Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

1

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: October 16, 2019, 10:10:34 pm »

Notes:

• Bow lets you bypass Potion costs. This is intentional.
• Rosin probably doesn't need the reminder text

Big shout-out to Fragasnap for making me think what an event/command card would look like.

Is it intentional that Bow also lets you bypass Debt costs?

Hm. no. That probably shouldn't happen. Although... that's what, Engineer and no others since there's no cost reduction on debt cards? and you can't trash it since it stays there, so you can't get the double-up, so it's just a workshop? That's not the worst. Should probably fix it so it plays nice with everyone elses fan cards though

maybe "At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play a card whose cost in coins and debt is $5@0 or less instead."? kind of inelegant. I'll sleep on it.

It would affect any Debt Action cards (e.g. City Quarter, Royal Blacksmith) though, no? Since their cost in coins is $0.

2

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: October 16, 2019, 04:26:58 pm »

Actually, besides any general feedback, one very specific question I have, is the phrasing of "costing less than than the $ + debt this costs" clear?

The idea is that this first lets you gain a card, costing $3, then $4, then $5, etc. (i.e. you add up the $ and the debt and the cards you gain can only cost $)

That works to my read; a thing you may want to include is that it should set aside a unique card each time? ie, that card isn't already on the Student mat. Otherwise it's sorta easy to empty the Student + (other cheap card) pile to force a 3-pile ending.

If you need to free up space, you can lose the second line and just have a

or two in there before the cost modification.

Did something get cut off there? I don't follow that part about losing the 2nd line.

Regardless, is it that easy to empty the Student + 2nd pile? The first student costs $4, the second 4$@1, etc. At that point there aren't many cards that just gain you any Action (since this now has debt). And while you're emptying that 2nd pile, you'd be making the Students even more expensive for actually buying them. The 10th student, assuming you got them all, would cost you $4@9.

3

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: October 16, 2019, 03:30:06 pm »

Well now, this seems like the perfect opportunity to revisit my first ever challenge card, Student. By changing to work as a command card, and some other (hopefully, clever) changes, I've made it simpler and (again, hopefully) more interesting.



Notes:
• I debated whether it should just go up $ in cost, instead of debt. But I really liked the the thematic idea of going into debt for the more "advanced" courses. I also think it differentiates it some from Band of Misfits, when there aren't any Actions that cost more than 5 (i.e. you can still buy this when you have $4, even if it puts you into some debt).
• I made the setting aside optional, so you could gain Students without setting aside a new "course" / raising cost.
• It wouldn't make sense to ever gain just one of these, but I think that's fine. That's true of BOM too.

Feedback welcome!

Actually, besides any general feedback, one very specific question I have, is the phrasing of "costing less than than the $ + debt this costs" clear?

The idea is that this first lets you gain a card, costing $3, then $4, then $5, etc. (i.e. you add up the $ and the debt and the cards you gain can only cost $)

4

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: October 16, 2019, 02:13:34 pm »

Well now, this seems like the perfect opportunity to revisit my first ever challenge card, Student. By changing to work as a command card, and some other (hopefully, clever) changes, I've made it simpler and (again, hopefully) more interesting.



Notes:
• I debated whether it should just go up $ in cost, instead of debt. But I really liked the the thematic idea of going into debt for the more "advanced" courses. I also think it differentiates it some from Band of Misfits, when there aren't any Actions that cost more than 5 (i.e. you can still buy this when you have $4, even if it puts you into some debt).
• I made the setting aside optional, so you could gain Students without setting aside a new "course" / raising cost.
• It wouldn't make sense to ever gain just one of these, but I think that's fine. That's true of BOM too.
• One aspect of the design was to have a BoM variant that (eventually) let you play cards that cost more than $5.

Feedback welcome!

