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 - scott_pilgrim

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 105
1
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 24, 2020, 09:49:22 pm »
Quote
Name: Spellbook
Cost: $2
Types: Night
Trash two non-Duration Action cards you have in play with the same name. If you did, move your +1 card, +1 action, +1 buy, +$1, trashing, or -$2 cost token to their pile.

2
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 22, 2020, 07:58:45 pm »
Observer by X-tra
I'm not sure if I understand this. Do they steal your card after playing it? There's no "leaving it there", but I don't think you would ever buy this (except maybe in big money?) if it meant you'd be handing all your actions out to the next player, so I assume it's not meant to go to the next player. Is it meant to stay in your hand, or go to your play area? Regardless, it seems somewhat political that only one player gets the bonus, and I don't like that it discourages you from getting lots of Actions, but I do kind of like the idea of letting other players play a card from your hand as a penalty on an otherwise strong card.

Thanks for the judging! But uh, yeah. You did kind of misread my card, I suppose. The player from your left plays a card from THEIR hand, not YOUR hand. It's kind of like Sheepdog when someone plays a Witch: you can put your Sheepdog in play (where it stays in play until your next clean-up) even though it isn't your turn. Similarly, Observer makes it so that the player to your left can play one of their Action cards even though it isn't their turn. In practice, most of the time, it won't be too useful for your neighbour... sometimes it's even bad for them (they lose , Buys and Actions the played Action card yield, since it's not their turn and, just like Caravan Guard, these resources vanish before they can use 'em). But sometimes, they can play an Attack in the middle of your turn, like Militia, which can really mess you up. It's pretty versatile, really!

In a game I played with Observer, the player to my left played an Observer in response to my own Observer, which made me also immediately play another Action even though I was out of Actions! It was pretty funny. :)

Oh, that makes so much more sense! I'm really sorry I misread it. I like it a lot more now, though I don't think enough that it would have been a runner-up. But it is pretty cool. And the interaction with itself is fun too.

3
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 21, 2020, 07:59:21 pm »
Judgment

Wrangler by mandioca15
A goatherd-like piggybacking card where the reward is Horses. I think this is probably fine balance-wise and I could see it being an actual card, but it doesn't seem particularly interesting to me.

Councillor by Aquila
I like this as a concept, but I agree with others that it's probably too similar to Monument, and also pretty much worse than it. Discarding a Copper puts you at the same level as Monument, but I imagine more often than not you'll be discarding something worse than Copper. I get the argument that with +$4 and a Throne Room it just means you can discard (almost) your hand for a Province, but I doubt that would happen much anyway, because it would only be that straightforward in a big money game, where you probably wouldn't be buying throne room anyway. In any case, I think the idea has potential, but probably needs some tweaking to work.

Investor by LittleFish
This is a novel concept, but I don't think it works well in practice. Due to the limited range of prices (which is pretty much necessary), they will only ever name $3, $4 or $6, and I imagine that, based on the board, the decision will be pretty much constant throughout the game. In fact, I think it compares unfavorably to Workshop: If they name $4, the +$2 you get is more or less a wash with the +2 coffers they get, so it's just a Workshop with a +buy for $5, which is already bad; but then it's even worse, because they have the option to name $3 or $6 instead. I don't know if there's a way to make the idea work.

Judge by spineflu
(I assume the victory type in the card image is meant to be action-attack, as in the text below.) This seems like a bit of a combination between Witch and Courtier, but with another player making the decisions...I think I like it, though there is a lot of text on the card. And the fact that it has two types gives you a consolation prize if drawn dead, and also means it's never strictly worse than Witch. I do think it will generally be worse than Witch though, but Witch is a strong card anyway so I think that's okay.

