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.

Topics - scolapasta

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1]
Dominion General Discussion / Ambiguity / consistency of "Otherwise"
« on: March 11, 2020, 03:56:29 pm »
Moving this discussion from the Bonus Previews thread, regarding Gamble's wording of "Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's a Treasure or Action, you may play it. Otherwise, discard it."

On Discord, Donald X. has said

Quote from: Donald X.
If you don't play the card you discard it, whether or not it's an Action/Treasure.

The wording is the way it is because of various cards that can move when they're discarded.  There's less potential confusion if you can't both move it with its reaction and play it.

Fix for next printing: If you didn't play it, discard it.

This suggested wording would definitely be better, because as I pointed out from some other cards, it isn't just about ambiguity but also consistency.

In this construct of "If X, do Y. Otherwise, do Z", "Otherwise" is really shorthand for "otherwise if not W, do Z", where the ambiguity is what is W: is it X, or 'you did Y" or (X or you did Y).

For Gamble, the ruling is W = (X or you did Y)*

* I don't think you can just say W = "you did Y", because doing Y *only* applies if X is true, but even if that were the case, the inconsistency still exists.

However, in the case of these other cards, W = X:

Tormenter, each other player only receives a Hex, if you had other actions in play. If you did not, but were unable to gain an Imp, the other players still do not receive a Hex
Jester, if the other player discards a Province, and there are no curses left for them yo gain, you do not then choose whether you or they gain a Province.

The two differences I see are that a) Gamble is play instead of discard and b) for Gamble it's "may play". Clearly a) shouldn't make a difference in the logic, but I don't really see why b) would either.

Please tell me if I'm missing something.

Dominion General Discussion / Speculation on Ways
« on: March 10, 2020, 02:47:17 pm »
So, we've seen 5 Ways so far: Ox, Mole, Turtle, Chameleon, and Rat, with 15 more on the way.

Over in the interview thread, Donald X seemed OK with our speculating based on the leaked names:

Would you be willing to share what the remaining Way animals are? It'd be fun to speculate what they might do, based on the names alone.

This info is already on the Wiki; it's linked to in one of the previews threads.

Sure, I saw that. But it felt like an unofficial leak*; I preferred not to speculate publicly in the forums until it was something more official.

* though I will admit, it's what inspired this question :)
I'm happy to leave it as, you know there was that leak, you can go look at it and speculate.

 So here's a thread for just that. My suggestion is limit yourself to just one or two Ways per post, so as to not overwhelm the speculations.

Here's mine:

It'd be cool of Way of the Butterfly somehow had to do with the Butterfly effect, i.e. do something small now, that could eventually lead to something much larger later. But honestly, I'm not sure in practice what that would work. I mean, with tokens, you could do something like Sinister Plot, but as we know, no tokens this expansion.

Variants and Fan Cards / Design style
« on: February 08, 2020, 02:08:51 pm »
Hi all,

This is my 200th post - woohoo! Arbitrary, for sure, but I've decided that I want to make every 100th post something "special". So for #200, I want to survey opinions on design style.

We have some amazing design creation guides that have helped me immensely in thinking through some ideas (and trashing others). Whereas there are definitely some obvious do's and don't in regards to mechanics, design style is more a matter of opinion. I'm curious what others think is good / bad style when designing cards.

Here's a few topics I've considered (sometimes based on comments from other posts), with my personal opinions in ().

In other words, how much does the card match the name of the card? Dominion is a game where theme does sometimes seem to play second fiddle to mechanics, but it always pleases me when a card's text makes sense in the context of the name / theme.

(My personal preference is to err on the side of theme - I'll start with some idea, then figure out a name, then tweak the idea so it matches better with the name. (or sometimes, I'll even start with a name and go from there). In other words, I'm willing to sacrifice some on the mechanics if it helps the flavor.)

Related to theme, do you care about the setting of your cards? Official cards have expanded the setting - most cards fit well in a medieval setting, and then we had Empires and a Roman setting. I never imagined we'd have mythical creatures and spirits, then Nocturne came out. Similarly, for those who add artwork, how important is it for you that the artwork match the setting (and not use modern settings)?

(I try to fit my cards in a setting that would fit the official settings, but for the right card I'll likely make an exception - I have one as of yet unpublished card, which didn't exist in the real world until the late 1700s)

Simplicity vs Complexity
How much do you care about the complexity of the card? The amount of text?

(I prefer simple to complex, BUT find that most of my ideas end up being complex; the one time I did get runner up in the WDC was, of course, my simplest card text, though that's just because I introduced a new kind of token, i.e outsourced the text to the rules)

Mechanics from multiple expansions
I have seen some comments on custom cards that frown upon using mechanics from two different expansions (e.g. a debt cost card that gives Villagers). Is this something you consider in your design or is it a free for all?

(I am perfectly fine mixing up mechanics. If I were designing for on an official set, I would care, but since I'm not (yet!  8)), I prefer being able to explore things that can't necessarily be done in an official set)

Setup instructions
What do you think of extra set up instructions? For example, I recently had a card that had a below the line clause of: "Setup: Add 2 extra Attack Kingdom card piles to the Supply" and  received a couple comments against it.

(I ended up removing it, but am still unsure. I likened it to the Alchemy suggestion of 3-5 potion cards, so I moved it to my "virtual" FAQ).

