Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Asper

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 183
1
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 18, 2019, 12:46:21 pm »
Carve - $4

Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

--

When you trash this, +1 Action.

----------

"It's better than Feast!" - not quite, shut up. "It's worse than Remake!" - not quite either, and don't we want most cards in between those two?

While this clearly does stuff that Remake can't do, it's hard to see how this isn't strictly better than Feast. The only thing you can do with Feast that you can't do with this is to trash it to gain a card costing less than , and it's a super-rare edge case that you would do that.

How about if it didn't allow gaining Victory cards?

Btw I'm out for this round, I couldn't think of something clever. Kudos to everyone who could.

2
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 14, 2019, 12:08:58 pm »
It would be written as a "choose one" if you were choosing between: trash the War Flag; or discard a Treasure for the Attack.
Arguable. Not only do you give two choices which card to use, you also do something else with each, which sets them apart further. Given this, using a grammar structure that by default points to the last noun is all but clear.

3
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 13, 2019, 09:17:20 am »
Quote
War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $6
$3. When you play this, trash this or discard a Treasure and each other player discards a card for each coin in its cost, and then draws until they have 3 cards in hand.
In games using this, when you buy a card costing $5 or more, trash a card you have in play.

As worded, it's unclear that the attack is supposed to be triggered by trashing War Flag. A wording that would make it clear would have to be something like this:

Quote
When you play this, trash this or discard a Treasure, then each other player discards a card for each coin in trashed or discarded card's cost and draws to 3 cards in hand.

Personally I see it fitting the brief, but, eh, if a judge thinks that it doesn't fit the guidelines, chances are you are better off submitting something else than arguing about it.

4
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 12, 2019, 10:26:07 pm »
A sequence of one-shot cards: effectively Traveller for Treasures, but in reverse order.

Diamond (Treasure-Jewel) [$7]
$4
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Ruby.

Ruby (Treasure-Jewel) [$5*]
$3
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Pearl.
(This is not in the Supply)

Pearl (Treasure-Jewel) [$2*]
$2
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for an Emerald.
(This is not in the Supply)

Emerald (Treasure-Jewel) [$0*]
$1
+1 Buy
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a card costing up to $2.
(This is not in the Supply)
Considering that these are Treasures, I think you would be safe to just exchange them on play.

5
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 10, 2019, 08:38:36 am »
Just a question, would passing the card around satisfy the challenge conditions?


If I have time to do an actual submission, and it is allowed, I'd probably look into this design space a bit more.

6
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 09, 2019, 06:29:11 pm »


Building Society
Cost:$5
Types: Action-Treasure

If it's your Action phase, +1 Card, +1 Action and + $1.
When you play this, it's worth $1 per Silver you have in play.

A building society is, I suppose, a small Bank. It's an experiment with the idea of having an Action-Treasure, something I don't think I've seen before. Here, you can either play it as cantrip money or wait to the end of your turn to get more out of it, provided you can get enough Silvers into your hand some other way.
I suggest to make this say "+1$ per Silver in play" first, and then have the Action part. "Worth" sounds like it was something different, perhaps even ineffective if played as an Action, but several cards imply the words actually mean the same.

7
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 09, 2019, 11:13:07 am »
Decided to push my submission a bit in power to make it a 5$. Still not terribly exciting, and possibly favors Big Money too much.


8
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 08, 2019, 06:50:48 am »


It's a budget Smithy.  It will be great if you can keep the silvers out of the way. Hopefully not too good.

This card is... incredibly weak. As the Fan Card Creation Guide says, the difference between $3 and $4 is negligible, so this card is far too weak to only cost $1 more than Smithy, with both an on-play and an on-gain drawback. Heck, I'd give it +4 Cards instead of 3 and price it the same.

It doesn't have an on-gain drawback, it has an on-gain attack.

Wouldn't players WANT to gain Silvers onto their deck? It's only an attack if other players are going for Silver Workers.
Ignore Awaclus. He thinks he's funny.