5

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: ShadowHawk's Attempts at Homebrew Dominion cards

« on: October 16, 2019, 12:41:34 pm »

Line of Credit, you can't buy it if you have debt anyway, so you don't need the debt check clause; also as worded, this would allow you to bypass potions and do things like pay $3 for a Familiar, which is kind of OP. Also you might want to include a default penalty of like, two or three debt for using this (compare $5 for Band of Misfits / @8 for Overlord).

Yeah, on Line of Credit I was trying to limit it's use and was considering if it was used outside of Empires. I like the idea of the debt accrued is a bit higher than the cost of the card (thematic interest). +1 extra Debt or +2? I thought Potions could not be converted, so Debt could not be substituted. I can put a quick remark that potions don't count.

Don't forget you'll also need to handle (or exempt) Debt cards. As currently written, you could get an Overlord for free.

Maybe something like: "receive debt equal to the $ and debt cost of the card."?

Another thought is to convert the $ to debt for all cards (a pseudo bridge, I think there may been a variant like this in this forum): "+1 Buy, replace the $ cost of cards with 1 debt per $" So Village would now cost 3 debt, Laboratory 5 debt, Familiar, 3 debt + Potion, Overlord still 8 debt, etc... The interest would be handled by just making the event itself cost 1 or 2. (though that means one time interest even with multiple buys)

6

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards: Infusion / Cauldron

« on: October 15, 2019, 09:37:55 pm »

So here's my entry from the recently ended challenge (#47):



And the feedback from the judge (Aquila):

Infusion/Cauldron (scolapasta)
Event, P +1 Buy, trash a card you have in play for + $1 per $2 it costs, if it costs $4 or more take Cauldron, then play any number of Treasures from your hand.
Artifact, Potions have "Choose one: +P; or + $3".
The Potion cost of the Event is a great idea in this contest, you play the Potion repeatedly to compete for the Artifact. But how many Potions does one get so that they should turn into Gold for deck payload? And seeing that this won't be a permanent feature, why not just get Golds? The half-Salvager bit would work for removing the Potion you used to pay for this, if the Cauldron didn't imply you should try to keep it; otherwise it has a few niche uses.
Overall: I feel Cauldron should do something else, but Infusion is good.

It's interesting, because I actually came up with Cauldron first, and Infusion was an attempt to find its companion Event.

• "how many Potions does one get so that they should turn into Gold for deck payload?"

Some of my thinking here was that you would keep getting potions in order to feed this engine payload. If you had 3 potions you could buy a Province (whether you had the Cauldron or not, though if you didn't you may have to trash one of the Potions to get it and find some space to replace it - though instead of the Province you could buy two Potions)

• "And seeing that this won't be a permanent feature..."
The purpose of the "Play any number of Treasures from your hand phrase" was so you could always get the benefit if the Cauldron at least on the turn you took it.

• "...why not just get Golds?"
Well, $4 Potion / Golds are cheaper than $6 Golds

• "...removing the Potion you used to pay for this, if the Cauldron didn't imply you should try to keep it" - I saw this as part of the challenge, that you have to keep burning through a Potions to overload your Potions, so you'd have to make decide whether you trash that Potion or some other $4 card.

So, what do others think?

A couple of ideas I had to change to try and make this better, would be to change the requirement to take the Cauldron from "If it costs $4" to something else. How about "If it's a Treasure"? then you could trash coppers early to get the cauldron, but later you'd have to sacrifice one of your Potions...

Another change could be to make the Potions better than Gold, i.e. +$4.

Lastly, here is the other alternative (rather than the 1/2 Salvager) I had earlier considered and already mentioned:



i.e the Villa variant

This might also need the change to the "if it costs $4" change. And even if it doesn't work here, I'll probably work with it as a different event for some future challenge.


Note: In order to post a little more here, I think my new idea is to try to post each challenges' cards)) each week after they're judged. Eventually I'll go back and include past challenges. But I like the idea of getting them out here while they're still fresh and often while we're still waiting for the next challenge.

