expensive cards, as the versions i posted somewhere these days were pretty much Disciple:

(http://i.imgur.com/hzA2J11.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/SuYEjtI.jpg)

Version one cares about cost reduction, version 2 (mostly) doesn't.



For Road, i'll try a version that doesn't automatically return to your hand but instead trades another card for itself. This might actually reduce the "Too many Roads" element, as you can always just discard them, but either ways should help as a nerf. It's not exactly pretty, but still relatively simple.

(http://i.imgur.com/x0QasYS.jpg)



Sultan now costs $4. I recently beat Co0kieL0rd all too easily using one of his cards to get an early Province and from then on drowned in Golds (we actually ended the game when we noticed that all VP cards in the supply wouldn't be enough for him to beat me). I'm not sure how much Sultan is to blame for this, the other card was pretty strong, but i feel that since you don't want to open with it, anyhow ("What about Fool's Gold?"), it's okay. I certainly feel a bit more comfortable about a potential Gold gainer to cost $4, and hey, people won't complain about how he's better than Explorer, anymore. If it turns out to become too niche this way, i'll put all the blame on Co0kieL0rd and his card and act as if a price of $4 never happened.

(http://i.imgur.com/PPBDmFk.jpg)

Yes, that sounds like a plan...



My art from Politician is back on a new card named Manufacturer. I wanted to name this one "Factory", but Factories are a bit too modern. And yes, the cost reduction of course means you can immediately gain a card with a $5 written on it.
Edit: Probably the version with the Bridge wording is more clear, see below.

(http://i.imgur.com/CPZvgwL.jpg)



Phew, i'm not used to writing this kind of long "let me explain how amazing my cards are" posts... I hope you had fun, please tune in next time. What time? Asper's CardsTM update time!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on June 24, 2015, 03:44:06 pm
Iron Maiden is the perfect example of a card that can contain a whole lot of text, because as soon as you read it once you don't need to re-read each word each time you play it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 24, 2015, 03:59:44 pm
Iron Maiden is the perfect example of a card that can contain a whole lot of text, because as soon as you read it once you don't need to re-read each word each time you play it.

I'm very glad you think this :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: scott_pilgrim on June 24, 2015, 04:06:26 pm
To a casual player, I don't think it's obvious whether the cost reduction happens before the gaining on Manufacturer.  Actually, it's not obvious to me either.  I think you play a card before it's actually in play right?  So the gaining happens first?  You'll probably want to find a wording that makes it really clear.  I think it's a pretty nice idea though.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on June 24, 2015, 04:08:39 pm
The nerf to road seems a bit too harsh?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Awaclus on June 24, 2015, 04:20:19 pm
The Parliament is dead. Long live the Parliamentses.

(http://i.imgur.com/oODHyjt.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/BsJuTdu.jpg)

Convincing.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AJD on June 24, 2015, 04:27:56 pm
I think you play a card before it's actually in play right?

No.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 24, 2015, 04:38:08 pm
To a casual player, I don't think it's obvious whether the cost reduction happens before the gaining on Manufacturer.  Actually, it's not obvious to me either.  I think you play a card before it's actually in play right?  So the gaining happens first?  You'll probably want to find a wording that makes it really clear.  I think it's a pretty nice idea though.

The original card used Bridge's wording, which made the thing clear but of course meant Manufacturer was throneable. Do you think that would be better?

Hmm... Maybe it is. Not everybody is a fds member or would (hypothetically) read a(n) FAQ.

Edit: Here is the alternative:

(http://i.imgur.com/hIpqLFu.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 24, 2015, 04:49:56 pm
The nerf to road seems a bit too harsh?

Co0kieL0rd and i played a game recently where we had the feeling that if you gained a few Towns without Roads and only 1-2 Roads, it totally was enough to draw your deck. Maybe the nerf is too harsh, but at least current Road can - in the right deck - be a monster. And as Town always puts that deck in reach, a nerf seems to be the thing to go for. The current nerf is the one that felt the most natural to me - Road now is a Moat that allows you to turn one card in your hand into another Road.

Hey, Moat-Road. That even sounds similar. Yay, totally intended!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on June 24, 2015, 05:53:15 pm
The nerf to road seems a bit too harsh?

Co0kieL0rd and i played a game recently where we had the feeling that if you gained a few Towns without Roads and only 1-2 Roads, it totally was enough to draw your deck. Maybe the nerf is too harsh, but at least current Road can - in the right deck - be a monster. And as Town always puts that deck in reach, a nerf seems to be the thing to go for. The current nerf is the one that felt the most natural to me - Road now is a Moat that allows you to turn one card in your hand into another Road.

Hey, Moat-Road. That even sounds similar. Yay, totally intended!

Myeah. I am just sad because the previous version was hard to make work but was balls-to-the-wall crazy when it did. This version just isn't as exciting.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 25, 2015, 05:14:11 am
Small update after another game Co0kieL0rd vs me:

LastFootnote's Gamblers is a cantrip trasher and insanely strong. I lost the game where it appeared because i didn't go for it immediately. When i did, i played it once as a one-shot Lab. Well, it might also have not helped my cause to try attacking Co0kieL0rd with Haunted Woods when the board had Manufacturer and Alms...

Manufacturer is absurdly good. If you don't think the first one played during your turn is at least on par with Altar, the second or third will make you realize why it is amazingly strong. And that's not even considering #4 can gain Provinces. I'm considering either costing it at $7 or, preferrably, give it some kind of penalty on gain/buy. It's certainly the most "Prosperity" card i have.

Iron Maiden's on-play effect is not much fun. It's balanced the way it is now, but Co0kieL0rd didn't really have room for it in his engine and i decided to go for Haunted Woods instead (which was totally a mistake). I might make it discard the top card of your own deck for an appropriate bonus (which somehow was exactly what Co0kieL0rd immediately wanted to do when playing it the first time) or give it a standard bonus. I also considered letting it choose bonuses according to one of the discarded cards ("Choose one of the discarded cards. If it is...") but obviously this makes it more reliable in multiplayer games - not exactly "reliable", though, so it might work.

We only played a single game of Road until now, so we might playtest it soon to see whether pacovf is right and it shouldn't be nerfed (as harshly). :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 29, 2015, 07:59:26 pm
Man, man, my cards are too expensive... Here are two ideas.

(http://i.imgur.com/6h41U8a.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/nunA1wW.jpg)

One, Fountain, is a very old thing. I wanted to cost it at $2, but that would allow people to gain two of them each turn (edit: on opening turns), and also pushing them to $3 made it easier to justify the +3 Actions. At some point in its life cycle, this topdecked the new card and only allowed to gain a card with a different name than the returned card.

For Decree, i DID consider costing it at $2, but then i decided the "drawback" would be an advantage often enough to cost it equally to Silver. At the very least, if you have no unplayable cards in hand, you can play a single Decree last. It also helps mitigate Terminal collisions. Which Treasure can say that about itself?

Also, bonus card:

(http://i.imgur.com/n01Lkjc.jpg)

Not sure whether "potentially double-Village, potentially double-Ruined-Village" is any fun, though.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on June 29, 2015, 10:22:16 pm
OK, it's official: Asper is my favorite card designer (who isn't me or Donald).

I really like Fountain's bottom, and it's top seems like a decent match. Depending on the $2 cards, you might want to think twice about converting those Estates too early.

I would definitely test Decree at $2; you can always change it to $3 if it doesn't work out.

Sunken City looks unique and interesting. Shades of Herald, obviously, but definitely different enough. (The fact that the text is all at the top of the text box irks me.)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 30, 2015, 03:25:20 am
OK, it's official: Asper is my favorite card designer (who isn't me or Donald).

This coming from you is a great honor to me. :)
I'll try my best to keep up with it.

I would definitely test Decree at $2; you can always change it to $3 if it doesn't work out.

Sunken City looks unique and interesting. Shades of Herald, obviously, but definitely different enough. (The fact that the text is all at the top of the text box irks me.)

The decision between $3 and $2 was mostly a matter of taste. I figured experienced players would usually be able to actively improve their deck using Decree, and more than with just Silver. But i understand why $2 seems more appropriate - to less experienced players, it's going to look like a bad drawback, and the price difference isn't big enough to make much of a difference for experienced players anyhow. I'll put it at $2.

Oops, i knew something was looking odd there. Will fix.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 30, 2015, 04:22:41 am
As i mentioned earlier, Manufacturer is a beast. Or, Minister is, because CL thought Manufacturer was just as bad a name as Factory due to anachronis... anachronismity(?). So now, it's Minister. Here are two standard ideas for nerfs:

(http://i.imgur.com/FgzLdOZ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Qqjx6nz.jpg)

And, as i considered bringing back Vampire in a less "fantasy" and more "Prosperity-like" look, anyway, i'm also thinking about this other solution:

(http://i.imgur.com/tRhFWqP.jpg)

There are things i like about the last solution, like salvaging my approach to a "self-curser", or that it doesn't change how the card plays (the other two do in in more than one way, each, which i think might make them unreasonably harsh). Still, it also makes the card more complex and it's certainly not a "tailor-made" solution. I'll playtest them all, if i can.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on June 30, 2015, 10:00:20 am
Yay, new cards :D And really cool ideas, too! With these additions, your whole compilation of cards might be my favourite (after my own set) as well.

Fountain reminds me of a certain other card we are developing together ;) The on-buy bonus is a neat idea and makes possible some unique combos, I would think.

Funnily enough, my initial thought was, Decree might even cost $4 but that's probably out of scale. I like it at $3; $2 would seem too cheap to me.

Sunken City is also very cool. I can't wait to test all these with you ;)

As for Minister, you know I prefer an on-gain "penalty", and you also know I dislike this VP-stuff for other players. I was hoping you would come up with something that makes gaining a Minister more challenging, like Grand Market's penalty. Or are you satisfied with this solution?

Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on June 30, 2015, 10:26:22 am
I prefer Decree at $2, to make it feel more different from Silver.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on June 30, 2015, 10:45:01 am
So this would be a tiny change which would completely change the type of card; but what if Decree cost more and the top-deck were optional? The problem is I'm not sure if it's good enough for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), and you want to avoid (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Silver+.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 30, 2015, 10:53:06 am
So this would be a tiny change which would completely change the type of card; but what if Decree cost more and the top-deck were optional? The problem is I'm not sure if it's good enough for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), and you want to avoid (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Silver+.

There are a few reasons why it's not optional, and the most important one would be that i wanted to have more cheap cards. Also, there are so many Silver+ for $5, doing another one just doesn't look as exciting to me. Additionally, i allready have that with Jeweler (and arguably Aqueduct).

Edit: Also, can you do that coin thing automatically? That's pretty cool. You're working on stuff like that, aren't you?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: XerxesPraelor on June 30, 2015, 11:07:56 am
I also agree it looks more appealing at $2 cost. More new ground explored that way.

Both of your most recent cards look really well-designed- definitely not something I could come up with on my own (I.e. it's creative) and seemingly well-balanced and with good dynamics.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 30, 2015, 11:20:02 am
I'm really flattered about all of this positive feedback. Thank you all a lot. :)

Fountain is just such an old idea that had a lot of time to develop, and Decree... Well, i basically stumbled across it. Let's just say that i'm very happy about all your replies now and hoping that my next cards don't get so terrible you all regret them :P
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on June 30, 2015, 11:21:56 am
So this would be a tiny change which would completely change the type of card; but what if Decree cost more and the top-deck were optional? The problem is I'm not sure if it's good enough for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), and you want to avoid (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Silver+.


Edit: Also, can you do that coin thing automatically? That's pretty cool. You're working on stuff like that, aren't you?

It's part of my Chrome extension; see my signature.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 30, 2015, 02:24:49 pm
The nerf to road seems a bit too harsh?

Co0kieL0rd and i played a game recently where we had the feeling that if you gained a few Towns without Roads and only 1-2 Roads, it totally was enough to draw your deck. Maybe the nerf is too harsh, but at least current Road can - in the right deck - be a monster. And as Town always puts that deck in reach, a nerf seems to be the thing to go for. The current nerf is the one that felt the most natural to me - Road now is a Moat that allows you to turn one card in your hand into another Road.

Hey, Moat-Road. That even sounds similar. Yay, totally intended!

Myeah. I am just sad because the previous version was hard to make work but was balls-to-the-wall crazy when it did. This version just isn't as exciting.

Occured to me just now i never answered this: The problem was, it really wasn't that hard to do. It just was crazy, without any real problem. But it's going to get some more testing soon, i hope, and then we'll see.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on June 30, 2015, 07:37:22 pm
Personally, I like the third option for Minister best for the reason you said: it gives it a drawback without changing the way it plays.

I like Fountain, but I don't care for Decree or Sunken City. They just seem uninteresting/unattractive.
(but I agree that $2 cost fan cards are hard to do.)

EDIT: Oh, and to help keep the praise from getting to you too much: I like several of your cards, but you're not in my top 3 favorite fan-card designers. (My two favorite being myself and Lastfootnote).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on June 30, 2015, 07:58:36 pm
Note that the wording on Warrior shows for sure that a card is considered "in play" while you follow its on-play instructions. But it does clarify with "(including this)", so it might be good for Manufacturer to have similar clarification.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on June 30, 2015, 08:05:02 pm
""-July: Asper posts new cards-

Psche, this is sooooo last month. You should check out sh4d0ww4rri0r0811's fan cards, that's where it's at.""

BTW, I know that you are all jealous of my superior fancarding skillz and that's why nobody's mentioned me yet. RIGHT!?!?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 30, 2015, 08:09:05 pm
Personally, I like the third option for Minister best for the reason you said: it gives it a drawback without changing the way it plays.

I like Fountain, but I don't care for Decree or Sunken City. They just seem uninteresting/unattractive.
(but I agree that $2 cost fan cards are hard to do.)

EDIT: Oh, and to help keep the praise from getting to you too much: I like several of your cards, but you're not in my top 3 favorite fan-card designers. (My two favorite being myself and Lastfootnote).

Dammned, now i'm all back down to earth... Guess i'll have to cancel that radio interview where i was going to mention how i am bigger than Donald...

And i can totally see why you think of Sunken City and Decree as uninteresting. I guess it's a matter of preference. I'm hoping that, even though they are rather simple, they'll still offer a unique gaming experience.

Edit: But seriously, i appreciate it. I'm actually surprised nobody picked out Sunken City to critizise it as too luck-dependant, yet. Usually, i like to get my cards as simple as possible, and i understand they might be lacking in a way to some people.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 01, 2015, 06:48:24 am
Yay, new cards :D And really cool ideas, too! With these additions, your whole compilation of cards might be my favourite (after my own set) as well.

Fountain reminds me of a certain other card we are developing together ;) The on-buy bonus is a neat idea and makes possible some unique combos, I would think.

Funnily enough, my initial thought was, Decree might even cost $4 but that's probably out of scale. I like it at $3; $2 would seem too cheap to me.

Sunken City is also very cool. I can't wait to test all these with you ;)

As for Minister, you know I prefer an on-gain "penalty", and you also know I dislike this VP-stuff for other players. I was hoping you would come up with something that makes gaining a Minister more challenging, like Grand Market's penalty. Or are you satisfied with this solution?

Thanks :)

It's funny, the similarity of Fountain to you-know-what didn't occur to me at all. I think they serve vastly different purposes, though, with Fountain being unable to actively thin your deck. Also, i'm looking forward to when we can play again :)

About Decree, the control it offers is what made me charge $3, but i think LastFootnote is right. It probably will be rather useful in some decks, but you don't want to pick up dozends of them, and i would like it to not be "Huh, why would i buy that over Silver?" to less experienced players. Hmm... I guess with a drawer, it's much better to draw one of these with a terminal. We should check it soon.

About Minister, i'm not sure i like it. I do want to make some card with that VP penalty, because it's something not there, yet, and it works. I know you don't like it, but let's assume i'm going to make one either way - would Minister, a very strong, rather expensive card, that likes to gain copies of itself, and needs a nerf, be a bad match for that penalty? I guess you'd like something that makes gaining Ministers actually harder, but that would either mean increasing the price to $7 (which i'd be fine with it it plays out good) or giving it some more complex limitation, like costing it at $8 and saying "in your buy phase, this costs 2$ less" or something. Or make it gain a Copper on gain, or make you discard a card on gain, or what have you. I couldn't really think of something that wasn't at least as complex as the VP thing, without being more interesting.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on July 01, 2015, 09:16:30 am
I don't get your last sentence because to me, the VP penalty appears as rather simple. Balancing-wise, I think it is as appropriate as Lost City's penalty, and actually pretty minor. Which is okay imo because I think while Minister's self-synergy is strong when it actually works, it's harder to pull off than, let's say, a Grand Market stack if it wasn't for its major buy restriction. So if you like it, you should stick with it. I definitely prefer it to raising the cost to $7 or limiting it to gain cards costing up to $3 which would make it awful.

Actually, it would be pretty awesome if you Swindled another player's Gold into a Minister so you gain 1 VP and then end the game and win by a point :D
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 01, 2015, 09:49:51 am
I don't get your last sentence because to me, the VP penalty appears as rather simple. Balancing-wise, I think it is as appropriate as Lost City's penalty, and actually pretty minor. Which is okay imo because I think while Minister's self-synergy is strong when it actually works, it's harder to pull off than, let's say, a Grand Market stack if it wasn't for its major buy restriction. So if you like it, you should stick with it. I definitely prefer it to raising the cost to $7 or limiting it to gain cards costing up to $3 which would make it awful.

Actually, it would be pretty awesome if you Swindled another player's Gold into a Minister so you gain 1 VP and then end the game and win by a point :D

What i was trying to say was, i didn't find anything that was both as simple as and more interesting then the VP penalty, which is why i actually think i'll stick with it for now. The only real disadvantage this (or any other "on-gain" penalty) has is that i can't have it and reduce costs "while in play" without having two dividing lines. But meh, i think a card that goes that far can also survive additional Throne Room craziness, especially when it helps understand the timing...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on July 01, 2015, 10:54:10 am
Without having played with it, I'm leery of Minister. I feel like cost reduction and gaining are such a powerful combo that they don't need to be on the same card. On the other hand it hasn't been done before and it's simple rules-wise. The penalty is also a nice simple thing. I was going to talk about how I prefer fan expansions to be self contained—not needing components (like VP chips) from other sets—but I suppose this isn't an expansion so much as a collection of cards, and it already uses Potions, etc. So nevermind that; cool penalty.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 01, 2015, 11:21:03 am
Without having played with it, I'm leery of Minister. I feel like cost reduction and gaining are such a powerful combo that they don't need to be on the same card. On the other hand it hasn't been done before and it's simple rules-wise. The penalty is also a nice simple thing. I was going to talk about how I prefer fan expansions to be self contained—not needing components (like VP chips) from other sets—but I suppose this isn't an expansion so much as a collection of cards, and it already uses Potions, etc. So nevermind that; cool penalty.

Thanks. I don't consider my cards an expansion, as you said. If anything, it's more of a treasure chest. I mean, i catch myself thinking stuff like "i don't have enough cheap cards" or "i don't have a Cornucopia card, yet", but that's light compared to the complexity of making a realistic expansion that has to follow the rules you mentioned, and many more. If i really wanted to do an expansion, i'd not only have to worry about things like components or card count, but also couldn't reasonably have that many different kinds of cards in it. But looking at Seaside, thinking "Can i make a card that would fit in Seaside?", that's fun to me, and as i'm not going to make money with it either way, Donald doesn't care much about fan cards, and most people here either have the components or play online anyhow, i'm fine with just fooling around.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AJD on July 01, 2015, 12:51:58 pm
If anything, it's more of a treasure chest.

Treasure Chest
$5: Treasure

+$2
When you play this, gain a Potion, a Ruins, and a Prize (from the Prize pile).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 07, 2015, 05:41:17 pm
After a little game involving Barkeep with Fragasnap and Co0kieL0rd, i'm again considering alternative versions, including one that does the same but costs $4, a version that costs $3 and lacks the buy, and a version that draws cards like the original did (possibly without the buy or for $4). The version i have right now seemed a bit too self-supporting and also like a card you always had to contest. I really don't like cards that make you feel you have to win a split, but maybe that's part of Barkeep's nature. Either way, i'm currently on the lookout for alternatives.



Another reason why i'm posting here is this:

(http://i.imgur.com/sChdbBM.jpg)

It's my most recent take at a concept i have been working on for quite a while - an attack that lets you decide whether an opponent may keep his hand or has to exchange it for another. The bottom part is there for reasons, but i'm curious as to how obvious those reasons are and/or how natural that part feels. It might be a bit more complicated than i usually like my cards to be, and i'm not sure about its power, either. Complaints and considerations welcome.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on July 07, 2015, 05:48:28 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/sChdbBM.jpg)

It's my most recent take at a concept i have been working on for quite a while - an attack that lets you decide whether an opponent may keep his hand or has to exchange it for another. The bottom part is there for reasons, but i'm curious as to how obvious those reasons are and/or how natural that part feels. It might be a bit more complicated than i usually like my cards to be, and i'm not sure about its power, either. Complaints and considerations welcome.

Donald tried a Navigator-style attack like this as an on-gain ability in Hinterlands. "They had problems on early turns and late turns". That's no reason not to try this one, but I thought I'd mention it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on July 07, 2015, 05:49:25 pm
Tribunal looks a bit weak for a Smithy+ because the attack is so unpredicatable. It is political which isn't taboo but usually frowned upon as you know. Still, it's your decision whether you want such a card. Of course, it only makes sense when you are able to decide for each individual player. I don't see why it doesn't just say "Each other player draws 5 cards and discards a card" at the bottom.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on July 07, 2015, 06:05:00 pm
Tribunal looks a bit weak for a Smithy+ because the attack is so unpredicatable. It is political which isn't taboo but usually frowned upon as you know. Still, it's your decision whether you want such a card. Of course, it only makes sense when you are able to decide for each individual player.

I don't see how it's political. What am I missing?

I don't see why it doesn't just say "Each other player draws 5 cards and discards a card" at the bottom.

You mean "Each other player draws until he has 5 cards in hand, then discards a card"? I agree that that phrasing seems simpler.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 07, 2015, 06:14:22 pm

It's my most recent take at a concept i have been working on for quite a while - an attack that lets you decide whether an opponent may keep his hand or has to exchange it for another. The bottom part is there for reasons, but i'm curious as to how obvious those reasons are and/or how natural that part feels. It might be a bit more complicated than i usually like my cards to be, and i'm not sure about its power, either. Complaints and considerations welcome.

Donald tried a Navigator-style attack like this as an on-gain ability in Hinterlands. "They had problems on early turns and late turns". That's no reason not to try this one, but I thought I'd mention it.

I think i remember you mentioning something like this, but i don't think i understood the reason. Navigator wouldn't have come to my mind at all. Actually, i still don't get the common aspect.
Edit: Whoops, i think i misread. Strangely enough, i DID think i remembered you stating something like this. At the very least, i think we talked about an older version of this card, so it might be my memory adding things that didn't happen.


Tribunal looks a bit weak for a Smithy+ because the attack is so unpredicatable. It is political which isn't taboo but usually frowned upon as you know. Still, it's your decision whether you want such a card. Of course, it only makes sense when you are able to decide for each individual player. I don't see why it doesn't just say "Each other player draws 5 cards and discards a card" at the bottom.

It decides for each player, not for all at once. Huh, i guess the wording doesn't make this clear enough.

"Each other player draws 5 cards and discards a card" would have players that i don't let discard end up with 9 cards in hand. "each other player draws up to 5 and discards a card" would have players that drew a card for Council Room or Soothsayer have another number of cards in hand in the end depending on which option i chose. I admit this difference isn't really worth the extra wordiness, but i kind of preferred it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on July 07, 2015, 06:19:06 pm
I should have been more clear: "Each other player reveals his and, and you may choose for each player that he discards it. If he does, he draws 5 cards and discards a card." This is unaffected Council Rooms, Soothsayers etc. because all the cards they previously drew will be discarded.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 07, 2015, 06:26:35 pm
I should have been more clear: "Each other player reveals his and, and you may choose for each player that he discards it. If he does, he draws 5 cards and discards a card." This is unaffected Council Rooms, Soothsayers etc. because all the cards they previously drew will be discarded.

Yup. So i see, it's NOT clear enough why the bottom part is the way it is. Your version can be played over and over until a player has the worst possible hand. My version can't, because players that didn't discard their hand STILL draw until they have 5 and then discard one. So, if i let another player keep his cards for several plays of Tribunal, his hand gradually improves because of the sifting.

Edit: Sorry, i think this sounded really arrogant. Not intended at all, my sincere apologies. What i mean is, the reason for that part is avoiding a possible Tribunal pin where you play the card until somebody has the worst possible hand. As every player, not only those discarding their entire hand, draws up to five and then discards a card, players that allready have a bad hand (and were hit by Tribunal or another discard attack before) will still draw and discard at least one card, allowing them to sift a little.

Also, improved mockup:

(http://i.imgur.com/IGUKLln.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on July 07, 2015, 07:42:07 pm
I was too lazy again to explain why I suggested the above wording: I just think Tribunal is both simpler and stronger if other players only draw to 5 and discard in case they previously dropped their hand.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 08, 2015, 04:31:21 am
I was too lazy again to explain why I suggested the above wording: I just think Tribunal is both simpler and stronger if other players only draw to 5 and discard in case they previously dropped their hand.

You are right on both things, of course. Power isn't my main concern, but complexity is important. The problem is, this is the issue this card idea has always had: It always had me end up either with a card that enables pins, or, if i added additional stuff to avoid that, a card that was too complicated. I hoped this version would still be simple enough, but maybe i'm just desperately trying to make the attack work.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 09, 2015, 11:37:46 pm
I decided sleeping was a much too reasonable thing to do and instead added some rambling about each card to the OP. What is wrong with me?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: XerxesPraelor on July 10, 2015, 01:10:10 am
Just posting to say that Nouveau Riches should not be going anywhere. It's one of my favorite cards in your set, and plays out really fun.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 10, 2015, 07:21:48 am
Just posting to say that Nouveau Riches should not be going anywhere. It's one of my favorite cards in your set, and plays out really fun.

Really? Cool. Do you use the Duchy option from time to time?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 11, 2015, 10:31:52 am
Little newsflash inbetween:

I'll test a version of Minister that gives the +1VP to opponents when you play it, making it much more similar to Vampire in that respect.The VP on gain did practically nothing. Then again, i wouldn't normally have been able to get a Minister by turn 2, like i did in our last test game... Either way, i think it's the right way to go, though i'll probably not be able to test it soon. There are two versions, the second of which makes the gain optional and only gives opponents VP when you gain a card.

I'm considering to give Homunculus a +1 Buy on buy. Hey, a card where that actually works, woohoo! That would make Potion practically a Traveller on Homunculus boards and buff Homunculus. Still not sure it needs the buff, but the Potion mechanic DOES make it a bit worse than i initially planned. So far it has worked, though, so probably no +Buy.

I'll try the 4-pile version of Meadow (that trashes Provinces from the supply) some time. The current version is okay, but strictly better than Province during the last turn, which i really don't like. I considered a version that always makes Province and Meadow pile deplete no matter which of both was bought, but can't find a good wording and don't know whether that's worth anything.

Tribunal in its current form is mean but probably balanced. It really is a jerk card, though. I kind of want to give it another shot, though i'm not sure CL is going to agree to playing with it ever again. He really didn't like it much :P
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 17, 2015, 12:41:07 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/YL4AAZ0.jpg)

ESCAPE! I just love the boardgame "Escape - Curse of the Temple". It's the opposite of Dominion, in case you wonder, and i can really recommend playing it.

That's not really why i did Artifact, though. In reality, Artifact is my attempt to fix "Aqueduct", which was the same just as an action card and with mandatory discard. The problem with that one was that it was really strong (buy-less Grand Market early and late in the game) and also not very exciting. Therefore, this is an attempt to make it both a bit weaker and more interesting. Admittedly, while it gains a disadvantage (can't play drawn Actions), it also gains an advantage: You don't have to discard a card. Obviously i could have worded it mandatory, too, but then again you'd usually be able to just play Artifact last so you won't have to discard a card you could have played. Played it once so far and it's nice, but not as strong as Aqueduct used to be.

In other news, Assassin is gone. I just never felt i wanted to playtest it because the attack was so harsh, and that's pretty much enough reason to scrap it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Awaclus on July 17, 2015, 12:53:00 pm
It's the opposite of Dominion, in case you wonder, and i can really recommend playing it.

So it's a deck destruction game?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 17, 2015, 01:01:44 pm
It's the opposite of Dominion, in case you wonder, and i can really recommend playing it.

So it's a deck destruction game?

Nope. It's a real-time, thematic, cooperative, low-on-abstractions, dice-centered, 10-minute, fun-with-six-players, only-works-IRL, you-can-play-this-with-people-who-do-not-understand-complex-games game.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: iguanaiguana on July 17, 2015, 01:10:36 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/YL4AAZ0.jpg)

ESCAPE! I just love the boardgame "Escape - Curse of the Temple". It's the opposite of Dominion, in case you wonder, and i can really recommend playing it.

That's not really why i did Artifact, though. In reality, Artifact is my attempt to fix "Aqueduct", which was the same just as an action card and with mandatory discard. The problem with that one was that it was really strong (buy-less Grand Market early and late in the game) and also not very exciting. Therefore, this is an attempt to make it both a bit weaker and more interesting. Admittedly, while it gains a disadvantage (can't play drawn Actions), it also gains an advantage: You don't have to discard a card. Obviously i could have worded it mandatory, too, but then again you'd usually be able to just play Artifact last so you won't have to discard a card you could have played. Played it once so far and it's nice, but not as strong as Aqueduct used to be.

In other news, Assassin is gone. I just never felt i wanted to playtest it because the attack was so harsh, and that's pretty much enough reason to scrap it.

Other than producing 2, how does this ever do anything more for you than venture does?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 17, 2015, 01:31:15 pm

ESCAPE! I just love the boardgame "Escape - Curse of the Temple". It's the opposite of Dominion, in case you wonder, and i can really recommend playing it.

That's not really why i did Artifact, though. In reality, Artifact is my attempt to fix "Aqueduct", which was the same just as an action card and with mandatory discard. The problem with that one was that it was really strong (buy-less Grand Market early and late in the game) and also not very exciting. Therefore, this is an attempt to make it both a bit weaker and more interesting. Admittedly, while it gains a disadvantage (can't play drawn Actions), it also gains an advantage: You don't have to discard a card. Obviously i could have worded it mandatory, too, but then again you'd usually be able to just play Artifact last so you won't have to discard a card you could have played. Played it once so far and it's nice, but not as strong as Aqueduct used to be.

In other news, Assassin is gone. I just never felt i wanted to playtest it because the attack was so harsh, and that's pretty much enough reason to scrap it.

Other than producing 2, how does this ever do anything more for you than venture does?

Well, it doesn't do "more", just different things... Do you think it's too similar? I admit i didn't think of Venture at all.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: iguanaiguana on July 17, 2015, 01:39:24 pm
Outside of black market and storyteller, you hope for it to draw a treasure. If it doesn't, that is like venture drawing copper. If it draws copper or better, its one better than venture drawing the same thing, but lots harder to chain. You need green to make it go.

Is there something else I'm missimg here?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 17, 2015, 02:15:53 pm
Outside of black market and storyteller, you hope for it to draw a treasure. If it doesn't, that is like venture drawing copper. If it draws copper or better, its one better than venture drawing the same thing, but lots harder to chain. You need green to make it go.

Is there something else I'm missimg here?

I don't think you missed something. A single Artifact does more on its own, so you don't need or want that many of it. But that's it.

Actually, i feel silly because i didn't think of Venture, but i'm not sure whether they are too similar. If they are, i will maybe try to fix it as an action again.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: iguanaiguana on July 17, 2015, 02:28:36 pm
This probably a totally different card but what about as a treasure worth 2: 'you may place a card from your hand on top of your deck. If you do, +1 coin.'?

Though now that I think of it, that's probably a lot like mandarin.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 17, 2015, 03:08:35 pm
This probably a totally different card but what about as a treasure worth 2: 'you may place a card from your hand on top of your deck. If you do, +1 coin.'?

Though now that I think of it, that's probably a lot like mandarin.

Well, i allready have Decree, which topdecks cards from your hand on play (see below). Having two of those seems a bit much. But then, Artifact allready is a bit similar to Decree in that it's a Treasure that interacts with your hand... Hmm... Maybe i should give fixing the action version another shot.

(http://i.imgur.com/xix1h3w.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on July 17, 2015, 03:28:29 pm
Yeah, Artifact seems both weak and awkward to me. I'd stick with Decree and either retry an Action version of Artifact or scrap it for now.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 17, 2015, 04:16:06 pm
LastFootnote, i see why you think it's awkward. It kind of seems like a less well-made Venture now that i think of it. Also, thanks for pointing out the similarity, iguanaiguana.

As there's not much in favour of keeping them, i'll scrap both versions of the card for now. Guess i didn't really think this "solution" through.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: XerxesPraelor on July 17, 2015, 05:07:31 pm
Just posting to say that Nouveau Riches should not be going anywhere. It's one of my favorite cards in your set, and plays out really fun.