Commune by NoMoreFun
This is a very cool card, it has a built-in self-synergy that rewards everyone (including yourself) when you take advantage of it. I think the self-synergy might make it too game-warping (everyone will start turns with huge hands), though it might be okay power-wise, because the benefit to other players is pretty significant. Regardless, this card is novel, unique, and clever. I love it!
Runner-up

Council by majiponi
Aside from the clunky wording, I think the idea of "bidding" to offer the best card to a player is neat, but inherently political and will make games un-fun. In a 2-player game, this is nearly strictly worse than Butcher, and the entire value of the card comes from the political nature of it, where pitting the players against each other incentivizes them to offer better cards. I don't think this idea really works well in practice.

Extortionist by chronostrike
I think I like this, except that it seems too weak to me. The idea is kind of like a Torturer, except that the vanilla bonus is also tied to the attack being chosen by another player. You usually want to play draw and payload at very different times in your turn, which means that not knowing which one you're getting (or worse, knowing that you'll generally get the worse of those two options) when you play it is a significant drawback, as well as the fact that you'll probably have to rely on other cards to do its jobs for it, since it will only ever be doing whichever job you don't want it to do. I think maybe if it were cheaper, or if the vanilla bonuses were stronger, it would work. Overall, I like it.

Draper by Fragasnap
This is deceptively interesting. I like that it provides +buy, so that there's a good chance that it gets weaker as the game goes. I imagine it's strong early and rapidly turns into an Herbalist, but the early momentum boost might be enough to make it worthwhile.

Surveyor by Doom_Shark
I normally do not like Boons, but I think this is a really good way of making them interesting. I like the card, but as others pointed out, it will be very slow to resolve, because you have to read 3 boons every time you play it, and the other player has to make a decision regarding those 3 boons as well. As a strong cantrip, you'll probably be playing it a lot. So I think it might be better to have a different vanilla bonus (and even then, I imagine it's a bit slow).

Atlantis by gambit05
This is one of the best hot potato-like cards I've seen. I don't like the wording, but I understand why you did it that way (I think it would be better to just make it an Action-Victory card and put two lines on it). I always like situational villages, and I think it would be really interesting to see how a game plays out where this is the only village. If you start building an engine, another player can hoard them all, but then they've effectively got a bunch of estates in their deck. It might encourage you to try to build a deck that can function well both with or without villages. I'm not sure if the 1 VP on buy is enough of an incentive to buy it; perhaps it could cost less.

Fanatic by silverspawn
This is very cool! It's a super powerful effect, but potentially shuts down the rest of your turn. It encourages you to have lots of variety, which I like, but does so in a novel and indirect way. I think it will lead to lots of new types of gameplay decisions that we haven't encountered before. My main concern is that it may favor big money too much, as it's generally hard to build an engine without whatever the strongest action on the board is. But what I hope (and this card is unique enough that you would probably only be able to determine whether this is the case by playtesting) is that it really encourages hybrid, "unstable" but adaptable engines, that won't run smoothly but will still do better than a deck without Fanatic.
Runner-up

Developer by anordinaryman
This is another brilliant card! I already think the idea of a trash-for-benefit where the benefit is to simply play a card from the supply based on the cost of your trashed card is very cool and original, but then pushing that choice onto the other player packs some player interaction into that concept, while also letting cards that would otherwise be too weak see some play. That's a lot of very nice principles packed into one card! My only concern is that it seems weak to me, though it's hard to judge its strength since it's so different from existing cards.
Runner-up

Observer by X-tra
I'm not sure if I understand this. Do they steal your card after playing it? There's no "leaving it there", but I don't think you would ever buy this (except maybe in big money?) if it meant you'd be handing all your actions out to the next player, so I assume it's not meant to go to the next player. Is it meant to stay in your hand, or go to your play area? Regardless, it seems somewhat political that only one player gets the bonus, and I don't like that it discourages you from getting lots of Actions, but I do kind of like the idea of letting other players play a card from your hand as a penalty on an otherwise strong card.

