Sure.Can we submit cards we've worked on before? I never finished working on my Plague Doctor/Plague cards and they would be perfect for this contest. I have never submitted them to design contests before.Sure, as I said I don't want any tight rules.
Are we allowed to submit cards we’ve previously submitted, but haven’t won?
Can we submit cards we've worked on before? I never finished working on my Plague Doctor/Plague cards and they would be perfect for this contest. I have never submitted them to design contests before.Sure, as I said I don't want any tight rules.
Guilds doesn't have VP tokens. Even if it did, this probably shouldn't have them. As long as Curses remain, Annexation with VP tokens is significantly better than Province at $8 (functionally 6VP in the form of 3VP that don't get in my way and -3VP in ~3 stop cards for the other players), let alone if you get $10+ to buy it. This would absolutely be strong enough without the VP tokens.The Curses aren't automatically dead as the opponents can sift through them if you play Annexation. They can also sift through their Provinces.
I wasn't really talking about that kind of rush. I just think being able to spend $2 and a Buy to deplete 2 piles is a very dangerous effect that'll probably lead to many very fast 3 piles, usually in engines.Not really. If there is an issue with Parade, it is due to an Estate/Gardens/Silk Road rush.
I'd consider a price of $4. At first play it is worse than Sea Hag and "trash 2, junk 1" is similar to Ambassador.
I like this one the best.
Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.
Would this make a slog of every game by hammering the Estates? A higher price seems much safer so decks build towards bigger greens.Naturally Parade will rarely be bought at any price if other Cursers are present, they are simply quicker.
I don't see how a junky deck full of Estates (and Curses if the "buy Estate to distribute Curses" strategy is mirrored) is quickly ably to empty a third pile (except for Mapgies). Even if you gain the Estates via a Workshop variant, it will take quite some time.If there is no trashing, then buying the Estates is the same as skipping a 3-4$ buy to take VP from baths. 2 VP advantage generated over the opponent, no overall change in deck quality. People usually do not rush baths. If you are playing big money and your opponent is trying to line up Festivals against Smithies you've broken the symmetry a little bit but if we've generated a game where people played engine vs. big money that's definitely a custom card creation accomplishment, not a failure, in today's engine mirror universe.
When trashing is available, buying Estates should be even worse because it feels better to trash a Curse than it does to trash an Estate. Trash for benefit is unlikely to make enough difference.
So yeah I think the rush criticism fails on its face by comparison to Baths. It empties one more pile than Baths does but buying two of the curses yourself after you skipped a 4$ buy to unlock these Baths at all doesn't sound like a threatening strategy.
Baths doesn't empty 2 supply piles though. It's the pile emptying that makes this dangerous.
Ignoring your probabilities which heavily favour one outcome, I disagree. What faust mentioned is a risk management issue and has less to do with "strictly better". I know too little about stochastic game theory but I guess that technically speaking you could say something like: not liquidating does not stochastically dominante liquidating Mining Village or vice versa and thus by extension, Mining Village does not stochastically dominate Village as you can pick an option which is good ex ante but turns out to suck afterwards. In other words, via buying Mining Village instead of Village, you gave yourself rope to hang yourself (more technically speaking, more options are not better than fewer options in a stochastic world or when you cannot calculate everything; e.g. in chess keeping the position opaque and giving your opponent more options instead of forced moves can be a decent strategy, especially if the opponent is in time trouble).That's not a genuine edge case. You may decide you'll never trash Mining Village, in which case it is identical in behaviour to regular Village. It's better unless you somehow deem worthless the option to decide otherwise.
To take an extreme and pared-down analogy: I give person A a dollar. I give person B a dollar plus the option to toss a coin for double or quits. What I've given person B is better.
No I think he's right... imagine in your analogy you gave person B a dollar plus the option to roll a d-1000 for double or quits... he gets $2 on 2-1000, and nothing on 1. The mathematically right move is to always take the roll, and that's also the practical right move unless a person is in a situation where they really need 1 dollar, but don't need 2.
The fact that a person can choose to not roll doesn't seem to matter here, because basically everyone will roll; it's the correct decision financially and in terms of game theory.
But for the person who rolls a 1, it would have been better for them if they hadn't had the option to roll.