Really? Cool. Do you use the Duchy option from time to time?
[/quote
Yes, though the time it was best was in a game with Pasture.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 20, 2015, 02:49:51 pm
I am removing Parliament. It's just too strong with good cheap cards, and too weak otherwise, meaning that i couldn't manage to balance it. Also, the concept doesn't thrill me as much as it used to when i started it, so that's that.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 20, 2015, 07:47:01 pm
Quote from: Mad wizard that looks like Dumbledore
"It's not even a living thing!" they said, when i tried to teach the Grand Market how to be an Alchemist. Oh, but little did they know: Everything can be an Alchemist.

(http://i.imgur.com/wZiQfls.jpg)

Potion cost event just because i felt it had to be done. In my defense, i don't think this would have worked very well with coins. Still, it might relieve people to hear that this will be my last take at the Potion mechanic for quite a while. Tested only once in a game where i lost miserably trying to use it, but still looks like it could be fun.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on July 20, 2015, 09:13:00 pm
In Reseach's defense, you didn't lose because you used Research but you bought the Potion too early when you should have gained more Action cards first. With no other Potion cards around, I reckon this Event would only be worth buying a Potion if you cannot otherwise manage to get enough consistency in your deck to draw it every turn. So it's probably best in slogs, BM+X and weak engines. It won't be worth getting just to topdeck Treasures (although Gold and Platinum might on occasions be welcome targets), and topdecking Potion is so much worse than topdecking Scheme.

All in all, Research is a clever idea and the Potion cost creates very interesting strategic decisions. I like it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ConMan on July 20, 2015, 09:44:05 pm
The other case where Research would be pretty strong is where you have a draw-your-deck engine that needs a certain card to guarantee getting started that you may have trouble re-drawing into your hand on a regular basis. Hunting Party comes to mind, especially if you're using it to get around having a deck full of Curses or something.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on July 20, 2015, 09:47:26 pm
Fun fact: "Research" was the original name for Lost Arts. Pathfinding was "Improve". These old names were way better because you could talk about e.g. Researched Smithies and Improved Labs. Lost Artsed Smithies and Pathfound Labs sound awful. Oh well, at least we still have "Trained".
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: horatio83 on July 21, 2015, 02:12:33 pm
I like Research. It smoothes the problems of Potion (in a superior fashion to houserules like e.g. 'play at least with 2/3 Alchemy cards') without providing a bonus that is too strong.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on July 21, 2015, 03:01:20 pm
I also like Research. It wouldn't surprise me if it had to cost a bit more ($2P or whatever), but the Potion cost is a good way to limit what might otherwise be too strong an effect. And the effect itself is very cool.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Erick648 on July 21, 2015, 09:22:44 pm
I like Research as well.  I love cards that add to reliability.  However, it looks like you can make a Golden Deck with no other Kingdom cards using Potion-Potion-Gold-Gold-Gold.  You can also add a third Potion and Kingdom cards if it's more convenient (e.g., Smithy + Silver x4 + Potion x3, Mystic x2 + Silver x2 + Potion x3, Village + Conspirator x4 + Potion x2, etc.). 

I'm not sure this is necessarily a red flag since most of these take some effort to build (or at least some good trashing to get the right hand in the first place), but I think it's something that should be watched for in playtesting.  If it proves troublesome, you can always kill it by adding a "once per turn" limit, which prevents you from topdecking your Potions (unless, of course, you topdeck only your Potions, which probably isn't terribly useful).  You could still topdeck a stack of Labs or Hunting Parties or other one-card-engine cards, but then you'd still need to draw your Potion regularly.

Interestingly, Research actually has some synergy with Alchemist: use your Potion to topdeck your Alchemists, then use Research to topdeck your Potion.  This is especially useful because in many games you don't have anything to spend your Potion on once the Alchemists are gone, making Research effectively free.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: scott_pilgrim on July 22, 2015, 01:01:35 am
I think Research is the best fan event I've seen and possibly the best fan [card or event].  It's such a simple and unique effect, that should be useful in a reasonably often without being too game-changing or a must-buy.

That being said, there is this weird complaint I have about it.  The complaint is, without any other Potion cards, you could get the same effect pretty much by just making it a treasure card costing $4, with the same text (after the +1 buy part).  If there's nothing else to spend the Potion on, since Research costs only a potion and gives you the +buy back, there's no reason to ever not do it if you can, so it basically just means that Potion is a new card that does Research's effect.

I can't explain why that seems like a bad thing to me, but I'd feel better if it was fixed.  It's unfortunate, because it otherwise feels perfect as is, so maybe it's not worth changing.  Probably the easiest solution is to price it at $1P (or higher if you decide that's necessary anyway).  You could also take off the +buy, but I think that's a pretty important part of the event and I don't think it works without it in kingdoms without other potion cards or +buy cards.

The golden deck Erick648 mentioned is something else to think about, but I expect it will be slow to set up most of the time, and the times when you can set it up, there should usually be something better that you can set up faster.  I'd say it's okay, as long as it's not like every Research game ends up being a race to the golden deck.  Like KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge, it's still a race to see who can get there first, and getting there first is still an interesting game that will depend heavily on the kingdom, so it's not like it will ruin games by being possible (and unlike KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge, it's not an insta-win if you get it).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 22, 2015, 02:48:53 am
The fact that it practically turns Potion into another card in the absence of Potion cost cards is something i'm aware of, and i don't necessarily like that, either. While i'm not sure it has to cost more, i will of course increase the price if that turns out to be necessary. Would solve the issue, as you pointed out. I have one or two other ideas to fix it, but they are not exactly perfect. If all solutions should be worse, i think i can live with it as is.

About the PPGGG hand that buys a Province every turn, i can't believe i never thought of that... I'll have to think about how i can solve this, but once per turn seems reasonable. Sadly it would make a second Potion you draw a dead card :'(
Or i could disable Research from topdecking Potion, which would also make it more different from Scheme. Not too happy with that, though. Maybe "once per turn" is better.

Either way, thank you all so much. I didn't expect so many positive responses at all. :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on July 22, 2015, 04:49:06 am
About the PPGGG hand that buys a Province every turn, i can't believe i never thought of that... I'll have to think about how i can solve this, but once per turn seems reasonable. Sadly it would make a second Potion you draw a dead card :'(
Or i could disable Research from topdecking Potion, which would also make it more different from Scheme. Not too happy with that, though. Maybe "once per turn" is better.

Either way, thank you all so much. I didn't expect so many positive responses at all. :)
Don't make any rushed decisions. Let's keep on testing it as-is. Such a Golden deck would not be easy to build and be vulnerable to many attacks. You'd need a board with strong trashing and no attacks and then your Golden deck would still be required to be faster than an engine, if one is available, and straight Big Money. We can look out for such boards but until it happened, please don't remove the crucial parts of the Event.

If Research needs fixing, the order of tweaks I would make would be this:
1. increase cost (e. g. to $1P or $2P);
2. no topdecking Potions;
3. "once per turn" clause, I really dislike that option. Mainly because buying a Potion is a big opportunity cost and if Research was the only Potion card in the Kingdom, it would rarely be worth it, barring single card powerhouses like HP, Lab or Minion stacks.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 01, 2015, 10:34:31 am
Played a game yesterday against Co0kieL0rd. Cards:

Enterprise's (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2114.0) Auction and General, my Jeweler and Fountain, Roots & Renewal's (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11563.0) Deposit as well as a new card that resembles Co0kie's Robber Knight, Greed's (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12756.0) Inquisitor, Baker (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Baker)... And 2 other cards i can't recall. No other draw, relevant attack or Village, that's what i remember.

also the Events Quest (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Quest) and Plan (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Plan).

(http://i.imgur.com/6h41U8a.jpg) (http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150215/hz8h3icg.jpg)

My strategy was simply getting as many Jewelers as possible to play a pseudo-Smithy-BM where Jeweler fills out both roles at once (which is basically the point of the card). I wanted to see whether that actually works, and well, for this game it did. I didn't really only gain Jewelers, though, as Fountain was just too nice as an action source to not play several Jewelers - Plan, Quest, Baker and Auction also played a role.

Baker allowed opening Jeweler/Fountain, which also trashed one of my Estates for an Auction. The Auction in turn increased the chance of getting to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) after playing my Jeweler to buy more of them. The first time i got less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) i could buy Plan to put a trashing token on Jeweler, too. Because of Quest, Auction and Jeweler's reaction itself, playing Jeweler blindly was never a problem.

Co0kieL0rd was very tired and wasn't as happy with how he played, missing out several things - for example the fact that he should have wanted a few more Jewelers himself simply because they were draw. I think he got 2 of them. Other than that, he attacked me a bit with Inquisitor, but well, Plan, Auction and Quest made that ignorable. One interesting thing: Auction doesn't really work with Plan nor Quest. Other than that it's pretty good.

In the end i often had turns where i produced ten simply by playing a Jeweler and discarding a few of them. So, the card is strong enough, or at least it seemed so this game. Fountain seemed really strong too, but of course i went for a strategy centered around a single terminal draw and there was a nice (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) target to replace a starting Estate with.

Conclusion? I have no idea. This wasn't the dumb "just get many Jewelers" i was planning to play, simply because there were so many nice support cards. It wasn't the most exciting game of Dominion ever had, though. Either way, i think i'll try the strategy again on a less helpful board, and if it turns out to be strong again, i guess i'll have to change the card. I don't want to do another Minion. But, right now, i'm just glad that it's not as terribly weak as i used to believe.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 05, 2015, 06:28:25 pm
Considering an alternate version of Barkeep now that doesn't just let you get incredibly many Barkeeps and nothing else to power up one of them to be super-strong. Here, if you go full Barkeep, your deck will not just stay clear of terminals as with past versions. I hope this will help make the card more interesting and less of a "get as many as you can" race. Nice thing that a price of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) does: Most trashing attacks can't hit the card (which would be a pretty sad fate to befall the last Barkeep in your deck).

(http://i.imgur.com/Xnp1bbB.jpg)

I also mocked up a version at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) that always drew 2 cards and only put itself on the Mat at the end, but i didn't feel it really solved the main problems Barkeep has. The (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) also is just a quick thing, though. Not tested at all.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 10, 2015, 09:03:16 am
Thinking about my last version of Barkeep, i am now pondering whether "calling" the card would be better. The wording, as it is currently, means this:

1. I draw a card (and put my Barkeep on the Mat)
2. I can discard any number of barkeeps (including the played one)
3. I draw cards equal to the number of Barkeeps
4. I can technically draw Barkeeps i discarded before, including the one i played.

Now, i'm wondering, whether there's an elegant way to get to this:
1. I draw a card (and put the Barkeep on the Mat)
2. I can call (put in play) one Barkeep at a time, drawing a card.
3. After each Barkeep, i can decide to stop calling them.

Versions that don't do what i want:
Quote
+1 Card
Put this on your Tavern Mat. Call any number of Barkeeps from your Tavern Mat, for +1 Card each.
Problem: Only difference is that called Barkeeps end up in play. I still have to decide how many of them to call before drawing any card but the first, don't i?

Quote
+1 Card
Put this on your Tavern Mat.

When you play a Barkeep, you may call this, for +1 Card.
Problem: I get the +1 Card on the Barkeep i play last, which is confusing and not what i want.

Versions that are a bit clunky:
Quote
+1 Card
Put this on your Tavern Mat. Do this any number of times: Call a Barkeep from your Tavern Mat, for +1 Card.
Problem: Would this mean i can "call" Barkeeps that are not there and still get +1 Card? I think not, but i'm not sure. Not sure whether "Endlessly trying to call Barkeep for no effect" is really an issue.

Quote
+1 Card
Put this on your Tavern Mat.

Directly after resolving a Barkeep, you may call this, for +1 Card.
I really dislike the "resolved" trigger, but i guess it's okay. I also don't think i like that the effect is spelled out under the line instead of above it. Probably the one with the least issues, though(?).

Anybody has another idea how to word this? Input as to which version i should use is equally appreciated.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on August 10, 2015, 11:31:51 am
Overall, I liked the version that just stayed on your mat way better. If they go off of your mat, calling is better than discarding, both for tracking and for power-level (not being able to re-draw the ones you discard). And I think the "after resolving" wording is the best, even though it's clunky.

I'm not at all fond of each one being +1 Card. I'd rather have it be +2 Cards one way or the other.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 10, 2015, 11:49:31 am
I'm honestly not sure how i will make this work. The problem with a version that stays on your Mat is simply that, opportunity cost aside, more Barkeeps are always better than less. There's no point at which you need to stop, and if they are supposed to be okay when shared, people will rush for them to make sure they get a good share. If they are supposed to be good only when you have most of them, well, then they suck. It becomes worse because additional Barkeeps do not increase the amount of terminal space you need, so committing to them is pretty easy.

Also, probably this isn't apparent enough, but with all wordings but the second, you should be able to discard/call the Barkeep you played for an additional card. So, if you have only one of them, it should be a Moat. But maybe none of those ideas is good.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on August 10, 2015, 02:52:41 pm
Also, probably this isn't apparent enough, but with all wordings but the second, you should be able to discard/call the Barkeep you played for an additional card. So, if you have only one of them, it should be a Moat.

No, I get it. But somehow +1 Card/+1 Card is different—and seems worse—than +2 Cards. It's more likely that you're going to get only a dead card from each individual Barkeep you call. But if each one called game +2 Cards, then there's a better chance that one of those cards will do you some good.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on August 10, 2015, 03:31:41 pm
Also, probably this isn't apparent enough, but with all wordings but the second, you should be able to discard/call the Barkeep you played for an additional card. So, if you have only one of them, it should be a Moat.

No, I get it. But somehow +1 Card/+1 Card is different—and seems worse—than +2 Cards. It's more likely that you're going to get only a dead card from each individual Barkeep you call. But if each one called game +2 Cards, then there's a better chance that one of those cards will do you some good.

I'm very confused by this... isn't +1 Card/+1 Card strictly better than +2 Cards? The only difference is that the first one gives you the option of sticking with just +1 card total, and saving the other for another time.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on August 10, 2015, 03:33:56 pm
Also, probably this isn't apparent enough, but with all wordings but the second, you should be able to discard/call the Barkeep you played for an additional card. So, if you have only one of them, it should be a Moat.

No, I get it. But somehow +1 Card/+1 Card is different—and seems worse—than +2 Cards. It's more likely that you're going to get only a dead card from each individual Barkeep you call. But if each one called game +2 Cards, then there's a better chance that one of those cards will do you some good.

I'm very confused by this... isn't +1 Card/+1 Card strictly better than +2 Cards? The only difference is that the first one gives you the option of sticking with just +1 card total, and saving the other for another time.

Yes, it's strictly better, but I think it feels worse. The more cards you draw at once, the more likely you get something good out of it. If you call a Barkeep for a single card and it's e.g. a dead Action, you're kicking yourself.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 10, 2015, 03:58:36 pm
If i understand right you think i should increase the amount of cards a Barkeep gives when called. Hmm. Obviously i can't let it give +1 Card on play and +2 on call (or vice versa), because that basically makes Barkeeps behave like Smithies (if i can't call after putting them on the Mat, n Barkeeps are still n-1 Smithies).

So i assume you are talking about giving nothing on play except putting them on your Tavern Mat. I guess that works. What's nice is that it doesn't draw dead. I wouldn't even think it's strictly better.  With the +2 Cards/+0 Cards variant, i can save up Barkeeps for one good turn. Tactician shows how good it can be to waste one turn for the sake of another.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on August 10, 2015, 04:00:22 pm
Also, probably this isn't apparent enough, but with all wordings but the second, you should be able to discard/call the Barkeep you played for an additional card. So, if you have only one of them, it should be a Moat.

No, I get it. But somehow +1 Card/+1 Card is different—and seems worse—than +2 Cards. It's more likely that you're going to get only a dead card from each individual Barkeep you call. But if each one called game +2 Cards, then there's a better chance that one of those cards will do you some good.

I'm very confused by this... isn't +1 Card/+1 Card strictly better than +2 Cards? The only difference is that the first one gives you the option of sticking with just +1 card total, and saving the other for another time.

Yes, it's strictly better, but I think it feels worse. The more cards you draw at once, the more likely you get something good out of it. If you call a Barkeep for a single card and it's e.g. a dead Action, you're kicking yourself.


I agree, so why not give Barkeep +2 Cards back, give you the option to call additional ones for +1 Card each, and have it cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 10, 2015, 04:17:13 pm
Also, probably this isn't apparent enough, but with all wordings but the second, you should be able to discard/call the Barkeep you played for an additional card. So, if you have only one of them, it should be a Moat.

No, I get it. But somehow +1 Card/+1 Card is different—and seems worse—than +2 Cards. It's more likely that you're going to get only a dead card from each individual Barkeep you call. But if each one called game +2 Cards, then there's a better chance that one of those cards will do you some good.

I'm very confused by this... isn't +1 Card/+1 Card strictly better than +2 Cards? The only difference is that the first one gives you the option of sticking with just +1 card total, and saving the other for another time.

Yes, it's strictly better, but I think it feels worse. The more cards you draw at once, the more likely you get something good out of it. If you call a Barkeep for a single card and it's e.g. a dead Action, you're kicking yourself.


I agree, so why not give Barkeep +2 Cards back, give you the option to call additional ones for +1 Card each, and have it cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)?

I think this seems allright. But if i can call Barkeeps after playing them, they are strictly better than Smithy. So i have to ensure that calling happens before putting Barkeeps on the Mat. Calling on play means i get the +1 Card before the +2 Cards of playing it, which i think isn't very pretty or intuitive. Calling on resolving means i can call the played Barkeep (see above). So, i need something like:

Barkeep, (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)
+2 Cards
Call any number of Barkeeps, for +1 Card each. Put this on your Tavern Mat.

If you own two Barkeeps, you basically own a (more complicated) Smithy. Not sure i like that, but well, i guess it's balanced. If you own 3 Barkeeps, they are 2 Smithies, or 1 Moat and 1 Hunting Grounds, whatever you prefer. Not sure that's balanced, but i feel a version where just "play one, call one" is a common scenario isn't that exciting. A (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) version that draws 0 or 2 cards avoids this by making it more attractive to bundle the drawing power in one big thing.

But maybe i should just playtest this a bit and see what happens. I might have a certain way of playing in mind while another is the much more plausible thing to happen. I just wouldn't like Barkeep to be a complicated Smithy surrogate.

Edit: About the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) version (that can call itself, i assume), that would be another option, yes. Though i don't know how attractive it is to save that third card to become a 4th later on. And how hesistant people are to put a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) on their Tavern Mat that might miss the shuffle.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: gkrieg13 on August 10, 2015, 04:43:56 pm
I like it this way at 3, because you could then open with two of them and possibly save them up for later.  I don't know how many I would buy at 5.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 14, 2015, 06:30:18 pm
Still not sure what to do with Barkeep, but for now, here's another idea. You might recall the top part from Aqueduct, which was rather strong for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) even with an "if you do" after the discard. It was also rather boring. So, as i had no Guilds card yet, but a card to rebalance and a concept to try myself at (underpay), i just decided to throw all these factors together and see what i would get:

(http://i.imgur.com/vogBurw.png)

For a short while i considered to let it give coin tokens to opponents, but that took more place than i was willing to use.

In other news, Meadow got a new picture, hooray!

(http://i.imgur.com/bc923z9.jpg)

And, yes, i'm starting to credit artists. Probably should have done that, like, the beginning. Sorry artists. I hope you are okay with me using your amazing art, and i hope listing a website where people can get it/contact you is in your interest. Will try to find the sources of the other images i used soon.

Edit: I also changed Meadow to be "on gain" and Hunter to "look at" the top 3 cards. Hunter stays on buy to make getting them back less simple with gainers.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on August 15, 2015, 03:17:18 am
I like your new concept for Town Hall and I would like to see if it's balanced so we've got to test that soon. Did you write "underpay" instead of overpay in the text above the image on purpose?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 15, 2015, 05:12:40 am
I like your new concept for Town Hall and I would like to see if it's balanced so we've got to test that soon. Did you write "underpay" instead of overpay in the text above the image on purpose?

Thanks :)

The idea was to make a powerful card available for less than the balanced price and punish people for paying less. It's basically $6-. I just felt expressing it in overpay was better for avoiding new rules.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 19, 2015, 03:52:58 pm
Some small news:

I decided to have a take at GeeJo's "Gambling Den (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13634.msg513193#msg513193)". His original version used a die, and i instead use the Harvest wording. Obviously credit for the idea goes to him, but i'm hesistant to spam his thread with versions of the card. So, expect that here. 6 cards at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) were much too strong, so now it's 5 at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). If that's weak, i'd much rather decrease the price than buff the card reveal.

(http://i.imgur.com/kX3r2qJ.jpg)



Fountain now doesn't trash cards anymore. The reason is to remove the pile control from it, which wasn't part of its concept.

(http://i.imgur.com/1byFhov.jpg)



I also have two different approaches to Barkeep that i want to test, but there isn't much to say about them for now.

Stand turned
Strand tune
Stray tuna
Stay tuned.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: XerxesPraelor on August 19, 2015, 04:03:02 pm
Mill is really weak - compare workshop and Harvest. I doubt it would be good even at $2.

Re: Fountain, pile control cards are often quite fun. Why not just let it have that extra facet to it?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on August 19, 2015, 04:14:12 pm
If it's "I buy a Fountain, trashing a Province, gaining a Province" that bothers you, just make Fountain gain a different card.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 19, 2015, 04:23:44 pm
Mill is really weak - compare workshop and Harvest. I doubt it would be good even at $2.

Re: Fountain, pile control cards are often quite fun. Why not just let it have that extra facet to it?

I playtested Mill at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) and revealing 6 cards. The cycling was insane, especially early in the game, where 6 cards are basically your deck. Playing Mill the first time usually meant revealing Copper, Estate and your other opening buy (unless you drew it in hand with Mill), allowing you to gain another Mill. Or you could just play Mill as a Chancellor in case your other buy was a nonterminal (for example Silver) and try again after you bought a card. All in all, the cycling made this much, much better than Workshop for building an engine, and gaining more cards helped make Mill stronger and stronger. I might decrease the price back to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) in case this is too weak, but the reveal of 5 cards will stay. I admit i might have overdone it though when i both increased the price and lowered the reveal.

The problem is that, unlike Salvager, Fountain doesn't cost an action and doesn't need to be in your hand. You can just do your turn, draw, do whatever you want, oops, i only got (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) this time, let's cut the game short then. I see that there's one thing that speaks for keeping it with trashing, and that's simplicity. Maybe that reason is good enough. It certainly doesn't need it to be a strong enough card, though.


If it's "I buy a Fountain, trashing a Province, gaining a Province" that bothers you, just make Fountain gain a different card.

That's a really nice idea. I think it would have to be "differently named". Thanks :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on August 19, 2015, 04:32:33 pm
Usually I'm in the camp of "use the simplest phrasing and if it introduces quirks then so be it". But in this case, I agree with Asper that Fountain shouldn't let you effectively trash Provinces from the Supply. I like pacovf's suggestion.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 01, 2015, 02:16:26 pm
Update:

Mill's price has been decreased to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png). Looks like i overdid it when i both increased the price and nerfed the effect. This should be fine now.



Fountain now gives you a differently named card for the card you trash. Thanks again for the suggestion, pacovf.



Town Hall doesn't really work as intended. It's just too good with gainers or too bad otherwise. I can't really balance it like that. Probably it would work if the card was good enough to make its lower end (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), but that's getting somewhere else entirely. I have an idea to fix it, but i don't really think it's the best option.



I decided to give my fix for Spy a try. Here's how it looks:

(http://i.imgur.com/7VFcMU0.jpg)

It's about as weak for attacking, especially once you revealed a junk card, but it's a lot more useful to yourself, which makes playing it much more satisfying. Still doesn't make Spy, or Assassin here, a star. Anyhow, if you'd like to try it, here the card is with art that differentiates it from original Spy. It's not strictly better, so technically you can use both.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on September 01, 2015, 02:33:46 pm
It's about as weak for attacking, especially once you revealed a junk card, but it's a lot more useful to yourself, which makes playing it much more satisfying. Still doesn't make Spy, or Assassin here, a star. Anyhow, if you'd like to try it, here the card is with art that differentiates it from original Spy. It's not strictly better, so technically you can use both.

I swear I have said this before, but apparently I haven't said it in this thread, so here goes:

The biggest problem with Spy is not that it's weak, but that it's super slow to resolve. It's a cheap cantrip you can load up on, and each time you play it, you make a decision per player. Assassin is worse in this regard, because at least with Spy you can tell players to keep putting back their Estate or whatever. There was a card in Enterprise with Assassin's attack; I held onto it for way too long. Eventually I realized that it was slowing games down way more than it was adding gameplay.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 01, 2015, 03:43:51 pm
It's about as weak for attacking, especially once you revealed a junk card, but it's a lot more useful to yourself, which makes playing it much more satisfying. Still doesn't make Spy, or Assassin here, a star. Anyhow, if you'd like to try it, here the card is with art that differentiates it from original Spy. It's not strictly better, so technically you can use both.

I swear I have said this before, but apparently I haven't said it in this thread, so here goes:

The biggest problem with Spy is not that it's weak, but that it's super slow to resolve. It's a cheap cantrip you can load up on, and each time you play it, you make a decision per player. Assassin is worse in this regard, because at least with Spy you can tell players to keep putting back their Estate or whatever. There was a card in Enterprise with Assassin's attack; I held onto it for way too long. Eventually I realized that it was slowing games down way more than it was adding gameplay.

You have, allthough you didn't mention that you actually tried the effect out before. I figured that you were talking hypothetical and decided to try it out. It didn't feel that bad to me when i did so last night, but i take it you know what you are talking about. It's not an actual "Asper's card" either way, as it isn't an original concept. So i don't have plans for fixing this up or expanding on it further.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 03, 2015, 07:18:54 am
I admit it, i haven't had many good ideas lately. Town Hall doesn't work and is pretty lame, Assassin is just Spy, Mill is nice, but not really my idea. *sigh*

Either way, here are two little Guilds-y ideas:

(http://i.imgur.com/2rdYFPe.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/kVUOMUR.jpg)

Edit: Renamed Sheriff. Tried to avoid that, but 3 themes (name, picture, tokens) are just one too many. And Miscreant Tokens sounds silly.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on October 03, 2015, 09:47:24 am
Sheriff is a curser which can only curse so many times. It would be okay to overpay (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) because an average Witch curses about 3 times (please correct me if I'm wrong). Afterwards it's just a terminal Silver which is cosidered worse than a Witch that doesn't curse anymore. Buying subsequent Sheriffs will often seem like a bad idea although buying a late Sheriff for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), if you expect it to curse only once before the Curse pile runs out, has a low opportunity cost which is good. Unfortunately, Sheriffs that have done their job make poor targets for trash-for-benefit. Most other cursers are probably better. So all in all, Sheriff is a relatively weak card but it has a unique and interesting design and another application of the overpay mechanic is always welcome. I like it.

Conserve enables players to convert every (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) they can spare in a turn into a coin token. Usually you wouldn't do this more than once a turn because otherwise you could have bought a card for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). It might be very interesting in the endgame though, when (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)-cards are useless to you and 2 coin tokens would give you the chance to score another Province next turn. So this event might totally work out.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 04, 2015, 12:52:38 pm
Actually, i figured that in the presence of certain $5 cards, Conserve might be bought twice for $4 on your first opening turn to enable getting the $5 on the second. Felt Conserve would have a huge impact on most boards, but i might be wrong.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Mr Anderson on October 04, 2015, 02:02:43 pm
You could also buy one for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) and get the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)-cost next turn on (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)/(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), ((http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)/(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) is possible as well). The opening options are similar to Baker but with the disadvantage that you can't buy a second card.
The event, other than the overpay version in the Guilds outtakes has the advantage that you could make it once per turn if it turns out to be too strong (with the disadvantage that it would make openings swingier, (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)/(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) into a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) would still work while (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)/(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) into a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) doesn't.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 04, 2015, 06:10:50 pm
Just realized the empty coin symbol i used on Sheriff isn't in line with official overpay. Will fix this when i create the next mockup.

Also i think a "Once per turn" restriction wouldn't be too harsh if it wasn't for the opening. I liked that 3/4 and 4/3 were equal.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 04, 2015, 08:48:45 pm
Just realized the empty coin symbol i used on Sheriff isn't in line with official overpay. Will fix this when i create the next mockup.

Also i think a "Once per turn" restriction wouldn't be too harsh if it wasn't for the opening. I liked that 3/4 and 4/3 were equal.

Would it be better to make only the +buy part once per turn? 
Quote
Conserve
Cost $2 - Event
Take a coin token.  If this is the first time you buy Conserve this turn, +1 buy.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Mr Anderson on October 05, 2015, 02:44:57 am
I agree that restriction might be enough, you usually don't have that many spare buys and at the same time buys to spare to gain coin tokens.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 05, 2015, 06:11:42 am
I like limiting only the + buy. This way you can get up to two tokens, or one token and a card. Still, i haven't tried it without restriction yet, so let's see how that goes. If $15 turns with only a single buy turn out to be too good thanks to Conserve, i'll try the suggested version.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: market squire on October 05, 2015, 08:39:52 am
Asper, could you please share your Event template? Or is it already somewhere out here? The images are pretty cool.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 05, 2015, 11:40:24 am
Asper, could you please share your Event template? Or is it already somewhere out here? The images are pretty cool.

My Event template is based on LastFootnote's template which is based on Voltaire's. I suppose both wouldn't mind me sharing it, as after all, the last guy LF gave it to was pretty shady allready. You'll have to wait until later today, though.

Edit: Just to explain the joke, i'm of course referring to myself.

Edit 2: Sent you a PM. Also, thanks for saying the images are cool. Of course they aren't mine, so credit goes to the artists.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 27, 2015, 05:27:08 pm
Played a game with Conserve and Sheriff today (thanks, Co0kieL0rd).

Conserve in its current state is terrible. We tried to play a normal game of Dominion, but it soon became apparent that buying only a bunch of Conserves was quite often the only sensible thing to do, even when you could afford a good card. It was dominating the game in an un-fun way.

Sheriff was much better. Co0kieL0rd pointed out that because you HAVE to spend the token, there's no backing out if part of your opponents revealed Moat, which keeps it from being political in that situation. Either way, i like it better as mandatory - it won't matter often and is more simple. Sheriff was fun.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: faust on October 27, 2015, 05:57:12 pm
I like the idea of Sheriff... but isn't it almost automatic to open double Sheriff? Handing out 2 curses until turn 4 is just so strong. I guess that's not as big of a problem as you can do that even with 5/2, but it does seem a tad boring.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 28, 2015, 10:23:56 am
I like the idea of Sheriff... but isn't it almost automatic to open double Sheriff? Handing out 2 curses until turn 4 is just so strong. I guess that's not as big of a problem as you can do that even with 5/2, but it does seem a tad boring.

I honestly don't know.
You will be able to deal out two Curses before shuffle 4, but you'll also end up with two terminal Silvers eventually. On the other hand, i never tried it out. I wanted to write "Why would you get a Sheriff for 5 when you could have a Witch?", but of course, in that case the second Sheriff for $2 might be better - it just harms your opponents faster (allthough less long). So, i'm really not sure.
Either way, as i'm the guy who always complains why nobody tried stupid "Just buy Rebuild and Duchies" when playtesting, i think you make a very good point bringing this up. Will definitely try out a double-Sheriff next time i playtest it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: drsteelhammer on October 28, 2015, 10:34:12 am
Sheriff sounds pretty cool. I'll try it out sometime soon. Have you already thought about how you could utilize the tax token for a different card aswell?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on October 28, 2015, 11:27:16 am
Either way, as i'm the guy who always complains why nobody tried stupid "Just buy Rebuild and Duchies" when playtesting, i think you make a very good point bringing this up.

This is neither here nor there, but I'm already kicking myself, worrying that Warrior might end up making games awful. Wish I'd tried buying just Pages; I was already worried that that might be the right move too often.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Accatitippi on October 28, 2015, 12:23:08 pm
I like the idea of Sheriff... but isn't it almost automatic to open double Sheriff? Handing out 2 curses until turn 4 is just so strong. I guess that's not as big of a problem as you can do that even with 5/2, but it does seem a tad boring.

I too like the idea of a "limited uses" card. (We could call it "Freemium". You get a sucky terminal silver for free, but if you want the cool curser you have to pay a membership fee. Only one coin per curse!).

Maybe pricing it 3+ could be an ok nerf? It's a Curser, so it probably wouldn't obsolete it (people are still quite happy to buy self-junking silver that can ever deal out only a single curse, and that one costs 5$). :)
And making it strictly inferior (at 3$) to other 3$ terminal silvers should not be a problem, because, you know, Masterpiece.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on October 29, 2015, 08:28:18 am
I like the idea of Sheriff... but isn't it almost automatic to open double Sheriff? Handing out 2 curses until turn 4 is just so strong. I guess that's not as big of a problem as you can do that even with 5/2, but it does seem a tad boring.

I too like the idea of a "limited uses" card. (We could call it "Freemium". You get a sucky terminal silver for free, but if you want the cool curser you have to pay a membership fee. Only one coin per curse!).

Maybe pricing it 3+ could be an ok nerf? It's a Curser, so it probably wouldn't obsolete it (people are still quite happy to buy self-junking silver that can ever deal out only a single curse, and that one costs 5$). :)
And making it strictly inferior (at 3$) to other 3$ terminal silvers should not be a problem, because, you know, Masterpiece.

I really don't think Sheriff needs to cost more than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png). We should continue playtesting it at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) and see how that works out before Asper makes any adjustments.