Regent by D782802859
I really love the elegance of this. It can either be a Smithy, or else a Moat with +$ or +buy; but always (what your opponent judges to be) the worst of those options. I also love conditional +buy, and I think this will make for very interesting games and interesting decisions, and it's a wonderfully simple design.
Runner-up

Fruitcake by Xen3k
Technically doesn't fit the challenge, but fits the spirit of the challenge, so I'll allow it. This is kind of a bizarre hot potato. It gets passed around between the players who have bought the fewest of them all game. I think I like the way it plays out, but not enough to justify all the text and the extra tokens.

Buffoon by Carline
This is like a more interactive variant of Jester, where they choose what they reveal, and you have more options for what to do with it. So I think usually they'll try to reveal middling cards like Silver, so either you give everyone a Silver and a Copper, or else you take +$4. If they reveal a victory card you can gain a copy of it, so there's good options whether they reveal a victory or non-victory card. I think I like this one a lot.
Runner-up

Escrow by Bbobb
The choices are very similar to each other, so it's a much more specific decision for the player to your left than most of the other entrants we've had. Basically they're just judging what they think you want to buy this turn. I think this card is fine, though I'd guess it's pretty weak. It could probably cost $3, maybe $2.

Gangster by LibraryAdventurer
I think this is a fine card, except possibly swingy, which I guess is what the +1 coffers reward is for if they discard a "good" card. But it is somewhat unique, and I could see it being an official card.

There were lots of great submissions this time! Here are my picks:
Runners-up:
4. Buffoon by Carline
3. Regent by D782802859
2. Commune by NoMoreFun
1. Developer by anordinaryman
And the winner is...
0. Fanatic by silverspawn

This was a tough choice, because I really loved all of the runner-ups, but I think Fanatic creates some really fresh and interesting gameplay. Congratulations silverspawn!

4
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 20, 2020, 11:00:20 pm »
24 hour warning

Below is a list of submissions I have so far. Please let me know if I missed yours or linked to the wrong post:

You're missing my entry here.

Thanks, I've added it to my list now.

6
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 14, 2020, 05:46:39 pm »
Investor - Action
+1 Buy
+
The player to your left names a cost greater than
. Gain a card that costs equal or less than the named cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the amount of  in the cost they named.

With no upper bound, couldn't they name Graham's number? Sure you'd get a province, but they'd have unlimited money for the rest of the game.

7
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 14, 2020, 10:14:08 am »
Thanks for the win, glad people liked it!

Contest #95: The player to your (left/right)

Design a card that (meaningfully) contains the string "the player to your".

8
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 10, 2020, 06:32:23 pm »
Quote
Name: Countryside
Cost: $4
Types: Victory
Worth 2 VP per differently named victory card you have more copies of than Countryside.

9
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 07, 2020, 02:39:50 pm »
Feudal Grant (Victory, $5)

1VP

---
When you gain this, +1
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1

Why would you ever buy this over Duchy?
I think I'll edit it down to , or would be better?

Even at $3 I think it's still worse than Tunnel, because the best case outcome is that it's worth 2 VP. In fact, I'm not sure how it plays any differently from a pure victory card that's just worth 2 VP.

I do think the concept of "victory card that's worth less if you get it out of your deck" could be workable, but the on-gain VP then has to be worth more than the on-trash VP everyone else gets, because otherwise you gain nothing by trashing it.
Fixed it to +2 and costing . Look more plausible?

Now I think it's better than Duchy...thinking about it more, I'm not sure if there actually are good parameters, because it basically has to not be comparable to any existing victory card, which means it would probably have to cost $6, which probably makes it too expensive to ever be worth trashing.

10
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 07, 2020, 12:36:34 pm »
Feudal Grant (Victory, $5)

1VP

---
When you gain this, +1
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1

Why would you ever buy this over Duchy?
I think I'll edit it down to , or would be better?

Even at $3 I think it's still worse than Tunnel, because the best case outcome is that it's worth 2 VP. In fact, I'm not sure how it plays any differently from a pure victory card that's just worth 2 VP.

