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 - Gazbag

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
1
If you design a card that works for full random then anyone can use that card, no matter how they choose to make their kingdoms. If you design a card that doesn't work for full random or any other way of creating kingdoms then now a number of people can't use that card and that kind of sucks.

2
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 12, 2020, 12:40:42 pm »
My entry:
Quote
Tutor - Action Duration, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action

You may set aside a card from your hand. At the start of your next turn, if it is a...
Victory, discard it and +1 Card;
Action, play it;
Neither type, trash it.
My oldest fan card in its newest form. It does everything an engine likes (apart from trashing Nights but you don't have to do that) but it's slow. With Action Victories, I'm hoping I'm right in saying that they would be discarded, then stop-move applies and they can't then be played.

The stop-moving rule has nothing to do with whether you can play a card, it just stops cards from moving. So with an Action Victory you'll discard it and get +1 Card and then play it, but because the card is now in your discard pile Tutor loses track of it and stop-moving will come into effect and you won't move it to your play area.

3
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 29, 2020, 11:34:16 am »
I'm pretty sure a Boon that just gained a Horse would already be a little better overall than Sea or River. Sea is awkward because most of the Fates are terminal actions or Idol so it often draws a dead action and the flexibility and tricks you can do with Horses gives it a higher ceiling than River. At least they seems similar enough that adding anything on top of a Horse seems out of line with the others.

4
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 12, 2020, 01:11:41 pm »

Alright, time to judge. As always, if you’d like to have a rebuttal against what I’ve written, please do so. It’s all about helping one get better at judging. So yeah, I encourage you to show me where you have disagreements and stuff. It’s all in good spirit!
Gaoler (Action)
Exile the top 3 cards of your deck, then put 2 cards you have in Exile into your hand.
Cool idea! A +2 Cards where you can pull them from a pool of set aside cards you’ve stockpiled before. But see, that’s the thing. That’s... essentially a +2 Cards in essence, no? Yeah, there’s some deck culling attributes with Galoer. But when you play it, the immediate effect is that it’s going to feel like a +2 Cards. Therefore, I believe this is overpriced. I think maybe a or even maybe a would have suited this card.

I have a rebuttal against this judgement. I did write a big ranty paragraph but really it boils down to you severely undervaluing the deck culling attributes. The net effect of this card is to increase your hand size by 1 and Exile a (usually) bad card from your deck. Which is significantly more than just +2 cards. The whole bringing cards back from Exile part is just a mechanism to do this Lookout-esque effect, it's much more succinct than "reveal the top 3 cards..." wording and has the added benefit of allowing the Exiley swappy stuff and interacting nicely with other Exile effects.

To hopefully make a constructive point about judging I would suggest that judges don't put so much weight on whether they think a card is over or under costed a little. We aren't play testing these cards and evaluating Dominion card strength just by reading them is really difficult.


I hope this isn't too cheeky but given I wasn't very happy with the judging of Gaoler last week, it's back! If that isn't okay I'll withdraw it.





Gold Mine was a reject from last week which I guess doesn't bode well for it, but I think it's fine. It has obvious applications for a money deck but I think it could be useful in an engine situation to inject a bunch of payload at once after you've got your deck under control. Similar to Windfall but hopefully with a bit more decision making, when to buy it, when to pull the trigger and such.

Usually you'll have to wait till you can gain a Gold before you get anything from Gold Mine but Gaolor can take those Exiled Golds directly into your hand, while potentially removing 3 junkers from the top of your deck.

5
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 11, 2020, 05:42:15 am »

I thought Exile would be a good fit for a Lookout-ish trasher because it means it's much less of a disaster if you hit 3 good cards. This is a last minute attempt at something along those lines.

It seems prudent to mention that Donald's testing found that it's bad to Exile useful cards. I guess it feels awful when another player empties that pile out or something.

I know it's a bit last minute to bring this up, but where are you getting this from? A bunch of the official cards are exclusively used to, or give incentive to Exiling useful cards.