I like the idea of Sheriff... but isn't it almost automatic to open double Sheriff? Handing out 2 curses until turn 4 is just so strong. I guess that's not as big of a problem as you can do that even with 5/2, but it does seem a tad boring.

Opening double Sheriff bears the danger of terminal collision, though, which usually isn't so bad if it wasn't for Sheriff's weak performance as a late-game card.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 29, 2015, 11:19:51 am
Quote from: Asper link=topic=92 1.msg535767#msg535767 date=1446042236
Either way, as i'm the guy who always complains why nobody tried stupid "Just buy Rebuild and Duchies" when playtesting, i think you make a very good point bringing this up.

This is neither here nor there, but I'm already kicking myself, worrying that Warrior might end up making games awful. Wish I'd tried buying just Pages; I was already worried that that might be the right move too often.

I'm afraid i allready made an experience that supports your concern, but you probably allready read about that. I mean, you have one cantrip Traveller and an attack that gets harsher the more Travellers you played, so a strategy that just tries to max that out should be something to try at least once.

I hope you realize that it's not your fault, though. After all, Donald designed the card, and i feel he should have seen that himself. Also, he who has not ever missed something shall throw the first stone. I'm designing my own game currently, as mentioned before, and i'm rather anxious that something like that might happen to me. And, you know, it might. Obvious to one is absurd to another and i can just hope to be lucky with people spotting the problems i didn't see. I'm sure you did a lot to improve Adventures and shouldn't blame it on you if something doesn't turn out perfect. You know, there are also other people, all of which apparently didn't think of it, either. One human can only do so much to improve things.
/speech
Title: The secret history of Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 29, 2015, 11:25:08 am
Sheriff sounds pretty cool. I'll try it out sometime soon. Have you already thought about how you could utilize the tax token for a different card aswell?

I was considering using Embargo tokens, actually. You know, taxes, embargos... Originally i wanted to call the card "Toller" or something like that, and using Embargo tokens made sense for that. Sadly, there are no good Toller images, and so they became tax tokens. In other words, no plans currently. Probably they could have been Trade Tokens, now that i think of it. In a way, Sheriff is a Guilds/Enterprise fan card ;)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: eHalcyon on October 29, 2015, 12:19:40 pm
Not fully following the thread, but how about this for Barkeep?

+2 Cards.
Put this on your Tavern Mat.

When you put another Barkeep on your Tavern Mat, you may call this, for +1 Card.

It reinforces the idea of a shift change, prevents a Barkeep from calling itself to be a Smithy, and it doesn't require you to use a "resolve" trigger.  It also interacts with any fan card that puts other cards in the Tavern.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 29, 2015, 12:50:03 pm
Not fully following the thread, but how about this for Barkeep?

+2 Cards.
Put this on your Tavern Mat.

When you put another Barkeep on your Tavern Mat, you may call this, for +1 Card.

It reinforces the idea of a shift change, prevents a Barkeep from calling itself to be a Smithy, and it doesn't require you to use a "resolve" trigger.  It also interacts with any fan card that puts other cards in the Tavern.

Thanks, allthough i don't have my spirits very high about Barkeep currently... It just didn't play so well until now. Either way, it's a good idea for how to avoid the "resolve" trigger and i'll keep it in mind for the future.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on November 29, 2015, 07:10:18 am
News that are olds

Reverted some changes:
(http://i.imgur.com/WBjXWUP.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Gubump on November 29, 2015, 02:14:17 pm
News that are olds

Reverted some changes:
  • Homunculus now doesn't give a buy on buy again. It's good enough allready and the absence makes the opening more strategic.
  • Road doesn't require you to discard a card anymore to be returned to your hand (it didn't seem that strong recently).
  • And here's another try for Conserve (ignore the unfitting name in this case. It's more like discount/present/change):
(http://i.imgur.com/WBjXWUP.jpg)

Isn't this version of Conserve strictly better than every $4 cost card ever?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on November 29, 2015, 02:18:38 pm
I like the changes to Homunculus and Road. Although I don't think it'll break the game to give away a free Coin token with every $4 card, I don't love this version of Conserve.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: tristan on November 29, 2015, 02:22:16 pm
Isn't this version of Conserve strictly better than every $4 cost card ever?
Better than many, yes, and I would agree that it is fairly strong as you will probably use it for a few times in most games. But there are quite some 4$ cards (Noble Brigand and Port are the ones that come to mind) with "when you buy this" effects that are not triggered by this event. And if you compare it with other gain events like Alms or Seaway it does not appear to be overpowered.
I think that the previous version of Conserve is more interesting though.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 29, 2015, 05:11:45 pm
Isn't this version of Conserve strictly better than every $4 cost card ever?

In the sense that you will almost always buy Conserve rather than a $4 cost card, yes.  But I don't think that inherently makes it bad design in this case.  Usually the problem with cards being strictly better than other cards is that when they appear together, the worse card is never bought or gained (outside of edge cases like Swindler/Possession).  With Conserve though, you still play with whatever $4 cards you would normally get, now you just also get an extra little bonus for it.  Like Summon, it wouldn't be bad for it to be amazingly powerful, because it doesn't discourage you from buying other cards.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Gubump on November 29, 2015, 10:04:06 pm
Isn't this version of Conserve strictly better than every $4 cost card ever?

In the sense that you will almost always buy Conserve rather than a $4 cost card, yes.  But I don't think that inherently makes it bad design in this case.  Usually the problem with cards being strictly better than other cards is that when they appear together, the worse card is never bought or gained (outside of edge cases like Swindler/Possession).  With Conserve though, you still play with whatever $4 cards you would normally get, now you just also get an extra little bonus for it.  Like Summon, it wouldn't be bad for it to be amazingly powerful, because it doesn't discourage you from buying other cards.

I disagree, since this makes it so that there's almost no reason not to buy it if you have exactly $4.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 29, 2015, 10:50:30 pm
Isn't this version of Conserve strictly better than every $4 cost card ever?

In the sense that you will almost always buy Conserve rather than a $4 cost card, yes.  But I don't think that inherently makes it bad design in this case.  Usually the problem with cards being strictly better than other cards is that when they appear together, the worse card is never bought or gained (outside of edge cases like Swindler/Possession).  With Conserve though, you still play with whatever $4 cards you would normally get, now you just also get an extra little bonus for it.  Like Summon, it wouldn't be bad for it to be amazingly powerful, because it doesn't discourage you from buying other cards.

I disagree, since this makes it so that there's almost no reason not to buy it if you have exactly $4.

But why is that a problem?  I've already explained why it's not a problem in this case.

Playing with the new version of Conserve is basically like playing with a special rule that says "During your buy phase, if you have exactly $4, take a coin token (that can't be spent this turn)".  I don't see how playing some games with this rule makes the game less fun or interesting.  It's not like it trivializes the decision of what to do with $4, since you still have to figure out what card to get after you buy the event.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Gubump on November 30, 2015, 12:02:35 am
Isn't this version of Conserve strictly better than every $4 cost card ever?

In the sense that you will almost always buy Conserve rather than a $4 cost card, yes.  But I don't think that inherently makes it bad design in this case.  Usually the problem with cards being strictly better than other cards is that when they appear together, the worse card is never bought or gained (outside of edge cases like Swindler/Possession).  With Conserve though, you still play with whatever $4 cards you would normally get, now you just also get an extra little bonus for it.  Like Summon, it wouldn't be bad for it to be amazingly powerful, because it doesn't discourage you from buying other cards.

I disagree, since this makes it so that there's almost no reason not to buy it if you have exactly $4.

But why is that a problem?  I've already explained why it's not a problem in this case.

Playing with the new version of Conserve is basically like playing with a special rule that says "During your buy phase, if you have exactly $4, take a coin token (that can't be spent this turn)".  I don't see how playing some games with this rule makes the game less fun or interesting.  It's not like it trivializes the decision of what to do with $4, since you still have to figure out what card to get after you buy the event.

Okay, you make a good argument. I agree with you, now.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on November 30, 2015, 06:26:07 am
Hm, i see this version isn't super popular, but it's interesting to see it started some discussion.

Scott_pilgrim got my idea behind it pretty well. Conserve is a game altering event, similar to Alms or Quest. I don't think "strictly better" applies for events that are not capable of replacing cards entirely. The rule it creates is "If you aquire a cheap card, gain a coin token". I considered costing this at $5, but it didn't seem like something you'd buy. You want your coin tokens to be able to buy something decent, you don't want to skip something decent to get a coin token. Allthough, with this version, you still can. If you hit $5, you can still get Worker's Village and a coin token instead of a $5. You might not often want to, but you can.

That said, this is just an idea thrown in there. I'm not very active creating fan cards currently, so i figured i could just as well post it. The original Conserve was cleaner, but incredibly dominant, sadly.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on November 30, 2015, 06:44:40 am
Idea to remove the requirement of reaching $4 and to allow on-buy abilities: Travelling Fair style.

Bargain, $0/$1
+1 Buy
Once per turn: When you buy a card costing up to $4 this turn, gain a coin token.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on November 30, 2015, 07:04:44 am
Idea to remove the requirement of reaching $4 and to allow on-buy abilities: Travelling Fair style.

Bargain, $0/$1
+1 Buy
Once per turn: When you buy a card costing up to $4 this turn, gain a coin token.

But this would make Conserve/Bargain even easier and more trivial to use. With the requirement of reaching $4, at least you have to put in some work to use this powerful ability. I like it to have some restrictions. It's still not a very fancy event but it should work out.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 05, 2016, 06:02:37 pm
Decided to simply make Research unable to put Potions on the deck. Yes, this makes it impossible to save the Potion for your next hand, but that isn't such a good strategy either way normally.

(http://i.imgur.com/IMAdynW.jpg)


Also, an old idea i talked about a few times in the past and recently suggested again in another thread:

Speculation, $4, Event
Put your Speculation token on an Action supply pile. When another player plays a card from that pile for the first time during his turn, take a coin token.

I decided against the obvious choice of giving out cards - if the event counts any play, it can stack too much, and if it only ever gives one, if's just not too interesting or good.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Roadrunner7671 on January 05, 2016, 06:04:32 pm
Research seems actually overpowered. If you have a Lab/Hunting Party/Governer/City stack, you purchase a Potion for ultimate reliability.

And this event effectively turns Labs into Alchemists, which I actually like.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 22, 2016, 02:38:22 am
Played a few games against Co0kieL0rd recently:

The first had Hospital and Forager. I got quite a few points by playing this combination, and CL resigned when i was about 16 to 20 VP tokens in the lead already. I assume this should be one of the best combos with Hospital, though: Forager needs to be fed junk and lowers your handsize - Hospital provides junk and increases your handsize. At the same time you get points. The board also had Alms, which made sure i could pick up either component even after aggressive trashing. It certainly made Hospital look very strong, but feel it was a combo and doesn't speak for its strength with other trashers - it should also work with Chapel and Forge, but that's about it, i think.

On another note, Paddock will leave us. I kind of like it, but it never gets used. It's just not strong enough. The last game we used it it was a key card, curiously, but in that game Gold was really unattractive, Ferry allowed cost reduction, an engine was unavailable and the other $5s were VP cards. It just doesn't prove anything, Paddock is still lame.

I will also remove Tribunal. The attack seemed clever for a while, but the things i found necessary to balance it make it look complicated and weird. I'm also not sure the attack works that good. Maybe i should have made it so only the first play gives you a choice. Meh.

Nouveau Riche hasn't aged well either. I appreciate if some people like it, but i'm not one of them anymore. I'll remove it for now and see whether i stumble over a fix.

Research will lose the "no Potion" clause and become "once per turn". Don't know why i didn't decide for that before.

I'll also look for another image for Alley.

Also, wow, have you checked out that cool new fan set, Seasons?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 22, 2016, 03:56:14 pm
Update Madness!

(http://i.imgur.com/KdtIbGZ.jpg)
Research is now "Once per turn"

(http://i.imgur.com/RUWOqwJ.jpg)
Alley got a pretty, new picture.

(http://i.imgur.com/6KzG6mz.jpg)
Sheriff now uses Sheriff tokens. I mean, i liked the flavour of tax tokens, but we all know you bribe him into getting others in trouble, anyway.

(http://i.imgur.com/opOHy17.jpg)
Cosmetical change: "Two" is now "2".

(http://i.imgur.com/NCWdkGt.jpg)
Sultan now only puts the card on top of your deck and costs $3. Not tested, though.

(http://i.imgur.com/HFrGkA7.jpg)
Paddock is gone, here's Artisan which replaces it. Not tested, might be too strong.

(http://i.imgur.com/qE9IZP6.jpg)
Jeweler is now a terminal Gold which can be used as a Silver in case nothing else goes. The +card version was a bit too strong, and the similarity of the effects means you now get it as payload - not as a single-card strategy or expensive Smithy.

Taxation is the new Coin Token event. Now you know why Sheriff lost tax tokens.
Removed Taxation, as it's far too similar to convolucid's Levy (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14269.msg544558).

Also, added artist names.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 23, 2016, 02:40:47 pm
Maybe somebody has use for this TS-template (http://i.imgur.com/Ul21RF6.jpg).

(http://i.imgur.com/cM4r4h4.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Accatitippi on January 23, 2016, 04:49:37 pm
Maybe it's been covered already in the other pages, but have you considered/tried Sheriff with vanilla Coin Tokens?
It definitely would give the card more flexibility, but maybe break it, on the other hand. (I can see players buying sheriffs only for the overpay).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 23, 2016, 05:04:11 pm
Maybe it's been covered already in the other pages, but have you considered/tried Sheriff with vanilla Coin Tokens?
It definitely would give the card more flexibility, but maybe break it, on the other hand. (I can see players buying sheriffs only for the overpay).

Yes, i thought about that - after all, Guilds has Coin tokens. But it deviated too much from the card's concept, and it seemed like a lot of trouble to get it to work without making it broken or lame. So, i decided not to.

I did try a similar thing as an Event, and even though it looked very nice and clean at first, it was too game changing and mostly a no-brainer. Maybe an overpay effect IS the way to go here, but Sheriff is not the card to put it on. Which shouldn't stop you from using coin tokens to track the bribe money you paid your Sheriffs in the way Pirate Ship or Trade Route use them ;)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Accatitippi on January 24, 2016, 05:49:19 am
Maybe it's been covered already in the other pages, but have you considered/tried Sheriff with vanilla Coin Tokens?
It definitely would give the card more flexibility, but maybe break it, on the other hand. (I can see players buying sheriffs only for the overpay).

Yes, i thought about that - after all, Guilds has Coin tokens. But it deviated too much from the card's concept, and it seemed like a lot of trouble to get it to work without making it broken or lame. So, i decided not to.

I did try a similar thing as an Event, and even though it looked very nice and clean at first, it was too game changing and mostly a no-brainer. Maybe an overpay effect IS the way to go here, but Sheriff is not the card to put it on. Which shouldn't stop you from using coin tokens to track the bribe money you paid your Sheriffs in the way Pirate Ship or Trade Route use them ;)

I see.  :)

About Jeweler, I think you probably have to specify "discard from your hand" to avoid misunderstandings about whether one can discard it from play.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 24, 2016, 07:24:01 am
Maybe it's been covered already in the other pages, but have you considered/tried Sheriff with vanilla Coin Tokens?
It definitely would give the card more flexibility, but maybe break it, on the other hand. (I can see players buying sheriffs only for the overpay).

Yes, i thought about that - after all, Guilds has Coin tokens. But it deviated too much from the card's concept, and it seemed like a lot of trouble to get it to work without making it broken or lame. So, i decided not to.

I did try a similar thing as an Event, and even though it looked very nice and clean at first, it was too game changing and mostly a no-brainer. Maybe an overpay effect IS the way to go here, but Sheriff is not the card to put it on. Which shouldn't stop you from using coin tokens to track the bribe money you paid your Sheriffs in the way Pirate Ship or Trade Route use them ;)

I see.  :)

About Jeweler, I think you probably have to specify "discard from your hand" to avoid misunderstandings about whether one can discard it from play.

After looking at official cards a bit, i think you are right that clarification would be better. I will change it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: tristan on January 24, 2016, 08:23:37 am
Artisan might be too strong. Then again it just gains a 3$ card and we all had our Hermit games in which we did not want to gain a 3$ card in the middle game.
Taxation is pretty interesting. It is similiar to convolucid's Levy (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14269.msg544558) and its strength obviously depends positively upon the number of players.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 24, 2016, 09:41:36 am
Artisan might be too strong. Then again it just gains a 3$ card and we all had our Hermit games in which we did not want to gain a 3$ card in the middle game.
Taxation is pretty interesting. It is similiar to convolucid's Levy (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14269.msg544558) and its strength obviously depends positively upon the number of players.

Wow, can't believe i forgot about Levy - i even posted in that thread. Guess that means i can just as well scrap Taxation. I mean, i didn't test it yet, but Levy probably is the better implementation anyhow.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: tristan on January 25, 2016, 02:59:22 am
Artisan might be too strong. Then again it just gains a 3$ card and we all had our Hermit games in which we did not want to gain a 3$ card in the middle game.
Taxation is pretty interesting. It is similiar to convolucid's Levy (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14269.msg544558) and its strength obviously depends positively upon the number of players.

Wow, can't believe i forgot about Levy - i even posted in that thread. Guess that means i can just as well scrap Taxation. I mean, i didn't test it yet, but Levy probably is the better implementation anyhow.
I think that the difference between buying and playing a card is significant enough to warrant two Events. I also think that your Taxation is easier to playtest as there is only one variant whereas Levy should probably be tested with buy vs. gain, Action cards vs. Action cards / Treasure cards and another player vs. any player.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 25, 2016, 10:48:11 am
Artisan might be too strong. Then again it just gains a 3$ card and we all had our Hermit games in which we did not want to gain a 3$ card in the middle game.
Taxation is pretty interesting. It is similiar to convolucid's Levy (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14269.msg544558) and its strength obviously depends positively upon the number of players.

Wow, can't believe i forgot about Levy - i even posted in that thread. Guess that means i can just as well scrap Taxation. I mean, i didn't test it yet, but Levy probably is the better implementation anyhow.
I think that the difference between buying and playing a card is significant enough to warrant two Events. I also think that your Taxation is easier to playtest as there is only one variant whereas Levy should probably be tested with buy vs. gain, Action cards vs. Action cards / Treasure cards and another player vs. any player.

On the other hand, Taxation would have to be tested in games with different player numbers, so i'm not sure it's less work. I'm not sure. Maybe i should give it a shot at least.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on February 02, 2016, 01:26:50 pm
Asper,

Nouveau Riche:

Are all those things simultaneous or one after the other?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 02, 2016, 03:09:50 pm
Asper,

Nouveau Riche:

Are all those things simultaneous or one after the other?

Dear Mr./Ms./Mrs. Healey,
thank you for your interest in our cards. We consider ourselves glad to call you our trusting customer. Sadly, support for Nouveau Riche has ceased since version 6.18 of Asper's cards. We hope you will enjoy our other products.
~Asper's Cards Corporation (Limited)



I hope you don't mind a little joke. The point is, i removed NR from this thread a while ago because i wasn't happy with it. Curiously, there seem to be a few people who kind of like it, and i never know whether i'm wrong on this. So, it's cool to hear someone is interested in it.

Either way, to give you an actual answer: The effects happen one after another, so you can discard and Estate to draw 3 cards, and then discard a Duchy you just drew. After that, you can discard a third VP card to get +1 Action. Simultaneously, this means that you do not automatically get +1 Action after discarding an Estate or Duchy - you have to decide each in order. Of course, you are also free to skip drawing cards, and then discard a Duchy for money, followed by an Estate for +1 Action. In the beginning, you will probably most often discard an Estate, draw 3 cards and then discard another Estate to get some kind of pseudo-Lab. It's interesting i get asked this question relatively often, even though i sticked to Hamlet (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Hamlet) 's wording. Then again, i'm not sure i immediately got Hamlet when i first saw it, myself.

If you play with it and form an opinion, could you tell me what you think? That would be great. Thanks :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on February 02, 2016, 04:29:10 pm
Asper,

Nouveau Riche:

Are all those things simultaneous or one after the other?

Dear Mr./Ms./Mrs. Healey,
thank you for your interest in our cards. We consider ourselves glad to call you our trusting customer. Sadly, support for Nouveau Riche has ceased since version 6.18 of Asper's cards. We hope you will enjoy our other products.
~Asper's Cards Corporation (Limited)



I hope you don't mind a little joke. The point is, i removed NR from this thread a while ago because i wasn't happy with it. Curiously, there seem to be a few people who kind of like it, and i never know whether i'm wrong on this. So, it's cool to hear someone is interested in it.

Either way, to give you an actual answer: The effects happen one after another, so you can discard and Estate to draw 3 cards, and then discard a Duchy you just drew. After that, you can discard a third VP card to get +1 Action. Simultaneously, this means that you do not automatically get +1 Action after discarding an Estate or Duchy - you have to decide each in order. Of course, you are also free to skip drawing cards, and then discard a Duchy for money, followed by an Estate for +1 Action. In the beginning, you will probably most often discard an Estate, draw 3 cards and then discard another Estate to get some kind of pseudo-Lab. It's interesting i get asked this question relatively often, even though i sticked to Hamlet (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Hamlet) 's wording. Then again, i'm not sure i immediately got Hamlet when i first saw it, myself.

If you play with it and form an opinion, could you tell me what you think? That would be great. Thanks :)

You should revive it. It's one of my favorites to try it out. That's why I am asking. So it's the strongest possible version, cool.

Drs. Healey will do, btw. Haha.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 02, 2016, 05:33:33 pm
Okay, so i was thinking: Apparently one of the things i really disliked about Nouveau Riche was the art. I mean, it even has a gap that somehow looks like a scanline... Shudder. Either way, when looking for new art today, i stumbled over a few pics of rich kids, but nothing that spelled out "Nouveau Riche" to me. Then i thought, Nouveau Riche, maybe that doesn't sound medieval anyhow, maybe i should make it "Heir"? It still has that aura of unearned riches, and of aristocracy, that i wanted for a VP-interacting card.

So, how about a name/design change?

(http://i.imgur.com/u8JirZ5.jpg)

Thematic bonus: Inheritance as Estate Interaction now makes total sense. Also, this could be a Baron's heir, or a Duke's. Maybe the Duchess and the Baron had a kid and this guy is who she's holding on her image, maybe it's a patchwork family - you never know.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on February 02, 2016, 06:26:19 pm
Okay, so i was thinking: Apparently one of the things i really disliked about Nouveau Riche was the art. I mean, it even has a gap that somehow looks like a scanline... Shudder. Either way, when looking for new art today, i stumbled over a few pics of rich kids, but nothing that spelled out "Nouveau Riche" to me. Then i thought, Nouveau Riche, maybe that doesn't sound medieval anyhow, maybe i should make it "Heir"? It still has that aura of unearned riches, and of aristocracy, that i wanted for a VP-interacting card.

So, how about a name/design change?

(http://i.imgur.com/u8JirZ5.jpg)

Thematic bonus: Inheritance as Estate Interaction now makes total sense. Also, this could be a Baron's heir, or a Duke's. Maybe the Duchess and the Baron had a kid and this guy is who she's holding on her image, maybe it's a patchwork family - you never know.

Love it, although I liked the art on the other one too.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 02, 2016, 07:35:13 pm
Okay, so i was thinking: Apparently one of the things i really disliked about Nouveau Riche was the art. I mean, it even has a gap that somehow looks like a scanline... Shudder. Either way, when looking for new art today, i stumbled over a few pics of rich kids, but nothing that spelled out "Nouveau Riche" to me. Then i thought, Nouveau Riche, maybe that doesn't sound medieval anyhow, maybe i should make it "Heir"? It still has that aura of unearned riches, and of aristocracy, that i wanted for a VP-interacting card.

So, how about a name/design change?

Thematic bonus: Inheritance as Estate Interaction now makes total sense. Also, this could be a Baron's heir, or a Duke's. Maybe the Duchess and the Baron had a kid and this guy is who she's holding on her image, maybe it's a patchwork family - you never know.

Love it, although I liked the art on the other one too.

Well, the art also was very baroque, so it was a bit of an anachronism, too. It's a lot of little reasons coming together, but i'm glad you like the card :)
Also, Heir is now officially in the OP (again). Hooray!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 04, 2016, 07:57:00 pm
Yo dawgs, i heard you like images. So i put some images in one image so you can use a software that acts as if you played a game where you act as if you were a king who acts kingly.

(http://i.imgur.com/zx7TkNZ.jpg)

Includes Heir as well as Spells (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14670.msg564201#msg564201). If you don't know what Spells are: Completely untested stuff, can be bought during buy phase if a card using them is in the supply, and can only be used by those kingdom cards. Buying a Spell makes you take a copy of them to keep next to your deck (for now, exact mechanic still in the works), casting one removes it, the limit of Spells a player can have at a time is 6 Spells. You can have, e.g., 3 "Dexterity", 2 "Purity" and 1 "Glory". No limit on them either, so no one can buy them away.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on February 04, 2016, 08:00:57 pm
Heir is a great card. :) I used it with Alt-VP. I was (way) behind and had some bad shuffle luck (draw 2 heirs in hand with no vp's, even though my deck was like 25% green), but all in all: good card. Doesn't feel OP from the first usage.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on February 12, 2016, 08:58:15 am
Hey Asper,

I printed:

Alley,
Hospital
Road & Town (which I *won't* be using in a champions deck...)
Fountain
Jeweler
Sunken City


Any cards of these you are particularly interested in getting feedback on? We are having a dominion session tonight. :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Accatitippi on February 12, 2016, 11:48:42 am
Hey Asper,

I printed:

Alley,
Hospital
Road & Town (which I *won't* be using in a champions deck...)
Fountain
Jeweler
Sunken City


Any cards of these you are particularly interested in getting feedback on? We are having a dominion session tonight. :)

Champion-road doesn't seem too problematic, since you still need to draw a Road before you can draw your deck. It can misfire, and you'll usually want several roads anyway to increase your chances of going off. It would make for interesting games, I think.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on February 12, 2016, 12:02:49 pm
Scavenger, road and champion deck would be insane, though. :)

But with champion, every time you draw a road, you draw your entire deck. Seems a bit over the top. Might be a fun game, but I am not trying it for now.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 12, 2016, 01:07:23 pm
Hey Asper,

I printed:

Alley,
Hospital
Road & Town (which I *won't* be using in a champions deck...)
Fountain
Jeweler
Sunken City


Any cards of these you are particularly interested in getting feedback on? We are having a dominion session tonight. :)

A Tabletop Simulator Session? When? Can i watch/join? Edit: Oops, sorry, you wrote you "printed" them. Never mind :)

Most of those have been tested quite a bit. Hospital can go wacky, but only with the right kind of trashing (Forager, for example), and honestly i think redirecting the Page line from Multi-Page-Single-Warrior strategies isn't the worst thing Road could do... So i hope you will have fun with either card you pick.

Jeweler is the only card you printed which didn't have any playtesting in its current form, but that also means it might be too strong. I wouldn't like you to remember your session to be ruined by one of my cards, but of course the choice is up to you ;)

Edit: Fountain, Alley, Sunken City and Town are the ones i personally like most of these, btw.

Edit II: Also, of course i want to hear everything you got to say after that session. Thank you for trying out my cards :D
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: 461.weavile on February 13, 2016, 08:06:44 am
My most recent incarnation of Forest Medallion is eerily similar to your Hospital now... I swear it was an accident. It has a much different flavor and playstyle, so until it's identified as a bad card, I'm keeping it.

I'm also on TTS every so often. I'm usually content with teaching noobs, but I would enjoy a game with actual players and would put a password on my games.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 13, 2016, 08:15:09 am
About Champion/Road, it wouldn't be the first strategy that centers on drawing your deck. At least IRL, you can now say "Here's Road, i'll just put my deck in hand." It's powerful, but it takes a while to get there. Also, no need to play all those Roads for real, just take your deck in hand, saves us time, hooray.

I was thinking about whether pricing Road at $3 would solve the "problem" by making it Warrior-trashable. Problem is, i hate Warrior with a passion, and i know from own experience that it can make games horrible, unfair and endless. Revealing Road, putting your deck in hand and buying one or two Provinces is merciful in comparison to what Warrior games can lead to.

My most recent incarnation of Forest Medallion is eerily similar to your Hospital now... I swear it was an accident. It has a much different flavor and playstyle, so until it's identified as a bad card, I'm keeping it.

I'm also on TTS every so often. I'm usually content with teaching noobs, but I would enjoy a game with actual players and would put a password on my games.

I'm central european time and like to play once in a while. Not today probably, but maybe tomorrow. Should i PM you?
Also, no worry on Hospital, i took inspiration from your Medaillons for Spells, myself ;)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on February 13, 2016, 08:37:32 am
We played a two-player game yesterday with heir, wharf, port, distant lands, harem, duke and steward.

Heir is remarkably well prices at 4, I'd say. Sometimes it's a dud, even after the +3 cards, and sometimes it really shines. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have included wharf, because that was just insane. But for now: we like the card and think it's decently prized.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 13, 2016, 09:51:39 am
We played a two-player game yesterday with heir, wharf, port, distant lands, harem, duke and steward.

Heir is remarkably well prices at 4, I'd say. Sometimes it's a dud, even after the +3 cards, and sometimes it really shines. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have included wharf, because that was just insane. But for now: we like the card and think it's decently prized.

Hooray, that's great to hear. Thanks for trying it out :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: tristan on March 11, 2016, 08:52:36 am
Played a game with the old Sultan (that costs 4$ and hand-gains) and Harem last night. The combo was crazy and the player who emptied the Harem pile obviously won but despite the crazy combo I still like the card. The new version is probably better as hand-gaining implied that several Sultans could get several Harems in one turn.
Then again this is the single crazy combo with the card and everything else is probably more or less fine, be it with the old or the new version.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on March 12, 2016, 05:35:14 am
Played a game with the old Sultan (that costs 4$ and hand-gains) and Harem last night. The combo was crazy and the player who emptied the Harem pile obviously won but despite the crazy combo I still like the card. The new version is probably better as hand-gaining implied that several Sultans could get several Harems in one turn.
Then again this is the single crazy combo with the card and everything else is probably more or less fine, be it with the old or the new version.

Well, several Sultans will still gain several Harems with the new version, as each Sultan you play draws the Harem you gained before. It's just that the topdecking makes it harder to draw something else, including further Sultans. I'm kind of glad the Harem combo still works, as, while i usually don't make cards to fit with a name, i really wanted Sultan to work with Harem.

Either way, thank you for trying it out. It's cool you seem to like the last version :)
I made it weaker mostly because Sultan was very strong if you aimed to get a first Province as fast as possible. It's a bit like Tournament in the respect it rewards spending your first $8 on green.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on March 27, 2016, 08:48:52 pm
I am leaving fds.

I'm not sure whether i will remove my account entirely, but i most certainly will stop posting here on a regular basis. I don't want to point out individual users that i have grown fond of, as those will know it either way, and i'd forget someone probably. If you wonder, might Asper be referring to me, the answer is pretty much certainly yes, and it might be even if you think "He can't be referring to me, we didn't interact that much anyway.". Please note that i'm not trying to severe any bridges to people i met here, it's just posting on fds that i won't be doing anymore.

Either way, as a last "boom" after (more or less) finishing Seasons, here are a few last fixes to my own cards (including Spellcasters, which are tested very little). Enjoy them and do with them what you like. I'm sorry i can't offer a TS-template, but my TS deck builder is somehow defunct. There is a farewell-bonus-card, Delegate, which is inspired from market squire's "Marco Polo (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14915.0)". I leave Co0kieL0rd in charge of any Seasons-stuff, as that expansion was his idea originally. It was a pleasure to work with you, pal.

I will read replies to this specific thread and PMs for at least a little while in case there is something anyone wants to tell me. Best wishes to all of you.






(http://i.imgur.com/RS5q3BV.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/yTqYSrL.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/JLlNPlH.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/H9aJ4BF.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/2scMnd7.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/L2Yc7Ql.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Tszgn54.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Kqo43xk.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/pvP5qTR.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/mlsNSRp.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/MHcoV1H.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/J2q6elR.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Lpwhf41.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/SBJWmWJ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/hq6FI21.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/yfT0Qwu.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/1ieRQOL.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/BrqdZbX.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/rBnH1ox.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/ROgGPmB.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/oAitKNp.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/r7B13V7.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/dxkCukY.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/L0fufiX.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/PWcaxTG.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/kfJS02b.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Yi2JAqP.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/S0vHKst.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/OqdrAbh.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/lJVIP8t.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/KdtIbGZ.jpg)

Quote
Spells:
Spells one-shot effects that are similar to Events, in that they are not cards, but you can buy them during your buy phase. If a "Spellcaster" type kingdom card is in the supply, 3 Spells are chosen at random to be placed next to the supply and each player gets 5 tokens in that player's colour. During your buy phase, you may buy a Spell, just like you buy a card or an Event, and if you do, you put one of your tokens on the Spell (Spells are not gained and can't be put in a player's deck in any way). A Spell with your token on is "prepared", which means you can have up to 5 Spells prepared. If you have all your tokens on Spells already and buy another one, simply move one of your tokens. To actually use a Spell, you must play a kingdom card which allows you to "cast" a Spell (those are the Spellcaster type kingdom cards). If you cast a Spell, you choose one of the Spells you prepared, do its effect and then take back your token which you can use later to prepare another Spell.