I do think the concept of "victory card that's worth less if you get it out of your deck" could be workable, but the on-gain VP then has to be worth more than the on-trash VP everyone else gets, because otherwise you gain nothing by trashing it.

11
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 07, 2020, 12:30:16 pm »
Feudal Grant (Victory, $5)

1VP

---
When you gain this, +1
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1

Why would you ever buy this over Duchy?

12
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Action-Treasures
« on: October 25, 2020, 10:13:55 am »
It has always sort of bothered me that Crown, and a lot of fan action-treasures, have a separate effect for the action phase and the buy phase.

Wait, how does Crown have a different effect in Action and Buy phases?  Seems to me that it plays exactly the same, "Play a card from your hand twice", the difference in the type of cards it can play simply being a natural consequence of what types of cards *can* be played in those phases ordinarily

I can see that perspective, but my perspective is that if it has to explicitly call out the different phases and state a different effect based on the phase, then those are two different effects. As silverspawn points out, if it was literally the same effect in both phases, then it would let you play action cards in the buy phase and treasure cards in the action phase.

You're right that Horse Trainer is a worse Caravan in the buy phase, not a worse Moat, as it's nonterminal then.
But with 2 or more Actions left, I think it's usually worse than Smithy, not better: Since you still have an Action left after playing it, drawing a third "nonterminal" card now with Smithy is usually better than drawing it at the start of next turn with HT.
So Horse Trainer is basically a slightly weaker Smithy with a back-up option available when drawn dead. I would still try it at $4.

It seems like maybe you're missing that the first Horse will draw the second? Or else I don't understand what you're saying? Regardless, I think you're right that it should cost $4. I'll edit the OP.

13
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 18, 2020, 11:21:32 am »
Quote
Extortionist $5
Action - Attack
The player to your left chooses one of the following for you:
+2 cards, and each other player gains <1>; or +$2, and each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card
In the spirit of Torturer, this attack lets your opponent decide how hard he wants to get hit.  The weaker attack is paired with the stronger benefit.

Isn't this strictly worse than Militia?

14
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Action-Treasures
« on: October 14, 2020, 09:51:07 pm »
I understand what you're saying now. The way I had been thinking about is was like a Smithy with a plus and a minus: the plus is that it has some flexibility and can be played even when drawn dead, the minus is that you need an extra action to actually use the draw. But I now see that the buy phase option is basically a worse Caravan, since you get the draw sometime next shuffle, rather than on play. Although it isn't a duration so you can still play it every turn when drawing your deck.

Actually, it's kind of interesting that the only case where it's not a Smithy+ is when you have exactly 1 action. With 2 or more you can play it as a Smithy or a Caravan minus, and with 0 actions you can play it as a Caravan minus (whereas a Smithy would be unplayable). With 1 action you are forced to play it as the Caravan minus.

I don't know what the best fix is. I think it compares too favorably to Smithy at $4. Would +1 buy be enough to justify $5? Or what if both horses are gained to hand? I think this is what I originally had, but I thought that would be too good compared to Hunting Grounds.

15
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Territories: New Landscape Mechanic
« on: October 13, 2020, 07:43:37 pm »
Territories have no fixed cost. Instead, the first player to ever buy a particular Territory pays at least $1 for it
Some ideas I came up with (none tested):
Quote
At the start of each of your turns, +1 Card.

Quite a lot of text to fully grasp the idea. I more or less stopped just at the first option.

I think the first player in the opening who has $5, buys this for $5 and gets an instant Hireling. Other players may have a hard time to catch up.

Edit: I thought a bit more about this. How about you have a specific Supply card that allows, when played, to buy one of the available Territories in the same way as you proposed?

Yeah, I think there may be a bit of a problem with catching up to the first player who hits $5. Having a specific supply card that allows it seems like a pretty clever way to delay how early you have access, I'll have to think about that some more.

