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 - naitchman

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 16, 2019, 09:47:08 am »
CHALLENGE #36 - NON-CONVENTIONAL JUNKER SUBMISSION:

A lab cheap Lab variant that can leave you open for counter attacks.



Quote
+1 Action
You may turn your Journey token over. Then if it's face down, +2 Cards. If it's face up, +1 Card.
Each other player with a face down Journey token gains a Ruins.
Cost: $4 Action - Attack - Looter

This is purely a conceptual idea. Potential problems with Ruins distribution, but that can likely be countered with proper play. A lab at $4 may still be too good even with the chance of gaining Ruins thrown in. Especially if you can reach a sort of critical mass of Lancers where you can always get your Journey token flipped back into the up state. But for that to work you need to spend a lot of $4 cost buys on something that only has an effect around mid game. Sort of like Sauna in a way.

Also probably broken levels of good with other Journey token cards, but there are only three others things that care about that so I'm ultimately okay with that.

Thanks for looking!

I'm not a fan of having a bonus for a facedown Journey token that the faceup side doesn't have.  One thing the existing three have in common is that the faceup token is always better, and this card breaks that and feels weird as a result.  Maybe it could have its own token?  It could also flip the token every time but be cheaper, and/or move the +2 Cards to the faceup side.

I agree. Can you just switch the terms (+2 cards for face up, +1 card for face down)? This might even be more interesting if you get ruins for face down journey token because then you have to decide whether you want to leave yourself open to attack or you want to set your next turn up.

About the attack,  it feels too swingy. If my journey token is face up and you play 8 lancers (which is easy since it's a cantrip), I get no ruins, but if it's face down, I get 8 ruins. I could see situations where this could be very frustrating. Imagine my journey token is face up and I only have one lancer in my hand. If I play the lancer, there could be a game changing difference in whether I get another Lancer or not. What if you flipped your opponents journey token when you have a successful ruins attack?

2
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 15, 2019, 09:42:25 pm »
Cockroach: Imagine games where both players open cockroach/cockroach, do nothing but play cockroach, and end the game on estate-curse-cockroach piles.

Charlatan: Fun idea but it's going to whiff way too often on victory cards.

that's true in the beginning and all the way at the end. That also assumes people aren't trashing their estates. Mid-game, your estates are more diluted.

Besides, there's also the discarding part.

3
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 15, 2019, 01:10:52 pm »


Will definitely need rewording. The way it's worded now, you gain the Curse/Copper, not them.

As for the idea itself, I admit I'm not particularly enamored with it. The vast majority of the time there will be no other junkers, so it will just be the same as measuring the number of Satanic Rituals you've played this turn. If the attack were based on the number of cards you gained this turn, that could be a lot more interesting.

Thanks for the feedback. I think you're right. it kind of seems arbitrary measuring how many cards your opponents gain when most of the time it's 0 (before any SR are played). It doesn't seem worth it to make this card lose so much of its power just because I played a witch this turn. I think I should just rephrase it to be based on how many SR you have in play. It would also mean I have a little more flexibility what would happen on the first and 2nd play (it doesn't need to make opponents gain cards). I think this idea has potential, but I'm gonna put it aside for now. It would really need to be tested.

So instead I am putting out this idea for a card. The idea was to make a less swingy swindler.


This is kind of somewhere between swindler and militia. It gives you $2 and only decreases your opponent's handsize by 1 (regardless of their handsize), but you can keep going until they're down to 3. It also allows them to choose which card to trash so this becomes more powerful if you play 2 per turn (if you only play 1, they'll mostly trash estates in the beginning, and provinces in the end game). It also eventually hits a limit where your opponent is trashing the stuff you junked them with. It's a little worse than swindler in that your opponent chooses the card to trash, but it also forces them to discard cards as well.

4
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 15, 2019, 12:57:49 pm »
Cockroach
cost $1 - Action
+1 Action
If the Cockroach pile is empty, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain a Cockroach.
---
Setup: Each player gains a Cockroach.

i hate that this could lead to a $3/$3 opening ( 3 copper, 2 estates / 3 copper, 1 estate, 1 cockroach / 1 copper remaining in deck)

Replacing an estate with a cockroach would probably help this

5
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 12, 2019, 06:22:26 pm »
Ok, This is definitely not the final version but I'm gonna put this here for comments. This idea was a devil's workshop but an attack. Update: This is no longer my submission. The new submission is here



I think I should add a benefit for the user of the card, not sure what to do (maybe  a +coffer). Any suggestions welcome. I want to keep it at $4 (with the benefit) if possible, but if not the price can change. I'd prefer not to make it a duration if possible.