7

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: October 14, 2019, 11:43:20 pm »

OK, so I haven't had an entry in a several weeks, but I came up with what I hope is an interesting idea for an artifact yesterday, so let's try it out*:

* I'll tweak/add card names / images later, but wanted to get something in sooner in case anyone has any feedback (in particular the Event, as I just tried to think of something quickly that could go with the Artifact)

Cauldron - Artifact
During your turns, Potions are  "Choose one: +1 Potion or +$3."

? - Event - $P
+1 Buy. Trash a card from play. If it costs $4 or more, take the Cauldron. Play any number of treasures.

"Brew"? "Concoct"?

Thanks, those ideas lead me to "Infusion". (Names still might change...)

And I have some images now, with fixed wording for Infusion:



I'd still be curious to hear any feedback, especially on Infusion.

General idea is that Cauldron turns your potions into (optional) $4 Golds. To get the Cauldron you'll have to trash a $4 (or more) card, and look at that, you can trash the potion you just played. Of course, then you lose one of those newly minted $4 golds. Infusion also allows you to play any potions you still have in head that very turn to use on the extra buy it gives you.

I do think Infusion still needs something. I'm considering:

• +$1 for each $2 the trashed card costs. (this would mean with three Potions, you could get a Province)
• +1 Action and return to your Action phase (I could then remove the "play any number of treasures").

Ideally I'd like to make Infusion worth buying even if you already have the Cauldron.

Any thoughts on these or other suggestions for Infusion? (or any better way to phrase Cauldron?)

OK, clearly posted too late to get any feedback before judging, so I'll just go with that first alternative for the contest:



I'd still be open to feedback, either here, or in my dedicated thread.

I'll update my original post with my official entry.

8

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: October 14, 2019, 08:51:56 pm »

OK, so I haven't had an entry in a several weeks, but I came up with what I hope is an interesting idea for an artifact yesterday, so let's try it out*:

* I'll tweak/add card names / images later, but wanted to get something in sooner in case anyone has any feedback (in particular the Event, as I just tried to think of something quickly that could go with the Artifact)

Cauldron - Artifact
During your turns, Potions are  "Choose one: +1 Potion or +$3."

? - Event - $P
+1 Buy. Trash a card from play. If it costs $4 or more, take the Cauldron. Play any number of treasures.

"Brew"? "Concoct"?

Thanks, those ideas lead me to "Infusion". (Names still might change...)

And I have some images now, with fixed wording for Infusion:



I'd still be curious to hear any feedback, especially on Infusion.

General idea is that Cauldron turns your potions into (optional) $4 Golds. To get the Cauldron you'll have to trash a $4 (or more) card, and look at that, you can trash the potion you just played. Of course, then you lose one of those newly minted $4 golds. Infusion also allows you to play any potions you still have in head that very turn to use on the extra buy it gives you.

I do think Infusion still needs something. I'm considering:

• +$1 for each $2 the trashed card costs. (this would mean with three Potions, you could get a Province)
• +1 Action and return to your Action phase (I could then remove the "play any number of treasures").

Ideally I'd like to make Infusion worth buying even if you already have the Cauldron.

Any thoughts on these or other suggestions for Infusion? (or any better way to phrase Cauldron?)

9

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: October 14, 2019, 03:31:20 pm »

OK, so I haven't had an entry in a several weeks, but I came up with what I hope is an interesting idea for an artifact yesterday, so let's try it out:

Official entry version: (after updates)




Original version - kept here for posterity:

Cauldron - Artifact
During your turns, Potions are  "Choose one: +1 Potion or +$3."

Infusion - Event - $P
+1 Buy. Trash a card from play. If it costs $4 or more, take the Cauldron. Play any number of treasures.

10

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: October 12, 2019, 06:13:20 pm »

To avoid "non-Victory non-Command" on Inheritance, I'm dropping non-Victory, which was just there for the old way Inheritance worked.