6
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 05, 2020, 11:52:53 am »
Yeah I’m not saying there’s a reasonable incorrect interpretation. Just that I had to read it twice to get it. You’re probably correct that it’s because we see similar wording on other trash for benefit cards.

Yeah I'm sure there is a better wording, I didn't mean to be so dismissive. Really I just didn't want to redo the card image.

7
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 05, 2020, 11:00:30 am »
Balance aside; with the version that returns rope at the end of turn; seems weird to use an artifact. Artifacts are things that you have until another player takes it from you; this is just a way of splitting the wordy “until the end of turn” effect across 2 separate card-shaped things. Though it also causes it to be limited to one per turn. Which is like adding “if this is the first time you played climber this turn”.

Which actually is another reason it’s not as strong as Fugitive and doesn’t matter if it’s cheap.. because only the first one you play each turn is a Fugitive... the rest are cantrips that do nothing at all. The only reason to buy multiple Climbers is to increase your chances of having one every turn.

Agreed that the Rope no longer feels like an Artifact. You can also still play Climber on your opponent's turn using Way of the Mouse and one of the reactions that plays itself and have the Rope be carried over between turns that way so that issue hasn't been fixed.

You can return the Rope by playing a cheaper card and retake it multiple times in a turn so multiple Climbers can be Fugitives.


A Reserve that can turn everything into a Cemetery. An old card from the Ice Age expansion so it's had a decent amount of testing.

I don’t know a good fix off-hand, but the wording is a bit tricky; when I first read “per $1 it costs” I thought it meant the trashed card. Which doesn’t make any sense, so on a second reading, I got it. Maybe replace “it” with “the gained card”?

I think that's probably because you've been conditioned to think that because of all the trash for benefit cards that use similar wording? I can't really see anyone misinterpreting the wording of this.

8
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 05, 2020, 10:47:25 am »

A Reserve that can turn everything into a Cemetery. An old card from the Ice Age expansion so it's had a decent amount of testing.

9
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: March 20, 2020, 08:25:56 am »
It is a Courtier variant. And while it is hard to judge whether this is better or worse than Courier, it is definitely not that much better that it is worth $6.
Furthermore, the below-card in a split pile can always be a bit stronger than a card which is immediately available. See Plunder.

Alright, let's make the plunder comparison:

Plunder is a treasure that has the same abilities as a terminal action (Monument) and costs more than that action.

Your card is a terminal action that, if it were a treasure, would cost . By this comparison, making it cost makes sense.

Also, I would say it's really not a courtier variant, as courtier has, well, variance. You're not guaranteed to be able to make more than one choice in any given kingdom. And in (albeit very rare, depending on what expansions you're using) others, you might be able to get all four (Dame Josephine or Werewolf).

By this logic shouldn't like Sacred Grove and Legionary and all the other $5 terminal Golds cost $6? Card power doesn't increase linearly with cost so this sort of comparison doesn't really make sense.
I think Goods is fine, is it a bit stronger than other similar cards? Probably. But Courtier or Gold or whatever similar card we can compare it to are all mediocre cards at best so it really isn't a problem to make something that's a little better (but not strictly better). This is also buried under 5 Warehouses which does make it harder to get.

10
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: March 19, 2020, 08:59:37 pm »
Goods (Action, $5)
[...]
Obviously this plays well with any discarder, with Warehouse being a great example.

It's also strictly better than gold. Cheaper, has +buy, and plays itself on discard.

It's an Action, not a Treasure.

11
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: March 14, 2020, 03:05:31 pm »

Wasn't feeling particularly inspired this week. It's a terminal Counterfeit thing, gives less money than Moneylender for trashing Copper but can blow up bigger Treasures for a bunch.
It gives the same amount of money as Moneylender?