*Edit* This just comes down to a part of the definition of "strictly better" that I don't think has ever been defined. For a person who has incredibly bad luck, his overall outcome will be worse if he's given the die roll choice with his dollar every time, assuming that he plays correctly. But it's still true that a person can choose not play correctly and instead pretend that his dollar is just a dollar without the die roll.
Also Sorcerer's Apprentice's ability to tuck Victory cards away forever is trying to slip under the radar here. That effect is pretty ridiculous. I think it should not be able to put Victory cards away, let alone giving a benefit for doing so.Seems pretty good at the first glance but the fact that this draws after having Tavern-ized the Victory card matters quite a bit (although not as much as the matching problem of ordinary villages & Smithy variants vs. non-drawing villages like Festival/Villa/Conclave & Smithy variants as Sorcerer's Apprentice features other options besides setting aside green).
DiscoveryIgnoring whether this is balanced and should perhaps cost $5, it is far more practical than Black Market as you do not have to exchange the randomizer for the Kingdom card.
$4 Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of the Black Market deck. You may play one of the revealed cards. Put the rest on the bottom of the Black Market deck in any order.
When that card leaves play, put it on the bottom of the Black Market deck.
Setup: Make a Black Market deck out of different unused Kingdom cards.
I know stuff like this has been done before, but the most recent expansion makes the wording a lot easier.I like it but it is kind of the opposite of Mountebank, i.e. it is a junk amplifier instead of moderator.
Plague, Reaction $0 (Supply = Same as Curse Supply)
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word "reveal"), gain a Plague.
Plague Doctor, Action-Attack, $5
Gain a Silver to your hand.
Each other player reveals their hand and gains a Plague.
As this is not limited to drawing Treasures anymore, Envious and the cost limitation seem out of place. It also nerfs the card too much, i.e. targetdraw 2 cards (best case scenario) plus -x Coins seems pretty weak.PolymathUpdated version of Polymath to make it more useful.
$3 - Action
If you don't have Deluded or Envious, take Envious.
Do this twice: Choose one: Put your deck into your discard, or look through your discard pile and reveal a card costing up to $6 from it, and put it into your hand.
I faintly remember that LFN argued that Adventurer could cost $2. Sounds right given that in an engine it is worse than Moat.And? Adventurer is a) removed and is b) underpowered like Mandarin, i.e. it sucks at any price.Returned AdventurerCool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.
That would be strictly better than Adventurer.
Even though it's small, the fact that Embassy gives your opponents a Silver on-gain is intended to act as a drawback; which means that Returned Adventurer having a strictly worse effect for the same price is ok. Though I agree it's probably much weaker than Embassy.
Removed or not; no official second edition cards are strictly stronger or weaker than first edition cards. Even if it's a really minor drawback (like hey, maybe your opponents gain a Silver when you gain it!), I think it should have something to prevent it from being strictly stronger than Adventurer.
And? Adventurer is a) removed and is b) underpowered like Mandarin, i.e. it sucks at any price.Returned AdventurerCool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.
That would be strictly better than Adventurer.
Returned AdventurerCool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.
Well, that's not how Chapel works which is why Chuckles was right while that other poster was beyond totally wrong about it.
I can't tell if you're joking or not. I was talking about Coppers, not Estates.
He's doing that thing where he pretends like it was clear and obvious that he was only considering trashing Estates.
This is a decent heuristic but equalizing trashing and drawing is only OK when there is no source of draw/sifting on the board . For example a hypothetical card which says +3 Cards +1 Action | When you gain this, gain 2 Curses. seems, if one uses such static, non-comparative analysis, like getting a cantrip and taking Miserable, i.e. not something you ever want. But perhaps there are sifters or trashers that can deal with the Curses such that the Double Lab is actually a pretty strong card.I was talking about Coppers, not Silvers. Trashing Copper has the (big) upside of making it easier to draw, with the downside of losing some payload. Gaining a Lab, though, is the best of both worlds: you get more draw without losing that $. That's the crucial difference.
Trashing two Estates is like gaining two Labs and taking Miserable. Trashing a Curse is like gaining a Lab and taking atoken. Trashing a Lab is like gaining a Lab and then trashing two Labs.
I have never made ridiculous comparisons in the first place
open with a $3 Lab that gives you two more free labs on the first reshuffle, due to inflation.