So, this means that it's now possible to Inherit an Estate as, for example, a Mill?  What was the reason for the old rule where you couldn't do that?  That's something I never understood and seemed weirdly arbitrary to me, but I'm sure there was probably a good reason that I'm not seeing

Well, before this update, when it gained the abilities and types of the inherited card, it meant that it would also be worth the VP (e.g. an inherited Mill estate would have been worth 2 VP), and I'm assuming the idea was to not allow them to be worth more than their original 1 VP.

Now that it just plays the other card, it would not be worth the additional VP.

11

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: October 09, 2019, 01:20:31 pm »

Not sure about the cost, but here's my entry.

Mining is definitely undercosted. In the opening it effectively turns a 3/4 into a 4/4 + trash 2 Estates. It also allows you to trash Gold from play into Province with the money that Gold gave you, which is probably pretty degenerate. I'd suggest a price of at least $5, but I suspect it might be better off even higher than that.

I mean Mining is a Remodel+ whenever you want it, which means it should at least cost $4 (and probably have a drawback if it's that cheap). You could probably get away with a $5 cost if you change Pick to be non-optional.

One thing to consider with Artifacts that say "When you trash a card", gain X benefit, is that this would apply to cards trashed by Lurker. Maybe it's fine to have that combo, but you could also avoid it with phrasing like "When you trash a card not from Supply".

(I prefer that to something more specific like "When you trash a card from your hand", so it covers cards trashed by Bonfire, Lookout, or Attacks like Knight and Giant)

12

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: October 07, 2019, 04:23:35 pm »

Something that occurred to me - a rule that says something like "when a card is played from the Supply, set it aside and return it to its pile at the end of your action phase" could work very well for avoiding infinite loops.

It doesn't work; people don't remember to return the card. We tested it!

The simplest fix I have right now is for the Band of Misfits family to care about printed cost instead of cost. If Inheritance works on cards with a printed cost of up to $4, you can't Inherit Band of Misfits, and so on.

Instead of leaving it there OR setting it aside, did you try putting them in play (with an additional clause to return to the Supply when discarding), i.e. something like this:

"Play an Action card from the Supply that costs less than this, returning it to the Supply when you would discard it."

I feel like people would be more likely to remember than when setting aside since it would be in your play area (and played on top of the BoM so you don't also just clean it up onto the discard pile).

It would change interactions of course with "trash this, if you do..." cards, but that might be ok. (and if not, that could be weakened with another clause like "If you trash that card this turn, also trash this")

Obviously there'd always be edge cases:
Scheme - I think this may be OK because "when you would discard" would happen before "when you discard"?
Fortress / Bonfire: you could use this to gain a Fortress (in the Overlord case), but with the extra trashing clause, only once.

I'm sure there are others.

13

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: October 07, 2019, 01:39:43 am »

Stowaway $5
Action - Reserve
+1 Card  +1 Action
+$1 per card on your Tavern Mat.
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
-
When another player gains a card, you may call this to gain one card per empty Supply pile that each costs less than the card the other player gained.

I had trouble with this contest. I wanted to make something that really applied mainly in the endgame so it is mainly used for victory points. I decided to track the endgame state via empty supply piles -- it turns out that works well. If someone is in the middle of a pileout, they will have three empty piles and you'll be able to call each of your stowaways for three estates. Or, if someone gains the last province, you can call each of your stowaways for a duchy. You might be able to cause a pile out that your opponent didn't want. In a game with single gains, and your opponent empties a second pile, you can potentially clear out another pile on their turn. This seems to be a strong card.

The +$ gives you money to buy higher cost cards (that other players can then gain cards costing less than it), and also provides a tension between whether to call the stowaways or not.

it took me like four tries to read this and figure out the "costs less than the card the opponent gained" applied to the card you were gaining and not the empty supply pile; I'm not sure how I'd fix that though.

I think just switching the order of the clauses would read clearer:

When another player gains a card, you may call this to gain one card that costs less than the card the other player gained per each empty Supply pile.

14

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: October 03, 2019, 11:08:21 am »

In the world described, you don't have a choice. The only Action card in the supply costing less than BoM is Estate, so you have to play BoM as Estate.