Just some notes:
Pros
1) Can continue junking after curses run out
2) Is non terminal
3) cannot be drawn dead
4) cost $4 (so it can always be opened with)

Cons
1) Can only junk once per turn (including other junkers you have, like witch), not including its swindler attack
2) Gets worse the more times you play it
3) Gives no benefit (working on that)

Update: This is no longer my submission. The new submission is here

6
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 11, 2019, 09:54:59 pm »

Consulate
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $4
+ $1
Gain a card costing less than this to your hand. Each other player discards the top card of their deck and gains a copy of the card you have gained.

(Reaction cards like Moat can only be revealed before you make your choice, so you could pick Silver, when your opponent reveals a Moat. If the card you have gained loses track (e. g. with Trader) or is the last copy in the Supply, your opponents don't gain any card, but still discard the top card of their deck.)

What's the point of discarding the top card of the deck?

7
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 10, 2019, 11:27:08 am »


For Renaissance.
Even without holy land this seems a bit cheap at $4. If a curser costs $4, it means you can always open with one. The only cursers that cost $4 are young witch, which has a built in defense, and sea hag, which gives no benefit. These weaknesses can counterbalance their cheap costs. Crusade on the other hand curses and has a reasonable benefit with no drawback. Add in Holy Land and it makes it even better, because at least you can utilize the junk you're getting.

I think getting rid of the +buy (something that's not so easy to use early game, which is when you want to curse) and raising it to $5 would probably be better. (Even though this would not be a great $5 card without the artifact, the fact that you're fighting over an artifact can artificially increase the price, like flag bearer)

8
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 10, 2019, 11:16:33 am »


I like this one the best.
The problem with this version is that it gives an advantage to the first player. The first player can curse others before their first shuffle, but can't be cursed before his first shuffle. A curse in the first shuffle can hurt alot.

9
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 08, 2019, 03:18:26 pm »



Can you clarify whether you make the choice individually for each player, or whether you choose trash or supply and then it applies to all players in turn order? When do you make the choice? Right now it is ambiguous. I am not trying to provide feedback before judging, but I do need to understand the card to judge it correctly.

Similar to Spy and Oracle, you make the choice individually for each player. Based on precedent, I believe this is the correct way to write this. If it has been one choice for all players it would have been "Choose one: Each other player gains a Curse, or each other player gains a curse from the trash".

10
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 07, 2019, 02:41:28 pm »
2) In games without trashing, this would play a little weaker than a Witch.

+$1 instead of +2 Cards is more than just a little weaker...
Yeah.
It would kind of depend on the rest of the board and your money density. If you have villages, witches can keep the chain going, but without them, you risk drawing other witches dead.

Regardless of how much weaker it is, it has to be weaker than a witch (absent trashing) or it would not be fairly priced compared to witch. Giving it a weakness absent trashing and a strength with trashing is good.

If you have any ideas of what could be a more appropriate benefit then +$1, feel free to post them.

11
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 07, 2019, 01:04:20 pm »
I don't think you were copying, obviously. I just think it's annoying for both of us that out entries are so similar. Also, you're supposed to keep a change log in your original post so we can see all of your changes at once. Right now you only show your final version in your original post and it makes it look like I'm copying you since you posted first. Please edit back in your developments and story along the way so that people can see how our cards evolved separately at a glance.

I guess I agree with the fact that it's annoying our cards our similar. I think you are one of a few that I've seen who keeps an entire log of all the different iterations. I just put new changes under "Updates" which keeps the original post concise (people can see the exact wording of the older card from all the comments on it, and I usually specify what changed in the comments).

With that said, I decided to make some key changes to Undead Witch for the following 2 reasons
1) I generally don't like cards that you have to buy if they're in the kingdom. UW is a card that you have to go for if it's there. For most cursers it's board dependent whether you have to buy them; if there's weak trashing, you have to buy them to be competitive in the cursing race. If there's strong enough trashing you can ignore them and just trash the curses as they come in. If you don't go for UW, you'll get all the curses. Even if you have good trashing, your opponent can give them right back to you.
2) I think the trashing part synergizes too much with the cursing from the trash. Part of what cards interesting is how they vary with strength depending on the kingdom. Considering that trashing is common enough, I don't need to add trashing to UW. The strength will obviously be different depending if there's trashing or not. Also, along the lines of the first point, since the trashing and cursing from the trash are in one card, it's much easier to use it, meaning it will always come into play. If you have to trash with a different card (say steward), then play UW, the game changes alot. You would need to get steward, a curse, and an UW in your hand for this to be effective; If you just had UW (without the trashing part) you couldn't curse, and if you just had steward and trashed your curse, your opponent could give it back to you. Getting these cards together restricts the cases which this could be effective.

