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 - Galaxi

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1]
1

2

3
This cannot be fixed via changing the costs. The simply problem is that the gift for the other players is not much of a gift in the presence of DoubleSplitters that do nearly the same thing as the Artefact.

If the Kingdom card did something else, a Baracks Artefact would be much stronger.

Saying that the power level of the card can't be fixed by changing the cost seems crazy to me. I don't see how this wouldn't almost always be worse than Port at 4 for instance. What am I missing?

I think what he means is that the concept of the card can't be fixed by changing the cost. The problem with Charitable Village isn't necessarily the power level, it's that the Artifact and the effect of the card are redundant. The effect of the card makes the Artifact's Barracks effect nigh irrelevant.

In certain kingdoms that might be true, but I feel like most of the time it isn't. Having an extra action at the start of your turn is wildly different than having it somewhere in your deck. If a village is your only source of +2 action, you often NEED to get it in your starting hand to even get the engine going that turn. +1 action at the start of turn makes the requirements for your starting hand way looser. And this is on top of already requiring the kingdom to be properly engine-heavy, otherwise the 2 actions per turn with another strategy, or for instance with another +2 action card, might very well be better. I'm by no means a top player, and I also have limited experience with full random, but having a kingdom where everything aligns for this card's artifact to be irrelevant seems like it can't happen often enough to make it uninteresting.

Edit: I can also add for reference that I have access to base+renaissance+menagerie when I playtest, in case that matters

4
This cannot be fixed via changing the costs. The simply problem is that the gift for the other players is not much of a gift in the presence of DoubleSplitters that do nearly the same thing as the Artefact.

If the Kingdom card did something else, a Baracks Artefact would be much stronger.

Saying that the power level of the card can't be fixed by changing the cost seems crazy to me. I don't see how this wouldn't almost always be worse than Port at 4 for instance. What am I missing?

5
making this a piece of junk
overpowered villages.
I love this  ;D

There are definitely gonna be boards where this is really strong or weak, but on a lot of boards it's not so simple. As for it being too strong, you have to consider how it plays for instance when there's another village on the board. Or maybe 2 actions per turn is suboptimal, but worth it for not having to put in the effort of getting these villages. If you only need 1 or 2 villages, it's also a matter of "is it worth the drawback?"

I mostly compared it to Port for how strong I should make it, but as for the cost I'm not too attached to 2. It might be better at 3 or 4. My feeling was 3, or maybe 2, but then I've also noticed people on these boards prefer slightly strong over slightly weak, so it became 2 for now.

7
Fallen City
Action Duration Attack, $5
At the start of your next turn, +2 Cards +1 Action.

Until then, Until then, at the start of each other player's Clean-up phases, you may have them combine a Burden and an Action they would discard from play.

Says "Until then" twice, phases -> phase. With the current wording it's also a bit unclear who chooses the action to get combined with Burden. Without further context I would assume that they choose which action.

I like your name btw :3

8
"Way of the Mule" is an official card. Was this an oversight?

9
Updated my submission


I think a bigger version of Mine is a no-brainer for Prosperity. Works especially well with treasures that cost 5, and 4 in the case of a Platinum game, which thankfully there's plenty of in Prosperity. The last part is mostly to make sure it's better than Mine on boards with no treasures of interesting values, but I didn't want to make it too strong, as to incentivize players to use the full boost when able.

Unfortunately I can't properly playtest this as I don't have access to Prosperity, and Platinum games is an important part of the card, so balance might be off. After all, Mine is pretty weak.

Edit notes: (also edited the above text slightly to be more accurate with the updated version of the card)
- Also works well with cost-reducers(turning coppers into gold) now when it's a 5 boost rather than 4.
- The last part is now a pretty significant part of the card, but feels very fitting with the money theme of Prosperity.
- The second gained card goes to you discard pile, should this be written out? If so, is "(to discard)" well formulated enough or do you have to write something longer?

Old version:


10


I think a bigger version of Mine is a no-brainer for Prosperity. Works especially well with treasures that cost 2,4,7 and 5 in the case of a Colony game, which thankfully there's plenty of in Prosperity. The last part is mostly to make sure it's better than Mine on a boards with no treasures of these values, but I didn't want to make it too strong, as to incentivize players to use the full 4 boost when able.

Unfortunately I can't playtest this as I don't have access to Prosperity, and Colony games is an important part of the card, so balance might be totally off. After all, Mine is pretty weak.

I think this would be even weaker than Mine due to the higher cost - in most games (especially full random) the full $4 increase is rarely or never usable. (FWIW, Prosperity 1E doesn't have any $2 Treasure, and only one very weak $7 Treasure.) 

I think you could at least allow for a $5 increase, making it a kind of severely restricted Altar that gains to hand (as Altar can also trash estates and curses and gain Actions, it's much more flexible). Turning the occasional $4 treasure into Platinum is strong but hardly overpowered for a $6 card.

