Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

1601

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: The Contest Set Card List

« on: August 18, 2012, 07:16:39 pm »

That would be cool -- maybe for a last challenge submit an expansion name and symbol? Maybe even provide some flavor text introducing the set?

1602

Dominion Isotropic / Re: Dougz - I would like to send you money

« on: August 18, 2012, 10:49:42 am »

Some part of me wants to make this a kickstarter just to see how much money we can send to Doug altogether.

How about a kickstarter for DougZ to publish Isotropic server code with the copyright-infringing elements removed?
Then someone can put up fan-iso using cards from the variants forum.

Ooooohhh.... Pseudo-Dominion with fan cards? Maybe even the ones that win rinkworks's contest? I'd free ride off of someone's hard work on modifying Isotropic for that!

Maybe I'd even do a little more than free ride...

1603

Dominion Isotropic / Re: Attention-whoring thread.... I did it!!

« on: August 18, 2012, 10:29:10 am »

I enjoy playing around on Isotropic trying to find cool new combos, so I sometimes have a tendency of losing games I really shouldn't. With Isotropic going down, I figured I would play to try to get my rating up. On the 16th I was a 29. However, Isotropic was still up yesterday, and good thing, too. This morning I broke through and am a level 30!

1604

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #10: Potion-Cost Card!

« on: August 16, 2012, 12:35:26 pm »

Also, it's kind of cool a cheaper card won the non-terminal silver challenge while more expensive cards won the Potion challenge.

1605

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #10: Potion-Cost Card!

« on: August 16, 2012, 12:34:37 pm »

For this challenge only, I was going to declare the top 2 finishers winners and include them in the contest set.  I LIED.  I'm going to include the top three, because that's how many cards there are in the tie for first place.

Wow. I guess the voting is working out better than expected! Ask for multiple winners, and you get it!

Congratulations to the winners. Nice cards all around (that is, if you're into the Potion thing  ).

1606

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Enterprise (Finalized)

« on: August 15, 2012, 01:10:50 pm »

I was thinking about a couple of different ways to reign in Mill Town if you were inclined:

1) Put a clause in the text so that you cannot gain Mill Towns with Mill Towns (and remove the at least 3 Coppers clause) because my feeling is that more problems arise from quickly getting too many Mill Towns than running out a $2 pile.
OR
2) Change "discard a card" to "discard a Copper or reveal a hand without Coppers," reducing the power of multiple gains.

1607

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Enterprise (Beta)

« on: August 14, 2012, 06:30:28 pm »

I'm a big fan of this one, but Mill Town might run faster if you "reveal 3 or more Coppers from your hand and gain a card costing up to the number of Coppers revealed" since we wouldn't be stuck in the awkward analysis-paralysis of trying not to reveal too many or too few Coppers. Why can't Mill Town gain a card that costs $2, anyway?

Well, the reason that Mill Town can't gain $2 cards is that I was afraid that it would be too easy to run out piles with it. A hand with 3 Mill Towns and 2 Coppers could gain 4 Estates, after all. Now that I think about it, I see no real problem with the gaining being 'up to' the number of Coppers revealed as long as you still have to reveal at least 3 Coppers. I'll change the wording. I think I actually have to reword the card anyway, because as it's currently written, I think you could gain, say, a Familiar by revealing 3 Coppers.

First of all, nice mini-set utilizing the one-shot theme!

One thing I thought of when reading the cards:

I don't think your concern about gaining too many cards with Mill Town and running out piles should be limited to just $2 cards. I think Mill Town would be a go-to card a lot of the time.

For instance, have you played any Mill Town - Tactician - terminal draw games? Goal: get a a deck of 2 Tacticians, 8 Coppers, and as many Mill Towns and Smithies as possible (making sure #Smithies < # Mill Towns at all times). Mill Town's gain and your normal buy should accomplish this very quickly. Then double Tac and reveal 8 Coppers for Provinces. I played this solitaire for two games and exhaused the Province pile on turn 11 in game 1 and turn 10 in game 2. Contested, the Mill Town and Smithy pile would run out extremely quickly. 

1608

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #12: Non-Terminal Draw!

« on: August 13, 2012, 11:04:10 am »

Not sure if I should resubmit...

I am thinking the same thing....

1609

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Unnamed Dominion Expansion with card images.

« on: August 12, 2012, 10:27:45 pm »

Kudos on finding cool art to go with your cool cards! They look really good.