(http://i.imgur.com/CxYVEd7.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/xq3eIb8.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/WXaDtcY.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/qfiWurB.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/USV6V2u.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/hkIkFxl.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/w9l80tn.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/PvTKNUa.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/qqKVa0P.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/5Eifysi.jpg)

That's all, folks.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on March 27, 2016, 10:13:55 pm
You will be missed :-*

You probably want to post the rules for spells in here too, or at least the link to their thread? I can't read.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on March 28, 2016, 06:28:04 am
Thanks, pacovf :)
That's mutual.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Roadrunner7671 on March 28, 2016, 06:49:34 am
April Fools? Please?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on March 28, 2016, 07:05:30 am
Too soon.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on March 28, 2016, 10:07:28 am
I'm serious.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on April 14, 2016, 01:06:25 pm
I'm serious.
Very sad--I have really appreciated your cards!  Would love to see you come back occasionally when you feel like it :)  I like your final addition too--the Delegate--I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it--but it seems very fun. 
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Accatitippi on April 14, 2016, 05:23:25 pm
I missed this post, I was wondering what everybody was referring to in the Seasons thread. :-[
I really liked your contributions and many of your cards, and your feedback to my and others' cards too. Farewell, and best of luck!  :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Accatitippi on April 21, 2016, 05:25:12 am
Incidentally, I love Delegate. Easily the best fan card of its kind.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on April 21, 2016, 02:14:25 pm
Incidentally, I love Delegate. Easily the best fan card of its kind.

I completely agree!  What a brilliant design!  I haven't playtested it yet, but I'm excited to. 
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on April 22, 2016, 09:16:17 pm
Thank you guys :)
It's good to hear you like the stuff i did :')

It's not out of the question that i'll return when a few of my projects are done, but for now i want to give those my (mostly) full attention. Which obviously doesn't mean i won't look here from time to time and maybe even answer to posts (like i'm doing now), but that's mostly because i'm weak... ;)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on April 23, 2016, 01:01:20 am
Thank you guys :)
It's good to hear you like the stuff i did :')

It's not out of the question that i'll return when a few of my projects are done, but for now i want to give those my (mostly) full attention. Which obviously doesn't mean i won't look here from time to time and maybe even answer to posts (like i'm doing now), but that's mostly because i'm weak... ;)

yeah, I hope you continue to be weak :)  I stand by my statement on the seasons thread that Seasons is the best fan made expansion, and half of that credit belongs to you!  Thanks for making balanced, fun, good-looking, and creative cards.  I hope that you are inspired when you have more time to make some more :)  I know I have been inspired, and will be posting some of my own cards to add to the possibilities in the Dominion Seasons world. :)  (I already posted one rough idea--"Dragon Hunter" that I will eventually bring to full fruition and mock up).  Hope you don't mind :) 
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on May 28, 2016, 12:10:53 pm
Asper's cards are a work of art, and I'm nowhere near as good as him. Seeing as Asper left F.ds I thought it was worth it to change fountain. There's already a landmark called fountain so I renamed it residence. Enjoy!
(http://i.imgur.com/6UISz7C.png)

EDIT: Well (No pun intended) this is useless now. I'll leave it up if you prefer it more than well.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on May 28, 2016, 02:52:44 pm
Asper's cards are a work of art, and I'm nowhere near as good as him. Seeing as Asper left F.ds I thought it was worth it to change fountain. There's already a landmark called fountain so I renamed it residence. Enjoy!
It looks great! thanks :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on May 28, 2016, 04:08:53 pm
Man, i have posted quite a bit over the last few days, just not here. Which is bad, because i'm falling back into old habits. Either way, i appreciate the effort of mocking up a card. This means the set stays up to date, or at least mostly. However, Fountain (or Residence) should only allow you to gain a differently named card to reduce the card's use for pile control.

Another card that has become obsolete is Jeweler. It was mainly my attempt at doing an Action-Treasure (gameplay-wise) without having to introduce that dreaded type combination. As now an official Action-Treasure exists, the point of the card is gone.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 07, 2016, 09:38:52 pm
Did you know my cards are a Treasure chest? No? Well, they are. Kind of. Well, not technically, but i tried to use a lot of different mechanics, and all of these came from different expansions, so that's kind of the same thing. Considering i now used all mechanics i intended to use, i'll just state that the chest is now finished. In case someone wonders, here's the key:

What has been lacking up to this day were underpay, a deliberately political card, and something with coin tokens. As Empires introduced Debt, underpay became irrelevant, so i could check that off. To finalize this collection, here's a card that does the other two things (plus Fountain's new name):

(http://i.imgur.com/q5HhLvm.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/wCSrj14.jpg)

Obviously you can't please everybody with a card that has this concept, so it's fine if you don't like Politician. As always, consider "Asper's Cards" a lab where i try to create new weirdness from classic mechanics.

Either way, the "set" now has 22 kingdom cards, 2 extra piles and an Event, so i'd say it has the perfect size to call it "done".
PS: Spellcasters are not technically part of this collection.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on June 08, 2016, 01:13:01 am
Asper, I beg you not to call it done quite yet--a new set just came out!!!  Can't you put in a couple more to make it a round 25 cards and complete the treasure chest by including the latest expansion?  :)  This is just a ploy to get you to design more cards, which are brilliant. 

Also, politician is an interesting card--do you think it works well in a two player game?  Most of my games are two player.  I think I like it alot, but not sure until i play it. 
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: tristan on June 08, 2016, 02:33:15 am
Obviously a political card violates one of Donald's design principles but I fail to see why a fan card should not violate it. The advantage of political components in games is that they enable the weaker players to hurt the stronger players. So if somebody gets a good start in a 3P Dominion game the match is normally basically already over whereas with political cards the other two folks have a moderate chance to catch up
About the specific card, gaining a Silver is good in the early game but in the middle- or endgame it is only of moderate importance so I'd say that the card is good.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 08, 2016, 06:49:34 am
Asper, I beg you not to call it done quite yet--a new expansion just just came out!!!  Can't you put ina couple more to make it a round5 cards and complete the treasure chest by including the latest expansion?  :)  This is just a ploy to get you to design more cards, which are brilliant. 

Thank you for those nice words... Sadly, i don't really feel like doing something based off Empires. I'm not sure my opinion might change, but for now that's how it is.

Obviously a political card violates one of Donald's design principles but I fail to see why a fan card should not violate it. The advantage of political components in games is that they enable the weaker players to hurt the stronger players. So if somebody gets a good start in a 3P Dominion game the match is normally basically already over whereas with political cards the other two folks have a moderate chance to catch up
About the specific card, gaining a Silver is good in the early game but in the middle- or endgame it is only of moderate importance so I'd say that the card is good.

I also considered the advantage to be the slightly more creative "Choose another player who may gain a Copper, putting it in hand.", giving the card a more immediate effect that's stronger at the end and very start. Is that more interesting?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 08, 2016, 02:55:02 pm
Also, politician is an interesting card--do you think it works well in a two player game?  Most of my games are two player.  I think I like it alot, but not sure until i play it.

Sorry, i forgot to answer to this. Well, in a 2-player game, Politician is weakest, as you give 100% of your opponents a choice, and can't choose yourself. I still think it's relatively strong, and in fact i'm not sure whether it might be too strong with more players.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on June 08, 2016, 03:36:38 pm
Also, politician is an interesting card--do you think it works well in a two player game?  Most of my games are two player.  I think I like it alot, but not sure until i play it.

Sorry, i forgot to answer to this. Well, in a 2-player game, Politician is weakest, as you give 100% of your opponents a choice, and can't choose yourself. I still think it's relatively strong, and in fact i'm not sure whether it might be too strong with more players.

Either way, I like the mechanics of the card and think it will work quite well.  I think it would be interesting to have a political card that hurts selected players instead of helping them.  Also, I'm not the biggest fan of the art you picked for it.  I think it's because the politician doesn't look very medieval or ancient.  Perhaps a Roman leader would look better?  Just my thoughts.   
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 08, 2016, 08:51:17 pm
Also, politician is an interesting card--do you think it works well in a two player game?  Most of my games are two player.  I think I like it alot, but not sure until i play it.

Sorry, i forgot to answer to this. Well, in a 2-player game, Politician is weakest, as you give 100% of your opponents a choice, and can't choose yourself. I still think it's relatively strong, and in fact i'm not sure whether it might be too strong with more players.

Either way, I like the mechanics of the card and think it will work quite well.  I think it would be interesting to have a political card that hurts selected players instead of helping them.  Also, I'm not the biggest fan of the art you picked for it.  I think it's because the politician doesn't look very medieval or ancient.  Perhaps a Roman leader would look better?  Just my thoughts.   

Yes, the art doesn't fit. I mean, it's a character from a book series i like, but not fitting. If anybody finds something better, i'll use that.

Hurting selected players would have made it an attack, and that would have been okay... But i feel helping selected players is more fun.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Accatitippi on June 09, 2016, 04:02:49 am
Also, politician is an interesting card--do you think it works well in a two player game?  Most of my games are two player.  I think I like it alot, but not sure until i play it.

Sorry, i forgot to answer to this. Well, in a 2-player game, Politician is weakest, as you give 100% of your opponents a choice, and can't choose yourself. I still think it's relatively strong, and in fact i'm not sure whether it might be too strong with more players.

Either way, I like the mechanics of the card and think it will work quite well.  I think it would be interesting to have a political card that hurts selected players instead of helping them.  Also, I'm not the biggest fan of the art you picked for it.  I think it's because the politician doesn't look very medieval or ancient.  Perhaps a Roman leader would look better?  Just my thoughts.   

Yes, the art doesn't fit. I mean, it's a character from a book series i like, but not fitting. If anybody finds something better, i'll use that.

Hurting selected players would have made it an attack, and that would have been okay... But i feel helping selected players is more fun.

When I saw it I thougt it bore a striking resemblance to Havelock Vetinari. Did I guess right? :)

Maybe Diplomat would be a better fit?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 09, 2016, 09:46:24 am
Also, politician is an interesting card--do you think it works well in a two player game?  Most of my games are two player.  I think I like it alot, but not sure until i play it.

Sorry, i forgot to answer to this. Well, in a 2-player game, Politician is weakest, as you give 100% of your opponents a choice, and can't choose yourself. I still think it's relatively strong, and in fact i'm not sure whether it might be too strong with more players.

Either way, I like the mechanics of the card and think it will work quite well.  I think it would be interesting to have a political card that hurts selected players instead of helping them.  Also, I'm not the biggest fan of the art you picked for it.  I think it's because the politician doesn't look very medieval or ancient.  Perhaps a Roman leader would look better?  Just my thoughts.   

Yes, the art doesn't fit. I mean, it's a character from a book series i like, but not fitting. If anybody finds something better, i'll use that.

Hurting selected players would have made it an attack, and that would have been okay... But i feel helping selected players is more fun.

When I saw it I thougt it bore a striking resemblance to Havelock Vetinari. Did I guess right? :)

Maybe Diplomat would be a better fit?

Yes, you guessed right. I thought: "A guy who does unfair stuff to keep things in balance and stay in power? I should pick him!"
Sadly, i got no picture that was all well-drawn, colored and medieval-looking, so i took what came closest. I chose "Politician" as a way of saying "It's political, duh.", but you are right the name isn't that good. After all, a lot of existing cards are politicians, including my own Minister and Delegate... Diplomat sounds nice, i think i even have a picture for that.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Accatitippi on June 09, 2016, 11:49:46 am
Also, politician is an interesting card--do you think it works well in a two player game?  Most of my games are two player.  I think I like it alot, but not sure until i play it.

Sorry, i forgot to answer to this. Well, in a 2-player game, Politician is weakest, as you give 100% of your opponents a choice, and can't choose yourself. I still think it's relatively strong, and in fact i'm not sure whether it might be too strong with more players.

Either way, I like the mechanics of the card and think it will work quite well.  I think it would be interesting to have a political card that hurts selected players instead of helping them.  Also, I'm not the biggest fan of the art you picked for it.  I think it's because the politician doesn't look very medieval or ancient.  Perhaps a Roman leader would look better?  Just my thoughts.   

Yes, the art doesn't fit. I mean, it's a character from a book series i like, but not fitting. If anybody finds something better, i'll use that.

Hurting selected players would have made it an attack, and that would have been okay... But i feel helping selected players is more fun.

When I saw it I thougt it bore a striking resemblance to Havelock Vetinari. Did I guess right? :)

Maybe Diplomat would be a better fit?

Yes, you guessed right. I thought: "A guy who does unfair stuff to keep things in balance and stay in power? I should pick him!"
Sadly, i got no picture that was all well-drawn, colored and medieval-looking, so i took what came closest. I chose "Politician" as a way of saying "It's political, duh.", but you are right the name isn't that good. After all, a lot of existing cards are politicians, including my own Minister and Delegate... Diplomat sounds nice, i think i even have a picture for that.

I like the "duh" effect of Politician, (and the choice of Vetinari as specimen) yet it feels slightly off-theme. That said, everything is allowed in your own fan expansion. :)

There is a drawing of Vetinari in the Ankh Morpork game, it's a bit caricatural, though; and good luck finding a high-res image...
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic1049909.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 09, 2016, 12:22:01 pm
I even know that game, but didn't think of it... But yes, maybe Vetinari is a bit too off theme. After all, it should also work for people who don't know the novels. So i think i'm going to make it Diplomat.

(http://i.imgur.com/71AZAa8.jpg)

I picked some foreign-looking art, because it seemed to fit the epoque and Dominion doesn't have that much "same time, different place" yet. Also, corpulent, bearded men with eastern origin stories are well known for giving out presents, or so i heard. I'm kidding here.

I also fixed up some wording weirdness with Assemble, Zombie and Iron Maiden. For those, as usual, look in the OP. That should be it. Hussah!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on June 09, 2016, 05:13:29 pm
Thanks--great art, and great design
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on June 09, 2016, 08:02:51 pm
Thanks, Nflickner :)

Even though my deck builder still doesn't work, i found out how to align cards in Gimp. So, for you Tabletop-Simulator-Guys:
(Check the "use Back as Hidden" option if needed)

(http://i.imgur.com/ktxjUuN.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on June 19, 2016, 08:30:10 pm
Thanks, Nflickner :)

Even though my deck builder still doesn't work, i found out how to align cards in Gimp. So, for you Tabletop-Simulator-Guys:
(Check the "use Back as Hidden" option if needed)
Thanks for this!  I got your cards loaded into TS now!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on July 19, 2016, 07:07:09 pm
Hey Asper,

We played a game today that included Mill and Minister.

The feedback on Mill was: nice idea, but it's 'never' a good time to buy it. it's cheap, but it's obviously a very bad opening buy, right, because well, the diversity in your deck is pretty low. But later, when there is a high likelihood of Mill actually providing good valued cards (4 or 5), you probably have a bunch of good cards already, and are ready to start provincing or something. The fact that it's terminal doesn't really help either at that point. The person who bought the card wasn't dissatisfied with it, but it didn't really help all that much for their deck at that point either. Maybe if it's a peddler with that benefit or an on gain benefit ('now and when you play it *insert effect'), that would be pretty cool. But as it's now, it could use something extra. The effect is cool and awesome, but it needs something more.

Minister was fun. It didn't see much usage, but it served some purpose. Not sufficient to commenate extensively, but it was neither overpowered or underpowered.

Maybe it helps to add that it was a 4 player game, so less turns than usual, less building towards a deck.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 20, 2016, 05:12:35 pm
Hey Asper,

We played a game today that included Mill and Minister.

The feedback on Mill was: nice idea, but it's 'never' a good time to buy it. it's cheap, but it's obviously a very bad opening buy, right, because well, the diversiy in your deck is pretty low. But later, when there is a high likelihood of Mill actually providing good valued cards (4 or 5), you probably have a bunch of good cards already, and are ready to start provincing or something. The fact that it's terminal doesn't really help either at that point. The person who bought the card wasn't dissatisfied with it, but it didn't really help all that much for their deck at that point either. Maybe if it's a peddler with that benefit or an on gain benefit ('now and when you play it *insert effect'), that would be pretty cool. But as it's now, it could use something extra. The effect is cool and awesome, but it needs something more.

Minister was fun. It didn't see much usage, but it served some purpose. Not sufficient to commenate extensively, but it was neither overpowered or underpowered.

Maybe it helps to add that it was a 4 player game, so less turns than usual, less building towards a deck.

Thanks for your feedback and trying out my cards. Thanks also to the people you are playing with :)

It's interesting you say you found Mill weak. At the beginning of the game, it is usually going to pick up cards costing $3, as it will hit Copper, Estate and likely your other opening buy. That's a bit worse than Workshop, until you realize it provides pretty much one turn additional cycling, giving you faster access to the new card. And every card it gains makes it stronger. So, in my experience, the beginning is actually the perfect time to get Mill.

If you still find it weak (which i hope you won't), try out using six cards -> More sifting, higher chance to hit $5, higher max. Just as info though: Five is a nerf i did because six was too good.

Maybe you had the Rebuild problem: Everybody thinks it looks weak, nobody buys it, as nobody buys it it must be weak, let's buff it. Don't think i refuse to take your experience serious, but i feel that in the beginning you might have underestimated the card and then got it too late to get something from it. It's just that you learn more about a card by actually using it, for the better or worse. Maybe you can give it another shot and have somebody courageous open with Mill (double-Mill?) to see where it leads them ;)
If it turns out horrible, i will take the blame.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on July 20, 2016, 07:07:59 pm
Next time, I'll combine Mill with a secondary opening buy and see what gives, because I definitely see your point. It's a workshop that gets better, with a small risk associated with it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on July 25, 2016, 07:17:18 am
I am leaving fds.
So was this an April Fool's joke, or did your plan just change? I'm confuseduled.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on July 25, 2016, 09:40:54 am
I am leaving fds.
So was this an April Fool's joke, or did your plan just change? I'm confuseduled.

I totally intended to leave fds, but i find myself unable to stop visiting the site. It's pretty much an addiction. I intended to stop because i wanted to focus more on my real-world goals and duties. But my cards are better received than ever before (especially the feedback on Seasons baffled me), and i'd lie if i said the positive feedback doesn't make me feel good. So, i keep coming back, and failing to do what i decided i should do. It's hard to tell how i feel about this :|
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on August 01, 2016, 12:11:47 pm
You could try only logging to f.ds as a "reward" for getting stuff done.

Doesn't work for me, but you know...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 01, 2016, 08:22:42 pm
You could try only logging to f.ds as a "reward" for getting stuff done.

Doesn't work for me, but you know...

You imply i'm ever logging off ;)

But seriously, i'll try this. Like, with this very log.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on August 07, 2016, 07:00:45 pm
I was thinking about paddock today, and I wonder what the deal is with the card.

Quote
Paddock
Action - $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Gain a silver

So it's a peddler (worth $4) with an additional silver gaining. But, well, if you are playing an engine (and usually, peddler are very good engine cards), you don't want the silvers. But as a big money card, it seems a bith underwhelming at $5. Free silver is nice, but, well, it's not gold.

So it's a very unclear card in what it's role is, and maybe that's the good thing about it. What do other people think?

We also played a game with meadow, but it didn't come into play, unfortunately. So no feedback there.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 07, 2016, 08:20:03 pm
I was thinking about paddock today, and I wonder what the deal is with the card.

Quote
Paddock
Action - $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Gain a silver

So it's a peddler (worth $4) with an additional silver gaining. But, well, if you are playing an engine (and usually, peddler are very good engine cards), you don't want the silvers. But as a big money card, it seems a bith underwhelming at $5. Free silver is nice, but, well, it's not gold.

So it's a very unclear card in what it's role is, and maybe that's the good thing about it. What do other people think?

We also played a game with meadow, but it didn't come into play, unfortunately. So no feedback there.

Paddock was always pretty weak, which is why i took it out and replaced it with Artisan, which tells you to gain a card costing up to $3. On some boards, this might still be either Silver, Estate or Copper, but usually you'll be able to pick up something better. I don't recommend playing with Paddock anymore. I clinged to it in that old form for a while, but it just couldn't keep up.

Meadow is better in the endgame, with alt VP cards, and when you have good trash-for-benefit.

Edit: To get a full view of the current cards, go to the first post in the thread.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 08, 2016, 06:58:01 pm
Spells are confusing. I hardly ever play with them because balancing them is a pain. And i don't mean the french word for bread - besides, i prefer cake. As you know, if you don't have bread, eat cake. Just that, the cake is a lie. It lies up to you to check out this new card i made, which uses a mechanic derived from my idea for the "Glory" spell:

(http://i.imgur.com/t5LlTY6.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/zcPNN41.jpg)

Rules: Whatever method you use to determine whether Events are included, do so before you choose kingdom cards. You can also exclude Invasion from your random events. It should never have you end up with an additional kingdom card pile.

The cards are designed to look roman because i made them for Empires (hooray). It offers an alternative way to Victory and i also considered costing Invader at <8> for a while. As you see, that didn't make it. The concept is kind of anti-debt: You pay first, and get stuff later.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: mail-mi on August 08, 2016, 07:47:58 pm
What about (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)<$2>? or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png)? Do either of those work?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on August 08, 2016, 08:02:57 pm

The cards are designed to look roman because i made them for Empires (hooray). It offers an alternative way to Victory and i also considered costing Invader at <8> for a while. As you see, that didn't make it. The concept is kind of anti-debt: You pay first, and get stuff later.

Love these cards!!!!  I also appreciate your choice of art :)  are you a fan of Total War?  One of my favorite PC franchises.

Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 08, 2016, 08:46:27 pm
What about (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)<$2>? or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png)? Do either of those work?

Yes, they do. But i feel that having only a small debt doesn't do much. It's a good way to balance Marriage, where $7 would ruin the concept, because if you produce $7 already, you probably don't want much Gold anymore; and for Engineer which has a special self-interaction because of its cost. But besides that i think a card/event that uses small debt token counts needs to do something that makes that more relevant. For Invader, i simply didn't see that oportunity, and the complexity just didn't seem like it would add enough. Also, it goes a bit against the idea of the card, because debt costs you more, but gives stuff quicker. I want things to cost less, and delay them (which is not really a disadvantage here).


The cards are designed to look roman because i made them for Empires (hooray). It offers an alternative way to Victory and i also considered costing Invader at <8> for a while. As you see, that didn't make it. The concept is kind of anti-debt: You pay first, and get stuff later.

Love these cards!!!!  I also appreciate your choice of art :)  are you a fan of Total War?  One of my favorite PC franchises.

I never actually played it, i just stole the art. But it's good to hear you like it :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on August 08, 2016, 08:52:25 pm
I love the idea of building an engine with four or five Invaders in it, and then waiting till your last turn to get all the provinces left so that your deck is thin until then :) 
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 08, 2016, 09:04:42 pm
I love the idea of building an engine with four or five Invaders in it, and then waiting till your last turn to get all the provinces left so that your deck is thin until then :)

The number of Invaders just limits how many Provinces you can gain at once, so i am actually worried it might be a bit too strong. You can use it for both the mega turn strategy you describe, or for just preparing 2-3 Provinces and gaining them as soon as the pile gets low and your deck starts to choke. Both strategies suffer when your opponent bought too many Provinces first, because then you spent $7 for nothing. Time will tell how strong (and fun) the card really is.

Edit: I might also bump up the cost for Invasion to $8. Then some people will ask, why should you buy that, but asking will be the first step to seeing.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on August 08, 2016, 09:09:33 pm
I love the idea of building an engine with four or five Invaders in it, and then waiting till your last turn to get all the provinces left so that your deck is thin until then :)

The number of Invaders just limits how many Provinces you can gain at once, so i am actually worried it might be a bit too strong. You can use it for both the mega turn strategy you describe, or for just preparing 2-3 Provinces and gaining them as soon as the pile gets low and your deck starts to choke. Both strategies suffer when your opponent bought too many Provinces first, because then you spent $7 for nothing. Time will tell how strong (and fun) the card really is.

Edit: I might also bump up the cost for Invasion to $8. Then some people will ask, why should you buy that, but asking will be the first step to seeing.

Hmm,  I kind of like the pricing the way it is right now, but agree that invaders could be a little overpowered.  Perhaps it could come with a drawback?  Or a very small boon to other players when you gain it? 

Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 08, 2016, 09:22:06 pm
I love the idea of building an engine with four or five Invaders in it, and then waiting till your last turn to get all the provinces left so that your deck is thin until then :)

The number of Invaders just limits how many Provinces you can gain at once, so i am actually worried it might be a bit too strong. You can use it for both the mega turn strategy you describe, or for just preparing 2-3 Provinces and gaining them as soon as the pile gets low and your deck starts to choke. Both strategies suffer when your opponent bought too many Provinces first, because then you spent $7 for nothing. Time will tell how strong (and fun) the card really is.

Edit: I might also bump up the cost for Invasion to $8. Then some people will ask, why should you buy that, but asking will be the first step to seeing.

Hmm,  I kind of like the pricing the way it is right now, but agree that invaders could be a little overpowered.  Perhaps it could come with a drawback?  Or a very small boon to other players when you gain it?

I will think about it after some more testing. Maybe the problem is that a single Invader already gives you all you need to use Invasion, at least on boards where you don't get a bloated deck. I guess the key thing to balance has to be the Event.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 08, 2016, 11:46:47 pm
More stuff:
First card is basically something eHalcyon posted, just solved a little bit different mechanically. Original thread is here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=15846.0).
Second is another take at my coin token event.

(http://i.imgur.com/BWVoXPN.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/GbSGUqX.jpg)

This ramps the set up to 24 kingdom cards with Empires represented. Including several Events and 2 additional piles, we now have a full Treasure Chest once again - until Donald makes another game.

In the mean time, i got three cool game projects i'm working on/for. And two of those are even paid :D

Either way, if you want to try the cards, here's the TTS-Template. As a bonus, it includes the Landmark i made for the Treasure Chest contest:
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on August 09, 2016, 12:32:30 am
More stuff:
First card is basically something eHalcyon posted, just solved a little bit different mechanically. Original thread is here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=15846.0).
Second is another take at my coin token event.

This ramps the set up to 24 kingdom cards with Empires represented. Including several Events and 2 additional piles, we now have a full Treasure Chest once again - until Donald makes another game.

In the mean time, i got three cool game projects i'm working on/for. And two of those are even paid :D

Either way, if you want to try the cards, here's the TTS-Template. As a bonus, it includes the Landmark i made for the Treasure Chest contest:
(http://i.imgur.com/SAZHqQY.jpg)

Very nice.  Have you considered making Bargain cost 6, gain card costing up to 5, gain coin token?  As is, it feels quite similar to Summon.  It feels a little more fun in my mind at cost 6. 
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on August 09, 2016, 03:24:41 am
Yay for getting paid!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: tristan on August 09, 2016, 06:13:25 am
Very nice.  Have you considered making Bargain cost 6, gain card costing up to 5, gain coin token?  As is, it feels quite similar to Summon.  It feels a little more fun in my mind at cost 6.
I agree. Bargain is a niche Event, it is only brilliant (of course there are situations where you wanna rush-pile a 4 and/or just need a 4 instead of a 5) in Kingdoms without decent 5s.
But you are willing more often to overpay for a 5 than for a 4 as there are seldom 6$ Action cards in the Kingdom (and you don't always want Gold when you reach 6).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on August 09, 2016, 07:38:00 am
I appreciate the new cards! Of course, I have to find new art for 2 of mine now since they were originally rejects from your thread.

A few comments: I like the idea of costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) and giving (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) on bargain. I think that's how I'll test it. Extortioner seems good, but I still like the name Toll Road a bit better. I originally thought swamp seemed to have to little impact on the game, but I have changed my opinion on that. It still might be useless. Invasion should say "Add Invader to the supply", not "Use Invader". Think young witch. Invader could say "Add Invasion to the Kingdom", but there is no real precedent here.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 09, 2016, 07:48:06 am
I appreciate the new cards! Of course, I have to find new art for 2 of mine now since they were originally rejects from your thread.

A few comments: I like the idea of costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) and giving (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) on bargain. I think that's how I'll test it. Extortioner seems good, but I still like the name Toll Road a bit better. I originally thought swamp seemed to have to little impact on the game, but I have changed my opinion on that. It still might be useless. Invasion should say "Add Invader to the supply", not "Use Invader". Think young witch. Invader could say "Add Invasion to the Kingdom", but there is no real precedent here.

Well, i was thinking "Tollkeeper" first, because i feel attacks are more interesting if they are named to be people. But the only picture i found that fit that i didn't like.
Swamp isn't very unteresting, i know. It's on the template because why not.
About Invader, i don't really know... Young Witch actually adds a card, which Invasion doesn't. Probably "add" would be more consistant still, but i don't want people to think you play with 11 kingdom cards. Hum. Maybe it's enough to just write it on Invader - i could use "add there".
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on August 09, 2016, 08:19:59 am
I appreciate the new cards! Of course, I have to find new art for 2 of mine now since they were originally rejects from your thread.

A few comments: I like the idea of costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) and giving (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) on bargain. I think that's how I'll test it. Extortioner seems good, but I still like the name Toll Road a bit better. I originally thought swamp seemed to have to little impact on the game, but I have changed my opinion on that. It still might be useless. Invasion should say "Add Invader to the supply", not "Use Invader". Think young witch. Invader could say "Add Invasion to the Kingdom", but there is no real precedent here.

Well, i was thinking "Tollkeeper" first, because i feel attacks are more interesting if they are named to be people. But the only picture i found that fit that i didn't like.
Swamp isn't very unteresting, i know. It's on the template because why not.
About Invader, i don't really know... Young Witch actually adds a card, which Invasion doesn't. Probably "add" would be more consistant still, but i don't want people to think you play with 11 kingdom cards. Hum. Maybe it's enough to just write it on Invader - i could use "add there".

I have a card named Tollkeeper already!

For Invader, I would write "add Invasion to the Kingdom" since events are not Supply cards.

I'm going to talk to you about these cards in more detail soon, ideally after having played games with them.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 09, 2016, 08:20:46 am
About the Bargain suggestion: I thought about it, like it and will change the card. Some time in the future.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on August 09, 2016, 09:41:08 am
I think invasion moght even cost $9.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Gubump on August 09, 2016, 10:26:18 am
I think invasion moght even cost $9.

How? It's strictly worse than just buying a Province.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on August 09, 2016, 10:28:06 am
How is 'getting a province for free later, without it interfzrong with your deck now' strictly worse?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 09, 2016, 10:36:57 am
I think invasion moght even cost $9.

How? It's strictly worse than just buying a Province.

Honestly, i have hoped for someone to ask that ;)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on August 09, 2016, 10:47:14 am
I'd say invasion is neither strictly worse or strictly better, but since it gives more flexibility than province, it might as well cost more.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 09, 2016, 11:00:54 am
Updates and corrections:

(http://i.imgur.com/OZhmpkw.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/2Gc7nAq.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/a1NdbXc.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/TrXNwrm.jpg)

The template includes the rather experimental Spellcasters again, although i cleaned them up a bit to make them easier to play with. Also i suggest using 2 Spells a game, now.


I'd say invasion is neither strictly worse or strictly better, but since it gives more flexibility than province, it might as well cost more.

I changed it to $8 now, because there has to be something Invader does. I will change it to more if it seems necessary, but Invader is a $5 after all.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 09, 2016, 09:31:10 pm
Played games with Invader, Bargain and Extortioner today.

Extortioner is really weak. It's probably better at $3, and likely should even give a +Buy the second turn.

Invader seems like it would be too strong, but i didn't go through with testing it, so we didn't really see its power.

Bargain at $6 is nice and works. Suddenly you actually want to reach $6 even when going for an engine - the coin token is just really valuable.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on August 10, 2016, 03:51:05 am
I feel like Invader might give way too much importance to being able to end the game on your turn (so that the other player doesn't get to cash in her tokens)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 14, 2016, 04:56:36 pm
I guess i will try another version of Invader, which gets trashed when you gain a Province. Even like this, it's a Peddler that lets you hold back a Province gain until later, which should be fine.
Extortioner has been buffed to an attacking Woodcutter/Amulet cross.
Also, i changed the wording on Assemble back, changed Diplomat, and did some balancing for the Spellcasters that i didn't tell you about last time and still don't consider that important.

(http://i.imgur.com/cYn7ZO2.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/D8xQ4ST.jpg)

If anybody feels like playing a Tabletop-Simulator game with me, please PM me.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 19, 2016, 09:27:42 am
Small idea:

Credit, $3, Event
Turn your Journey Token over (it starts face up). If it's face up, gain a card costing $5.

The basic idea here is to have something you can buy in pieces. Journey Token was just the best way i could think of to implement that. Originally i thought it should gain Gold, but that seemed like it would push Big Money strategies too much. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Haddock on August 19, 2016, 09:43:08 am
Small idea:

Credit, $3, Event
Turn your Journey Token over (it starts face up). If it's face up, gain a card costing $5.

The basic idea here is to have something you can buy in pieces. Journey Token was just the best way i could think of to implement that. Originally i thought it should gain Gold, but that seemed like it would push Big Money strategies too much. Thoughts?
Seems slightly weakish perhaps?  Compare to Pilgrimage, which does a whole lot more on average for not much additional cost.
It should probably be "up to $5" for flexibility, at the very least, I'd think.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 19, 2016, 10:47:39 am
Small idea:

Credit, $3, Event
Turn your Journey Token over (it starts face up). If it's face up, gain a card costing $5.