To address these points, I've added 2 changes:
1) If you do curse from the trash, you trash it for a new card. This means you can only curse from the trash once. This takes care of point #1.
2) You don't get to trash 2 cards anymore. Instead you get +$1. This takes care of point #2 above
(Also I change the name to Vengeful Witch, since it didn't make sense for an Undead Witch to turn into a Dead Witch)

With that out of the way here is the new card:

This witch is vengeful and is looking to make sure you're cursed if it's the last thing she does. Indeed it is the last thing she does. But even from beyond the grave, there's a destructive power about her.

1) I gave a bonus of +$1 seeing that +$2 would make this too strong compared to witch (can curse from the trash once and gets rid of itself when it outlives its usefulness)
2) In games without trashing, this would play a little weaker than a Witch.
3) In games with some trashing, every vengeful witch can curse once from the trash. This means the cursing race will eventually end and it won't go back and forth. It also means that you don't have to get a vengeful witch if there's strong enough trashing. After you trash the VW for a Dead Witch, you also have an additional card that can help deal with curses you have, making this card not a complete slog.
4) Note that while both these cards trash, they both need another trasher for them to actually trash.
5) This is still a Dark Ages Theme: VW curses from the trash, DW trashes cards, and it's a card that turns into another card (like hermit and urchin).

Update: I have relented on point #1 and made it +$2.

12
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 06, 2019, 11:51:08 pm »
Okay so here's what I got.


Just changed trashing curses to trashing any cards. I think this takes care of a couple things

1) It makes it always possible for curses to end up in trash so gaining curses from the trash is always possible
2) It keeps with Dark Ages theme of trashing
3) You always get a benefit besides the attack
4) It's no longer worse than sea hag if you don't have curses in hand
5) it's better now compared to ambassador because you can trash anything and you can trash 2 different cards. Also UW will always give out a curse (provided there's one in the supply, trash, or your hand which is very likely). You can also trash cards you wouldn't want your opponent to gain (flag bearer, silk merchant). Consider the following comparisons
    a) Amb-Co-Co vs UW-Co-Co = Both trash/ return 2 coppers but UW gives out a curse compared to a Copper
    b) Amb-E-E vs UW-E-E = Both trash/ return 2 Estates but UW gives out a curse compared to an Estate
    c) Amb-Cu-Cu vs UW-Cu-Cu = Pretty much the same
    d) Amb and two different cards vs UW and two different cards= This is where UW really shines since you can trash 2 cards as opposed to 1 and your opponent will (in most cases) get a curse.

With every iteration, your card keeps getting more and more similar to my Warlock.

They both trash two cards, both Curse, and both deal with Curses from the trash.

1) To be fair I posted Undead Witch before you posted Warlock
2) At the time you posted this, Warlock didn't give curses from the trash
3) The fact that they both curse shouldn't be surprising at all considering the nature of this contest
4) The fact that they both trash 2 cards is still not that surprising since we both chose Dark Ages as our theme
5) I read the other cards but I don't commit them to memory. Now that you point it out, they are similar, but I definitely did not steal any ideas off of Warlock.

As an aside, the fact that UW causes a slog is not terrible. It wouldn't be the only card.

That being said this version may not be the final iteration (that's why I didn't change the original post).

13
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 05, 2019, 06:12:55 pm »
Okay so here's what I got.


Just changed trashing curses to trashing any cards. I think this takes care of a couple things

1) It makes it always possible for curses to end up in trash so gaining curses from the trash is always possible
2) It keeps with Dark Ages theme of trashing
3) You always get a benefit besides the attack
4) It's no longer worse than sea hag if you don't have curses in hand
5) it's better now compared to ambassador because you can trash anything and you can trash 2 different cards. Also UW will always give out a curse (provided there's one in the supply, trash, or your hand which is very likely). You can also trash cards you wouldn't want your opponent to gain (flag bearer, silk merchant). Consider the following comparisons
    a) Amb-Co-Co vs UW-Co-Co = Both trash/ return 2 coppers but UW gives out a curse compared to a Copper
    b) Amb-E-E vs UW-E-E = Both trash/ return 2 Estates but UW gives out a curse compared to an Estate
    c) Amb-Cu-Cu vs UW-Cu-Cu = Pretty much the same
    d) Amb and two different cards vs UW and two different cards= This is where UW really shines since you can trash 2 cards as opposed to 1 and your opponent will (in most cases) get a curse.