16
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Action-Treasures
« on: October 13, 2020, 07:39:20 pm »
Bribe is crazy strong compared to Acting Troupe.
Trinket and Quicksilver are only useful in the action phase. Trinket would be a decent money card if it weren't for the detrimental secondary effect.
Bauble is nice.
Scrying Venture is honestly just slightly better Scrying Pool but harder to have in multiples.
Horse Trainer is extremely underpowered compared to Caravan.

Thanks for the feedback!

You might be right about Bribe.

I disagree about Trinket and Quicksilver. Trinket is probably better as an action, but I suspect it can work in the buy phase in a money deck too. At least the first Trinket is like a double-lab for money, and then each subsequent is more likely to draw green cards, so they get worse in multiples and as the game progresses, but on non-terminal draw I think there needs to be a pretty harsh downside. As for Quicksilver, I think you want to play them in the buy phase early on to trash Coppers, and then in the action phase later. But I could be wrong.

Could you explain the comparison between Horse Trainer and Caravan? I was thinking of it more like a Smithy variant.

What other ideas can you come up with?

Maybe something like:
Quote
Choose one: +3 Cards; or +$3

This is pretty nice, though it would have to cost at least $7 to keep from being better than Gold.

17
Variants and Fan Cards / Territories: New Landscape Mechanic
« on: October 12, 2020, 03:42:47 pm »
This is an idea I came up with in the shower yesterday, for a new landscape card-shaped thing. The idea is to use a self-balancing mechanic to create player interaction, and lead to more unique things that can happen in games. The mechanics can also be combined with existing Projects, Landmarks, and Events (though it doesn't work well with a lot of events).

Basically, Territories are like Projects, in that they (usually) give the owner some ongoing ability that they can use, with the following differences:
  • Only one player may have their cube on a particular Territory at any given time.
  • Territories have no fixed cost. Instead, the first player to ever buy a particular Territory pays at least $1 for it, and then each subsequent player must pay at least $1 more than the current owner. When they do, the current owner is kicked off and the new player takes over ("claims" the Territory).

So when another player out-bids you, they take over the effect and you no longer get it. There is nothing about the nature of partial orderings that prevents the mechanic from working with potion- and debt-costs in addition to coin-costs, but I think that feels a little wonky and gets hard to track (I imagine the way you track it with coin costs is by simply putting 1 token on the card per $ you paid), so I recommend just using $ costs.

Some ideas I came up with (none tested):
Quote
At the start of each of your turns, +1 Card.
Quote
At the start of each of your turns, +$1.
Quote
At the start of each of your turns, each other player gains a Curse.
Quote
At the start of each of your turns, gain a card costing up to $5.
Quote
At the start of each of your turns, each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand.
Quote
At the start of each of your clean-up phases, gain a copy of every card you have in play.
Quote
Whenever you play an action card, +$1.
Quote
Whenever you play an action card you do not have a copy of in play, +1 Action.
Quote
Cards cost $2 less on your turn (but not less than $0).
Quote
Copper produces $1 extra on your turns.
Quote
Whenever you gain a card, you may trash it, exile it, or put it on top of your deck.
Quote
Whenever you play a Horse, +2 cards. When you claim this, gain 2 Horses.
Quote
Whenever you trash a card, put it into your hand.
Quote
When you claim this, trash up to 2 cards from your hand or play area.
Quote
At the start of each of your clean-up phases, put up to 2 cards from play onto your deck.
Quote
Whenever you play the Special card from your hand, play it again.

Set-up: Choose a random Action card in the supply to be the Special card.
Quote
At the end of each of your clean-up phases, draw an extra card per $1 you left unspent.