The basic idea here is to have something you can buy in pieces. Journey Token was just the best way i could think of to implement that. Originally i thought it should gain Gold, but that seemed like it would push Big Money strategies too much. Thoughts?
Seems slightly weakish perhaps?  Compare to Pilgrimage, which does a whole lot more on average for not much additional cost.
It should probably be "up to $5" for flexibility, at the very least, I'd think.

Well, Pilgrimage requires you to have and play the cards in the first place. I mean, often you'd trade your 3/4 opening for a 2/5, right? And if you have $6 and two buys, would you never go for a $5 instead of 2/4 or 3/3? I really think you would. Either way, i am sure you are right about the "up to". No need to enforce unflexibility.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Haddock on August 19, 2016, 10:54:53 am
Small idea:

Credit, $3, Event
Turn your Journey Token over (it starts face up). If it's face up, gain a card costing $5.

The basic idea here is to have something you can buy in pieces. Journey Token was just the best way i could think of to implement that. Originally i thought it should gain Gold, but that seemed like it would push Big Money strategies too much. Thoughts?
Seems slightly weakish perhaps?  Compare to Pilgrimage, which does a whole lot more on average for not much additional cost.
It should probably be "up to $5" for flexibility, at the very least, I'd think.

Well, Pilgrimage requires you to have and play the cards in the first place. I mean, often you'd trade your 3/4 opening for a 2/5, right? And if you have $6 and two buys, would you never go for a $5 instead of 2/4 or 3/3? I really think you would. Either way, i am sure you are right about the "up to". No need to enforce unflexibility.
Hmm.  As an opening I suspect you're right, it's decent enough.  I just wonder whether it's ever going to be bought after the first, say, 3 or 4 turns.
Even something as simple as putting a Buy on it might make it feel a bit better to me.  But that's just me.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 19, 2016, 11:48:57 am
Small idea:

Credit, $3, Event
Turn your Journey Token over (it starts face up). If it's face up, gain a card costing $5.

The basic idea here is to have something you can buy in pieces. Journey Token was just the best way i could think of to implement that. Originally i thought it should gain Gold, but that seemed like it would push Big Money strategies too much. Thoughts?
Seems slightly weakish perhaps?  Compare to Pilgrimage, which does a whole lot more on average for not much additional cost.
It should probably be "up to $5" for flexibility, at the very least, I'd think.

Well, Pilgrimage requires you to have and play the cards in the first place. I mean, often you'd trade your 3/4 opening for a 2/5, right? And if you have $6 and two buys, would you never go for a $5 instead of 2/4 or 3/3? I really think you would. Either way, i am sure you are right about the "up to". No need to enforce unflexibility.
Hmm.  As an opening I suspect you're right, it's decent enough.  I just wonder whether it's ever going to be bought after the first, say, 3 or 4 turns.
Even something as simple as putting a Buy on it might make it feel a bit better to me.  But that's just me.

Your feedback is very interesting, because i actually felt it could be too strong. I'd say the major difference between this and Pilgrimage would be that Pilgrimage depends on you having built your deck before, while this actively supports building it. It's more or less the counterpart.

Quick mockup:
(http://i.imgur.com/079arHy.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Haddock on August 19, 2016, 12:10:45 pm
Small idea:

Credit, $3, Event
Turn your Journey Token over (it starts face up). If it's face up, gain a card costing $5.

The basic idea here is to have something you can buy in pieces. Journey Token was just the best way i could think of to implement that. Originally i thought it should gain Gold, but that seemed like it would push Big Money strategies too much. Thoughts?
Seems slightly weakish perhaps?  Compare to Pilgrimage, which does a whole lot more on average for not much additional cost.
It should probably be "up to $5" for flexibility, at the very least, I'd think.

Well, Pilgrimage requires you to have and play the cards in the first place. I mean, often you'd trade your 3/4 opening for a 2/5, right? And if you have $6 and two buys, would you never go for a $5 instead of 2/4 or 3/3? I really think you would. Either way, i am sure you are right about the "up to". No need to enforce unflexibility.
Hmm.  As an opening I suspect you're right, it's decent enough.  I just wonder whether it's ever going to be bought after the first, say, 3 or 4 turns.
Even something as simple as putting a Buy on it might make it feel a bit better to me.  But that's just me.

Your feedback is very interesting, because i actually felt it could be too strong. I'd say the major difference between this and Pilgrimage would be that Pilgrimage depends on you having built your deck before, while this actively supports building it. It's more or less the counterpart.

Quick mockup:
img
Well sure.  Still, the cap on Pilgrimage potential is pretty huge.  Anyhow.

That's awesome art.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on August 19, 2016, 12:36:33 pm
Small idea:

Credit, $3, Event
Turn your Journey Token over (it starts face up). If it's face up, gain a card costing $5.

The basic idea here is to have something you can buy in pieces. Journey Token was just the best way i could think of to implement that. Originally i thought it should gain Gold, but that seemed like it would push Big Money strategies too much. Thoughts?
Seems slightly weakish perhaps?  Compare to Pilgrimage, which does a whole lot more on average for not much additional cost.
It should probably be "up to $5" for flexibility, at the very least, I'd think.

Well, Pilgrimage requires you to have and play the cards in the first place. I mean, often you'd trade your 3/4 opening for a 2/5, right? And if you have $6 and two buys, would you never go for a $5 instead of 2/4 or 3/3? I really think you would. Either way, i am sure you are right about the "up to". No need to enforce unflexibility.
Hmm.  As an opening I suspect you're right, it's decent enough.  I just wonder whether it's ever going to be bought after the first, say, 3 or 4 turns.
Even something as simple as putting a Buy on it might make it feel a bit better to me.  But that's just me.

Your feedback is very interesting, because i actually felt it could be too strong. I'd say the major difference between this and Pilgrimage would be that Pilgrimage depends on you having built your deck before, while this actively supports building it. It's more or less the counterpart.

Quick mockup:
img
Well sure.  Still, the cap on Pilgrimage potential is pretty huge.  Anyhow.

That's awesome art.
Rhys Griffiths is amazing. Have you seen Co0kiel0rd's suburb! Beautiful.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 19, 2016, 02:28:59 pm
Small idea:

Credit, $3, Event
Turn your Journey Token over (it starts face up). If it's face up, gain a card costing $5.

The basic idea here is to have something you can buy in pieces. Journey Token was just the best way i could think of to implement that. Originally i thought it should gain Gold, but that seemed like it would push Big Money strategies too much. Thoughts?
Seems slightly weakish perhaps?  Compare to Pilgrimage, which does a whole lot more on average for not much additional cost.
It should probably be "up to $5" for flexibility, at the very least, I'd think.

Well, Pilgrimage requires you to have and play the cards in the first place. I mean, often you'd trade your 3/4 opening for a 2/5, right? And if you have $6 and two buys, would you never go for a $5 instead of 2/4 or 3/3? I really think you would. Either way, i am sure you are right about the "up to". No need to enforce unflexibility.
Hmm.  As an opening I suspect you're right, it's decent enough.  I just wonder whether it's ever going to be bought after the first, say, 3 or 4 turns.
Even something as simple as putting a Buy on it might make it feel a bit better to me.  But that's just me.

Your feedback is very interesting, because i actually felt it could be too strong. I'd say the major difference between this and Pilgrimage would be that Pilgrimage depends on you having built your deck before, while this actively supports building it. It's more or less the counterpart.

Quick mockup:
img
Well sure.  Still, the cap on Pilgrimage potential is pretty huge.  Anyhow.

That's awesome art.
Rhys Griffiths is amazing. Have you seen Co0kiel0rd's suburb! Beautiful.

Yes, it's really beautiful art. I'm astounded again and again of what gorgeous images you can find. By the way, i also updated the art of Invader (sorry, Nflickner) and will exchange the cards in the OP with variants that have the artist's name on them - i never bothered to do that, because the current versions in the template all have it, but i guess a little appreciation isn't too much to ask.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on August 19, 2016, 02:41:22 pm
Whyd you change the Invader art? I like the old art better.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 19, 2016, 03:07:18 pm
Whyd you change the Invader art? I like the old art better.

I don't know, i just didn't feel it with the computer graphics.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 20, 2016, 01:17:58 am
Played two games with Parting today. It's nice in the opening or when greening, but during the actual game a Silver is almost always better because it will also help you get to $5, and keep doing that. Not sure how it fares in alt-VP boards. I guess some might like it, others not so much. I'm fine with this.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 26, 2016, 05:26:38 pm
I thought about split piles and that they all have a good interaction between the upper and lower half. This has a few implications for gameplay: If you miss your chance to get enough of the first half, getting the second won't be as useful to you, and as there are only five of them, they are gone in no time.

Now, that's cool to have, but i wonder why there isn't a single split pile card that has a negative interaction between the cards, where the first half is pretty good and will be picked up, with the second half harming those that got too many of them? It also means that, the more of the first half you got, the less likely you are to pick up the remaining ones.

I didn't have any clever ideas on what the second half should do when played, so consider that one a placeholder, and probably the first isn't all that strong. Either way, here's the general idea (Scholar is the top card):

(http://i.imgur.com/4lDKKxN.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Acv1IES.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 29, 2016, 12:27:31 pm
Ugh, i know, the name isn't that good. Who wants to read about a Scientist directly after reading about a Scholar, right? Either way:

(http://i.imgur.com/lomohvx.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on August 29, 2016, 12:32:25 pm
How often is opening scientist a good move?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on August 29, 2016, 12:52:10 pm
Both the split piles seem too weak. Scientist seems good.
Edit: actually maybe scientist should give $4 instead of $3. With the debt you take it's strictly worse than mystic or a double lab,  an easy choice usually.
Double edit: Could you share your event and landmark templates?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 29, 2016, 01:11:54 pm
How often is opening scientist a good move?

I don't think it is. Most cards that cost high amounts of debt are bad at the beginning of the game. It's part of the concept, which is why i felt comfortable with a debt cost. It certainly compares favourably to Lab once you have a few good action cards in your deck, but at the start it's worse than Silver.

Edit: actually maybe scientist should give $4 instead of $3. With the debt you take it's strictly worse than mystic or a double lab,  an easy choice usually.

It's not strictly worse at all. If at least one of the three cards you draw is at least a Copper, it's strictly better than a Lab, while not costing more. <8> are also a lot easier to pay than $5 twice, too. The coin choice is actually only so you don't unwittingly get yourself in a situation where you can't pay back your debt, but i guess i could have left it out, too.

Both the split piles seem too weak.

I'm not sure why a Peddler for $2 is too weak, after all the consensus usually seems to be that it would be halfway balanced at $4. I mean, unless 5 Scholars are gone, there cannot be any Inquisitions that would be revealed, so that's cheap, save money. People buy Pearl Diver for $2, and often there won't be anything better to pick up at that price range, either way. Inquisition isn't hyper strong, but also doesn't compare terribly to Warehouse, a rather good $3. I considered having it draw and discard 3 cards, though, to make it a straight upgrade to WH. Also, don't forget it puts spokes between your opponents's wheels, which is half the fun with it. You usually don't want both Inquisition and Scholar in masses, but that's kind of the point. Also Inquisition gets stronger later in the game, which is also when it gets uncovered.

Could you share your event and landmark templates?

Do you use Gimp? I could send it to you per link, i guess. Would have to upload it somewhere, first. But sure.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: tristan on August 29, 2016, 01:43:29 pm
Scholar and Inquisition seem fine although not particular exciting.

Scientist is potentially too good for a Debt card. But the Debt you gotta take might be weak enough in the opening to make this actually a viable Double Lab.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on August 29, 2016, 01:43:44 pm
Scholar sounds way too strong. I'd double-open with it a lot. Even outside of Prizes, opening Tournament is pretty great for the Peddler effect. Maybe if the card draw were conditional as well, like it is on Tournament. Here, even if your opponent has an Inquisition, a bunch of Scholars in your hand won't hurt you.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 29, 2016, 01:56:09 pm
Thinking about it, maybe you have a point, ThetaSigma12. At the very least, you won't be able to do a deck that works without buying cards (by gaining them) in the way you would with Lab. On the other hand, i guess you could just play such a deck and spiral deeper and deeper into debt without a care... Hum.

Either way, here's the link to my Event/Landmark template (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Sa86AprkmvUDRvQmw3dmE3ek0/view?usp=sharing).

Scholar sounds way too strong. I'd double-open with it a lot. Even outside of Prizes, opening Tournament is pretty great for the Peddler effect. Maybe if the card draw were conditional as well, like it is on Tournament. Here, even if your opponent has an Inquisition, a bunch of Scholars in your hand won't hurt you.

It's interesting that you feel it is overpowered. I will try to test it today and we'll see it. It's probably weaker in games with more than 2 players, where it could technically happen that someone opens with Inquisition. But i get where you come from.

Scholar and Inquisition seem fine although not particular exciting.

Scientist is potentially too good for a Debt card. But the Debt you gotta take might be weak enough in the opening to make this actually a viable Double Lab.

Another comparison would be Stables. Unlike with Stables, it does something even without a Treasure card in hand and won't spend all of it. Although you could overdo it and carry debt into the next round.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on August 29, 2016, 02:19:46 pm
Okay, more fleshed out comments:
Scholar seems a little weak. Peddler is good at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), and this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png). That's significant, but not a huge price drop. The problem is it loses it's power too fast. At (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) all 5 copies will empty pretty quickly, and at only (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) inquisition is easily picked up. Once enough people get Inquisitions then Scholar is really bad.

More later.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on August 29, 2016, 03:59:55 pm
Okay, more fleshed out comments:
Scholar seems a little weak. Peddler is good at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), and this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png). That's significant, but not a huge price drop. The problem is it loses it's power too fast. At (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) all 5 copies will empty pretty quickly, and at only (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) inquisition is easily picked up. Once enough people get Inquisitions then Scholar is really bad.

More later.

I don't think your opponent should have to buy a card to stop another card from being overpowered. With Tournament, that card is Province, which your opponent was probably going for anyway. I guess this is more like Young Witch, in that it's power can be reduced by your opponent buying another specific card. But also keep in mind that there's only 5 Inquisitions. You can get at least a couple of them, so there's not very many out there for your opponents to maybe have in their hand at the right time.

And also what if you just buy 3 Scholars and then stop? Your opponent basically has to buy a couple Scholars and a few Inquisitions just to stop your Peddlers from working. And Peddlers aren't all that strong that you want to buy a bunch of cards to stop them; but being able to buy them as your first 2-3 buys sounds like a really fast start.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: McGarnacle on August 29, 2016, 04:14:55 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/079arHy.jpg)

This image is amazing! I would classify this as some of the best art in Dominion.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on August 29, 2016, 04:21:06 pm
What if Scholar gave a bonus to evrybody who revealed one instead of a penalty to you?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 29, 2016, 04:46:49 pm
Okay, more fleshed out comments:
Scholar seems a little weak. Peddler is good at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), and this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png). That's significant, but not a huge price drop. The problem is it loses it's power too fast. At (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) all 5 copies will empty pretty quickly, and at only (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) inquisition is easily picked up. Once enough people get Inquisitions then Scholar is really bad.

More later.

I don't think your opponent should have to buy a card to stop another card from being overpowered. With Tournament, that card is Province, which your opponent was probably going for anyway. I guess this is more like Young Witch, in that it's power can be reduced by your opponent buying another specific card. But also keep in mind that there's only 5 Inquisitions. You can get at least a couple of them, so there's not very many out there for your opponents to maybe have in their hand at the right time.

And also what if you just buy 3 Scholars and then stop? Your opponent basically has to buy a couple Scholars and a few Inquisitions just to stop your Peddlers from working. And Peddlers aren't all that strong that you want to buy a bunch of cards to stop them; but being able to buy them as your first 2-3 buys sounds like a really fast start.

The fact that there are only 5 Inquisitions is indeed something that bothers me. However, if your opponent only buys 3 Scholars, well, then he only has 3 Scholars. That leaves two for you. In a way, skipping the card for other players to pick up auto-balances it. You go full Scholar, my Inquisition will hit you. You don't,  well, then you get less out of them. I made Inquisition chep to assure stopping Scholars has little opportunity cost, but the concept is still rough around the edges, i will admit. Maybe costing Scholar at $3 already solves the problem, or maybe i can find better ways to have Inquisition stop Scholar. It could be a Duration card and Scholar could check for Inquisitions in play - that would allow any Inquisition you manage to play to harm Scholar, not only those in your turn's starting hand. There might also be more room for interesting effects if Inquisition is a duration card. II'll think about ways to improve this concept.

About the problem of having to buy a card to stop other players - i feel most split piles have that problem, because the cards push each other and you can't let, e.g. Catapult stay uncontested. If you do, you end up with a kingdom where one of the piles is suddenly much more useful to your opponent than you. If you are not fast enough to get your share of the first half, you might as well skip the pile entirely - which makes 5 cards you can't contest without paying much more opportunity cost than your opponent. Unlike Rocks, Inquisition doesn't suck if you have no Scholar - in fact, it's better the fewer you have. So yes, using Inquisition to stop Scholar is kind of the concept, but i agree it's probably a bit unbalanced as is.

By the way, we played with Scientist today, and as its play effect is pretty much better than Stables, it seemed very strong. Maybe i should make the token optional and skip the coin part, i don't know.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 29, 2016, 04:51:12 pm
What if Scholar gave a bonus to evrybody who revealed one instead of a penalty to you?

I don't know. That would work, but i think most people are more comfortable with a card that is sometimes useless than with a card that sometimes helps their opponents. I do not lean in that direction.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: McGarnacle on August 29, 2016, 05:23:14 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/079arHy.jpg)

This image is amazing! I would classify this as some of the best art in Dominion.

Asper, do you have a link for this image? Could I use it for my own fan cards?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on August 29, 2016, 05:23:57 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/lomohvx.jpg)

[+3 Cards; +1 Action] was one of the first Debt cards, and well, it was crazy at {10}. I tentatively doubt the {1} on-play is a strong enough penalty.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 29, 2016, 05:43:17 pm
This image is amazing! I would classify this as some of the best art in Dominion.

Asper, do you have a link for this image? Could I use it for my own fan cards?

The artist is Rhys Griffiths. Here's his deviantart page for the image (http://rhysgriffiths.deviantart.com/art/Conquistadors-409198167). I have no right to say who may use this image and am myself basically just hoping that putting it on a fan card where the fandom is obvious would be okay for the artist.

[+3 Cards; +1 Action] was one of the first Debt cards, and well, it was crazy at {10}. I tentatively doubt the {1} on-play is a strong enough penalty.
Interesting. Although i would have assumed the {1} makes quite a bit of a difference at the start of the game, where that additional card you draw is quite likely to be Copper, making it a Lab (with a tiny bit more cycling), or even Estate, making it a Lab that costs you.
My main point of comparison was Stables. Stables is strong. Also, Scientist never fails and doesn't have to spend a Treasure whole (like Stables would "spend" you complete Silver by discarding it), so it's usually stronger than it (edge case: Potion). Then again, it does cost {8}, not $5. I do lean towards removing the money portion, however, because it adds flexibility where the card is strong enough already. Scientists really don't need to be Silvers once you drew your deck.
Either way, i can confirm it is rather strong, and probably you are right in your estimation. maybe i can implement the concept better - the general idea was just debt-for-benefit, and it doesn't have to be the mighty draw it is right now.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: McGarnacle on August 29, 2016, 05:58:45 pm
Thanks, Asper!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: tristan on August 30, 2016, 06:11:15 am
I think that the coin cost estimate (of course this is anything but precise and jsut a mental tool as we are so used to coin costs) of 8D cards is 6$. So at the first glance it seems to be OK as it is not much stronger but more expensive than Stables during the early game. But unlike Stables which sucks in games with decent trashing Scientist is good in nearly all Kingdoms (Lab is only bad in the presence of draw to X cards).
I'd test it at 8D and 9D.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 30, 2016, 03:03:51 pm
So, how would Scientist looks as an inferior Lab instead of a superior one?

(http://i.imgur.com/LfmfH1e.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on August 30, 2016, 03:06:42 pm
So, how would Scientist looks as an inferior Lab instead of a superior one?

(http://i.imgur.com/LfmfH1e.jpg)

My instinct says it would be on the weak side, but it might be just fine. It's kind of like a reverse Oasis... you increase your handsize at the cost of a coin; instead of decreasing your handsize to get a coin.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on August 30, 2016, 03:20:25 pm
So, how would Scientist looks as an inferior Lab instead of a superior one?

(http://i.imgur.com/LfmfH1e.jpg)

Could be interesting. If it seems weak at $3, it might be OK at $2.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 30, 2016, 05:52:56 pm
As you both suspect it's weak, i could try it as a cantrip that allows you to take {1} for +1 Card, so you'll never be sorry you played it at all. Sadly, that would also create an additional decision to make.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on August 30, 2016, 05:57:59 pm
As you both suspect it's weak, i could try it as a cantrip that allows you to take {1} for +1 Card, so you'll never be sorry you played it at all. Sadly, that would also create an additional decision to make.

Nah, I think this version (at either $3 or $2) is way better than giving you the choice.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 30, 2016, 07:01:13 pm
As you both suspect it's weak, i could try it as a cantrip that allows you to take {1} for +1 Card, so you'll never be sorry you played it at all. Sadly, that would also create an additional decision to make.

Nah, I think this version (at either $3 or $2) is way better than giving you the choice.

The more i think about it, the more i feel $2 should be right. It's not better than a bare cantrip at the start and can actually hurt you in a junked deck, while it's highest possible outcome is still worse than Lab.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 30, 2016, 09:24:07 pm
Maybe tie Debt to the +1 Action?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 30, 2016, 10:22:33 pm
Maybe tie Debt to the +1 Action?

That's definitely better than tying it to the extra card... Hm. Interesting.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 31, 2016, 09:22:17 pm
(http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160901/7npch25p.jpg)

I have no idea how strong this is.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Deadlock39 on August 31, 2016, 09:36:35 pm
kind of... reverse-Capital. Maybe.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 31, 2016, 09:56:06 pm
kind of... reverse-Capital. Maybe.

I named it appropriately ;)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Roadrunner7671 on August 31, 2016, 09:56:45 pm
I like your cards Asper
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 31, 2016, 09:58:34 pm
I like your cards Asper

I like that you like my cards, Roadrunner.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Roadrunner7671 on August 31, 2016, 10:04:39 pm
I like your cards Asper

I like that you like my cards, Roadrunner.
I'm glad you didn't leave the forums like you said you would
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on August 31, 2016, 10:10:25 pm
I like your cards Asper

I like that you like my cards, Roadrunner.
I'm glad you didn't leave the forums like you said you would

I'm not sure i'm glad. Currently it's 04:00 in the morning and i have two chapters of my storytelling contract yet to write. Instead i'm posting an event.

(http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160901/trk2tic7.jpg)

About the Event: This is another one from the "this was just too obvious not to try" fraction. Probably LastFootnote already experienced something similar and it was no fun in playtesting. If not, hooray, finally you can have a game where junkers and trashers are actually skippable. On the other hand, maybe it helps big money, who knows. We wouldn't like that, would we?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on August 31, 2016, 10:41:43 pm
I like your cards Asper

I like that you like my cards, Roadrunner.
I'm glad you didn't leave the forums like you said you would
I'm so glad you didn't leave.  I think your cards are f#$&ing real.  I think you have a great knack at coming up with simple, balanced cards that nevertheless unlock new possibilities that have never been seen before.  Digging your two latest ones alot
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on August 31, 2016, 10:50:44 pm
Asper, you are the best at finding art. And also you continue to make cool cards.

I don't think there was anything like Blessing tested. Like Borrow, it's almost more of a rule change than an Event. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Anyway it's cool that it's simple. It's not so exciting, but they can't all be the best Event ever.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 01, 2016, 12:11:49 am
I like your cards Asper

I like that you like my cards, Roadrunner.
I'm glad you didn't leave the forums like you said you would
I'm so glad you didn't leave.  I think your cards are f#$&ing real.  I think you have a great knack at coming up with simple, balanced cards that nevertheless unlock new possibilities that have never been seen before.  Digging your two latest ones alot

This kind of feedback makes me really happy. It's 06:00 in the morning now and i'm not even tired yet. But i feel good. Thank you for that :)


Asper, you are the best at finding art. And also you continue to make cool cards.

I don't think there was anything like Blessing tested. Like Borrow, it's almost more of a rule change than an Event. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Anyway it's cool that it's simple. It's not so exciting, but they can't all be the best Event ever.

Thank you :)
I even tried to make the font size bigger for the latest ones. Also, peace with Empires, hooray. Looking back, i was really insufferable when that expansion was revealed. I intend to be less insufferable from now on.

About Blessing, having it be a rule change was what i had in mind. I considered costing it at $1 once, or not giving it +1 Buy, but didn't do those specifically because it went against that premise.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Deadlock39 on September 01, 2016, 12:16:02 am
Blessing seems cool.  My gut reaction is that it would be more interesting at $1 since you have a trade off to consider.  It is still pretty automatic, but if there isn't a $2 worth gaining, you probably don't do this on your opening 3C2E turn.

I like Investor too. It isn't exciting, and is pretty similar in usage to Capital, but it is something that would definitely be useful on the right board, but doesn't seem like an automatic buy. Then again, maybe it is.  It shares some space with Tactician too I just realized.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 01, 2016, 12:28:11 am
Blessing seems cool.  My gut reaction is that it would be more interesting at $1 since you have a trade off to consider.  It is still pretty automatic, but if there isn't a $2 worth gaining, you probably don't do this on your opening 3C2E turn.

I like Investor too. It isn't exciting, and is pretty similar in usage to Capital, but it is something that would definitely be useful on the right board, but doesn't seem like an automatic buy. Then again, maybe it is.  It shares some space with Tactician too I just realized.

I did not think much about investor. Actually the idea to give both tokens at once started as something i would give to other players as a drawback, but that seemed too complicated. The Tactician comparison is actually pretty good, i didn't consider that. About Capital, maybe it is a bit more similar than i thought. The order is different, but you will alternate spending money and paying off debt. Probably it's also much too strong for $4.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: tristan on September 01, 2016, 12:39:38 am
Blessing seems cool.  My gut reaction is that it would be more interesting at $1 since you have a trade off to consider.  It is still pretty automatic, but if there isn't a $2 worth gaining, you probably don't do this on your opening 3C2E turn.
The reason that this Event would be more interesting at a cost of 1 or 2 is simply Bonfire. Bonfire is "terminal" and costs 3 and I cannot imagine a situation in which you would ever go for Bonfire in the presence of Blessing. So Blessing is overpowered and should cost 1 or 2.
The usual caveat is of course that if you want to emulate a rule change with a zero cost Event these balance and power considerations are moot.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Deadlock39 on September 01, 2016, 01:00:27 am
Blessing seems cool.  My gut reaction is that it would be more interesting at $1 since you have a trade off to consider.  It is still pretty automatic, but if there isn't a $2 worth gaining, you probably don't do this on your opening 3C2E turn.

I like Investor too. It isn't exciting, and is pretty similar in usage to Capital, but it is something that would definitely be useful on the right board, but doesn't seem like an automatic buy. Then again, maybe it is.  It shares some space with Tactician too I just realized.

I did not think much about investor. Actually the idea to give both tokens at once started as something i would give to other players as a drawback, but that seemed too complicated. The Tactician comparison is actually pretty good, i didn't consider that. About Capital, maybe it is a bit more similar than i thought. The order is different, but you will alternate spending money and paying off debt. Probably it's also much too strong for $4.

One nice thing is that if it is too strong, it is probably easy to nerf by reducing the number of tokens it gives out.  If it is still too strong, you could even give like 3 debt/2 coin tokens.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Deadlock39 on September 01, 2016, 01:02:13 am
Blessing seems cool.  My gut reaction is that it would be more interesting at $1 since you have a trade off to consider.  It is still pretty automatic, but if there isn't a $2 worth gaining, you probably don't do this on your opening 3C2E turn.
The reason that this Event would be more interesting at a cost of 1 or 2 is simply Bonfire. Bonfire is "terminal" and costs 3 and I cannot imagine a situation in which you would ever go for Bonfire in the presence of Blessing. So Blessing is overpowered and should cost 1 or 2.
The usual caveat is of course that if you want to emulate a rule change with a zero cost Event these balance and power considerations are moot.

I mean Blessing is only once per turn, so any situation where Bonfire is good move, you would probably still use it to trash even faster.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on September 01, 2016, 02:23:24 am
Ugh, i know, the name isn't that good. Who wants to read about a Scientist directly after reading about a Scholar, right? Either way:

(http://i.imgur.com/lomohvx.jpg)

What about making it give 1 Debt per scientist in play? And just keep it as a straight double lab. Maybe that would be enough to balance it out. I like cards with strong effects.

(http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160901/trk2tic7.jpg)

About the Event: This is another one from the "this was just too obvious not to try" fraction. Probably LastFootnote already experienced something similar and it was no fun in playtesting. If not, hooray, finally you can have a game where junkers and trashers are actually skippable. On the other hand, maybe it helps big money, who knows. We wouldn't like that, would we?

I kinda wish there were some cost associated to this. Borrow has one, for example, and so does Alms, etc. It doesn't have to be a coin cost. Maybe something like adding a "discard a card from your hand" before the trashing.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: tristan on September 01, 2016, 03:22:48 am
Maybe something like adding a "discard a card from your hand" before the trashing.
It would have to be conditional though "Discard a card from your hand. If you did, trash a card from your hand.". Otherwise you could e.g. play all Treasures but 1 Copper and then trash the Copper from your hand without having to "pay" the discard cost.
I like the idea. Early on it could be cheaper than a coin cost of 1 as you'd still have junk to discard but as you quickly thin your deck with Blessing you will have to discard something better than Copper during the later part of the game which is not a big issue as trashing becomes weaker anyway.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 01, 2016, 03:29:14 am
Ugh, i know, the name isn't that good. Who wants to read about a Scientist directly after reading about a Scholar, right? Either way:


What about making it give 1 Debt per scientist in play? And just keep it as a straight double lab. Maybe that would be enough to balance it out. I like cards with strong effects.

I will certainly drop the money part, but somehow i am more attracted to the "small Lab" variant right now, because it might be easier to balance (and putting debt on both the cost and the effect seems a bit meh to me).

About the Event: This is another one from the "this was just too obvious not to try" fraction. Probably LastFootnote already experienced something similar and it was no fun in playtesting. If not, hooray, finally you can have a game where junkers and trashers are actually skippable. On the other hand, maybe it helps big money, who knows. We wouldn't like that, would we?

I kinda wish there were some cost associated to this. Borrow has one, for example, and so does Alms, etc. It doesn't have to be a coin cost. Maybe something like adding a "discard a card from your hand" before the trashing.

Well, i always considered Alms' effect to be a rule change along the lines of "You'll never have less than $4 this game" - not an Event tht said "get a free $4 under certain conditions". Borrow has a cost, that's true - i guess "you always have $1 more" didn't seem fun. Maybe it would have been, who knows. Delve is another one which costs absolutely nothing, and is still fine. The thing with Blessing is, it's not supposed to be an interesting decision whether you buy Blessing or not. The interesting decision is supposed to be what cards you go for on a Blessing board.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 01, 2016, 10:51:33 am
Maybe something like adding a "discard a card from your hand" before the trashing.
It would have to be conditional though "Discard a card from your hand. If you did, trash a card from your hand.". Otherwise you could e.g. play all Treasures but 1 Copper and then trash the Copper from your hand without having to "pay" the discard cost.
I like the idea. Early on it could be cheaper than a coin cost of 1 as you'd still have junk to discard but as you quickly thin your deck with Blessing you will have to discard something better than Copper during the later part of the game which is not a big issue as trashing becomes weaker anyway.

Well, the only way how you could fail to discard a card when instructed to would be if your hand is empty, and then you couldn't trash a card either way (provided discard happens before trash). I'll try Blessing as is first. If i find it affects the game in an unfun way, i might change or drop it. Right now i feel that "every turn, i can trash a card from my hand" is a nice and easy thing to remember, but which still has strong implications on the board.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Limetime on September 01, 2016, 05:05:39 pm
Blessing seems cool.  My gut reaction is that it would be more interesting at $1 since you have a trade off to consider.  It is still pretty automatic, but if there isn't a $2 worth gaining, you probably don't do this on your opening 3C2E turn.
The reason that this Event would be more interesting at a cost of 1 or 2 is simply Bonfire. Bonfire is "terminal" and costs 3 and I cannot imagine a situation in which you would ever go for Bonfire in the presence of Blessing. So Blessing is overpowered and should cost 1 or 2.
The usual caveat is of course that if you want to emulate a rule change with a zero cost Event these balance and power considerations are moot.
Blessing isn't to overpowered. It takes at least ten turns to trash all your starting cards.
I would consider opening blessing, bonfire /silver variant on a three/four.
Another cool thing you could do is take off both the +buy and the once per turn part.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 01, 2016, 05:11:39 pm
To be honest, I always thought you would make Town/Road into a split pile once empires came out. Tribunal/Scholar does seem cool though.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 01, 2016, 05:23:38 pm
To be honest, I always thought you would make Town/Road into a split pile once empires came out. Tribunal/Scholar does seem cool though.

Huh, it's not Tribunal. I think i once had a card called Tribunal that used that image.