For what it's worth, here's what I thought of the individual cards:

Anarchy -- I think this is neat. It reminds me of a lot of the card interactions that happen in Fluxx (which is definitely more of a party game). It seems to reduce the incentive to clear out junk in your deck through trashing. Thus, the must trash is a nice touch.

Anarchy - if you don't want it to be an attack, it needs to be more symmetrical.  Just shuffle and randomly deal out all of the cards, instead of you picking one first.  Don't know if that makes it too weak, but it needs to say that to not be an attack.

I agree it should randomly distribute all the cards collected in order to not be an attack. I think it has more flavor that way, anyway. You do still get to draw 3 cards first which means even though the card collection and redistribution is symmetric, you are likely to benefit much more. If you make that change, would it make more sense at $4?

Beggar -- I don't like the ability, personally. I would just rather play with a straight up terminal silver priced at $2.

Boom Town -- I agree with One Armed Man and Powerman that it's probably too weak. Even with the nice name and picture, I still don't really like the concept of the card.

Burough -- I don't get why the ability is helpful or interesting on a Village. The Duchy and Gold clogs engines. Doesn't seem worth $7.

Charlatan -- I would pay at most $3 for it.

Construction -- Nice

Counterfeit -- I really like the top ability. I dislike the reaction (below the line ability). I guess the reaction is like unlimited Smugglers for Treasure cross Fool's Gold's reaction, but it rubs me the wrong way. I buy a Platinum, my opponents each reveal and trash a Counterfeit and they each gain a Platinum, too? No, thanks.

Dark Arts -- I like the idea, but I don't know that the wording solves all the problems that could creep up.

Oooo. I like that it so elegantly protects against multiplayer attack stacking (opponents will just replace one curse with another). I think the VP bonus is too much; in games where more than one person buys Dark Arts, I would expect it to trigger fairly consistently, and +5VP for $7 would be fair even without the attack.

If there are no Curses to gain, each other player just trashes a card. Play some Council Rooms to get your opponents above 5 cards in hand and Dark Arts could make them trash multiple good cards late game. OUCH! This has the potential to be much nastier than Masquerade. I don't like that about it.

I don't think there is a problem with the 5 VP bonus. In games with other attacks, the curse pile is sure to run out quickly, but then it's difficult to get up to $7 or more to buy big Victory points. In games where this is the only curser, it's much more of a challenge to run out the curse pile late before the game ends -- and you don't want to be paying $7 for a weak attack at the end of the game! I like that tradeoff. I would be curious to see how it plays out.

Demolish -- I like it. You don't gain anything, so I am not sure why this would be too strong. Looks like what a $3 Upgrade should look like, I think (less choice, no gain).

Dilemma -- I really like the idea of an opponent choosing something for you. I think a couple of those style cards were submitted to rinkworks's contest. I don't know that this one gets it right, either.

Each option on Dilemma is worth more than $4, and I'm not sure the lack of choice makes up for that.

I agree with this.

Dilemma - I'd like it better as:

+1 Action
The player to your left chooses one for you to receive:
+$2, +1 Buy; or +2 Cards; or +2 VP

Having it so you don't know if it's non terminal or not is weird for playing.  There is a reason tournament always gives an action.  There is a reason governor always gives an action.

I think instead of giving the +1 Action, every option should be terminal.

Enchantment -- There was something like this submitted to rinkworks's challenge: Lemon, right? I think I may have been the only one to vote for it. I would like this version better if it didn't have the Potion cost.

Fief -- I don't like that this attacks.

Harlot -- This is hard to price. I would almost always take Great Hall over this since GH doesn't take up space and I usually want to trash Coppers and Estates, right? This card is an Estate and Copper in one, so it takes up, what, half a space? But Estate alone is at $2, so this card has to be $3.... That's probably why Donald hasn't printed this card.

Highwayman -- This is kind of cool. Brutal, but cool.

Keep -- I love the idea.

Keep crops up every now and again as a fan card; it was also one of Donald's original ideas for Seaside.

- There was a now-and-later Throne Room variant. Play an Action, play it again next turn. It was both confusing and weak. What if you use it on a duration card? How long does it stay on the table? It could have said "non-duration," but that's pretty sad in a set with 8 duration cards. And did I mention it was weak? It left before development started.

Too bad!!! Maybe if it also gave +$1, like Lighthouse?

Outrider -- Maybe only give +1 Action per Victory card, not +1 card +1 Action? I like the idea.