Yeah so originally it didn't trash and was supposed to be a terminal Gold with a bonus at $5, but I thought that stunk and it didn't even really work for the contest so I changed it and thought because it trashes the Copper now it gives $1 less... So basically I'm an idiot.

Let's change it to this:

Do you really want to triple that Cursed Gold?

12
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: March 14, 2020, 01:52:14 pm »

Wasn't feeling particularly inspired this week. It's a terminal Counterfeit thing, gives less money than Moneylender for trashing Copper but can blow up bigger Treasures for a bunch.

Oops I'm stupid new version:

13
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: March 04, 2020, 01:16:51 pm »


The first play is a bad sifty thing, but then subsequent plays are like double Masquerades. The idea being it can be an absurd trasher with some village support but it takes a while to get it going so you still might be better off just opening with a normal trasher, it might have to cost $3 but I don't think that's a huge deal. It's also trying to be different by having the first play be weaker.

14
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: February 26, 2020, 10:58:54 am »
Thanks for looking!

CHALLENGE #63 - GOLD IS THE CURRENCY OF PEASANTS
ARMY - ACTION - $6
Choose one: Put a non-Command Action card onto your Army mat; or play this as if it were all the cards on your Army mat (played in any order).
The "play this as if it were" phrasing was phased out with the introduction of Command cards, and anyways makes no sense here. The card should just say "play the cards on your Army mat in any order, leaving them there." Even then, it is unclear to me whether you determine the order when you play Army or if you can switch things around once you played the first card from the mat. If it's the latter, maybe you want the wording "As often as you like: Play a card from your Army mat that you haven't played yet with this, leaving it there."

I think the way you resolve the 3 Boons with Fool makes it clear that when you have 3 or more things you choose the order as you go along.

15
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: February 19, 2020, 12:48:03 pm »

Pretty self explanatory I hope. This can make you think about the order you buy things which is pretty cool (e.g. if you have $13 and are buying a Province and a $5 Action you should probably buy the Action first.)

I like this.  Wonder if it is too powerful the way it is written.  Maybe limit to the first buy?  Or the first two?  On a heavy buy turn, this could gut the opponent's hand.

It can't make people go below 4 cards in hand so unless Council Roomy things are happening you can only discard 1 card. It's rarely going to be as nasty as Pillage, even if you see what's in your opponent's hand first they still choose what to discard if they have multiple cards with the same cost.

16
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: February 18, 2020, 12:43:24 pm »

Pretty self explanatory I hope. This can make you think about the order you buy things which is pretty cool (e.g. if you have $13 and are buying a Province and a $5 Action you should probably buy the Action first.)

17
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: February 14, 2020, 07:37:11 pm »
Due to the excellent points segura has brought up I've decided to change my entry. Introducing Blank cards:

Blank cards are a new card type with zero rules text. This innovation means that Blank cards add no extra set up time, in fact they don't even have a randomizer card! I demand that naitchman disqualifies all other entries this week as all of them add extensive extra setup to games by virtue of having rules text.

18
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: February 14, 2020, 03:41:35 pm »
Based on naitchman's comment I was under the impression the issue was more about choosing between the 4 Leaders at the start of the game. That seems quite against the no setup part of this week's challenge to me.

19
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: February 14, 2020, 03:09:46 pm »
Nothing obvious about this decision. Seems arbitrarily bureaucratic to me. Who cares about how you implement a particular idea?

It's pretty obvious to me that even if Leaders weren't disqualified naitchman wouldn't have chosen them as the winner.

20
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: February 14, 2020, 02:36:49 pm »
Not cool, dude. Kudasai‘s concept is one of the best ones posted, exists for quit some time so quite some thought went into it ... and whether you use cubes or several copies of each card is fairly trivial and only relevant for choosing between a secret or open setup.

I mean I think he's doing Kudasai a favour saying this in advance because he obviously wouldn't have had a chance at winning with this entry anyway. Now Kudasai gets another chance.