I guess it's fortunate that in an Actual Game, people are very unlikely to buy either Band of Misfits or Inheritance if there are no actions costing less than $5.

True, but this could also happen in a game where there are actions costing less then than 5, but their piles have been emptied (as BoM requires the card it plays to be in the Supply).

Still it would at most be two piles (or three for a 5-6 player game), reducing the utility of buying BoM.

15

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: September 25, 2019, 04:39:05 pm »

you BoM a TR playing Durations, then Bonfire the Durations. the BoM still stay in play until the Durations finish all effects, right?

Bonfire messes up tracking and has not been fixed (the fix would be adding "non-duration," which still doesn't fix all cases, e.g. you can Bonfire the Throne that played a Duration) (edit: no the fix is what dbclick said, the Improve trick of seeing if the card would be discarded) (or I mean, just limit it to Coppers). If you play a Duration and Bonfire it, you still get the effect. If you Throne a Duration and Bonfire the Duration, the Throne goes away, remember that rule is that it stays out as long as the Duration, and the Duration is gone. But the effect still happens. The effect also still happens if you Bonfire both of them or just the Throne. If you BoM a Throne playing Durations, and Bonfire the Durations, the Throne wouldn't stay out, so BoM doesn't either. Anyway as noted, the Bonfire scenarios where tracking is messed up do not actually happen. We can construct a scenario where you're Bonfiring Hirelings to Graverobber them or whatever, but it's just not a thing.

So, (first noting that this in not a real concern, but only to sate my desire of understanding all edge cases properly), I had thought Bonfiring a TRed Hireling left the TR out:

(from https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1367747/hireling-and-champion-duration-if-losttrashed-play)

Yes, if you Throne Room etc. a Hireling and somehow the Hireling leaves play, the Throne still stays in play. And if something makes the Throne leave play, that still doesn't stop anything from happening every turn.

Of course that's from 2015, so it's quite likely this was overturned in some other hard to find thread...

16

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 25, 2019, 04:24:59 pm »

 I got really creative this week and took the +1 Action off Seer.

I think this can probably cost .

I think it possibly could too but I put it at $3 because unlike Seer this can draw copies of itself that it reveals. I think that kind of self synergy makes $3 a reasonable price. I don't think it should affect the judging much anyway, it isn't a huge difference.

Am I missing something or does this, as worded, not do anything with the named card type?

What are you talking about? It never said that! It's definitely not something left over from the previous version that I forgot to delete when I changed it...

I think I may have to add that to all my future cards  :

Verbose Village - $3

+1 Cards
+2 Action.

Name a card type.

17

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 25, 2019, 02:04:37 pm »

 I got really creative this week and took the +1 Action off Seer.

I think this can probably cost .

I think it possibly could too but I put it at $3 because unlike Seer this can draw copies of itself that it reveals. I think that kind of self synergy makes $3 a reasonable price. I don't think it should affect the judging much anyway, it isn't a huge difference.

Am I missing something or does this, as worded, not do anything with the named card type?

18

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: September 25, 2019, 12:31:31 am »

2. Tracking for the former shapeshifters

Some cards, like the new Band of Misfits, can play a card that isn't put into play. When you play Band of Misfits, leave it in play as long as you would have left the card it plays in play. Normally that will be the same turn's Clean-up. For a Band of Misfits playing a Duration card, it will be the Clean-up of the last turn the Duration card has any effects. For a Band of Misfits playing a Throne Room playing a Duration card, it will be the Clean-up of the turn the Duration card leaves play. For a Band of Misfits playing a card that can move itself from play, like Mining Village, the Mining Village can't move itself, so Band of Misfits doesn't leave play any earlier than normal. If a Band of Misfits plays multiple Duration cards (e.g., you used Throne Room on it), leave it out until the Clean-up of the last turn that one of them still had effects.