Pauper -- Cute! I think it may be my favorite.

Philanthropist -- Might play too slowly waiting for each person to make their decision in order in multiplayer games. Order matters since the benefit to you increases depending on the number of people taking the option. I don't know that I like that.

Refund -- I like this a lot.

Refuse -- shuffling the Trash? No thanks.

Reserve -- Now this is a sweet card idea! As mentioned, not worded quite right, though. Probably should cost more than $1. I would upgrade all my Coppers into this without thinking twice. Maybe it would work better as a Treasure-Reaction: "When this card is discarded from your hand, you may reveal it and set it aside. At the start of your next Buy phase, return it to your hand." [Edit: discard -> discarded] This way if you don't want to use the $1, you keep Reserve in your hand, then during Clean-Up it gets discarded and you can set it aside. Also buffs the card a bit since it can be set aside as a reaction to discard attacks, too, so it would certainly have to cost more than $1.

Royal Demesne -- I'd rather just play with Fairgrounds.

Silversmith -- I agree with zahlman, it might be better than Smithy.

Utopian Revolution --

I think I'd usually rather just have Mountebank.

I concur.

1610

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #10: Potion-Cost Card!

« on: August 11, 2012, 09:38:28 am »

while you can certainly just make a house rule of not using it if no other alchemy cards come up, I feel like requiring house rules in order to play the card decently is against the spirit of the game.

Or you can just ignore it. I mean, people talk all the time about how bad it is to have a card that's never bought, but it's really about how likely that is - i.e. what has to be true about the kingdom for that to happen. I mean, how many games of Dominion actually end up with every pile being touched? But that said, I don't like the card either because while it's a dead pile without other potion-costs, when there are other potion costs it makes them considerably and uniformly more powerful by making them more accessible and defeating the purpose of giving them a potion cost in the first place. I mean I guess some people want to play games like that, but then why not just house-rule that P = 3 coins on a card cost, and Silver works as a Potion for card text, and then just forget about potions. Idk.

Any of the cards submitted that gives Potion some kind of ability (e.g. Urmia, Argentinao) or makes it easier to find Potions (e.g. Khanka) make Alchemy cards stronger because Potions don't clog as much or they give other benefits. Having a house rule that Potions can also give $2 is much, much stronger than Caspian. You have to buy and find Caspian to be able to use it. It only smooths out bad draws and allows you to set up combos (e.g. Scheme) that make it easier (but not trivial) to buy the cards you need to carry out a Potion deck or hybrid deck strategy. Unlike Urmia, Argentino, or Khanka, Caspian doesn't do much else than some smoothing mid and late game, which is probably why it's the cheapest card submitted. Also, I don't think the optimal strategy with Caspian would be to never buy Potions when going for an Alchemy card -- getting Gold and Caspian in hand together doesn't happen until late game.

1611

Dominion: Dark Ages Previews / Re: Dark Ages Limericks

« on: August 10, 2012, 09:49:56 pm »

He fashioned those Shelter start decks.
Created some brand new affects.
He Pillaged A Village,
And showed us pure ownage,
That wily and crafty Don X.

1612

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #10: Potion-Cost Card!

« on: August 10, 2012, 04:38:06 pm »

I will prefeace this with a short note that I don't really like Potion cards and don't play with them very often. Thus, more so than other types of cards, I have a hard time judging how these will play out or whether they are balanced. I will simply list the cards I like, a couple I dislike, and the cards I like but wish were a little different (but still may approval vote if I like the concept enough). Also, I appologize if my comments overlap with others. I typed some of this yesterday and haven't read eveyone's comments, yet.

Like

Caspian
$P - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard either a Potion or a Gold (but not both). If you discarded a Potion, +$2. If you discarded a Gold, +$1 and +$P.
--
This card may be purchased for $3 instead of $P.

The benefit of this card is making Potion cards more playable in a balanced way. A card that is only one Potion is as cheap as it can get, so it shouldn't do too much. Caspian also lets you purchase it with money, which makes perfect sense given its ability: it gives you more flexibility in what you are able to purchase on turns you play it, making going for Potion cards more feasible. Too much money,  wish you had a Potion to buy that Possession? Ok, turn that Gold into a Potion and Copper credit for this turn only. Drew a Potion, this, and 2 Coppers? Can't buy that Familiar, so turn that Potion into a Silver credit for this turn only and grab a Bridge instead of doing nothing.