I kind of like that you can go for Town just to get a Village, and that get Road for free. Road is really not such a power card. It does, however, go totally bananas with a +1 Action token - s that one can only be put on supply piles, i prefer the current version. Of course Champion does the same, but i am willing to accept that as it is only a slight increase of ludicrousness from town-less Champion. I rarely play with Champion, to be honest, because the Page line also contains Warrior, which i don't want to play with.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 01, 2016, 05:59:29 pm
To be honest, I always thought you would make Town/Road into a split pile once empires came out. Tribunal/Scholar does seem cool though.

Huh, it's not Tribunal. I think i once had a card called Tribunal that used that image.

I kind of like that you can go for Town just to get a Village, and that get Road for free. Road is really not such a power card. It does, however, go totally bananas with a +1 Action token - s that one can only be put on supply piles, i prefer the current version. Of course Champion does the same, but i am willing to accept that as it is only a slight increase of ludicrousness from town-less Champion. I rarely play with Champion, to be honest, because the Page line also contains Warrior, which i don't want to play with.
Oh yeah, it's Inquisition. I played a game or 2 with Tribunal though, so now that name is stuck.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: tristan on September 02, 2016, 12:50:35 am
Blessing seems cool.  My gut reaction is that it would be more interesting at $1 since you have a trade off to consider.  It is still pretty automatic, but if there isn't a $2 worth gaining, you probably don't do this on your opening 3C2E turn.
The reason that this Event would be more interesting at a cost of 1 or 2 is simply Bonfire. Bonfire is "terminal" and costs 3 and I cannot imagine a situation in which you would ever go for Bonfire in the presence of Blessing. So Blessing is overpowered and should cost 1 or 2.
The usual caveat is of course that if you want to emulate a rule change with a zero cost Event these balance and power considerations are moot.
Blessing isn't to overpowered. It takes at least ten turns to trash all your starting cards.
Ten turns to start all your starting hands is incredibly quick. Only multi-trashers like Chapel or Remak can beat that but with cantrip trashers like Junk Dealer you usually need longer

It would be overpowered relative to Bonfire at a cost of 0 instead of 1 or 2 if it were intended to be an ordinary Event.
But as it is meant to be an Event that simulated a rule change power and balance considerations are moot.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 02, 2016, 02:35:06 am
Blessing seems cool.  My gut reaction is that it would be more interesting at $1 since you have a trade off to consider.  It is still pretty automatic, but if there isn't a $2 worth gaining, you probably don't do this on your opening 3C2E turn.
The reason that this Event would be more interesting at a cost of 1 or 2 is simply Bonfire. Bonfire is "terminal" and costs 3 and I cannot imagine a situation in which you would ever go for Bonfire in the presence of Blessing. So Blessing is overpowered and should cost 1 or 2.
The usual caveat is of course that if you want to emulate a rule change with a zero cost Event these balance and power considerations are moot.
Blessing isn't to overpowered. It takes at least ten turns to trash all your starting cards.
Ten turns to start all your starting hands is incredibly quick. Only multi-trashers like Chapel or Remak can beat that but with cantrip trashers like Junk Dealer you usually need longer

It would be overpowered relative to Bonfire at a cost of 0 instead of 1 or 2 if it were intended to be an ordinary Event.
But as it is meant to be an Event that simulated a rule change power and balance considerations are moot.

It's not even Bonfire i would care about, to be honest. You can get Bonfire in addition to Blessing, and trashing 3 cards instead of 1 is a pretty huge boost. Plan is more of a loser here.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 02, 2016, 04:16:25 pm
Another small remark about the cost of Blessing: If you have a 5 Coppers in hand, you can't both trash a Copper and buy a $5. So if the only junk you have in hand is Copper, Blessing at least has you choose whether you play or trash that. Having -$1 for 7 turns isn't the world, but it's not free.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on September 02, 2016, 04:23:40 pm
Another small remark about the cost of Blessing: If you have a 5 Coppers in hand, you can't both trash a Copper and buy a $5. So if the only junk you have in hand is Copper, Blessing at least has you choose whether you play or trash that. Having -$1 for 7 turns isn't the world, but it's not free.

I don't think Blessing makes sense as an event. It feels much more like a Landmark, except that Landmarks by convention always deal with VP. But it's more of just a rule change that exists for a given game, like Shelters or Colonies, than an event you should have to buy. ("During this game, each player may trash 1 card in their hand during each of their buy phases").

I guess the exception is Debt. But I don't know if it's a good thing that this becomes unavailable if you have Debt.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 02, 2016, 05:27:59 pm
Another small remark about the cost of Blessing: If you have a 5 Coppers in hand, you can't both trash a Copper and buy a $5. So if the only junk you have in hand is Copper, Blessing at least has you choose whether you play or trash that. Having -$1 for 7 turns isn't the world, but it's not free.

I don't think Blessing makes sense as an event. It feels much more like a Landmark, except that Landmarks by convention always deal with VP. But it's more of just a rule change that exists for a given game, like Shelters or Colonies, than an event you should have to buy. ("During this game, each player may trash 1 card in their hand during each of their buy phases").

I guess the exception is Debt. But I don't know if it's a good thing that this becomes unavailable if you have Debt.

Well, Alms and Advance are unavailable when you have Debt, too. Even Borrow is. Man, i have debt and can't borrow money, what's up with that? And Donald X himself has described Alms like this on the Wiki:
Quote
As you can see instead it is a more sane thing that just means, you're never doing worse than a $4.
To me this means, Alms is a rules change. Events can be rule changes. Some of my favourite Events are.

Now you can argue Alms doesn't give a buy, so it's basically skipping your card buy for an Event buy - it's not additional. And right, obviously at some point you're going to play with someone who buys a Silver and then remembers and says "Oh, and oops, i trash this card with Blessing". And then you'll have to decide whether you want to argue with him that he couldn't have done that, because he would have had to buy Blessing first to have that additional buy, etc.. Let's just say i don't take things like this serious enough to worry about them. If i did, i would have to make the rule change in non-Event form and probably invent a new type of card-shaped-thing. Instead i just assume that people either play for fun and accept Blessing to be basically a rule change, or that they will take the game serious and be fine with an Event that has an effect that approaches a rule change as long as the players don't forget to buy it first. Either way, neither is worth breaking it for me.

In the end, maybe it's really just that i don't share your opinion that "rule changes" wouldn't belong on events - as i mentioned, i think several official events are basically just that.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on September 02, 2016, 05:43:18 pm
All that said and done, like save, I think it gets even more interesting/difficult if it costs $1. Or, well <1>. Or: 'Trash a card. Gain <1> during clean up.' Or something.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 02, 2016, 06:50:28 pm
All that said and done, like save, I think it gets even more interesting/difficult if it costs $1. Or, well <1>. Or: 'Trash a card. Gain <1> during clean up.' Or something.

I guess the problem here lies with the fact that i don't want it to be difficult. I want it to be free. I assume Save has to cost something for fun reasons. Maybe getting $7 and being able to buy Gold and topdeck Copper supports Big Money to an unfun extend, i don't know. Either way, i will of course consider alternatives if the Event should be boring (most likely i'll throw it away). However, as it has rather strong implications on the board and which decisions you make, either way, i don't think it adds anything when buying the Event itself is a conscious decision. In fact, the more you have to decide whether to get the Event, the less it's a rule change, and that implies it matters less for the board in general, which takes away part of the first kind of decision (which general strategy you go for). Also, if it costs something, it's only a small step to Blessing being just Bonfire II.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 02, 2016, 07:03:18 pm
Let's consider Blessing at $1. How much does it cost me to trash a Copper with Blessing? Yes, $1, but don't forget that i didn't play the Copper. So, $2. But trashing Coppers with an overhead of $1, that's exactly what Bonfire does. Sure, there i can't trash Estates, and here i have to pay the overhead for every single Copper, not sets of two. But still, it's much too similar for me. Also i don't like the implication for the opening. Trash 2 Estates, have a $3 and a $2 turn? Yuk. Trash one Estate, have a $5 and a $1 turn? Nice. I prefer a variant that pushes the 3/4 opening instead, as that's quite often the worse one, either way.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Limetime on September 02, 2016, 11:08:15 pm
Another cool thing you could do is take off both the +buy and the once per turn part.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 03, 2016, 12:19:57 am
I'm sorry i have to say this, but no. I don't want the event to be witty or requiring clever play. I don't want you to lose an additional $1, or have to decide between buying it or another card. I want it to be straightforward, in your face, no shennanigans, "you can trash a card per turn for free". And it will stay like this until i play it. And if i find that's no fun, well, i guess it wasn't a good idea.

We have trashers that cost something. Every trasher costs something. I want free trashing. We don't have free trashing yet. And trashing dominates. Junking dominates. Can you ever skip Witch? No, you can't. Can you ever skip Chapel? No, you can't. (I know this isn't actually true). Donald X himself has stated once that he wasn't aware how extremely strong cursing and trashing are, and that he might have thought about ways to "remedy" that if he had noticed in time. Well, we all know that Dominion is the way it is, and trashing and cursing just are that important.

The event is the attempt to open up another world of Dominion. Not to replace the old one, heavens no. Blessing won't be in many games. But when it's there, i want Dominion to be a game where you can a bit more often consider skipping Witch. A world where you can consider skipping Chapel. And i don't want this world to be available to only those that produce excess money, or those with excess cards, or those with excess buys. I want it for everyone.

If somebody plays a game with Blessing and says, "man, that's genuinely unfun", i'm all ears. But if the worst you can say is "Well, it played really different", then cool, because that's what it's about. Nobody minds Chapel being just "trash up to 4 cards". It's not "discard X, trash Y". Chapel isn't interesting. The games Chapel creates are.

I have made it "once per turn" to make sure neither trashing nor junking become really useless. You can still trash faster with Junk Dealer. You can still keep somebody busy using his Blessings for your Curses. But it's a different game now, and you don't have to "pull something off" to have that. That's how i want it. No "pulling it off".

I know i'm a lame guy who orders his pizza with just salami, even if he could have had additional ham for free. When i want a chocolate muffin and somebody puts sprinkles on it, i say "I would have mentioned if i had wanted sprinkles". If i want an event that trashes a card per turn for free, then that's what i want. I will gladly offer everybody the template to do their own version if they prefer it different. But this is my version. Let me have it without sprinkles.

Edit: Also, i really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings with this. But please try it out as is, or give me the time to do that, before changing it to be more clever. Please.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 03, 2016, 12:29:02 am
Also, i realize i'm ungrateful posting things like above. I know you all are giving me feedback to help me improve my cards, not to spite me or pressure me into changing. And nobody's paying you to do that, either. So thank you, sincerely.

Edited because staying awake until 10 in the morning doesn't improve your writing skills...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: tristan on September 03, 2016, 01:04:56 am
Another small remark about the cost of Blessing: If you have a 5 Coppers in hand, you can't both trash a Copper and buy a $5. So if the only junk you have in hand is Copper, Blessing at least has you choose whether you play or trash that. Having -$1 for 7 turns isn't the world, but it's not free.

I don't think Blessing makes sense as an event.
Delve is also an Event that simulates a rule change and as you pointed out, Landmarks are not global permaevents but global permaevents that relate to VPs so you cannot implement a rule change via Landmarks.


Let's consider Blessing at $1. How much does it cost me to trash a Copper with Blessing? Yes, $1, but don't forget that i didn't play the Copper. So, $2. But trashing Coppers with an overhead of $1, that's exactly what Bonfire does. Sure, there i can't trash Estates, and here i have to pay the overhead for every single Copper, not sets of two. But still, it's much too similar for me. Also i don't like the implication for the opening. Trash 2 Estates, have a $3 and a $2 turn? Yuk. Trash one Estate, have a $5 and a $1 turn? Nice. I prefer a variant that pushes the 3/4 opening instead, as that's quite often the worse one, either way.
Great analysis. I totally agree with you now that you should test this Event at a cost of zero.


I'm sorry i have to say this, but no. I don't want the event to be witty or requiring clever play. I don't want you to lose an additional $1, or have to decide between buying it or another card. I want it to be straightforward, in your face, no shennanigans, "you can trash a card per turn for free". And it will stay like this until i play it. And if i find that's no fun, well, i guess it wasn't a good idea.
I think this is partly influenced by game design philosophy. Do you want your game to be complex due to rule and play complexity (e.g. wargames or basically anything from 'What's your Game') or complex in spite of simple rules (Knizia, Kramer, abstracts like Chess)?
In general I am agnostic about this but in the case of DOminion I lean more towards complex cards while being very well aware that more often than not simpler cards achieve much more in terms of making the game more complex.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 03, 2016, 08:01:12 am
I agree with all of this, and like blessing how it is. Thanks Asper!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 03, 2016, 08:18:34 am
I agree with all of this, and like blessing how it is. Thanks Asper!

I thank you. I mean, i really appreciate feedback. Several of my cards started in a vastly different form before the forum helped me change them to how they are now. It's just that this time it felt a bit like "Asper can't really want that one thing, maybe my idea will help him make it that other thing", when that one thing was indeed what i wanted. Again, i hope nobody feels their feedback isn't appreciated.

That said, i really hope to be able and test Blessing these days.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on September 03, 2016, 09:21:02 am
Does blessing feel different enough from a double amulet shuffle luck opening?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 03, 2016, 10:44:45 am
Does blessing feel different enough from a double amulet shuffle luck opening?
Yes.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 03, 2016, 10:50:47 am
On a side note, will the OP be updated soon?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on September 03, 2016, 12:23:31 pm
I don't find your rebuttles to be rude or dismissive at all! I think you did a great job of making your case.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Roadrunner7671 on September 03, 2016, 12:31:54 pm
When i want a chocolate muffin and somebody puts sprinkles on it, i say "I would have mentioned if i had wanted sprinkles".
Okay, this is crazy. Where do you go to get your muffins? Muffins have to be different than cupcakes, or else we can't eat them for breakfast. What type of Starbuck's worker would have the audacity to put sprinkles on your muffin? Especially if it was a breakfast muffin! You're getting a chocolate muffin at like eight in the morning and they think 'hmmm, it's not too early for little pieces of brightly colored sugar and plastic!' Then they spray your muffin with preservative filled sugar bombs and say 'have a nice day!' How can you have a nice day knowing that every bite you take gives you another cavity? Knowing that even though you're ingesting pure sugar, it still doesn't taste like anything? I feel bad for Asper.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on September 03, 2016, 12:32:56 pm
Does blessing feel different enough from a double amulet shuffle luck opening?
Yes.

Than I guess it has it's place. That was my main worry.

Although we could also have an event then that, for example, said:
 'Prostitution - $0
Once per turn: +$1.'
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 03, 2016, 06:48:35 pm
Does blessing feel different enough from a double amulet shuffle luck opening?
Yes.

Than I guess it has it's place. That was my main worry.

Although we could also have an event then that, for example, said:
 'Prostitution - $0
Once per turn: +$1.'

I already mentioned such an event:
Borrow has a cost, that's true - i guess "you always have $1 more" didn't seem fun. Maybe it would have been, who knows.

I guess the difference here lies with how interesting it makes the game. Chapel's extremely strong trashing is overpowered, but it leads to fun games, nonetheless, because by itself you don't win using Chapel. Rebuild is also extremely strong, but it's no fun (for a lot of people, including me), because it does win you the game. Let's consider these two:

SuperBlessing, $0, Event
+1 Buy
Once per turn.
Trash any number of cards from your hand.

SuperBorrow, $0, Event
+1 Buy
Once per turn.
+$8

I guess it's clear that the first one warps the game, but doesn't necessarily break it (even though as i mentioned it makes Cursers and junkers mostly moot, which was more than i wanted). The second one makes the game dull and end after 4 turns.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 03, 2016, 06:53:56 pm
Although we could also have an event then that, for example, said:
 'Prostitution - $0
Once per turn: +$1.
Turn your journey token over. If it's face-up, gain an STD.'
FTFY.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Fragasnap on September 04, 2016, 09:22:05 am
Did you ever play with my Slave Trade (http://i.imgur.com/f7PD4mt.jpg) card? Its In-games-using-this gives players the ability to trash Coppers "for free," but is given a condition so players will need to take some time to make use of it.
Blessing's ability creates an interesting effect on the game, but I think it will prove more compelling with a condition (though not necessarily a cost), since throwing out 2 of your 3 starting Estates by turn 3 is going to be such a massive game accelerator.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 04, 2016, 11:30:17 am
I played a game with ThetaSigma yesterday, with this kingdom:

Peddler
Meadow
Altar
Treasury
Cutpurse
Investor (3 of each token)
Dungeon
Herbalist
Scientist ($2 version)
Decree

Lost Arts
Blessing

I gave an embarressing performance, as i forgot Dungeon gives an action (playing Cutpurse once instead, once, and putting the Action token on it), and had 12 Provinces in the supply until 6 were gained and i noticed my error. Oops, the game is actually almost over. It's not surprising that, during my very first turn, i also tried to buy Silver and then trash a card. Sorry again for this, Theta. I hope i can be a less terrible opponent next time. Maybe sleeping 6+ hours will help.

After the first mistake Blessing seemed perfectly fine. I will leave it as is. If somebody wants sprinkles, i can give you the template. Only Theta used Investor and liked it. It worked unexpectedly well. Scientist was used by us both, though i picked it up later. It seemed also really fine. All in all, this game convinced me to leave Blessing as is if anything.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 04, 2016, 11:36:22 am
I think investor might be good at 2 coin tokens.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 04, 2016, 12:13:34 pm
I think investor might be good at 2 coin tokens.

Well, i'm sure 4 were too much, but i'm not sure whether 2 are enough. Butcher gives 2 and costs $5, but it also doesn't slow you down while getting them and offers trash-for-benefit.

Did you ever play with my Slave Trade (http://i.imgur.com/f7PD4mt.jpg) card? Its In-games-using-this gives players the ability to trash Coppers "for free," but is given a condition so players will need to take some time to make use of it.
Blessing's ability creates an interesting effect on the game, but I think it will prove more compelling with a condition (though not necessarily a cost), since throwing out 2 of your 3 starting Estates by turn 3 is going to be such a massive game accelerator.

I think i did, but because it only trashes Copper, it's more similar to Bonfire.



I really have an understanding problem here, i think. Why is unconditionally accelerating everyone's game a thing that must be avoided? Is it balancing? But everybody gets it, always. Is it interestingness? But why is another thing that costs something and trashes more interesting than "let's play this variant where you can do X"? I really do not understand. Maybe somebody feels like explaining their motivation. I might understand your point better that way. Because right now i feel it's more about being scared of how much the Event changes the game, and to be honest, that makes me even more certain i want to have it exactly as is.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 04, 2016, 03:40:33 pm
On a side note, will the OP be updated soon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grVzHu-_LcU

(That's supposed to mean: "Yes, i just did that")
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 04, 2016, 05:08:09 pm
Report seems cool.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 04, 2016, 06:39:53 pm
Report seems cool.

Thanks. I intended to keep it a secret until after the Event contest was done, but when you asked to update the VP, i didn't want to make an additional TS-Template just to hide it, so there it is. It's a Chancellor event, just that Chancellor is a mere bonus to its main ability. <8> might be a bit much, i guess <7> would still be okay. Maybe a non-debt cost would be even better, but i guess that depends on the card you gain.

(http://i.imgur.com/zagbHAN.jpg)

Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on September 04, 2016, 07:31:14 pm
Report seems cool.

Thanks. I intended to keep it a secret until after the Event contest was done, but when you asked to update the VP, i didn't want to make an additional TS-Template just to hide it, so there it is. It's a Chancellor event, just that Chancellor is a mere bonus to its main ability. <8> might be a bit much, i guess <7> would still be okay. Maybe a non-debt cost would be even better, but i guess that depends on the card you gain.


Hmm, have you considered making the gained card worth up to 6?  I like the idea, but I don't think I would ever buy it.  It may be worth it, but it doesn't feeeeel worth it, at least to me.  If it was a card costing up to 6, it would tip the scale for me to buy it, but not be overpowered (I don't think at least). 
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: tristan on September 05, 2016, 01:09:25 am
I think this is fine at its price. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png) cards are roughly equivalent to a cost of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) (Overlord is the most clear cut case) but this Event debtifies all 5s and has the Chancellor bonus which has to be worth something.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Mr Anderson on September 05, 2016, 05:40:17 am
I like Report as well, propably a must buy on a 3/4 opening, though. I do not think you should be able to gain cards costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png). The difference between (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) and (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) is that you cannot open with a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) card barring edge cases, during the course of the game the difference tends to become marginal. The Chancellor effect on this card with the strong gaining is huge early on as well. Comparing Report to Annex (gain a Duchy and shuffle all but up to 5 cards into your deck for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)), I do not think Report needs a buff anyway.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 05, 2016, 07:35:31 am
Report trades Overlord's flexbility for a chance at getting to your $5 sooner, and may be used near the endgame for Duchies. Doesn't seem like it adds much but probably ok for an event. Maybe if the $5 was top decked; that would make openings even more weird and the Duchy gaining less enticing compared to Annex (but still valid).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 05, 2016, 08:04:18 am
Report seems cool.
update the VP
Just leaked that another landmark is coming soon.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 05, 2016, 08:22:30 am
I like Report as well, propably a must buy on a 3/4 opening, though. I do not think you should be able to gain cards costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png). The difference between (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) and (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) is that you cannot open with a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) card barring edge cases, during the course of the game the difference tends to become marginal. The Chancellor effect on this card with the strong gaining is huge early on as well. Comparing Report to Annex (gain a Duchy and shuffle all but up to 5 cards into your deck for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)), I do not think Report needs a buff anyway.

I felt that Report was rather different than Annex. There you gain a card you don't want in your shuffle and the Events keeps it out of it. Here you can gain cards you want in your shuffle and the Event puts it in. In some way, Annex is even a (supporting) strategy: You gain Duchies that don't go into your deck immediately. I don't see Report doing that.

It's true that Report as well as Parting go in a similar niche, opening-wise, as both allow $3/$4 openings to be $5 openings. You can not usually open with a Gold, except of course that there are already cards which change that (Baker, for example). Allowing to gain a Gold would probably be a rather big difference, as the Gold would help you pay back that debt. Given Wedding costs $4<3>, which is neither strictly less nor more, but gives a VP (compare Chancellor, a weak $3, and Monument, a standard $4), maybe that would still be fine.

Report trades Overlord's flexbility for a chance at getting to your $5 sooner, and may be used near the endgame for Duchies. Doesn't seem like it adds much but probably ok for an event. Maybe if the $5 was top decked; that would make openings even more weird and the Duchy gaining less enticing compared to Annex (but still valid).

That would be another good alternative to allowing the Gold gain. It also spices things up a bit.



I haven't tried it much yet, so we'll see whether it actually needs a buff soon, i hope.

Report seems cool.
update the VP
Just leaked that another landmark is coming soon.

Truth be told, i am very uninspired at doing Landmarks. I think they are a cool mechanic, but my only attempt at one was just actually something somebody else (fragasnap) had done before. So i wouldn't count on it. Heh, how about a Seasons-Landmark, that makes card X worth more if the game ends in year 2? But seriously, i have nothing cooking here.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 05, 2016, 09:11:23 am
The "+1 Card" in the text shouldn't be bold. None of the published cards have bold text in the middle of non-bold text and it looks really weird.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 05, 2016, 09:21:52 am
The "+1 Card" in the text shouldn't be bold. None of the published cards have bold text in the middle of non-bold text and it looks really weird.

Fun fact: When i did that back then, it was because the german publisher had put all bonuses in texts in bold. I had never consciously checked how it was with the original cards, and would have made them non-bold if i had noticed. As my goal is to make my cards look like official ones, that was sensible feedback back then - just as today it would be to say "bonuses are now in bold, btw". I'm not sure i feel like updating them, but then again it's not that many i'd have to fix.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on September 05, 2016, 12:21:23 pm
Another fun fact: Empires actually has vanilla bonuses always in bold, even in text.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 05, 2016, 01:02:33 pm
Another fun fact: Empires actually has vanilla bonuses always in bold, even in text.

that was sensible feedback back then - just as today it would be to say "bonuses are now in bold, btw".
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 09, 2016, 10:55:57 pm
Latest thoughts:
Scientist seems rather strong at $2. While the debt token hurts a lot more early on than "discard a card" would, it gets practically better than that later. I'll bump it to $3.
Report seems a bit lacking. I'll consider it at $4<3>.
Parting is the same. Maybe it could gain $6s? I'd have to play a Big Money/Parting vs engine game to see whether that's a thing, which i wouldn't like.

About Spellcasters: Does anybody have an opinion on those? Anybody who played with them? Because i'm willing to give them another shot. Either way, i think the Wisdom Spell has to cost at least $2, while Dexterity might have to cost $4. I have also dropped Summoner for now, and there are only 5 Spells left. About Sorcerer, i'm not sure whether it should be a Market that can cast Spells at $6, or a Market Square at $4. Considering how much of the power of Spells depends on +Buys, maybe a buy-less one is more interesting? Like a Peddler for $5? My only worry would be the similarity to Invader, but well, that's no surprise considering Invader is based on an older version of Sorcerer. The Spellcaster i feel most happy with right now is Trickster, but Magician's not looking that bad, either.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 10, 2016, 07:37:28 am
About Spellcasters: Does anybody have an opinion on those? Anybody who played with them? Because i'm willing to give them another shot. Either way, i think the Wisdom Spell has to cost at least $2, while Dexterity might have to cost $4. I have also dropped Summoner for now, and there are only 5 Spells left. About Sorcerer, i'm not sure whether it should be a Market that can cast Spells at $6, or a Market Square at $4. Considering how much of the power of Spells depends on +Buys, maybe a buy-less one is more interesting? Like a Peddler for $5? My only worry would be the similarity to Invader, but well, that's no surprise considering Invader is based on an older version of Sorcerer. The Spellcaster i feel most happy with right now is Trickster, but Magician's not looking that bad, either.
You availibe from 7 to 9 your time tonight?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 10, 2016, 08:51:38 am
About Spellcasters: Does anybody have an opinion on those? Anybody who played with them? Because i'm willing to give them another shot. Either way, i think the Wisdom Spell has to cost at least $2, while Dexterity might have to cost $4. I have also dropped Summoner for now, and there are only 5 Spells left. About Sorcerer, i'm not sure whether it should be a Market that can cast Spells at $6, or a Market Square at $4. Considering how much of the power of Spells depends on +Buys, maybe a buy-less one is more interesting? Like a Peddler for $5? My only worry would be the similarity to Invader, but well, that's no surprise considering Invader is based on an older version of Sorcerer. The Spellcaster i feel most happy with right now is Trickster, but Magician's not looking that bad, either.
You availibe from 7 to 9 your time tonight?
I'm not yet sure about it...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 10, 2016, 11:36:56 am
I updated the OP to reflect the latest changes. Have fun with that. I'll try to take a break posting for a while again.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 24, 2016, 09:46:23 am
Another Inquisitor. Bet you didn't expect that.

(http://i.imgur.com/39Ik2aL.jpg)

I didn't plan to name it that way, but well, it's a Witch variant, and a Torturer variant, and a Cultist variant... Which ties in nicely, thematically. It's worse than Witch without trashing, and better in the end if the other players trashed their curses.

I also decided to change the flavor of Scolar/Inquisition for several reasons: First, because i felt stopping the first card with the second should feel legitimate, theme-wise. Second, the theme of Inquisition seemed to fit better on an attack (see above).

(http://i.imgur.com/PbqPgP9.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/pq9asYv.jpg)

More changes:

(http://i.imgur.com/vlXHpfy.jpg)

Investor got changed to not need debt tokens. It now feels more like a variant of Merchant Guild or Plaza. In general, it's the cleaner solution, but it also makes me feel the concept in general is too redundant to existing cards...

Also, Delegate. It just feels like it changes the game in unfun ways too often. I could try to fix it. An obvious solution would be to have it reveal a Province from your hand to end the game, which means you have to get at least one and there's a chance Delegate won't finish the game even if you are ahead. Still, it doesn't feel like a major improvement. I'll just leave it be as is, because i want to do other stuff, but keep in mind it's not 100% supported anymore.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Gubump on September 24, 2016, 11:56:41 am
Another Inquisitor. Bet you didn't expect that.

(http://i.imgur.com/39Ik2aL.jpg)

I didn't plan to name it that way, but well, it's a Witch variant, and a Torturer variant, and a Cultist variant... Which ties in nicely, thematically. It's worse than Witch without trashing, and better in the end if the other players trashed their curses.

I also decided to change the flavor of Scolar/Inquisition for several reasons: First, because i felt stopping the first card with the second should feel legitimate, theme-wise. Second, the theme of Inquisition seemed to fit better on an attack (see above).

(http://i.imgur.com/PbqPgP9.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/pq9asYv.jpg)

More changes:

(http://i.imgur.com/vlXHpfy.jpg)

Investor got changed to not need debt tokens. It now feels more like a variant of Merchant Guild or Plaza. In general, it's the cleaner solution, but it also makes me feel the concept in general is too redundant to existing cards...

Also, Delegate. It just feels like it changes the game in unfun ways too often. I could try to fix it. An obvious solution would be to have it reveal a Province from your hand to end the game, which means you have to get at least one and there's a chance Delegate won't finish the game even if you are ahead. Still, it doesn't feel like a major improvement. I'll just leave it be as is, because i want to do other stuff, but keep in mind it's not 100% supported anymore.

Because of Defiled Shrine, it seems like Inquisitor should have the Gathering type.

Nightwatch seems OP. It's basically a Warehouse with +$1 added, AND it blocks other players' Carriers, for a measly price increase of $1. I would've priced it at $5, personally.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on September 24, 2016, 01:05:11 pm
Another Inquisitor. Bet you didn't expect that.

*snigger*

I would have preferred Inquisitor if Witch didn't exist. I think its powerlevel is less overbearing. Alas...

Agree with gubump that Nightwatch is huh hard to price because of Warehouse.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 24, 2016, 01:09:29 pm


Because of Defiled Shrine, it seems like Inquisitor should have the Gathering type.

Nightwatch seems OP. It's basically a Warehouse with +$1 added, AND it blocks other players' Carriers, for a measly price increase of $1. I would've priced it at $5, personally.

Backstory: Originally Inquisitor was to be named Shaman and had a Mat. I didn't think it needed one, but where to put the VP? On the Copper pile was the most plausible, but that didn't work because of Aqueduct. Defiled Shrine is far less problematic. It only adds 2 VP, and one of them leaves the pile when you buy your first Inquisitor. You can deal out one more Copper if nobody ever buys a second one, but it's more likely you'll actually deal out less of them. All in all, it just didn't seems a big thing. After all, Defiled Shrine, Crown and Aqueduct already interact weirdly, and if a Witch variant gets slightly worse once in a while, what's the problem? Making Inquisitor Gathering just seemed wrong, because Gathering cards are completely different. I'd rather have it interact (unproblematically) with a Landmark once in a while than always give it a type that doesn't fit. It's not like crown has the type because of Defiled Shrine/Aqueduct.

Nightwatch might be, i don't know. Originally it only sifted 2 cards. I considered adding a reaction instead of the additional sift:

Quote
Nightwatch, Action - Reaction
+2 Cards
+1 Action
+ $1
Discard 2 cards.
---
When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, all players (except the attacker) are unaffected by the attack.

Edit: Although, keep in mind it's not available as early as Warehouse - it's not going to help you skip Estates, unless you hold on to them.
Edit: I'd rather make Nightwatch weaker than increase the price. It should be cheap and nice enough to pick up and spoil your Carrier-playing friends' fun.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 25, 2016, 11:43:53 am
First Well and Blacksmith, now Artisan and Mill... Why can't i never be finished? T__T

Also: Inquisitor should probably do something more interesting when played, e.g. fixed draw, and Nightwatch should be a reaction for coolness' sake.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 25, 2016, 03:37:04 pm
The second editions of Base and Intrigue include cards with equal names as some cards i used to have. I took this opportunity to also exchange Blacksmith's name for something that actually befits Cornucopia more:

(http://i.imgur.com/xourTwo.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/P3QxVGx.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/1qOvUBO.jpg)

Also, making Inquisitor and Nightwatch a bit more interesting:

(http://i.imgur.com/sQYqoLf.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/UBkdJOp.jpg)

Not sure the loss in sifting actually makes Nightwatch okay with the reaction.

Edited to reposition the "action attack" text on Inquisitor. I didn't update the template, though.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 25, 2016, 04:02:51 pm
I like the change on Investor, Craftsmen, Windmill, and Courier/Nightwatch.

I don't like the art on farmer.

I like the art on Inquisition, but It still seems too simmilar to Witch. I think the Action-Attack thing is a little too far down.

Did you forget to rename Diplomat?

I'd keep Diplomat and Extortioner in the OP so people can find them easily.

Does Inquisitor need the Gathering type?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 25, 2016, 11:12:20 pm
Damn! The official card "Mill" IS a windmill... Oh man. I should have checked the images before going through the trouble of picking a new picture...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: mail-mi on September 25, 2016, 11:52:07 pm
Damn! The official card "Mill" IS a windmill... Oh man. I should have checked the images before going through the trouble of picking a new picture...

You could just call it "flour mill" and keep the same picture as before.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: McGarnacle on September 26, 2016, 08:23:13 am
Damn! The official card "Mill" IS a windmill... Oh man. I should have checked the images before going through the trouble of picking a new picture...