Useless cards in some (many?) setups
Similar to setup instructions, what about cards that may not have an effect in some games? Using my worshipper tokens as an example again, I've designed an event and a landmark that would only be useful in a game with worshipper tokens.

(my general thought, again, is with the right FAQ, e.g "only use in games with worshipper tokens", this is interesting; but I can see it not being a good design for an official set)

Game altering cards
How much do you care about designs that can completely alter the strategies of a match? For example, I remember one card I had where the comments where that it would enable fast pile depletion.

(While I wouldn't want to play with such a card all the time, I do think it's great to have a card that completely flips the usual strategies. In the example above, if someone goes for the fast pile depletion card, you may have to alter your intended strategy very fast, and I think recognizing and executing that can be challenging and interesting)

Thoughts on the above topics? Any others related to design style that you've considered?

Variants and Fan Cards / scolapasta's cards
« on: June 08, 2019, 01:52:53 pm »
Hi all,

I recently discovered the Weekly Design contest and I love it! As I posted there, I've always wanted to come up with custom cards, but have struggled on where to start. Having the weekly design content to focus my ideas on a specific concept is fantastic! And to get feedback on top of that?? Wonderful!

Being new to this, I don't expect to win very often, but I would love to continue getting feedback and tweaking the cards until they work well. So this thread is for that. I'll post both cards from the contests and others I come up with and anyone interested in helping improve my ideas is welcome to comment.

This top post will contain the current version of all the cards.

Worshippers, a new type of token that you can "spend" during your Clean up phase:

At the start of your Clean-up phase, you may remove tokens from this to trash a card from your hand or one you have in play for each token removed.

Benefits of Worshippers (compared to just trashing a card):

you can play a Copper (or other card) on the same turn that you trash it
you can hold on to the trashing if you don't have anything current to trash
the corollary to that is you can stock up on Worshippers as a defense to gaining Junk
a trasher like Apse Chapel can effectively trash itself, when you're done with it

Cards that give Worshippers:

Apse Chapel, a Chapel variant
Cloister, an Action-Night that trashes in the day, and gathers Worshippers at night
Archbishop, a "Grand" Bishop
Congregation / Blessing, TfB for Worshippers
Occult Dealer, a card gives out one of type of each "spendable" token

Card-shaped things that care about Worshippers:

Tithe, an Event that trades a Worshipper for a $1
Mausoleum, a landmark that gives VPs for Worshippers
Convent, a Project that gives out a Worshipper when you gain or trash a Victory card
Chalice, an Artifact with a Bishop-like effect



At the start of your Clean-up phase means before you discard any cards.
Only use Title and Mausoleum in Kingdoms that games that give Worshippers.

Overpay for Tokens

Developing Village, overpay for Villagers
Endowment, overpay for Coffers
Graveyard, overpay for Worshippers

Challenge Cards:

Mystical Chest:, an Fate-Doom card
Cabal:, an TR variant that also works on Night cards
Stockpile:, a cheap "reloadable" Gold
Collector:, an Improve variant, with Magic Lamp as an Heirloom
Coven:, an event that allows you to turn Action into a Curser

v0.1 Worshippers, Apse Chapel, Archbishop, Parish - initial*
v0.1 Undercroft - initial*
v0.2 Worshippers - changed wording to "At the start of your Clean-up phase" to be more clear
v0.2 Archbishop - added additional Worshipper
v0.2 Parish - made more interesting by counting Worshippers
v0.2 Cloister (formerly Undercroft) - made into Action-Night, so it trashes cards now
v0.3 Graveyard (formerly Parish) - back to the initial version (with an additional Worshipper), but with new name
v0.3 Cloister - Night now always gets exactly +1 Worshipper
v0.2 Mystical Chest - initial (**)
v0.1 Blessing - initial
v0.3 Archbishop - 1 less VP, 1 less Worshipper, but now takes the Chalice
v0.1 Congregation - initial
v0.2 Blessing - now a reserve card that's not in the supply
v0.1 Title - initial
v0.1 Mausoleum - initial
v0.1 Convent - initial
v0.1 Chalice - initial
v0.3 Mystical Chest - fixed background color
v0.1 Occult Dealer - initial
v0.2 Congregation - loses +1 Card; gains blessing to hand
v0.3 Blessing - now an action - reserve card
v0.2 Occult Dealer - changed cost to $5
v0.2 Convent - changed cost to $3 and also gains Worshipper when trashing Victory cards
v0.1 Developing Village - initial
v0.1 Endowment - initial
v0.4 Graveyard - now overpay for Worshippers
v0.2 Developing Village - added +1 Action if you trade, +1 Card if you don't and the trade has to be differently named
v0.3 Worshippers - wording change; now, if you spend a Worshipper, you must trash a card
v0.3 Convent - dropped cost to $2
v0.4 Archbishop - changed Chalice taking to be conditional; removed no Coppers clause
v0.2 Chalice - now once per turn
v0.2 Cabal - initial (***)
v0.2b Stockpile - initial (***)
v0.3 Collector - initial (***)
v0.2d Coven - initial (***)
v0.4 Collector - added + 1 card
v0.3 Coven - lowered cost to $5 and removed non-Attack

(*) v0.1 of Worshippers, Archbishop, Parish, and Undercroft were only posted in the Weekly Design Contest thread
(**) v0.1 of Mystical Chest was never posted - see secret history for reasons why
(***) previous versions of these cards posted in Weekly Challenge thread

Pages: [1]

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 18 queries.