I mean topdecking Silvers could totally mess up an engine, Silvers that also make your Silver Workers stink... It's way more of an attack than Embassy ever is at least.
Hum, okay, those are points I can get behind. I think the solution should be to either make gaining optional (make sure it's never an attack) or make sure it always feels like an attack, by changing it slightly. This way it's a weird in-between thing.

9
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 07, 2019, 05:33:57 pm »


It's a budget Smithy.  It will be great if you can keep the silvers out of the way. Hopefully not too good.

This card is... incredibly weak. As the Fan Card Creation Guide says, the difference between $3 and $4 is negligible, so this card is far too weak to only cost $1 more than Smithy, with both an on-play and an on-gain drawback. Heck, I'd give it +4 Cards instead of 3 and price it the same.

It doesn't have an on-gain drawback, it has an on-gain attack.

Wouldn't players WANT to gain Silvers onto their deck? It's only an attack if other players are going for Silver Workers.
Ignore Awaclus. He thinks he's funny.

10
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Male and female cards (again)
« on: April 06, 2019, 07:45:11 am »
The artist's intent is one thing, but honestly, if this is about visibility, I'm not sure we should count cards where the gender is not visible. I know now that Tormentor is a woman, but I wouldn't have without this thread.

This is actually a situation where other languages can make clear Tormentor is female by choosing the appropriate name. I'll suggest to take care of this in future German editions.

11
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Revolution
« on: April 05, 2019, 01:11:04 pm »
Wait, so with Chemist you get both the Action and the Card when you spend the Villager? Without your explanation, I would have guessed it works like Butcher in that you lose what the token does.

12
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles
« on: April 04, 2019, 09:54:23 am »
My deck contains a Throne Room, card X and otherwise only base cards (no Ruins). There are no Adventures tokens placed anywhere. I play Throne Room on X and draw 7 cards. What is X?
Another player played three Torturers, you discarded, and the card in your hand is Library?
Or something with Apothecary.

13
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 04, 2019, 08:04:07 am »
I have an idea....

Silverbank $4
action
+1 action
Show up to 4 silvers from your hand. +1 card per Silver shown.
This is pretty weak. Sure, it's nonterminal, but apart from that it's worse than Coppersmith. For instance, it is limited to at most +4$, and unlike with Coppers, you don't start with Silvers in your deck. Of course Silvers are better than Coppers, but you forego buying something else instead.
It doesn't produce Coins but draws.
I agree that it seems weak but like Shepherd it could be great "support draw", i.e. when you have something else in your deck that draws this might be pretty decent.
Oh wow, sorry, I completely misread it, then. That's quite a bit better, but on the other hand I wonder wether a deck that's as full with Silver wouldn't be better off with a terminal draw card like e.g. Smithy. Of course you can also use it in an engine deck, but if your engine can reliably draw this and at least two Silvers, it's probably going fairly smoothly anyhow. So now that you win, you win more, and before, it does very little to get you there (mainly hoping for lucky draws).

14
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Male and female cards (again)
« on: April 04, 2019, 06:05:30 am »
I think all Bard, Donate, Devil's Workshop and Tormentor are ambiguous. I mean, they could be women, but I wouldn't say they have to.

15
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 04, 2019, 05:28:36 am »
I have an idea....

Silverbank $4
action
+1 action
Show up to 4 silvers from your hand. +1 card per Silver shown.
This is pretty weak. Sure, it's nonterminal, but apart from that it's worse than Coppersmith. For instance, it is limited to at most +4$, and unlike with Coppers, you don't start with Silvers in your deck. Of course Silvers are better than Coppers, but you forego buying something else instead.

16
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: New fan based alchemy cards.
« on: April 03, 2019, 07:29:51 pm »
Sure, do what is fun to you. It's not like I mind more Alchemy cards. I'm just giving you the reasons why it's unlikely to happen on the official side.

17
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 03, 2019, 05:49:28 pm »
Huh, this is another one where I have a fitting card lying around in my vault... So, what could be something new...