You could just call it "flour mill" and keep the same picture as before.

Or you could call it Steel Mill.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 26, 2016, 02:17:46 pm
Did you forget to rename Diplomat?

I'd keep Diplomat and Extortioner in the OP so people can find them easily.

Does Inquisitor need the Gathering type?

The card is called Delegate. I don't keep it because i don't want people to play with my cards and think they are uterrible. At least I don't want to have to agree with them. Delegate isn't very fun, currently. It degenerates the game to a turn-to-turn race. Extortioner just isn't interesting enough - you barely ever feel the attack. And Inquisitor does not need the Gathering type. The type implies too much that doesn't have anything to do with the card and the only interaction that would imply the type is ignorable.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 26, 2016, 03:16:08 pm
Okay, thanks for the response.

I'm still curious what happened to Take 3 Coin tokens, another player gains a Silver.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 26, 2016, 03:17:19 pm
Good thing you called it sultan instead of Vassal, saved yourself some work!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 26, 2016, 05:52:06 pm
Okay, thanks for the response.

I'm still curious what happened to Take 3 Coin tokens, another player gains a Silver.

Argh, i totally forgot i HAD a card named Diplomat... Now this is embarrassing, sorry for that. I removed that one quite some time ago. It just didn't seem well-balanced and i hardly ever played with it, so i dropped it out.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 27, 2016, 07:05:35 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/0y8927V.jpg)

Mill is now Sawmill. Well, Sawmills kinda manufacture something, so maybe that's not too bad. Also, did you know: Back when Governer was created, there were plans to make a promo for "Power Grid". The game had you produce energy with power stations, including Windmills (which were the only ones that didn't cost any ressources to keep running), and as the author, Friedeman Friese, loves the color green, the promo would have been a green card. Guess what Mill is.

Also, yeah, i am not sure Nightwatch should sift that much:

(http://i.imgur.com/y6LxkAw.jpg)

Is an Oasis that can stop attacks later in the game, but for every player, and can hinder other players getting money, worth $4? Or rather, is the same card with additional sift already too much for $4?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 28, 2016, 08:11:29 am
I dunno, but it would be cool if you listed all your outtakes. Some of them seemed to have some promise.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on September 28, 2016, 11:45:49 am
I dunno, but it would be cool if you listed all your outtakes. Some of them seemed to have some promise.
  I agree :)  Please do
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 28, 2016, 01:33:33 pm
A list of not-quite-terrible cards without images for now:

Diplomat, Action, $5
Take 3 coin tokens. Choose another player who may gain a Silver.


Delegate, $8, Action-Reserve
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
----
At the start of your turn, you may call this to discard a Province, and if you do, the game ends.


Extortioner, Action - Duration - Attack, $3
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they take <1>.
Now and at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy, +$1


Canal, <6>, Action
+1 Action
+2$
Discard a card.
+1 Card


Heir, Action, $4
You may discard an Estate for +3 Cards.
You may discard a Duchy for +3$.
You may discard a Victory Card for +3 Actions.


Parliament, $4, Action
You may choose an Action card from your hand. If it costs as much as this, play it twice. If it costs less, play it 3 times.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 28, 2016, 01:40:28 pm
I totaly missed Heir was gone, but Jeweler also seems to be gone.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on September 28, 2016, 01:44:18 pm
I totaly missed Heir was gone, but Jeweler also seems to be gone.

Jeweler was intended to emulate a Treasure-Action. As we now have that combination for real, it became obsolete. I'll think about whether i forgot some older ideas eventually.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 30, 2016, 12:09:39 pm
I don't like the art for scientist either, would something like this work instead?
http://homoseptimus.deviantart.com/art/Librarian-355923752
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on September 30, 2016, 01:30:14 pm
I don't like the art for scientist either, would something like this work instead?
http://homoseptimus.deviantart.com/art/Librarian-355923752

I like the current art for Scientist; it fits the quirky style of some Dominion cards. The art you suggested looks great but seems less fitting for Dominion.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: McGarnacle on September 30, 2016, 03:01:13 pm
I don't like the art for scientist either, would something like this work instead?
http://homoseptimus.deviantart.com/art/Librarian-355923752

I like this art, its got an Alchemist/Lost Arts vibe to it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 30, 2016, 03:06:03 pm
I don't like the art for scientist either, would something like this work instead?
http://homoseptimus.deviantart.com/art/Librarian-355923752

I like the current art for Scientist; it fits the quirky style of some Dominion cards. The art you suggested looks great but seems less fitting for Dominion.
I mean, it's a prefference so I can't really argue, but I think it still sticks out and is kinda quirky but it's no longer cartoony.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 01, 2016, 07:31:06 pm
I like the current art on Scientist. I also like the art on Farmer. I appreciate feedback, but i'm not going to replace art i like. Sorry, those are my cards. I'll gladly change the image on Hospital for something that doesn't scream "Actual painting" as much, but apart from that i think i'm very happy with the images. Well, if you find a plausible image for Homunculus (that prominently features a bottle and doesn't look like an attack), i'd also be all ears. Apart from that, thank you, but those are fixes for things that aren't broken.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 01, 2016, 07:41:22 pm
I like the current art on Scientist. I also like the art on Farmer. I appreciate feedback, but i'm not going to replace art i like. Sorry, those are my cards. I'll gladly change the image on Hospital for something that doesn't scream "Actual painting" as much, but apart from that i think i'm very happy with the images. Well, if you find a plausible image for Homunculus (that prominently features a bottle and doesn't look like an attack), i'd also be all ears. Apart from that, thank you, but those are fixes for things that aren't broken.
I like the picture you've got for Homunculus.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 01, 2016, 09:16:17 pm
I like the current art on Scientist. I also like the art on Farmer. I appreciate feedback, but i'm not going to replace art i like. Sorry, those are my cards. I'll gladly change the image on Hospital for something that doesn't scream "Actual painting" as much, but apart from that i think i'm very happy with the images. Well, if you find a plausible image for Homunculus (that prominently features a bottle and doesn't look like an attack), i'd also be all ears. Apart from that, thank you, but those are fixes for things that aren't broken.
I like the picture you've got for Homunculus.
And Hospital...

Anyways, it's art, so it's a preference. I can see why you'd like both and it's perfectly okay for you to ignore my opinion, there your cards dude. That being said, I'll probably change the art on my versions.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 02, 2016, 01:32:14 pm
I like the current art on Scientist. I also like the art on Farmer. I appreciate feedback, but i'm not going to replace art i like. Sorry, those are my cards. I'll gladly change the image on Hospital for something that doesn't scream "Actual painting" as much, but apart from that i think i'm very happy with the images. Well, if you find a plausible image for Homunculus (that prominently features a bottle and doesn't look like an attack), i'd also be all ears. Apart from that, thank you, but those are fixes for things that aren't broken.
I like the picture you've got for Homunculus.
And Hospital...

Anyways, it's art, so it's a preference. I can see why you'd like both and it's perfectly okay for you to ignore my opinion, there your cards dude. That being said, I'll probably change the art on my versions.

It's a preference, obviously, but as far as the cards are pieces of art, the images are part of those pieces. I am not going to ignore critizism of the art, either, but i would prefer if it was a little more than "This is fine, you should still exchange it for my own pick.". A lot of effort goes into making those cards, and i don't pick art lightly.

You can use any art you like on your versions, of course. You can post them in one of your threads, too, as long as you credit me - which i'm sure btw others would appreciate as well.
Title: Re: Asper's BAD Cards
Post by: Asper on October 07, 2016, 09:27:01 pm
At request, here are my outtakes:

(http://i.imgur.com/r0detEp.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/wrecKGF.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/wVdHKJt.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/mcHG1DQ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/3ItjUOi.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/oK8vpOb.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/wpJqxlc.jpg)

Extortioner's attack rarely matters. Heir is weak (although i tried to buff it with the +3 Actions). Parliament is broken with some cards and useless with others. Olympic Village (called Aqueduct before) got an additional Action and a neat promotional icon, but your attacks doing nothing still sucks. Sovereign (Diplomat earlier) is, well, political (even though that's the concept, it's still not too great). Tribunal takes long to resolve and is not as relevant. Delegate can make a game get into a weird state where every player must green until somebody somehow stalls and the game is lost (although having to reveal a Province is an attempt to take that certainity away and add a little requirement).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: popsofctown on October 08, 2016, 02:14:39 am
Delegate just seems like a bad idea but I feel like Tribunal should work out to a sweet card somehow.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 08, 2016, 09:46:40 am
Delegate just seems like a bad idea but I feel like Tribunal should work out to a sweet card somehow.

I felt Delegate was a reasonable idea to try. It's not so much what happens when you play the card, but what kind of strategy it enforces on the players. Something like Delegate might work in other games, but not Dominion.

Tribunal has gone through so many iterations, and I always felt I'd be able to find a solution that's not overly complicated, but always failed. The current one is what i got after giving it one more go. Sadly, you can't just drop the second part entirely, because it allows setting up a pin by playing Tribunal a lot of times. TThat's not to bad if all players have progressed decently, i guess, but if one has more junk than the other, Tribunal might break his neck.

I honestly kinda like Olympic Village by the way, but probably that's just because i think the flavor (it really looks like an Olympic Games Promo card) is fun. It's also balanced, just again the concept itself will not be considered fun by quite a few people. I'm sure there are others who might actually like it, though. The question is just, will those like it enough to justify the hate? From the reactions i got to the concept before, probably not.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 08, 2016, 02:16:56 pm
Extortioner: Well, the obvious solution seems to add extra (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) to the attack. If that doesn't work, something like "when another player buys a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), return it to the supply" might work, but it loses the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)ification.

Heir: What if you could discard up to an Estate, Duchy, and a Victory card, then choose one of the bonuses for each card, like Courtier. I don't know wether that helps, but I would love to keep it just for the insane Heir/Meadow/Swamp combo wombo.

Parliament: Yeah, I don't know how to fix this one. In Civilization we had a throne room variant that played an Action card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) from your discard pile. It was weak and too dull, but it's trying to make a comeback later. Anyways, Parliament still seems like an interesting idea.

Olympic Village: I would like it more if the attacks just didn't effect everyone else. So Rabble is still a Smithy. that might be too good, and then you could add an extra "each other player draws a card" when you play an Attack for balancing, and flavor.

Sovereign: The politicallness is cool, but what if it was: "Choose a player who you have chosen the least number of times with Sovereign this turn. They may gain a Silver." That cuts down some of the politics. The ability could be changed as well.

Tribunal: I mean, the idea is cool (like all of the outtakes), but I don't know what to say on this one.
Delegate: What about an event? Something like "Take 24(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png) and a Delegate token. When you have no (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) and a Delegate token, the game ends. So you need to spend a crap ton of money, but it might be still too good with gaining.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on October 08, 2016, 04:00:54 pm
What if Delegate was an event that went like:

Quote
Take the Delegate token.

At the beginning of your turn, if you have the Delegate token, remove one or two Council tokens from this event. If you can't, the game ends immediately.

Setup: Put 5 Council tokens on this event.

Exact details (and cost) to be worked out, just giving an idea.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Co0kieL0rd on October 08, 2016, 04:27:33 pm
What if Delegate was an event that went like:

Quote
Take the Delegate token.

At the beginning of your turn, if you have the Delegate token, remove one or two Council tokens from this event. If you can't, the game ends immediately.

Setup: Put 5 Council tokens on this event.

Exact details (and cost) to be worked out, just giving an idea.

I like the basic idea of it. I would simplyfy it to this:

Quote
Delegate, $7, Event
If you have the Delegate token, the game ends after this turn. Otherwise, take the Delegate token.

So you actually need to buy this twice, and if another player buys Delegate after you bought it the first time they take the Delegate token from you. Then of course they'd need to buy it again to end the game on their account but perhaps they just bought it to keep you from ending the game this way. It might warrant some interesting strategic choices and it less one-sided than a Delegate-card that only one player has full control over.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 08, 2016, 09:56:36 pm
Extortioner: Well, the obvious solution seems to add extra (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) to the attack. If that doesn't work, something like "when another player buys a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), return it to the supply" might work, but it loses the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)ification.
Sure, you could just add more debt to the attack and maybe make the card cost more. Considering the card isn't really my idea but mostly an attempt to implement another forumite's (eHalcyon's) idea, it's not as high in my ranks to fix Extortioner.

Heir: What if you could discard up to an Estate, Duchy, and a Victory card, then choose one of the bonuses for each card, like Courtier. I don't know wether that helps, but I would love to keep it just for the insane Heir/Meadow/Swamp combo wombo.
Well, Heir was always just "another Baron" in concept. It's just never working out as well, and then there's Baron already, there's not as much Heir offers which is new.

Parliament: Yeah, I don't know how to fix this one. In Civilization we had a throne room variant that played an Action card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) from your discard pile. It was weak and too dull, but it's trying to make a comeback later. Anyways, Parliament still seems like an interesting idea.
The problem is that tying it to cost is a bad mechanic, and as that was the base concept, the base concept for Parliament is bad. Sure there are other TR variants you could make, but Parliament's idea just doesn't work.

Olympic Village: I would like it more if the attacks just didn't effect everyone else. So Rabble is still a Smithy. that might be too good, and then you could add an extra "each other player draws a card" when you play an Attack for balancing, and flavor.
That's exactly what the card does, actually. I assume you only read my comments below the cards, where I wrongly wrote they "don't do anything". They don't attack, and some players may like that, while other's might not. Generally, Olympic Village is a Bazaar which first discards a card for +$1, so it's not even strictly better than it without attacks - it IS a lot better in the beginning of the game, though, which justifies the penalty.

Sovereign: The politicallness is cool, but what if it was: "Choose a player who you have chosen the least number of times with Sovereign this turn. They may gain a Silver." That cuts down some of the politics. The ability could be changed as well.
The ability you get yourself isn't as important for the concept and the main problem doesn't lie there. Sovereign being a political card is. Of course you can reduce the politicalness, but then why make the card at all? Other bonuses would be possible (like giving another player a coin token or allowing them to gain a Copper in hand), but they don't solve the main issue.

Tribunal: I mean, the idea is cool (like all of the outtakes), but I don't know what to say on this one.
Tribunal is fine. I'm kind of okay with the current wording. It doesn't add that much, but it's not terrible.

Delegate: What about an event? Something like "Take 24(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png) and a Delegate token. When you have no (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) and a Delegate token, the game ends. So you need to spend a crap ton of money, but it might be still too good with gaining.
I'm not sure, but I think the concept itself is the problem, again. Not much interest to re-visit this soon, but maybe there's a solution here. Feel free to make up your own ideas based on this - Delegate itself spawned from a thread where some people talked about game-ending cards. The only thing Delegate did that was special was being a Reserve (so it wasn't shuffle dependant) and not give any bonus besides ending the game (the others gave a lot of VP). Maybe you can instead have, like, an ultra-hard to get VP card that ends the game when somebody gets it, but that's not really Delegate anymore. Delegate differentiated itself by allowing you to choose when to end the game, and that idea doesn't work out.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 08, 2016, 10:04:50 pm
What if Delegate was an event that went like:

Quote
Take the Delegate token.

At the beginning of your turn, if you have the Delegate token, remove one or two Council tokens from this event. If you can't, the game ends immediately.

Setup: Put 5 Council tokens on this event.

Exact details (and cost) to be worked out, just giving an idea.

I like the basic idea of it. I would simplyfy it to this:

Quote
Delegate, $7, Event
If you have the Delegate token, the game ends after this turn. Otherwise, take the Delegate token.

So you actually need to buy this twice, and if another player buys Delegate after you bought it the first time they take the Delegate token from you. Then of course they'd need to buy it again to end the game on their account but perhaps they just bought it to keep you from ending the game this way. It might warrant some interesting strategic choices and it less one-sided than a Delegate-card that only one player has full control over.

But is that really better? I'm in the lead. I buy Delegate. Your turn. You can buy VP to get in the lead yourself, but that clogs your deck. You buy Delegate instead. My turn. I don't want to clog my deck. I buy Delegate...

pacovf's solution at least moves the game towards an end as soon as somebody has the Delegate token. It still has the issue that just going for Witch in the beginning and hitting $7 by, let's say, turn 6, means that my opponent is either forced to buy Duchies or just accept they lost the game by losing the Curse split. Neither is cool.
Edit: Or to put it like this: Like the card, this too creates a situation where one or more player(s) have the choice between accepting defeat or playing a game that's going to be progressively less fun (because they must clog their decks) and ultimately will end on luck (when somebody stalls).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 17, 2016, 03:39:46 pm
I like the new art for Swamp, er, Borderlands.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on October 17, 2016, 04:14:50 pm
I like the new art for Swamp, er, Borderlands.

So do I!  It's beautiful!  It's funny how good art makes me want to play with a card more :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 18, 2016, 05:21:44 pm
Thanks for the feedback, guys.

I finally found the picture for Sheriff in better resolution.
(http://i.imgur.com/U1s599j.jpg)

Also, I heard there's a new german forum, now? Maybe somebody there cares about cards like these?
(http://i.imgur.com/3sZNRRd.png)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 18, 2016, 07:24:31 pm
I belive the sherrif art needs to be pushed to the left a bit to remove that bar.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 18, 2016, 08:48:57 pm
I belive the sherrif art needs to be pushed to the left a bit to remove that bar.

Argh! You are right! The bar of the template doesn't fill out its space completely. Fixed that in the OP.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 24, 2016, 04:21:41 pm
I got some feedback and changed a few cards:

Sunken City now discards the card instead of revealing it first.
Well now specifies that the cost is relative to the trashed card.
Nightwatch now is a bit weaker, since its base effect is a mere Oasis.

(http://i.imgur.com/tfxQbnv.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/RGXdqDo.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/kowyIAi.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on October 24, 2016, 07:00:40 pm
How does sunken city relate to the new card with the similar effect?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 24, 2016, 08:02:47 pm
How does sunken city relate to the new card with the similar effect?

It came first - in fact I'm not sure whether Herald existed when I made it...

Seriously, though, Sunken City is swingier, as the net advantage you get if it fails is as good as zero. It's better when your deck is really well prepared than Vassal is, but it's practically useless before that. I guess I can get away with a price of 2. As Vassal is an official card now, people will sooner or later be able to estimate whether it's good or not, and it will be more playtesting than Sunken City will ever get. I'll possibly change Sunken City in case Vassal will be generally considered overpowered, but for now it's going to stay how it is.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Haddock on October 26, 2016, 11:06:31 am
I got some feedback and changed a few cards:

Sunken City now discards the card instead of revealing it first.
Well now specifies that the cost is relative to the trashed card.
Nightwatch now is a bit weaker, since its base effect is a mere Oasis.
Possibly this has already been discussed, but need the below-line trashing on Well be mandatory?  It seems like an on-buy effect like that is attempting to be generally helpful, but as it stands it may be pretty painful.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 26, 2016, 02:04:12 pm
I got some feedback and changed a few cards:

Sunken City now discards the card instead of revealing it first.
Well now specifies that the cost is relative to the trashed card.
Nightwatch now is a bit weaker, since its base effect is a mere Oasis.
Possibly this has already been discussed, but need the below-line trashing on Well be mandatory?  It seems like an on-buy effect like that is attempting to be generally helpful, but as it stands it may be pretty painful.
I don't recall it being discussed. But you are right, it'd probably profit from being optional. I doubt it would throw the card off-balance.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 27, 2016, 08:40:16 am
http://d-torres.deviantart.com/art/Promo-art-459102362

Is the art for Farmer I used.

Also, I'd encourage you to update all you cards with vanilla bonuses and new wording.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on October 27, 2016, 08:54:16 am
I got some feedback and changed a few cards:

Sunken City now discards the card instead of revealing it first.
Well now specifies that the cost is relative to the trashed card.
Nightwatch now is a bit weaker, since its base effect is a mere Oasis.
Possibly this has already been discussed, but need the below-line trashing on Well be mandatory?  It seems like an on-buy effect like that is attempting to be generally helpful, but as it stands it may be pretty painful.
I don't recall it being discussed. But you are right, it'd probably profit from being optional. I doubt it would throw the card off-balance.

My two cents: I would keep it mandatory. It just adds that little bit of layer of extra decision making. Then again, we have had that people just forget about it.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 28, 2016, 06:58:42 pm
Some info:

Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Gubump on October 28, 2016, 07:04:22 pm
(no users who hate me, for example).

Who hates you? You're one of my favorite users on the forums!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: kru5h on October 28, 2016, 09:50:24 pm
You could make Road not work with Champion by simply making it not an action card.

Quote
Road Reaction, (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/ae/Coin0star.png/16px-Coin0star.png)
During your action phase, you may reveal this
from your hand to spend an action for +2 Cards.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Or this may be more clearly worded,

Quote
Road Reaction, (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/ae/Coin0star.png/16px-Coin0star.png)
During your action phase, you may spend an action
to reveal this from your hand. If you do, +2 Cards.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 28, 2016, 10:32:02 pm
(no users who hate me, for example).

Who hates you? You're one of my favorite users on the forums!

Well, that rules you out ;)
Thanks, that's good to hear. Forgive me, but I feel I don't want to answer your question. The person knows who I refer to, and that's enough. No need to make this a huge thing, I was kind of frustrated when writing that. But seriously, you saying such a nice thing makes me happy :)


You could make Road not work with Champion by simply making it not an action card.

Quote
Road Reaction, (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/ae/Coin0star.png/16px-Coin0star.png)
During your action phase, you may reveal this
from your hand to spend an action for +2 Cards.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Or this may be more clearly worded,

Quote
Road Reaction, (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/ae/Coin0star.png/16px-Coin0star.png)
During your action phase, you may spend an action
to reveal this from your hand. If you do, +2 Cards.
(This is not in the Supply.)

I made Road specifically to design a card that did the "use as many actions as you wish" thing without introducing a new mechanic. Spells aside, that's a thing I do: Take existing mechanics and do weird stuff with them. Originally it was a supply card, but a certain user mentioned that it would be better if it wasn't (which gave away there would be a way to make any card in the supply give +1 Action). Also it solved the issue of Road being in a kingdom without any Villages. Having it be an extra that comes with Road solves both issues. The only issue that doesn't go away is Champion.

However, Champion games are a very special case. First of all, Warrior is the worst designed Dominion card in my book (yes, worse than Rebuild), as it is incredibly destructive and can decide the game based on luck only - so games with the Page line don't weight much for me with respect to game balance or fun. Second, Road actually improves those games. At least once the game is decided in favour of the player who got his Champion into play (the game is usually already decided once one Warrior trashes the opponent's, but well), you won't have to suffer for much longer. But seriously, even if the Page line wasn't screwed up thanks to Warrior, Champion is an incredibly hard to get, incredibly strong card. Road just means that (provided you draw it), you can draw your deck. Truth be told, you can do that quite often with Champion, either way, and as everything goes nuts in any case, Road doesn't even change that much. Also, if you don't draw Road (or any other draw card), it's still doing nothing for you. To avoid that, you need to get several Roads, which means you'll have to buy Towns, which don't do anything to reach Champion and don't get anything out of it. So that's not trivial, either. Long story short, I can live with Champion's interaction with Road.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on October 28, 2016, 10:55:45 pm
Hey Gubump, get out of the way, Asper was one of my favourite posters before you even registered :p

Maybe this is too personal, but you don't need to tell us whether you intend to post more often or not. There is nothing inherently wrong with checking out the forum. Of course, if checking the forum makes you feel bad about yourself for whatever reason, then you might want to block access to the website (there are ton of apps and stuff that can do that). We'll miss you of course, but your well-being comes first.

...that being said, Well is still easily one of my favourite fan cards, but I just noticed that the art style rings a bell. Where did you get it from?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 29, 2016, 01:29:57 pm
Some info:

  • Homunculus should probably just say "You may trash a card from your hand" to be stronger and simpler.
  • Assemble's ability to gain engine components isn't really all that good. It's mostly an Expand that gains Coppers. So why shouldn't I just limit it to that use case?
  • Will kick out Invader. Option one is to replace it with a card that costs 8 or 9 and is a Peddler with optional trashing for Provinces, which I'd call Delegate again. Never really liked the Roman theme, either way. The alternative is a new rendition of the "Glory" spell combined with Wizard's wording getting changed. Speaking of which, Wizard could probably do with casting up to two Spells again. He's just not comparing well to other 5s right now.
  • Well will probably be optional either way. I follow Haddock's point, and forgetting about it is also bad. If it was a straight punishment, people wouldn't forget it, but as is it's to be expected.
  • I'll re-do Iron Maiden, as it's my only card with Bonuses in the text. I don't see myself rewording all those "If you do"s to "to"s, simply because those wordings are still correct and I don't want to go through that effort.
  • I'll post less, for real this time.
  • Thank you for linking the image you used for Farmer, ThetaSigma12. I tried it out, compared it, and then ultimately felt I liked the cheerful look of my original pick still slightly better. Sorry for making you go through the trouble of looking it up and posting it, I appreciate that.
  • German speakers might occasionally see me post on the german forum. It has less users and no Donald X, but has its advantages (no users who hate me, for example).
-I haven't played with homunculus yet, so no comments there. Seems okay to me though.
-Assemble seems fine as-is. I've used it before to gain cheap things, and just a weaker expand seems like it ruins the whole charm of the card.
-I haven't played with Invader, so no comments there either.
-Wizard too.
-Well would probably benefit from being optional.
-Iron maiden could use some simplicity.
-Nothing to say really.
-Fair enough, I hate the Farmer art still but that's purley your choice. On a side note, I think I'll drop my alternate art for scientist to maybe use somewhere else. Still not a big fan of the current art, but I've decided it's not worth chaning. I'll remove my art for "Capitol" as you changed that.
-I don't speak German.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on October 30, 2016, 07:09:42 pm
Hey Gubump, get out of the way, Asper was one of my favourite posters before you even registered :p
Don't worry, pacovf, you'll always be my #1 cheer-up-person ;)

Maybe this is too personal, but you don't need to tell us whether you intend to post more often or not. There is nothing inherently wrong with checking out the forum. Of course, if checking the forum makes you feel bad about yourself for whatever reason, then you might want to block access to the website (there are ton of apps and stuff that can do that). We'll miss you of course, but your well-being comes first.
Well, my lamentations are rather personal, so giving personal responses is just natural. In fact, I mostly lament because I have trouble controlling how much I use fds, and that inability to control it is what makes me feel bad. It's like eating chocolate makes you feel good, but swearing you won't eat that bar today and spare it for the weekend, and then eat it today, either way, feels like a failure. I've been able to post closer to what I intended recently, so it feels kinda okay right now.

...that being said, Well is still easily one of my favourite fan cards, but I just noticed that the art style rings a bell. Where did you get it from?
I got it from here: Stadtwerke Lichtenfels (http://www.lichtenfels-city.de/index.php?id=1872,334). Sadly putting it in reverse search doesn't get me much more info - all I get is the same website and, looky there, some thread about "fan cards". Whatever those are.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on October 30, 2016, 07:58:02 pm
Maybe this is too personal, but you don't need to tell us whether you intend to post more often or not. There is nothing inherently wrong with checking out the forum. Of course, if checking the forum makes you feel bad about yourself for whatever reason, then you might want to block access to the website (there are ton of apps and stuff that can do that). We'll miss you of course, but your well-being comes first.
Well, my lamentations are rather personal, so giving personal responses is just natural. In fact, I mostly lament because I have trouble controlling how much I use fds, and that inability to control it is what makes me feel bad. It's like eating chocolate makes you feel good, but swearing you won't eat that bar today and spare it for the weekend, and then eat it today, either way, feels like a failure. I've been able to post closer to what I intended recently, so it feels kinda okay right now.

100% understand. Yay for self-control that actually works though!

Quote
...that being said, Well is still easily one of my favourite fan cards, but I just noticed that the art style rings a bell. Where did you get it from?
I got it from here: Stadtwerke Lichtenfels (http://www.lichtenfels-city.de/index.php?id=1872,334). Sadly putting it in reverse search doesn't get me much more info - all I get is the same website and, looky there, some thread about "fan cards". Whatever those are.

Argh. On the other side, look who's getting famous! :p
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on November 02, 2016, 03:16:38 pm
Where are Report and Jelwer in your list of outtakes? Were they just way too sucky to include?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on November 02, 2016, 06:15:25 pm
Where are Report and Jelwer in your list of outtakes? Were they just way too sucky to include?
I kind of already answered your question on Jeweler: All the card does is emulate a Treasure-Action without using those types (which I still think is a bad idea). Given that Crown now does that for real, that emulation is moot. It was the only interesting aspect of the card, either way. I simply took out Report after that outtake post and didn't add it to it later. Both are okay, just too boring to care about. So here goes:

Jeweler, $6 Action-Reaction
+3 Cards
---
At the end of your Action phase or when another player plays an attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, at the start of your buy phase, discard this fand +2$

(Used to cost 5$ without that attack thing)
Edit: Maybe that was better, either way.


Report, 4 $<2>
Gain a card costing up to 5$. Put your deck in your discard pile.

(Used to cost <8>)

Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on November 03, 2016, 01:40:15 am
Hey guys, I decided to leave forever now. As you read this, I already sent the request to delete my account. The reason isn't lack of self control alone, it's also that I've lost much of the fun frequenting the forums. And yes, a big part of that is having to deal with a guy who seems to hate me. Why lie, right?

Either way, here's my Last Will:

To Co0kieL0rd, I leave everything Seasons. It was a pleasure to work with you, buddy, and your idea to make this set together was genius. It was fantastic to have a share in such an awesome project. Hope to work with you again in the future, pal.
To ThetaSigma12, I leave the right to mock up my cards and apply recent fixes I mentioned but didn't mock up. Also, I leave that right to everybody else, but maybe it means something to you, Theta.
To pacovf, I leave just a big bunch of thank you's. You're one of the nicest, most understanding people here on fds. Just know that I'll always appreciate that.
To Donald X, I leave the right to use all of my cards commercially without any kind of atribution. Which probably won't happen, but there, I said it.
To XerxesPrealor, eHalcyon, Kuildous and GendoIkari, just some more Thank You's, as you're also really cool fds members that I always enjoyed to talk with, not necessarily about fan cards only.
To LastFootnote, I leave another big Thank You for all the feedback you gave me, and the template.
To 461.weavile, I leave special rights to do anything he pleases with my Spellcasters, as those are based on something he did. Similar things go for Sawmill (based on GeeJo's Gambling Den) and Borderlands (based on Fragasnap's Friar) to the respective inspirators.
To everyone else who should have received mention (which are quite a few), be sure that I only didn't mention you because I have to stop somewhere. There are a lot of members that gave very helpful and/or nice feedback to my cards, like LibraryAdventurer, Gubump, Haddock, Nflickner... I'm pretty sure I'll forget about one of you guys, either way. So, everyone who ever said something nice to me or helped me improve my cards (or myself), get a hug from my hugging back. I also have a smaller box of back pats if hugging alone makes you uncomfortable, so there you go. Seriously though, thank you, guys.

Now if you'll excuse me, the wind has turned. I got to go...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on November 03, 2016, 01:57:26 am
Sad to hear somebody is making your life miserable here. I vaguely remember you posting about it sometime ago, I wouldn't have guessed it was still going on. Ugh.

'til we meet on another forum, then. Take care :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on November 03, 2016, 01:57:50 am
sorry to see you go, you'll be missed

it really seems like there should be a way to get whoever is sending hate mail banned from fds. do we have a system for that?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: AdrianHealey on November 03, 2016, 08:13:21 am
I, too, would rather the person that makes you miserable removed from f.ds.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Haddock on November 03, 2016, 08:45:52 am
I, too, would rather the person that makes you miserable removed from f.ds.
Seconded.

Also, I feel bad because all of my posts in this thread have been minor nitpicky criticisms of some of the cards, perhaps not making it clear how I think Asper's cards are freaking awesome.

You're the best, Asper, and will be greatly missed.  Best of luck with your future endeavours.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on November 03, 2016, 10:05:12 am
BWAHAHAHAHA I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT WITH YOUR CARDS AND NOBODY CAN STOP MEEEEEE!!!!

Trolling aside, sad to see you go. I'll try to take good care of your cards. If you haven't already deleted them I'd like to have the .xcf versions of your cards if that's not too much to ask.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on November 03, 2016, 12:59:10 pm
This is very sad day indeed.  I wish you the best Asper.  I still consider you to be one of the best designers of fan cards, because you valued balance over flashiness (which is why I love Dominion, and judge practically every other game against it.  Dominion has ruined me for games).  Anyways, I hope that you still come back to visit despite your last post.  It will be nice to see you around. 
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Accatitippi on November 03, 2016, 01:40:32 pm
I'm very sad to see you leave.
Take care, and good luck.  :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LastFootnote on November 03, 2016, 02:07:38 pm
Good luck, Asper! Stay awesome!
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Gubump on November 03, 2016, 06:14:37 pm
Good bye, Asper. It is indeed sad to see you leave.  :'(
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on November 04, 2016, 01:47:38 am
Yes, Asper had posted about it before (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=15126.0). I imagine if the solution had been as easy as just banning the person, it would have been done. Sigh.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: McGarnacle on November 06, 2016, 08:08:45 am
Bye, Asper! We will miss you!

Man, I wonder who the person he was talking about is.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Accatitippi on November 06, 2016, 10:29:28 am
Bye, Asper! We will miss you!

Man, I wonder who the person he was talking about is.