Yeah I were thinking post-posting(sorry) a 5 increase might be more appropriate. Initially I were afraid of something like Throne Room - Central Mine on a plat game, but I mean KC - Mine does the same thing but on more boards. I kinda feel like that's a good, and after considering it more carefully, quite obvious fix. Makes more non-Prospetity treasures interesting with it as many cost 5, and also works interestingly with cost reducers.

The harder part is the -if only up to 3- part. I'm thinking getting +1 action or maybe gaining another copy could be interesting alternatives, but I'll have to playtest it to see how strong that is(without Prosperity unfort). I put this out before having thought it through properly yet cause I were afraid someone else might have the same idea ;D. Thanks for the thoughts on the card though, confirming my suspicions of it being too weak :). I'll get another version up after playtesting a bit.

11


I think a bigger version of Mine is a no-brainer for Prosperity. Works especially well with treasures that cost 5, and 4 in the case of a Platinum game, which thankfully there's plenty of in Prosperity. The last part is mostly to make sure it's better than Mine on boards with no treasures of interesting values, but I didn't want to make it too strong, as to incentivize players to use the full boost when able.

Unfortunately I can't properly playtest this as I don't have access to Prosperity, and Platinum games is an important part of the card, so balance might be off. After all, Mine is pretty weak.

Edit notes: (also edited the above text slightly to be more accurate with the updated version of the card)
- Also works well with cost-reducers(turning coppers into gold) now when it's a 5 boost rather than 4.
- The last part is now a pretty significant part of the card, but feels very fitting with the money theme of Prosperity.
- The second gained card goes to you discard pile, should this be written out? If so, is "(to discard)" well formulated enough or do you have to write something longer?
- Could replace Mint if that leaves, both has to do with trashing and gaining treasures.

Old version:

12
Initially I really tried to make some kind of card which combines cards of your choosing. But I kinda feel like that has a lot of issues like balancing, specific card combinations as pointed out by others, and also many ideas really just turn into variations of the example card. Then I tried some simpler ideas like for instance victory cards which combines with stuff when you buy them, but it's really not that interesting. So my conclusion was that combining specific cards was the route I wanted to take. This also allows for creating multiple different cards using the mechanic that can all be interesting on the same board, which I feel is important when creating a new mechanic(why create a mechanic just for 1 card you know). So here's what I made:



With say 30 Examiners in its pile.

Edit: Realized now that I put a * instead of + on Overseer, but I'm to lazy to fix it  ;D

13


On it's own, it will help clear your deck and it will give you 1 Coffers on your next turn. It can also discard other copies of Illusionist, and ease the pain of discard attacks.  It's a bit hard for me to gauge the value of cleansing the deck before drawing, without having playtested this.  If you have only 1 card in your deck, it's obviously pretty bad.  If you have 8 in your deck and curses are flying around this game, it could be basically as good as draw. Landed on $4 for now.

I guess this is technically a Duration-into-Discard, but I don't really feel like this is recursion(by the given rules). Something like highwayman NEEDS to be a duration in order for the effect to work, and there the discarding makes it cycle faster. This however doesn't have anything left to do the next turn. "At the start of your next turn, discard this from play" doesn't make it cycle faster, but rather slower. The card could just as well say something like "Before cleanup, discard this from play."

14


Edit: Changed the wording both to make it consistent with existing card formulations, and to synergize better with certain types of cards(night cards, reactions, curses, treasures, potential future/fan made card types, etc.)
Edit 2: After further playtesting I buffed the card, making it non-terminal. It's weaker than Bounty Hunter early, but has better potential to thin your deck in the middlegame if you get 2-3.

Old versions:

15
Weekly Design Contest / Re: WDC 151: Now or Later
« on: May 07, 2022, 05:27:31 pm »
I think the history of this is that cards used to say things like "Trash 2 cards from your hand. If you did, +$1." But to the uninitiated "if you did" there looks weird, like, what, I thought I had to trash 2 cards, do you mean I had a choice or something? You have to realise that it's possible to play the card with only 1 card left, and then it makes sense.

So more recently DXV has favored the "for" wording instead of "if you did". Because it means the same, but looks less weird. And handy that it takes up less space too.

I think that's how it is, anyway.

I see, I'm used to the "if you did" formulation, so I were unsure what "for" meant here. Thanks for the clarification   ;D

16
Weekly Design Contest / Re: WDC 151: Now or Later
« on: May 07, 2022, 11:26:21 am »
Inferno
Action/Duration - $4
Now, at the start of your next turn, or both (you must decide now), trash 2 cards from your hand for +$1.
By "trash 2 cards from your hand for +$1", do you mean "+$1 and trash 2 cards from your hand"?

Really like the card btw :) (at least if I understood it correctly)

17
Weekly Design Contest / Re: WDC 151: Now or Later
« on: May 06, 2022, 12:03:48 pm »


I found the idea of a wacky version of +2 actions, in the form of getting the extra action your next turn instead, quite compelling. Were considering different interesting effects to pair it with, but ended up liking the simplicity and supportive nature that +1 Buy gives the card.

Pages: [1]

Page created in 0.177 seconds with 19 queries.