21
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: February 09, 2020, 11:47:47 am »
Mount cards


This is overpriced, a card like this you want early, and a 6 price tag makes it hard to get before the third shuffle, which is when you really need it.

This one wasn't the most serious/though out one. But I'm pretty sure it'd be completely broken if it was any cheaper (imagine opening with it), it's a stronger effect than Cathedral and that's completely broken at its price point!

Mount cards

When you gain a Mount card, you can choose to either gain it as normal or mount it. Mounted cards are put into play instead of your discard pile and stay out in front of you, they give you some kind of effect. You can only have 1 mount at a time (that's one mount, not one of each different mount). When certain things happen you are forced to dismount your mount, when this happens it is discarded from play and becomes a regular card in your deck. You can only mount cards when you gain them, so once you've dismounted you'll have to gain a new one if you want to mount again. A few examples:


I like this idea a lot. Do you believe that Mount cards should have an alternate colouring, just like Reserve cards are, to distinguish them further from normal Action cards in the Supply? Or to not accidentally discard them in your Clean-up phase if you didn't dismount that turn. It may just be that I'm childish, but I sure love me colours.  ;D

Yes I meant to say they should probably have their own colour, but I'm colourblind and not so great at that sort of thing so I just left them regular colour.

22
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: February 09, 2020, 11:02:10 am »
Mount cards

When you gain a Mount card, you can choose to either gain it as normal or mount it. Mounted cards are put into play instead of your discard pile and stay out in front of you, they give you some kind of effect. You can only have 1 mount at a time (that's one mount, not one of each different mount). When certain things happen you are forced to dismount your mount, when this happens it is discarded from play and becomes a regular card in your deck. You can only mount cards when you gain them, so once you've dismounted you'll have to gain a new one if you want to mount again. A few examples:




23
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: February 08, 2020, 12:01:35 pm »
How is this mechanically different from “you may play an Action card for...“?

Only in the case of Cuirass does it to make a difference, but here Armor just eases tracking.

It seems like the only difference is that you can equip multiple Armours onto one card, I'm not really convinced that's worth a whole new mechanic to be honest. Although I like the general idea here.

Also the Equip ability on Greaves being contingent on having another Action seems pointless because you'd only ever want the +3 Actions when you have another Action to play after. So really Greaves could just be a simple choose one card and be practically identical, aside from a couple of edge cases.

24
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: January 29, 2020, 01:00:13 pm »

So it's Cellar but it only draws Actions but it plays the Actions for you so it's a Village. It's probably worse than Cellar in a deck with non-action junk to sift through but in a deck with little junk this could be quite a powerful Village.

25
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: January 18, 2020, 08:04:54 pm »

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.
...
Yeah. This is just a more-expensive Throne Room that has a stronger effect than Throne Room. I dunno if it's weak at or not, but it seemed weird to use the term "dead" when that generally refers to something like Stables in a hand with no treasure; or when people make fan cards that do almost nothing unless there's an attack available, etc. Even if the card were just literally Throne Room but costing , I wouldn't think to use the term "dead".

Would this work better as a $5? I wasn't sure initially if it should cost $5 or $6; eventually I erred on the side of caution.

I think $6 is an appropriate cost. I'd generally advise against using busted cards like King's Court as a benchmark to balance other cards and comparing this to the $5 Throne variants it seems clearly much stronger than those to me.
A King's Court once that becomes a Throne Room is much stronger than a Throne Room that never misses (Royal Carriage)?  Crown and Scepter are definitely a very marginal benefit on top of Throne Room, but having a one-time upgrade is also not much of one.  I would not vote a $5 price as overwhelming, merely that the way it plays is dully familiar.
I'd personally prefer its playing be limited in some other way and it generate Villagers in some circumstance.  It would make it feel more different than Throne Room and the other Villager cards.

Yes? King's Court is insane. This is also a Throne with an on-gain Villager which I think would be very strong at $5 anyway.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26

Page created in 0.168 seconds with 18 queries.