Quick question on BoM / TR vs TR / BoM interaction:

Scenario 1: BoM playing TR playing Duration - all cards stay out until Duration gets cleaned up

Scenario 2: TR playing BoM playing Duration (as one of its two plays) - TR gets cleaned up that turn, BoM and Duration stay out until Duration gets cleaned up

Is that correct? (if so, I'm now imagining a larger TR / BoM / TR / BoM ... chain. :p)

19

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: September 25, 2019, 12:23:44 am »

So far there is no plan for an update pack. It doesn't sound like a very good product, though a few people would want it.

Instead of an update pack, what about selling them as promos through BGG? (similar to Pathfinding)

20

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 11, 2019, 08:48:40 pm »

Bonanza (Event) [$5]

At the end of this turn, if you have unspent coins, take Voyager, and take another turn after this one, where you draw one card per unspent coin for your hand.
---
You can't buy this if you have Voyager.


Voyager (State)

Worth 1VP if you have this at the end of the game.

Is Voyager supposed to be an Artifact that can bounce between players? As stated, Voyager can't be gotten rid of and thus you can only have one extra turn per game.

Well, unless it's a single state card* like Lost in the Woods (which is in all practical terms an artifact).

* I assume this is the desired effect, because of the "if you have this at this at the end of the game" wording. If it was supposed to be a state per player, it could just be "+1VP" (like Miserable).

Also, if it supposed to be a state per player, then you could just "once per game" it:

Once per game:  +1 Victory token; take another turn after this one, and you draw one card per unspent coin for your next hand.

(note that I added the "next" to follow Outpost wording; I suggest this happen independent of the other suggestions)

21

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #44: extra turn

« on: September 11, 2019, 12:09:55 pm »

Edit: didn't like the look of plain once per game bonus turn at $5. The strategy with it seemed a mundane 'whenever you could get a Duchy now but better next turn, do it'.
Now this bonus turn comes without the starting Action and at $2 cost; so using it becomes more accessible early, and there's a bit more of a decision when to use it. Early building boost is an option, if you know you won't need the Action, or a later big turn if you can prepare right.
This is in one of my fan expansions; it started as a portrait card that could grant multiple extra turns with no Action, but Villagers make the setback too easy to get around, being more reliable and consistent than Guide or Cursed Village with Outpost.

So just to be clear, by default, you don't get actions on your bonus turn? Or it takes some ridiculousness with Villa or Villagers to get to have actions on your bonus turn?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but why not just have Night Shift say:

Once per game: Take another turn after this one in which you start with 0 Actions.

I don't see why you would need the extra state card, since it's only once per game anyway. Functionally, it wouldn't affect a (2nd) buying of Villa the turn you bought Night Shift, but I think that's an OK trade off for the simplification (in fact, I like it better as protection around Villa  shenanigans)


If you want to go even further and handicap Villagers you could even be more strict:

Once per game: Take another turn after this one in which you can't play any Actions.

(though I'm not quite sure of the implications with Action to be played from cards like Prince, Summon, Captain, etc...

22

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Questions from newish player

« on: September 02, 2019, 02:12:36 pm »

As to sleeving, I usually do sleeve my card games, but here it seems quite inefficient to sleeve everything.
Hence, I am considering sleeving all starting cards for 3 players and them giving everyone about 30 sleeves to sleeve acquired cards in-game.
Then, I see 2 options : (i) either everyone unsleeve at the end of the game or (ii) we leave it as is, so that cards that are used the most will remain sleeved and the others will still be unsleeved. As such, the game will be sleeved progressively.
What do you think ?

Why would you have anyone unsleeve? Just keep them sleeved and sleeve progressively each time you play (or in your free time).

I have everything sleeved (well, except randomizers). At some point I bought a new expansion, but they were out of sleeves, so I had to make due with ones I already had (i.e. not enough to sleeve the whole set). So I just sleeves as we played (I went with the proactive approach of making sure the top card of each pile was sleeved, and if a card was gained, I would sleeve the next card of the pile). Eventually, of course, I bought more sleeves and sleeved the rest.