There's only one thing to do.
Let's start a game of mafia to find out.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: schadd on November 06, 2016, 10:58:15 am
Bye, Asper! We will miss you!

Man, I wonder who the person he was talking about is.

There's only one thing to do.
Let's start a game of mafia to find out.
who of us has been sending flame pms to asper?
MIC, featuring eHalcyon, Co0kieL0rd, pacovf, ThetaSigma12, and FuckAsper666
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Limetime on November 06, 2016, 06:19:12 pm
Bye, Asper! We will miss you!

Man, I wonder who the person he was talking about is.

There's only one thing to do.
Let's start a game of mafia to find out.
who of us has been sending flame pms to asper?
MIC, featuring eHalcyon, Co0kieL0rd, pacovf, ThetaSigma12, and FuckAsper666
vote:schadd
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Deadlock39 on November 06, 2016, 06:29:40 pm
Bye, Asper! We will miss you!

Man, I wonder who the person he was talking about is.

There's only one thing to do.
Let's start a game of mafia to find out.
who of us has been sending flame pms to asper?
MIC, featuring eHalcyon, Co0kieL0rd, pacovf, ThetaSigma12, and FuckAsper666
vote:schadd

This vote gives me scummy vibes.
vote:Limetime
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: McGarnacle on November 07, 2016, 08:30:02 am
Bye, Asper! We will miss you!

Man, I wonder who the person he was talking about is.

There's only one thing to do.
Let's start a game of mafia to find out.
who of us has been sending flame pms to asper?
MIC, featuring eHalcyon, Co0kieL0rd, pacovf, ThetaSigma12, and FuckAsper666

You proposing this is scummy,

vote: Schadd
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on November 16, 2016, 09:41:23 am
(http://i.imgur.com/im4nQZN.png)
Made this card in memory of Asper. He always did like naming cards after people, giving the great art, and keeping the ability fun and simple.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Limetime on November 16, 2016, 03:14:25 pm

That car looks strangely similar to procrastinating. good now sucks later.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: MattLee on December 26, 2016, 05:00:03 pm
Great job on these cards!

(http://i.imgur.com/RUWOqwJ.jpg)
I love it. I'd buy it most of the time if I only have 1 or 2 coins and not feel bad about it but of course I wouldn't go out of my way to get it otherwise.

(http://i.imgur.com/yTqYSrL.jpg)
I love Seaside type cards and I love simple designs so this card works well for me. Not great in multiples but I'd buy one now and again

(http://i.imgur.com/NCWdkGt.jpg)
I suppose its balanced by the times it does nothing for you. Its very swingy.

(http://i.imgur.com/tEhKg2O.jpg)
Simple but pretty meh. I've realized that I like victory chip cards to have a way to speed up the game and this one just bogs it down. I think it might be fair at 3 cost but I still wouldn't care for it, sorry.

(http://i.imgur.com/vlXHpfy.jpg)
Great idea, and its simple except that you have to remember to do something later in the turn. I wish there was a way to word it better so you don't have that issue but I doubt there is.

Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on January 03, 2017, 03:09:32 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/I0ublNt.png)

So here's a card that came up in Kru5h's fan card idea thread. I think it might fit as a replacement for Invaders. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 10, 2017, 08:23:59 am
Sorry for answering this late, MattLee. I kind of left the forums, so my posts here will be infrequent at best. My cards are not being developed further here, to be honest, although I did mod some of them by now. Mostly the Spellcasters, though. (@thetaSigma12: The Event Glory is back at a cost of 9$ and replaces Invader already. If that doesn't work I'd probably just kill the idea.)

About your points:

Sultan is a bit weird and if I was a designer like Donald X who has to live with something forever after revealing it, I probably wouldn't reveal Sultan. I still recommend not evaluating it on Colony games alone, as that seems a bit extreme. Maybe the card could actually cost 2$ so it is available for everybody every time, like Chapel. You could actually open Sultan/Duchy then.

Hospital isn't my greatest design, either. I recommend combining it with trashers to get the full experience, though.

Investor originally simply gave you 3 debt and 3 coin tokens, if you like that better. It's a bit stronger, but I mostly removed it to avoid expansion-mashup-cards.

Try Meadow with good trash-for-Benefit or Alt-VP cards. It can be a beast there.

Cards of mine I think I can recommend to try out: Homunculus, Sunken City, Well, Town, Farmer, Sheriff, Scientist, Sawmill, Maze
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 12, 2017, 11:28:59 pm
I updated the OP to include some changes as well as the outtakes and changed Craftsmen to being optional. This thread should now have everything asper-ish you ever wanted in a state I can live with. Except Seasons (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14570.0), of course, as those aren't mine alone and they are not worked on any more.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on January 13, 2017, 07:49:38 am
You still explain Borderlands. Is that intentional? You don't talk about any of the other outtakes.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on January 13, 2017, 12:10:04 pm
A few minor things:

Carrier: It should say "If no-one else does, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)." to mirror Tournament.

Nightwatch: Attack should be capital, see Squire.

Iron Maiden: It should say:
Quote
If yours is an...
Action card, +2 Actions
Treasure card, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)
Victory card, +2 Cards
Each other player gains, if theirs is an...
Action card, a Ruins
Treasure card, a Copper
Victory card, a Curse.

Hospital: Like carrier, it should say "If you do, +1 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)."

Hunter: "Mat" doesn't need to be capitalized.

Investor: "Coin token", not "coin token"

Assemble: Right now it's not clear that you gain a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) more than the trashed one, it could easily refer to the Copper.

Blessing: The +Buy should be moved inside the "Once per turn:". See the new Borrow.

Parting, Bargain, Sherrif: "Token" shouldn't be capitalized.

Magician: The "()" aren't necessary.

Harm: It should end with a period, not a semicolon.

A few other optimizations that aren't as necessary:
Decree, Research: It could say "onto" instead of "on top of"
Sunken City: It could say: "it's" instead of "it is"
Nightwatch: "Players other than that one" would be clearer I think.
Sultan: This is shorter:
Quote
You may discard a Victory card, to gain a Treasure costing at most the same onto your deck.
Well: It would be nice if the text was nudged up a bit.
Hospital: "Gain a Copper to your hand" is shorter.
Hunter: See Well.
Assemble: "Putting them onto your deck" is shorter.
Inquisitor: The first (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) symbol is really off center. Maybe delete one of those spaces.
Maze: See above.
Necromancer: You could nudge the text up, "Zombie cards" can just be "Zombies", and "is not" can be "isn't".
Incantation and Farmer: I think it should be "into your hand" instead of "in your hand"
Purity: Maybe change the text so it fits more.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 13, 2017, 07:26:01 pm
You still explain Borderlands. Is that intentional? You don't talk about any of the other outtakes.

Removed the explanation for Borderlands.

A few minor things:

Carrier: It should say "If no-one else does, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)." to mirror Tournament.

Nightwatch: Attack should be capital, see Squire.

Iron Maiden: It should say:
Quote
If yours is an...
Action card, +2 Actions
Treasure card, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)
Victory card, +2 Cards
Each other player gains, if theirs is an...
Action card, a Ruins
Treasure card, a Copper
Victory card, a Curse.

Hospital: Like carrier, it should say "If you do, +1 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)."

Hunter: "Mat" doesn't need to be capitalized.

Investor: "Coin token", not "coin token"

Assemble: Right now it's not clear that you gain a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) more than the trashed one, it could easily refer to the Copper.

Blessing: The +Buy should be moved inside the "Once per turn:". See the new Borrow.

Parting, Bargain, Sherrif: "Token" shouldn't be capitalized.

Magician: The "()" aren't necessary.

Harm: It should end with a period, not a semicolon.

A few other optimizations that aren't as necessary:
Decree, Research: It could say "onto" instead of "on top of"
Sunken City: It could say: "it's" instead of "it is"
Nightwatch: "Players other than that one" would be clearer I think.
Sultan: This is shorter:
Quote
You may discard a Victory card, to gain a Treasure costing at most the same onto your deck.
Well: It would be nice if the text was nudged up a bit.
Hospital: "Gain a Copper to your hand" is shorter.
Hunter: See Well.
Assemble: "Putting them onto your deck" is shorter.
Inquisitor: The first (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) symbol is really off center. Maybe delete one of those spaces.
Maze: See above.
Necromancer: You could nudge the text up, "Zombie cards" can just be "Zombies", and "is not" can be "isn't".
Incantation and Farmer: I think it should be "into your hand" instead of "in your hand"
Purity: Maybe change the text so it fits more.

Yeah, I'm not going to fix either of those. It's exactly the kind of un-fun work that made me want to stop doing fan cards. Feel free to make fixes yourself.
It's good to know Borrow is being changed, though, because that made no sense at all. You'll just have to assume you're playing the old Asper's cards edition that was printed by Hasbro.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on January 13, 2017, 07:30:57 pm
OK, I just wanted to point it out ;).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 13, 2017, 07:33:58 pm
OK, I just wanted to point it out ;).
I completely agree with Asper and would go on to say that that particular type of feedback on tiny unimportant details is more annoying than helpful (it would be for me anyway). just fyi
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on January 13, 2017, 08:01:36 pm
OK, I just wanted to point it out ;).
I completely agree with Asper and would go on to say that that particular type of feedback on tiny unimportant details is more annoying than helpful (it would be for me anyway). just fyi
Well, I find it really helpful, so I naturally err on the side of pointing it out. If other people don't like it that's OK, I'll stop.

In other words, it's been brought up before that people should never refrain from posting a card because the don't think the wording (Art, Mock-up, etc.) is good enough. I completely agree. However, the other side should be mentioned too: people shouldn't necessarily refrain from correcting wording or suggesting new wording because they aren't sure if it's wanted.
(of course if someone specifically says they don't want it then don't do it. That's common courtesy.)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 14, 2017, 04:34:17 am
It's just that I'm not willing to put the energy I used to into my cards. I want them to be halfway decent. Making them perfect takes so much more, and makes so little a difference.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on January 14, 2017, 08:09:36 am
It's just that I'm not willing to put the energy I used to into my cards. I want them to be halfway decent. Making them perfect takes so much more, and makes so little a difference.
Ironically, I was trying to help. I know from experience it's infinitely easier when somebody goes through and points out (hopefully) everything. Of course you don't have to change it, I'm not telling you that. I just want to make my intentions clear.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 16, 2017, 07:09:10 am
It's just that I'm not willing to put the energy I used to into my cards. I want them to be halfway decent. Making them perfect takes so much more, and makes so little a difference.
Ironically, I was trying to help. I know from experience it's infinitely easier when somebody goes through and points out (hopefully) everything. Of course you don't have to change it, I'm not telling you that. I just want to make my intentions clear.
Yes, I'm not saying you weren't. Don't take it as me being ungrateful, just as me not wanting to do the thing you were trying to help me with.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on January 26, 2017, 06:45:30 pm
So I decided to mock up your cards like you graciously said I could, and I wondered if Inquisitor should say 10 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) per player, after all the Curse pile scales per player?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 26, 2017, 07:25:45 pm
So I decided to mock up your cards like you graciously said I could, and I wondered if Inquisitor should say 10 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) per player, after all the Curse pile scales per player?

I made the same mistake when I played with this card the first time, but no, I'm pretty sure it's just 10(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png). Because you take 1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) and give out coppers to each other player, so the number of coppers you give out will scale even though the number of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) tokens doesn't.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on January 26, 2017, 07:28:11 pm
So I decided to mock up your cards like you graciously said I could, and I wondered if Inquisitor should say 10 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) per player, after all the Curse pile scales per player?

I made the same mistake when I played with this card the first time, but no, I'm pretty sure it's just 10(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png). Because you take 1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) and give out coppers to each other player, so the number of coppers you give out will scale even though the number of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) tokens doesn't.
Ah, that makes sense. I didn't think about it that way.

I'm also interested in nerfing Hospital somehow. It just seems a bit too good with any decent trashing.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on January 26, 2017, 07:54:30 pm
Another fun fact that I'll say whether you care or not: Minister's art (http://artuk.org/discover/artworks/portrait-of-a-nobleman-holding-a-letter-208005) is actually by Patrick William Adam, which is based on Giovanni Battista Moroni's work a Portrait of Antonio Navagaro (https://www.artexpertswebsite.com/pages/artists/moroni.php).
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on January 26, 2017, 08:47:25 pm
Another fun fact that I'll say whether you care or not: Minister's art (http://artuk.org/discover/artworks/portrait-of-a-nobleman-holding-a-letter-208005) is actually by Patrick William Adam, which is based on Giovanni Battista Moroni's work a Portrait of Antonio Navagaro (https://www.artexpertswebsite.com/pages/artists/moroni.php).
Thanks for this bit of info. It should be changed, I guess.

Also, yes, Inquisitor uses just 10 tokens. You could experiment with 12 or something like that, too. And finally, Hospital certainly isn't my best balanced card. You could add a trashing ability (on buy, for example) and cost it higher, make it a split pile with a Outpost-level trasher (although I dislike split piles, Carrier/Nightwatch being rather atypical), or something like that. Just nerfing it without otherwise changing the card seems bad to me.

Edit: Nurse, Action, $3
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck, trash the matches and discard the rest.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 02, 2017, 03:00:56 pm
I pondered about Sultan, and decided it belongs in the outtakes section. I just don't happen to find any suitable fix to make it anything but a good Gold gainer that requests you go for Provinces first. Meh. An idea was:

Quote
Sultan, 4$, Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a card to gain a Treasure costing up to 1$ more than it.

It's more expensive and allows gaining Silver for Estates or Gold for Duchies, but also to pseudo-Mint cash or put that second Smithy to good use. Hum. Maybe it would be more interesting if it was terminal?

I'm not sure whether I should also put Investor into outtakes. It just doesn't seem that interesting of a card. Either way, I went back to the old wording that just took both Debt and Coin Tokens. ThetaSigma's mockup made me realize the simplicity was worth mashing up expansion mechanics, after all.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on February 02, 2017, 03:18:01 pm
Investor is a great card! If you think it's unbalanced, that's different. But if you just think that it's not interesting, I'd beg to differ.

For Sultan, what if it was a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Treasure? It would need a rename but could it work as:
Quote
Treasure, (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)

+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)
When you play this, you may discard a card, to gain a Treasure costing exactly (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than it.
Maybe too good? I like the price of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) though, as you can turn Sultans into Golds and your spare smithies into Sultans. I think that DBnator's Offertory  (http://i.imgur.com/fYNsWRp.png)covers your Current Sultan's ground pretty well, although that may be too good. But that's a discussion for later.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 02, 2017, 07:43:32 pm
Investor is a great card! If you think it's unbalanced, that's different. But if you just think that it's not interesting, I'd beg to differ.

For Sultan, what if it was a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Treasure? It would need a rename but could it work as:
Quote
Treasure, (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)

+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)
When you play this, you may discard a card, to gain a Treasure costing exactly (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than it.
Maybe too good? I like the price of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) though, as you can turn Sultans into Golds and your spare smithies into Sultans. I think that DBnator's Offertory  (http://i.imgur.com/fYNsWRp.png)covers your Current Sultan's ground pretty well, although that may be too good. But that's a discussion for later.

The main advantage would be that my version could do Estate to Silver and Duchy to Gold. And my main problem is that I don't know what exactly I want Sultan to do. It was born to interact with Harem, but it just goes to tell that creating a card to fit a name still isn't such a great idea.

And yes, the issue with Investor is mostly balance. I didn't have time to really test it yet, but I feel it might be off.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on February 03, 2017, 07:30:00 am
For Investor, you should just play around with (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) and the Coin tokens. Like maybe (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png), 2 Coin tokens, and cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png). There should be some configuration that works.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 03, 2017, 09:29:39 am
Well, maybe it's not really balance that's the issue, either. I'm probably just not sure it's actually fun to play.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: weety4 on February 03, 2017, 03:57:02 pm
For Investor, you should just play around with (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) and the Coin tokens. Like maybe (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png), 2 Coin tokens, and cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png). There should be some configuration that works.
I think that there are other parameters one can play around with besided the values.
You could also make the card a Reaction that triggers when you discard it from hand or play. Non-terminality makes it stronger and Clean-up discarding changes the timing, i.e. Investor doesn't "ruin" (conditional on you not spending the Coin tokens) your buy power for the current move but only for the next move.

"Coin-ification" respectively Capital in the other direction is definitely an interesting design space.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 10, 2017, 01:47:24 pm
So, I decided to make Investor a Treasure card to ramp it up a bit. Ta-dah!
(http://i.imgur.com/cDDOD4u.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on February 10, 2017, 02:08:51 pm
Doesn't need the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png), see Charm.

It's better now, though, but I don't know how much.

EDIT: I see you moved Sultan to Outtakes, moved Extortioner from outtakes into your set, and changed Mage (formerly trickster) and Sorceress (formerly sorcerer). Anything else?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: GendoIkari on February 10, 2017, 02:17:30 pm
Doesn't need the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png), see Charm.

It's better now though, but I don't know by how much.

Interesting, does this mean that we can expect the Horn of Plenty reprint to not have the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on February 10, 2017, 02:19:55 pm
Doesn't need the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png), see Charm.

It's better now though, but I don't know by how much.

Interesting, does this mean that we can expect the Horn of Plenty reprint to not have the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)?
Hmm, the ShuffleIT one doesn't according to the Seprix's card texts.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 10, 2017, 06:11:40 pm
Doesn't need the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png), see Charm.

It's better now, though, but I don't know how much.

EDIT: I see you moved Sultan to Outtakes, moved Extortioner from outtakes into your set, and changed Mage (formerly trickster) and Sorceress (formerly sorcerer). Anything else?

No, that's all. Except I added Mage in addition to Trickster, which is still there. I should probably also do a Spellcaster that attacks on gain and call it Warlock :P
I wouldn't like to change Investment's coin icon until I know they changed Horn of Plenty, too. Either way, as I said, consider these old-school prints.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on February 11, 2017, 09:19:25 am
Apparently, HoP does have a large 0 on it in ShuffleIT, my bad. I wonder why it does and Charm doesn't?


EDIT: I like the old Investment better I decided. This one just seems too similar to Capital as a Treasure, and the Action version just seemed cooler. I think I'd like it costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), giving (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png) and 2 Tokens. But whatever.

Regarding Spellcasters, Trickster and Mage seem too similar.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Gubump on February 11, 2017, 11:28:38 am
Apparently, HoP does have a large 0 on it in ShuffleIT, my bad. I wonder why it does and Charm doesn't?


EDIT: I like the old Investment better I decided. This one just seems too similar to Capital as a Treasure, and the Action version just seemed cooler. I think I'd like it costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), giving (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png) and 2 Tokens. But whatever.

Regarding Spellcasters, Trickster and Mage seem too similar.

I think that it's because Charm has an option of giving money, so they didn't add the big $0 so that it wouldn't give conflicting information.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 11, 2017, 02:35:11 pm
Apparently, HoP does have a large 0 on it in ShuffleIT, my bad. I wonder why it does and Charm doesn't?


EDIT: I like the old Investment better I decided. This one just seems too similar to Capital as a Treasure, and the Action version just seemed cooler. I think I'd like it costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), giving (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png) and 2 Tokens. But whatever.

Regarding Spellcasters, Trickster and Mage seem too similar.
I hear your points but must admit I don't agree to them. Especially not to Mage and Trickster. I considered letting you overpay for Mage to prepare a Spell, but honestly I think it might be stronger than Trickster as is. Try them out in a game, see if they play similar. I don't think they will. Especially with an inherently complex mechanic like Spells, where small differences get amplified fast, I believe less iss better to start from. I can still apply sprinkles later.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 11, 2017, 08:06:22 pm
"Coin Token + Debt" would be an interesting overpay effect.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 11, 2017, 09:29:27 pm
Well, I tried an Event that translated 2$ into a  coin token, and it was automatic. Your idea seems reasonable in that it makes gathering tokens more of a challenge. However, I'm not sure whether paying twice and having to use a specific kingdom card doesn't go a bit too far. Also, gaining both tokens at once is already not a trivial effect, and as overpay cards have both a play and overpay effect, I'm not sure whether it would be a bit too much for my tastes.

By the way I don't disagree that Investment as a Treasuse card is a bit similar to Capital, Theta. I just don't feel that Investment was better as a terminal Action. It makes it much harder to get it to work in an engine, so its main application to me seems to be slog games, or the trivial strategy of playing Investment and then amassing tokens until you can buy a few Provinces. Maybe that will be an okay working strategy, but it's also really boring. I'd rather balance it as a nonterminal card so the number of strategies it goes with is more broad, or perhaps it even demands a more interesting strategy to be played. So if Investment turns out too similar to Capital, I'd probably rather kill the card than revert back to terminal. I hope this is more insightful than when I just said "Nah!" before. Sorry for that, I was in a hurry. :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 18, 2017, 02:59:50 pm
So, I originally wanted to post this in the "Very bad card ideas" thread.

Then I figured, maybe I can make this not quite a very bad idea? Probably something in this direction has already been done, but I'm not exactly sure. What I'm sure of is that I heard "Message in a Bottle" as a suggested card name before. So, if I stole one of you guys' idea, I'd be glad to learn about it - at the very least it feels like it's slightly familiar... Either way:

(http://i.imgur.com/JopBZ9A.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/IIyLIUg.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/pPH2MOB.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Mx2HoIP.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/umuihA3.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/HfHoxPe.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/6JLkjgK.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Ydkaoif.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/NrePe9V.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/sCT2Ovt.jpg)

Remarks:
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 18, 2017, 06:54:58 pm
Huh, maybe it should instead say "This is gained into another player of your choice's discard pile instead of yours, whereas you take Bottle Token #X."
That would implement the "no-visit" rule to make sure it doesn't get covered up, although Watchtower would still work (if you choose to do WT first).

Maybe "When you gain this, put it in another player's discard pile, and if you do, take Bottle Token #X."?

What's better?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 18, 2017, 07:08:23 pm
I think I got it!  ;D

(http://i.imgur.com/qYjdLjR.jpg)

Edit: To clarify why I'm happy: This doesn't visit your discard pile (new Nomad Camp wording) and therefore can't be covered up. If you topdeck it with Watchtower or Travelling Fair, however, you also don't get the token. Also you can put it in another player's discard even if it's gained in your action phase, etc.

Edit 2: I guess it gets a bit weird with Inheritance (I buy an Estate and put it in your discard pile), but a lot of cards do. I can live with it.
FAQ: Estates put in my discard pile are my Estates, not Estates of the player who gained them.

Edit 3: Probably this is much too strong for 2$. After all, it's a Lab, even though it's not me who plays it. Maybe 4$ would be more appropriate? Just don't buy them on trash-for-benefit boards :P
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 19, 2017, 02:47:52 am
I don't think you need to worry about the no-visit rule, cf Nomad Camp, no?

2$ does seem cheap for its effect. 4$ might be ok. I have a feeling people will not like it though, getting their deck flooded with cards that help another player. I feel like the passing version would be better in that sense.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 19, 2017, 08:26:46 am
Maybe it's too much like a directed attack when other players refuse to play it. Hum. The most relevant idea is that the tokens identify another player. Maybe I can do something different that uses the idea.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 19, 2017, 08:55:16 am
In the german forum, someone suggested this much simpler version which can do without tokens and different art:

Message in a Bottle, Action, 3$
+1 Card
+1 Action
The player to your right draws a card.
---
This is gained into the player to your left's discard pile.

Edit: Alternative:
Message in a Bottle, Action, 2$
+1 Card
+1 Action
The player to your right may gain a card costing up to 4$ that is not a Message in a Bottle.
---
This is gained into the player to your left's discard pile.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: trivialknot on February 19, 2017, 09:58:53 am
So, I actually tested a card similar to Message in a Bottle.  My card is somewhere on f.ds, but I'll just dig it out of my files.

Quote
Generous Gift, Action, $2
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
The player to your right may discard a card to draw a card.

When you gain this card, put it in the discard pile of a player of your choice.

First, I'll say that this was a really fun card. It led to passive-aggressive gift-giving battles, and they were just intrinsically fun.

Second, unfortunately there is some politics.  Receiving a gift usually hurts you, for several reasons: a) Cantrips on their own are often bad when there's sifting, and Generous Gift itself provides sifting b) Often you'd rather treat it as a dead card than give your opponent an extra card, and c) You might take the effort to trash the card.

My card has a few differences, and I don't mind if you borrow some or all of the ideas from it.  It gives +Buy, which somewhat offsets the disadvantage of receiving a Generous Gift, and enables you to retaliate with more Gifts.  It requires the player to your right to discard a card first, which moderates its strength (often you might just discard a Generous Gift).  The precise mechanics of gaining is different, although I don't know that it is better.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 19, 2017, 01:48:50 pm
So, I actually tested a card similar to Message in a Bottle.  My card is somewhere on f.ds, but I'll just dig it out of my files.

Quote
Generous Gift, Action, $2
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
The player to your right may discard a card to draw a card.

When you gain this card, put it in the discard pile of a player of your choice.

First, I'll say that this was a really fun card. It led to passive-aggressive gift-giving battles, and they were just intrinsically fun.

Second, unfortunately there is some politics.  Receiving a gift usually hurts you, for several reasons: a) Cantrips on their own are often bad when there's sifting, and Generous Gift itself provides sifting b) Often you'd rather treat it as a dead card than give your opponent an extra card, and c) You might take the effort to trash the card.

My card has a few differences, and I don't mind if you borrow some or all of the ideas from it.  It gives +Buy, which somewhat offsets the disadvantage of receiving a Generous Gift, and enables you to retaliate with more Gifts.  It requires the player to your right to discard a card first, which moderates its strength (often you might just discard a Generous Gift).  The precise mechanics of gaining is different, although I don't know that it is better.

I feared I had seen it before...

The only real purpose of the (admittedly more complicated) Nomad Camp wording was to avoid scenarios where you use some obscure interaction to put the card in your deck AND take the token. Of course, there's no reason for this if the bonus always goes to the player to your right.

But the point about not playing the card to avoid letting another player draw a card is indeed a thing I worried about, myself. Maybe if the bonus is something more harmless, the "gifted" player won't mind it as much, like in the alternative described above?

I guess this card idea was twofold: First, tokens to connect players with individual copies of a card. Maybe I can make something out of this. Second, a card you put in another player's deck to get a bonus when it's played. This is exactly what your original idea is about, so I guess the current version of Message in a Bottle is just my take on your idea. It's a nice idea, though. Thank your for linking to your thread :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: trivialknot on February 19, 2017, 02:53:37 pm
FWIW, I think I took the idea from someone else who created several cards that passed to adjacent players and provided you with off-turn bonuses.

But the point about not playing the card to avoid letting another player draw a card is indeed a thing I worried about, myself. Maybe if the bonus is something more harmless, the "gifted" player won't mind it as much, like in the alternative described above?
Yeah, I agree that the bonus should be small.  You have to imagine you have a Message in a Bottle in hand, would you play it to get +1 card if it also gives a bonus to an opponent?  If the bonus is +1 card or better, the answer is often no.

But it's not as bad as it sounds.  With 2 players, there are no true politics, and in 3+ players you're less willing to hurt yourself just to hurt a single opponent.

The tokens are a neat idea.  I think you'd want to give your Message in a Bottle to the player who is thin, but not so thin that they can easily trash Message in a Bottle.  So choosing which player can be an interesting decision in itself.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 19, 2017, 06:04:30 pm
In another forum, somebody pointed out that the tokens also add a level of politicalnes. I have two Coppers, a Silver and two MiaB in hand, but from different owners. I'll probably not have to play both to get to 5$, so who gets the advantage?

Not sure I'm currently able to solve the problems this has. At the very least, my current ideas won't really add anything substantial that hasn't already been there.

Also, I do believe I remember where I heard of this idea before. Donald X once tried to prove a point about how he already had every good fan card idea before and looked at a single fan card thread, critizising a few cards from it. I do believe one of those cards was a variant of this.

Maybe I'll have a grand idea how to add something here in due time...
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: pacovf on February 19, 2017, 06:43:28 pm
Yeah, I agree that the bonus should be small.  You have to imagine you have a Message in a Bottle in hand, would you play it to get +1 card if it also gives a bonus to an opponent?  If the bonus is +1 card or better, the answer is often no.

One way to solve that is to spread out the bonus over more than one card. Just as a proof of concept:

Quote
Message in a bottle
+1 Card
+1 Action
The player to your right flips their Bottle token over. If it's face up, they draw a card.

When you buy this, put it and a copy of it in the discard pile of the player to your left.

Important part being the fact that they gain two cards, not the exact way the bonus works.


Another (unrelated) idea that also solves the "benefit" problem would be to have a single shared Bottle token, that you take when you play or buy a Message in a Bottle card, so that playing the card means you will be the next one to benefit from it. It doesn't preserve the original idea of the card, though.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 22, 2017, 09:15:40 am
I suppose this was done already?

(http://i.imgur.com/OuR314V.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on February 22, 2017, 09:19:50 am
I suppose this was done already?

(http://i.imgur.com/OuR314V.jpg)
Yeah, see GeneralRamos' Archipelago. It doesn't have the +1 Card on play, the trashing on calling, and on Buy not on Gain trigger. Yours might be good but Archipelago is one of my favorites.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 22, 2017, 02:22:46 pm
Thank you, kind ThetaSigma12. I will check out Archipelago immediately. Have you played with it? I suspected the trashing would be necessary so you can't just play and call the same copy every turn.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on February 22, 2017, 02:46:33 pm
Thank you, kind ThetaSigma12. I will check out Archipelago immediately. Have you played with it? I suspected the trashing would be necessary so you can't just play and call the same copy every turn.
Yeah I played a game or 2 with it. The only thing I know is having it called on Buy is better than Gain, to stop stalling the game as much, though trashing might overcome that.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on February 22, 2017, 04:07:27 pm
Thank you, kind ThetaSigma12. I will check out Archipelago immediately. Have you played with it? I suspected the trashing would be necessary so you can't just play and call the same copy every turn.
Yeah I played a game or 2 with it. The only thing I know is having it called on Buy is better than Gain, to stop stalling the game as much, though trashing might overcome that.
Can you please put a link to this Archipelago card? Don't know where to find it.  Thanks :)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on February 22, 2017, 04:08:28 pm
I suppose this was done already?

(http://i.imgur.com/OuR314V.jpg)
Diggin' it, as always Asper.  I feel like it has a unique place. 
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on February 22, 2017, 05:23:25 pm
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14361.msg550202#msg550202 for the original, but there's my fjnctionally identical version under other carcs in my thread (click the link in my signature.

EDIT: 1000th post, this had better get me dozens od upvotes.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 22, 2017, 06:01:28 pm
Thank you, kind ThetaSigma12. I will check out Archipelago immediately. Have you played with it? I suspected the trashing would be necessary so you can't just play and call the same copy every turn.
Yeah I played a game or 2 with it. The only thing I know is having it called on Buy is better than Gain, to stop stalling the game as much, though trashing might overcome that.
Well, as people already mentioned in the original thread, on buy causes weird interactions, as a bought card is still in the supply. Considering Talisman's wording, you could even make a point that the top card of the pile you bought from getting moved doesn't keep you from gaining the card below it. In other words, on buy this would make me move the top Province of the pile (to my Tavern Mat) before I gain a Province for my buy. You could solve that by saying "when you gain a Victory card in your buy phase", but as this still doesn't stop a "4 Silvers and this" deck from just buying a Province every turn, I think the trash option is better altogether, to be honest.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 22, 2017, 10:40:23 pm
We often had the topics of Events and Landmarks, and how they could be expanded by further sideways non-cards. You know, things that just change the rules, without resorting to the buying mechanic, or just caring about points. Today I decided to give it a try myself.

The first issue with a thing like this is that they are hard to remember. You can check Events during your buy phase, and Landmarks are about VP, so they will catch your attention automatically. They also have a special color. So I thought, if Events are white and rather simple, like the default Actions cards, and Landmarks are green and about points, like VP-cards, then this new thing about effects that can happen at any time should maybe also take the color scheme of cards that can trigger at any time: So, reaction-blue.

As a theme, I went with an old naming idea LastFootnote had: Edicts. He also named most of them after expressions from politics, and I felt that fit, so I kept it.

The following are more exemplary than anything. Please note that I intentionally made it so that the effects are all triggered by a player wanting it - this way, if you forget an Edict, you're not cheating. Also, I tried to make sure none of these can trivially be implemented as an Event or Landmark...

(http://i.imgur.com/nK1onLY.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/qgBQ6E8.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/oU7wu2n.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/xA0WNiY.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/hIYsuyW.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/vsR20ku.jpg)
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: ConMan on February 22, 2017, 11:19:28 pm
All of those Edicts look fun and I want to play with all of them.

Er, maybe not all at once.
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: schadd on February 22, 2017, 11:22:31 pm
so other players can demand that you put a victory card on your deck but, like, do you have to do it?
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Nflickner on February 22, 2017, 11:24:45 pm
I really like the edicts as well :)  I want more!  I like Equality and Appeasement the best I think, but they are all good. 
Title: Re: Asper's Cards
Post by: Asper on February 23, 2017, 12:53:00 am
so other players can demand that you put a victory card on your deck but, like, do you have to do it?
Well, that's implied. But you are right, it's not technically spelled out.

What's bugging me more is that I actually made the same mistake with Bureaucracy that I pointed out just one post before it: If you move the Victory card on buy, you technically still gain the card below it (see Talisman). I'l