Quote
Day-taler, Action, 3$
+3 Cards
Discard a card. If it is a Silver: +1 Action

18
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: New fan based alchemy cards.
« on: April 03, 2019, 05:24:16 am »
Thatís why they can just do an update pack they did it with the first 2. They were like 10$. Besides for those of us who have guilds already if we want Coffers for guilds we would have to spend a lot more than 10$. That change did not come with an update pack for guilds did it. Guilds isnít the best expansion either yet they did make changes and did re print the box. It would cost the same amount if they created new alchemy cards and new alchemy box. It might be even cheaper because they still put cornucopia and guilds together. They would of had to reprint cornucopia too.

And with alchemy all they would have to do is create the new cards new insert and put them into an update pack they would not have to create a whole new box, thereís plenty of space for 7 or 8 cards.

They just donít want to because itís not popular. Which is why Iím creating my own to add. Because they have given up on it. They could of kept guilds the same. After empires came out they kept prosperity the same, I mean isnít it weird playing with bishop and farmerís market in the same game. Yet they changed it.
I don't get what your problem is with Bishop and Farmers' Market. Those are two completely different cards that use different mechanics.

And I'll say it again, the first and second edition of Guilds are mechanically the same. You miss nothing if you don't buy the second edition. This is completely different than your suggested changes to Alchemy. Besides, Guilds IS a lot more popular than Alchemy.

If you were to create some cards with the main purpose to sell them alone, you should put that effort into a completely new expansion. First, it won't be stained with Alchemy's lack of popularity. Second, it will be received as something new and thus more interesting. Third, compared to a 10-card upgrade pack, you get more for your money, because small expansions contain less cards but require the same organisational effort to ship, store, sell, etc..

19
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: New fan based alchemy cards.
« on: April 02, 2019, 01:08:47 pm »
They wanted smaller expansions, then why did they bother combining guilds and cornucopia then? It goes against what they wanted. And they never bothered to make another mini expansion to combine it later with alchemy did they now. Since they obviously changed their minds on smaller expansions they should make alchemy bigger officially. Add more cards to it. Make it so it can be played by itself and then of course a make a few more cards that donít have potion in their cost. Making it a well rounded expansion on its own. After all they have made many changes to other expansions. Replacing cards in the base game and intrigue. Changing guilds take a coin to +1 Coffers. Adding bane to cornucopia. They need to make changes to alchemy too. And while their at it prosperity needs a few 2$ costing cards. Cause as is the 3$ costing cards arenít that great either.

Iím just saying itís unfair to alchemy fans. To make changes to all the other expansions but to leave alchemy all alone on itís own.
The current German publisher isn't the German publisher from back then, so you can't hold them accountable for having other ideas than back then. Alchemy is a small set now, and there's no good reason for a publisher to make it big. Intrigue and the base game were always much more popular, but they had weak cards that were replaced to make them better, and also those replacement cards were enough to make up a small expansion consisting only of them. Replacing all the weak cards in Alchemy and adding new ones is practically the same effort as creating a new expansion from scratch, but more restricted in what one can do, with lots of people having to pay for cards they already have, and Alchemy still being overwhelmingly unpopular. It's worse than creating a new expansion in every respect. Besides, the Guilds changes are no new cards, they play exactly the same, and the same goes for Cornucopia's bane tracking card.

That doesn't mean you as a fan can't try to do it yourself, but from a publisher's perspective a second edition of Alchemy means putting immense ressources into something that didn't work the last time.

20
General Discussion / Re: Brag Board
« on: April 02, 2019, 11:54:31 am »
I'm engaged.

21
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: New fan based alchemy cards.
« on: April 02, 2019, 11:39:27 am »
But obviously he wants us to come up with our own alchemy cards because half the box is empty. Thatís why Iíve got so many ways to use potions, or to make it easier to gain higher costing potion cards or to give certain actions that act also as a potion. Hopefully if you played a random game with just alchemy you would get at least one of these new cards that make it easier to get potion Action cards.
While I doubt Donald X has strong feelings about fans trying to fill Alchemy's gaps one way or the other, he mentioned that Alchemy started out as a big set, and was split up due to the German publisher at the time requesting smaller sets (they wanted to sell them in tiny packages, thank goodness it didn't come that far).