23

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 30, 2019, 08:18:44 pm »

There are 15 Trusts in the pile.

A card inspired by Magpie, but without the problems I have with it. The things I don't like about Magpie are:

1. Too automatic. Magpie never hurts you. With Trust, you have to think hard about when to get it. If you get it too early, it'll basically be a delayed Gold (which might be what you want, but not always).

2. Too swingy. I always end up with 2 Magpies while my opponent gets 8. Magpie has a snowball effect where the more you have, the more you're likely to get. With Trust, the opposite is true, and in fact a Trust will blow up if it collides with another Trust.

I put the "gain a Treasure" part in a when-trash clause because I like that it enhances Rats-style tfb tricks.

I don't think this counts as a monogainer since it can gain a treasure when trashed (the closest example from the rules was Beggar, which gained as a reaction).

24

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 29, 2019, 04:51:08 pm »

The prophet pile is a mixed pile of 20 cards, 10 copies of each of these versions:


Please let me know if this violates mono-gaining rules

I've had this idea for a while of a card that alternated between even and odd trashing. Originally, I had the cards with different names. Then this contest inspired me to try out the idea ... what if two functionally different cards had the same name? The art is flipped to help tell the difference and the * * are supposed to be bold but I wasn't able to use the card template I used to easily bold the difference.

It scales up in power in multiplier games, of course, but it also runs out a lot more quickly in multiplayer games. There's an interesting meta game -- you want to be able to hold onto a Prophet at the end potentially for the big $ it can generate. Maybe that means you hold on to your "even" Prophet so that you don't have to trash to get the $. There's some fun strategic considerations in terms of if you want to play your prophets, or when you should buy a second prophet, etc.

Despite this being almost entirely unprecedented, I do not think this card causes major problems. Band of misfits and similar cards use the card in the supply to play, so if the odd was on top, then it acts as an odd one. They have the same name, but are not copies of each other, so Ambassador might return one and fail to give out more than one, depending on the order of the piles. I don't think any of this is that confusing.

Flavor wise, your prophet sacrifices himself and reincarnates again! However, the disciples that got convinced to convert just stay in the trash -- they don't come back. They gave their life to the cause in terms of $. The more people you've converted the more $ you get. And it's one religion, so anybody your opponents convert also give you $.

I am definitely open to feedback on this card!

so per this thread about inheritance, word of god is cards with the same name are supposed to be identical; however this is such a narrow difference case I'd think it's a reasonable sui generis case of it not being a big deal.

Seems to me you could just have the cards with 2 different names ("Prophet A", "prophet B") and add a type ("Prophet") so that "gain a Prophet" refers to its type and not its name. Of course, cards that care about name would act differently (sometimes worse, sometimes better).

It wouldn't qualify for this challenge*, then - but seems like a cleaner design than two same named cards having different texts.

* unless pubby allows it, as a variant of spineflu's question:

Hey pubby
coud we do a mixed pile (2 named cards, randomly ordered) that each gain the other card in the pile if its available? Would that qualify for the contest?

25

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 28, 2019, 11:04:15 pm »

Here is my submission this week.  Curio Shop is a Workshop/Salvager mashup that can only gain or trash copies of one specific $5-cost card not in the Kingdom that is randomly assigned at the beginning of the game (similarly to Young Witch's Bane).  Unlike the Bane pile, the Curio pile is not in the Supply, making Curio Shop the only way to access those cards.  Of course, Curio Shop's value is largely determined by what the Curio is--if it's something like Lab, well then Curio Shop is a $3 Lab-gainer; if it's Explorer, well...  The Salvager option could mitigate the bad Curio scenario slightly, making it function sort of like a Death Cart payload card, (i.e. gaining and trashing junk for profit), but more likely you'll use that option in games with good Curios, to cash them in while greening once they're no longer needed.

It would be amazing if the Curio just happened to be Fortress...

Sadly, Fortress costs $4.