As mentioned above, existing Projects, Landmarks, and Events can also be turned into Territories. For Projects, the conversion is trivial: ignore the printed cost and follow the rules above. For Events, the conversion is also straightforward: you are basically just changing the rules for how much the Event costs. For Landmarks, it's a little more complicated, based on several cases:
  • Landmarks that hand out VP throughout the game: Only the current owner of the Landmark can receive the VP.
  • Landmarks that score positive VP at the end of the game: Only the owner of the Landmark at the end of the game gets the VP.
  • Landmarks that score negative VP at the end of the game (e.g. Wolf Den, Bandit Fort): Everyone except the owner of the Landmark gets the VP.
You could even use this mechanic for buying cards, but I don't think that works well for most cards. The way I originally came up with the mechanic was by thinking about a Flag Bearer variant that would cost $1 on top, and then each subsequent Flag Bearer costs $1 more than the previous. Maybe something similar works for certain cards.

Additionally, you can have negative Territories. These introduce a new rule that applies for the game (if the Territory is chosen), which usually hurts players, but the owner of the Territory can ignore the effect. A few examples:
Quote
At the start of each of your turns, gain a Copper, putting it into your hand.
Quote
Whenever you buy a card, take 1 debt per copy of that card you have in play.
Quote
At the start of each of your turns, discard down to 4 cards in hand.
Quote
You cannot buy victory cards. When you claim this, +1 buy.
That last one might be a terrible idea.


Anyway, what are people's thoughts on this mechanic? The intent is to add some self-balancing to the game to enable more variety of crazy effects, but maybe it causes problems with sunk costs in multi-player games, or maybe it can lead to un-ending games, or other problems I haven't considered.

18
Variants and Fan Cards / Action-Treasures
« on: October 12, 2020, 03:17:54 pm »
It has always sort of bothered me that Crown, and a lot of fan action-treasures, have a separate effect for the action phase and the buy phase. There's nothing wrong with that, but it just seems like it would be really elegant to have an Action-Treasure that has the exact same effect in both phases, but has some inherent advantage/disadvantage in each phase, just based on the timing of when it is played. Since Treasures have the inherent advantage of being non-terminal, that means you usually want to come up with an effect that is inherently stronger in the Action phase to compensate. Here are some ideas I came up with (disclaimer: I'm not sure about the balance on some of these):

Quote
Name: Bribe
Cost: $3
Types: Action, Treasure
+3 Villagers
(credit to NoMoreFun for the analogous idea for an action-night card that produces coffers)

Quote
Name: Trinket
Cost: $5
Types: Action, Treasure
+3 Cards
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard the revealed Treasures and put the rest back on top in any order.

Quote
Name: Quicksilver
Cost: $5
Types: Action, Treasure
+3 Cards
+3 Actions
Trash a card you have in play.

Quote
Name: Bauble
Cost: $5
Types: Action, Treasure
For the rest of your turn, when you play a card costing $5 or more, +$1.

Quote
Name: Scrying Venture
Cost: $5
Types: Action, Treasure
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Treasure. Put the revealed cards into your hand.

Quote
Name: Horse Trainer
Cost: $5 $4
Types: Action, Treasure
Gain 2 Horses, putting one into your hand and one on top of your deck.

The loose categories I was able to think of for ways to distinguish the action and buy phase from each other were:
  • +cards are more useful in the action phase, and in particular, you only care about drawing treasures in the buy phase
  • +actions are only useful in the action phase, villagers are more useful in the action phase but still good in any phase
  • In your action phase, you've played fewer cards (quicksilver), but you have more cards yet to play (bauble)


What other ideas can you come up with?

19
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: September 19, 2020, 12:16:34 pm »
Quote
Name: Shaman Village
Cost: $4
Types: Action, Attack
+1 card
+2 actions
Reveal your hand. Each other player gains a Curse per Shaman Village revealed.

When you shuffle, the player to your left puts this anywhere in your deck.

Like a reverse Stash, it goes wherever you don't want it to go in your deck. I have no idea whether $4 is a fair cost.