What I don't think we know is whether the cards would all be centered around Potions. Taking any other big expansion as a reference point, the answer appears to be no. Even Seaside, which has an overarching "future turns" theme isn't all Durations. It also has tokens, mats, topdecking, and even some off-topic cards. So if you want to fill up the gaps in Alchemy, maybe it would be more rewarding to create new stuff that goes with Potions on a meta level, than just creating more of the same. Potion cards are tricky but powerful, maybe other tricky but powerful mechanics would go with them. And they also have cards depend on each other, maybe that's a thing to explore. Now that I write this, I realize that Dark Ages actually worked with both of these ideas. Or perhaps you like how Potion cards have you pay for cards in a new way, and want to invent something that goes with that (like Empires' debt did), or you like how the set is slightly weird, and you want to do more weird stuff, or you like the magic theme (gasp) and want more mechanics derived from magic themes, like Nocturne does.

My point is, filling the gaps to make Alchemy a better set doesn't necessarily mean you have to create more Potion cards. Having overly many Potion cards in a kingdom removes the tactical consideration of wether or not to get a Potion, and the game suffers as a result. There's a reason Empires isn't all debt cards and Adventures isn't all Reserves.

22
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 01, 2019, 12:17:04 pm »
Royal Taxation  0*
Event
To buy this event, discard 4 victory cards
Gain a gold

I think the wording would need to be:

Quote
Royal Taxation, Event, 0$
Reveal and discard up to 4 Victory cards from your hand. If you discarded 4, gain a Gold.

It seems similar to but worse than Quest and its name is a bit redundant with Tax', though.

23
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 01, 2019, 04:45:50 am »
Losing track doesn't mean the card can't be played anymore, but as that only plays a role for one-shots and the Project can only be triggered once per game, I suppose it's half so bad.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

You say that if the card leaves the play area that means the Project "just loses track" of it. While that's true, it does nothing. The card will still be played each turn, set aside or not. And my remark was that this only matters for one-shots (or to be more precise, cards that remove themselves from play), so it doesn't come up too often.

So, lose track does nothing and I don't see why you mention it, but it should still be fine.

I guess I don't understand how the lose-track rule works then. I thought if the card leaves the play area, then it doesn't know where it is anymore and so can't do anything with it. How is this different from, e.g. Procession and Island? If what you're saying is true, then why can't Procession find Island and trash it?
Because trashing is only successful if the card is indeed moved to the trash, whereas playing a card TRIES moving it (into play), but doesn't depend on it. This has been this way since, uh, Throne Room and Feast?

To further elaborate, lose-track only keeps a card from being moved, not from knowing what it does. Trashing depends on moving a card, playing doesn't.

24
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: New fan based alchemy cards.
« on: April 01, 2019, 03:44:11 am »
I have redone magnifying glass itís also posted in the first post along with most of the other cards for alchemy Iíve come up with.


Magnifying Glass' lower instruction is a bit messy, as technically when you buy a card you have not yet gained it and would put it into your deck directly from the supply, without ever gaining it. Also it's never specified where that Potion comes from. It says you do it only when you have a Potion in play, but that doesn't say that's where the Potion is topdecked from. It could just as well be your hand or discard pile. Wording suggestion:

Quote
When you gain this, put it and a Potion you have in play onto your deck.

If you have no Potion in play, this will just fail to topdeck one. As there are only very few ways to gain a Potion cost card without buying it, it should hardly make a difference otherwise.

25
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: New fan based alchemy cards.
« on: April 01, 2019, 03:36:23 am »


Hereís a brand new idea I had for alchemy. Since thereís only 3 official cards that are gathering I thought Iíd add one to alchemy.
Why does it let you return Potions to the supply? That seems to go against the rest of the card.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 183

Page created in 0.176 seconds with 19 queries.