14
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 05, 2019, 01:54:57 pm »


I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.
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.

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.

I was going to say that myself. Hmmm... looks like it's back to the drawing board.
Possible things to change
Increase number of curses you can trash (maybe have no limit)
topdeck the gained curse (like sea hag)
Give some other benefit (+$)

In response to king leon: That is true but ambassador is a much more effective trasher and it can work with cards like copper and estate. It's very likely you'll have at least one of those in your hand. (Not to mention the less common case where you use it to give your opponent(s) a province and end the game).

15
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 04, 2019, 08:05:31 pm »


I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.

16
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 04, 2019, 02:59:55 pm »
I'm putting a couple different versions of undead witch out that do give you some bonus. Which one do you think works the best?

17
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 04, 2019, 02:34:03 pm »

Raven
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. you may gain a Raven. If you didn't, put this on your Tavern mat.
When you gain a Province, you may discard this from your Tavern mat. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.
I'm not a big fan of the "cantrip that auto-piles itself." I think Port and Magpie are already pretty bad and they don't even pile themselves as quickly as Raven will. This will split strangely in multiplayer games versus 2-player games. In 2-player games it would not be all too strange to give a player 4 or even 5 Curses with your first Province. In 3-player games you will be the lucky one to give 4 Curses. I think losing the Raven split would be an immediate death sentence in most 2-player games: Receiving 6+ Curses in response to another player gaining 1 Province will probably prevent you from doing anything else the rest of the game.

I agree with this assessment. This is the kind of card that gives a big 1st player advantage. Not only are you more likely to win the raven split because you are 1 turn ahead, but if you can get a province 1st, your opponent might have trouble getting a province himself with all those curses letting you get another province and give him the rest of the curses. At this point, you pretty much won the game. You just can't ignore ravens anytime they're out.

Undead Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Choose one: Each other player gains a Curse; or each other player gains a Curse from the trash; or trash up to 2 Curses from your hand.
In multiplayer games, I worry that the Cursing from the trash will give an uneven number of Curses when it doesn't want to. I'd just have Undead Witch's on-play put all the Curses in the trash back into the Supply and then dole them out normally. Regardless, this looks pretty weak at a cost of $5 without any benefit attached to it except for the unending Cursing. I might want some small value attached to it. Even +$1.
Thanks for the feedback. Both points are valid. I think I'll change the wording so that you can curse from the supply or the trash for each player so it doesn't have this wonkiness.
I was thinking about the lack of benefit when I uploaded this (though the trashing is technically a benefit). I obviously can't add +2 cards, or this will be strictly better than witch and +actions doesn't seem right since non-terminal cursers are very strong. Obviously, the ability to give out curses from the trash is strong so I can't give it too much. I could do +$1. I was also considering raising the number of curses you could trash to 3; what if you got to trash one card unconditionally and then choose cursing or trashing another 2 curses? It would allow this to act a little more like an ambassador (at least in a 2p game). I think I'll make a couple different versions and see which one works best.

Warlock
Types: Action, Attack, Reaction
Cost: $5
Trash 2 cards from your hand. Each other player gains a Curse.
When a player trashes a card, you may reveal this from your hand to return the trashed card to the Supply. Then you may discard this, to gain a copy of the trashed card to your hand.
The wording of the Reaction is confusing, so I hope you don't mind that I expanded it above. I think the ability to duplicate Provinces for yourself with multiple Warlocks is something to be wary of.
Adding a simple "if you do" could fix this