The concept of the card was the bottom half. I went through a lot of different ideas for the top half before settling on this one. I wanted a card like Treasure Map that wanted you to collide them, because that creates interesting decisions for the opponent in where to place it: put them all on the bottom to make them miss the shuffle, but then they all collide and get a huge benefit. I thought about a payload card that would give you +$ or +VP or "gain a card costing up to $x" based on the number revealed, but that seems to just reward you for drawing your deck. Handing out a Curse per copy revealed makes it so the collision effect matters early, but not after the curses run out, when you're more likely to be drawing your deck anyway. And being a Village makes it so you want to play it at the start of your hand, which makes it harder to have more copies of it in your hand when you play it.

20
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« on: September 17, 2020, 12:17:38 pm »
I think it is misleading to talk about individual hands where you might use Gatehouse's ability. It is possible to construct a particular hand where Gatehouse is preferable to Village. But the problem is it's hard to imagine a deck that will give you those hands with any kind of consistency. In particular, the challenge is to imagine a deck where (2 average)+(3 worst of 4) is consistently better than/at least as good as (5 average). If no such deck exists, then you will never buy Gatehouse over Village.

The only way I can imagine that (2 average)+(3 worst of 4) will consistently be better than (5 average) is if either 1. you are manipulating bad cards into your hand, or 2. you are manipulating good cards into your draw pile. (1) sounds silly, though maybe you could argue that's what advisor, or getting hit by pillages, does. More plausibly, maybe your deck is loaded with non-terminals, so that you can play them all before your Gatehouse, then play your Gatehouse to discard terminal payload and draw more non-terminals. Then you are "manipulating" your good cards out of your hand by playing them. This is probably the strongest use case for Gatehouse. (2) could happen with things like Inn, Cartographer, Apothecary, etc.

I think I've convinced myself that Gatehouse is actually not strictly worse than Village as I had originally thought; I could imagine preferring it to Village on a board that is constructed to make me prefer it to Village. I still think it is very weak though, but I'm open to being proven wrong.

21
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« on: September 16, 2020, 11:48:52 pm »
I think Gatehouse is a cool concept, but agree with others that you would never buy it over village. With village, you walk away with 5 average cards. With Gatehouse, you get (2 average)+(3 worst of 4), which is just worse than 5 average. Saying "but you can also use it as a Necro" doesn't address the problem, because both cases are worse than Village. It would be like if you had a card that cost $3 and said "choose one: +2 actions, or +1 card, +1 action", and then cited the flexibility as a reason to prefer it over Village.

If it drew 3 instead of 2 it would probably work, though it might have to cost more then. At that point it would be like a more extreme version of advisor, but also a village.

22
Non-Mafia Game Threads / Re: Zendo Questions 2
« on: September 16, 2020, 11:02:03 am »
Guess: Yes <=> Contains a word which contains a letter whose position in the alphabet equals the word length

Correct!

23
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 04, 2020, 04:29:06 pm »
I think this could get away with costing $6 (or $7 but certainly not $8) as it is unable to chain which is arguably the strongest part of King's Court.
Royal Carriage costs more than Throne Room. The situation is the same here, except that this costs more than King's Court. That's the benchmark I'll base my pricing on.

But the comparison is very different, because King's Courting a King's Court nets you an extra play of King's Court (as compared to just playing them both separately) whereas Throne Rooming a Throne Room does not net you an extra play of Throne Room. So losing that functionality when going from Throne Room to Royal Carriage isn't a huge loss, but losing the analogous functionality when going from King's Court to Master Plan is a pretty significant loss (in exchange for the Royal Carriage-like flexibility).

If both KC and Master Plan cost $7 and they were both on the board, I'd probably take one Master Plan for consistency but otherwise take King's Courts. So $7 seems like a fair price, and $6 might even be reasonable.

24
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 04, 2020, 04:21:15 pm »
Maybe too crazy/situational:
Quote
Name: Committee
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $5
Turn your Journey token over (it starts face up). Then if it's face up, the player to your left chooses a non-Command action card in the supply for you to play 5 times, leaving it there.

25
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles
« on: August 03, 2020, 09:41:36 am »
Tragic hero?

Edit: Never mind, there's also Sea Hag...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 105

Page created in 0.123 seconds with 19 queries.