Quote
Child
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $2
Trash a card from your hand.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Trainee.
Quote
Trainee
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $3*
Gain a non-Traveller card costing up to $3. You may put it on top of your deck.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
(This is not in the Supply)
Quote
Sorcerer’s Apprentice
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $4*
Put a non-Reserve card from your hand onto your Tavern mat. If it is a... ...Action card, gain a card costing up to $5. ...Treasure card, +$2, +1 Buy. ...Victory or Curse card, +1 Card, +1 Action
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Sorcerer.
(This is not in the Supply)
Quote
Sorcerer
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $5*
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on top of their deck. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. You may trash one. Put the revealed Treasures into your hand, put the revealed Actions back in any order, and discard the rest.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Master.
(This is not in the Supply)
Quote
Master
Types: Action
Cost: $6*
+$1
You may put your +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, or +1 Buy token on the Master pile. (When you play a Master, you first get that bonus). Each other player gains 2 Curses. For each Curse they didn’t gain, they gain a Copper instead.
(This is not in the Supply)
I think raw "trash a card" is also too good on the first level of a Traveller: It speeds up your deck and makes it easier to continue the Traveller line. If you want Master, I see little reason you wouldn't open with 4 (or more) Child cards considering it gives so much tempo towards what your deck is trying to do.
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.
Why doesn't [Sorcerer's Apprentice] just trash the card? Is it just so that it can interact with the Tavern Mat? There's no way to get it back right? The only way I can see this being different from trashing is with Miser.
A Victory or Curse card on your Tavern mat is still a part of your deck and will influence your score. Actions and Treasures typically won't matter, but the wording would become more complex if you treated them differently. Maybe the semantic complexity (players wondering what cards sitting on their Tavern mat are doing) would be worth alleviating with word complexity.
Usually the card at the end of a traveler line has to be powerful (note the current ones Teacher and Champion) and be powerful even if you only have one because getting more is a lot of work. Master just doesn't seem worth it. At best, you get all your tokens on master and now it's a grand market; you probably only have a few of these anyway and it's very likely it's late in the game by the time this happens. The fact that it double curses is cool, but considering all the different cards in this line give you some way to trash or remove cards from your deck and that this would be very late in the game by the time this happens, it doesn't really seem worth it to go for a master. Sorcerer's apprentice on the other hand is a cantrip card that lets you tuck away victory cards and doesn't tuck away itself (like island). It would seem worth going down this line and stopping at sorcerer's apprentice (maybe getting a sorcerer if need be). I agree with fragasnap, this probably should be tweaked.

Greedy Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $2+
+$2. Use a coin token so that each other player gains a Curse.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, take a Coin token.
You need an image to apply for the contest.
Overpaying for Coffers is an issue fraught with huge problems. You can functionally set aside coins to buy Provinces very, very fast. I'd steer clear of the concept of overpaying for Coffers.
You should probably fix up the wording
Put a coin token back in the supply; if you do, each other player gains a Curse.

Sorceress
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$1. Name a card. Each player (including you) may reveal a copy of the named card from their hand. Each player who does gets +1 Coffers. Each player who doesn't gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.
This seems a bit swingy. If I name a card and my opponent doesn't have it (something that will be reliant on luck) he gets a curse (which is -1 point and clogs his deck); if he does have it, not only does he not get a curse, but he gets a coffer. Considering that people consider Hexes swingy because some effects (all of which are pretty much negative) are not as powerful as others at certain times, a positive/negative effect would qualify as swingy too.
I think this is a fair characterization, but is somewhat sidestepping the inherently swingy nature of Curse-centered games. If you have Curses, you have more stop cards, which means the random order of your deck becomes more important.
The original version had no "name a card", always triggering off of Curses (which makes it less Guildsy) and the Cursing was unconditional. Do you suppose making the Cursing unconditional to other players (and therefore increasing the cost to $4) be a major improvement? To do that, I'd probably need to change the "name a card" thing to ensure that it still involves opportunity for other players to get Coffers, but that can be approximated.
I'm not really sure what your proposal is. Do you mean give each other player a curse and a coffer? That woud definitely be less swingy, and needs to cost $4-$5 (it would also be the only $4 unconditional curser that also gives a benefit if you priced it at $4). You could also allow for naming a card but not give coffers out; either the player gets the curse or doesn't (like a bane card), though I guess that loses the guilds theme even more.

18
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 04, 2019, 01:46:25 pm »
Coven



I just had an idea (you can take it or leave it). What if there was a single cursed token that was shared by all players. Buying the event would move it to the pile of your liking. This would mean in 4 player games it wouldn't get too crazy with 4 cursed tokens.

Also, it would appear you have a typo on the card (playa)

19
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 03, 2019, 08:07:27 pm »
If I submit this to an earlier round, can I still?

Quote
Sorceress
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$1. Name a card. Each player (including you) may reveal a copy of the named card from their hand. Each player who does gets +1 Coffers. Each player who doesn't gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.
Sorceress is a Guilds-themed Curser that kinda hits everybody. Anyone who can show a named card (Guilds sub-theme) gets 1 Coffers (Guilds main theme), even the player of it. Anyone who can't gains a Curse straight to hand. I'm still surprised there's no official card that gives other players Coffers.

Early you could hit Estates or your other opener for +Coffers and giving a Curse, but the Curse that you give will make it more likely that they can immediately benefit from the Curse by using Sorceress with it.
Later you can use greater variety and deck-drawing capacity to hand out Curses and get Coffers fairly reliably.
You could also name a card that doesn't exist to give out Curses and deal with yours immediately.

This seems a bit swingy. If I name a card and my opponent doesn't have it (something that will be reliant on luck) he gets a curse (which is -1 point and clogs his deck); if he does have it, not only does he not get a curse, but he gets a coffer. Considering that people consider Hexes swingy because some effects (all of which are pretty much negative) are not as powerful as others at certain times, a positive/negative effect would qualify as swingy too.

20
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 03, 2019, 08:01:24 pm »
I'll take a stab at making a promo curser.
Here's Heretic. Super swingy alt-vp that allows you to do an absurd thing like get all the curses and use them instead of money.



Card text is :
Quote
While this card is in play, Curses gain the type "Treasure" and have the ability +$2.
Choose one or both:
• Gain a Curse to your hand.
• Each other player gains a Curse.
-
At the end of the game, if you have the most Curses, 2%

you'd clearly want enough of them to make them actually worth VP to offset the curses you take on.

Alternatively, you can just curse everyone else, and/or yourself!

Also ties into the promo's subtheme of "generally large/strange choices" (Governor, Envoy (for the player on yr left), Prince and Stash also exhibit a similar "large" decision space, Black Market exhibiting "strange" decision space).

edit: fixed image link

The while in play effect should probably be below a line.

21
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 03, 2019, 07:54:52 pm »
Ok. Here's something I thought up right now. I'll probably tweak it a little. Update: This card had undergone a couple of changes. Now I've made a new card. See that Here

Seeing as there are no cursers in Dark Ages, I made Undead Witch for it. It's a witch that never dies. It's a curser that can keep giving curses to people when they trash them. It also allows you to trash your own curses to make sure that curses can even end up in the trash.

Dark Ages theme is cards that care about the trash. This is a trasher (for curses only) and a card that gains cards from the trash.

Thoughts?

Update1: You now get to trash curses and give out curses.
Update2: This card had undergone a couple of changes. Now I've made a new card. See that Here

22
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 03, 2019, 11:42:14 am »
Interesting Contest. Would cards that allow people to get curses but don't directly give people curses be okay (embargo, swamp hag)?

23
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 30, 2019, 10:26:32 pm »
When does the contest end?

24
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 27, 2019, 08:05:51 pm »
I mental mistepped that you'd have to trash at least one.  I think you need to remove the ability to trash 0 even if it stays at 6$, really, it's probably a little too versatile for your remake variant to start slamming double Duchy turns in greening phase no matter what tier of purchase it happened at.  Even altar requires you to lose a copper the turn you gain a Duchy which goes a long way to making it not a double duchy turn.

I think it's probably fine at 7$ as written.  Forge-copper-copper-copper-estate is a little better than
Sanctuary-copper-copper-copper-estate but greening phase Sanctuary-copper-Silver-Silver-Province is a lot better than what Forge offers.

Maybe just restrict to non-victory cards.

Also you could just say gain a card costing $5 minus $1 per card you trashed but not less than $0. It would be a little less wordy.

25
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 27, 2019, 05:41:30 pm »
Returned Adventurer
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.
Cool 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.

That would be strictly better than Adventurer.
And? Adventurer is a) removed and is b) underpowered like Mandarin, i.e. it sucks at any price.

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.

Technically, it is not strictly better. If you have 5 victory cards on the top of your deck, adventurer is better since it continues to search. I know that's small but that's enough to make it not strictly better. It's pretty much better but not strictly better, and pretty much better is okay (Noble brigand is pretty much better than Thief).

The strictly better was to the suggested modification of "I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type", not the original.

Oops you're right. Still I think what Segura said is right. Using mispriced cards as a benchmark is a bad idea.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Page created in 0.105 seconds with 18 queries.