Sure, Caspian's no good as the only Potion card (except in just a few cases), but so what? If it shows up in a random draw, pick another Potion card to go in the kingdom with it, or shuffle it out. Nothing says you can't.

In contrast, Winnipeg also has a smoothing effect (didn't make use of your Potion this turn (or even if you did?)? save it and another Treasure for later!) and is playable as the only Potion card on the board, but it seems WAY WAY too strong (especially as a stackable permanent!) for only P. Big Money + Winnipeg = unbeatable? There are also lots of rules clarifications that need to be made with winnipeg even beyond the wall of text provided. I prefer Caspian.

Khanka
$2P - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a Potion.
If you do, +2 Cards, +1 Buy. If you do not, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Potion card. Put the revealed Potion card into your hand and discard the rest.

I am afraid it is too cheap and would be an obvious go-to card, but I like this card for two reasons. 1) It's a super-stables which is what I was trying to create with Gooseberry/Horse Farm in last week's contest, but instead of giving an externality, this is tempered by a potion cost and potion discard. 2) Don't fear if you don't have a Potion in hand. This card finds one for you and cycles your deck! WOW! For those who fear cards like Caspian would defeat the purpose of Potions, I say this card does that far more effectively. You play this card and you are guaranteed to have either lots of cards in hand or a Potion in hand, your choice.

Mweru
$3P - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose one: +1 Card; OR trash a card from your hand; OR +$1, +1 Buy.

Nice and simple. Looks like a lot of fun. But why is the Potion cost necessary to get the power right? What's wrong with a cost of $6? Is there another reason this is a Potion cost card?

Saimaa
$3P - Action
+3 Cards
+1 Action
Gain a Potion and a Copper.  You may return exactly two Potions to the supply.  If you do, +$1.

I agree with One Armed Man: this is wacky! But I like it. Copper clog and Potion semi-clog (?) tempers this non-terminal draw. Hitting two Potions together is reasonable here since you are going to be gaining Potions and building an engine that draws a lot when you use this card.

Crater
$4P - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Copper and Potion each produce an extra $1 this turn.

I like this cantrip Coppersmith a lot. I would actually enjoy playing a Potion deck with this card in play.

Quesnel
$4P - Action
+3 Cards
+1 Action
Discard a card.  If it is a Potion, +1 Action.

A stronger version of Saimaa that I like.

Adams
$4P - Action
Choose 3: (the choices may be the same)
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy

Nice and simple. Looks like a lot of fun. But why is the Potion cost necessary to get the power right? What's wrong with a cost of $6? Is there another reason this is a Potion cost card? (Am I repeating myself?)


If Only...

Albert
$2P - Action
+2 Cards
You may discard a Treasure card costing at least $3 from your hand. If you do, +3 Cards.

I like the idea of a terminal super-draw that interacts with Potion (and other Treasure). I don't know if I like the "costing at least $3" part.

Taupo
$2P - Action
Trash 2 cards from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $2 or $2P more than the total cost of the trashed cards in coins.  When you gain this, you may gain an Action card costing up to $4.

A super-Remake. Should there be a horizontal line? I like the idea, but am afraid its main purpose will be to get Possessions. I don't like the idea of that happening!

Taymyr
$3P - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1P
+1 Buy
--
When you gain this, put it and any copies of [This Card] you have in play on top of your deck.

I like this "Potion Market" slightly better than Argentino, but I wish Taymyr had a Potion interaction like Argentino. Maybe if it had "When you buy this, if you have a Potion in play, put any copies of [This Card] you bought or have in play on top of your deck"?

Atitlan
$5P - Action-Attack
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Each other player may reveal a Silver card from his hand. If he doesn't, he discards his hand and draws 3 cards.

This is a neat attack that's stronger than Militia when it hits, so it makes sense it's a potion-cost card. But you can reveal a Silver and it misses? Maybe if you revealed a Potion instead? I like the concept of this card, though. Well, I would like it more if I liked attacks more than I do.

Tahoe
$4P - Treasure
Worth $4
--
When you buy this, trash all treasure you have in play. You may not gain this card unless you buy it.

Why didn't I think of this? How to make a straight up +$4 work when Gold is $6 and Platinum is $9? Potion cost! Then I read its special ability and became very sad. It's almost balanced without it. You're most likely going to have good Treasures in play by the time you can afford this. Maybe just trash Potions and Coppers?

Tazawa is another variant of the +$4 treasure family that fits better in Alchemy's "actions are amazing" theme, but I don't like it as much.

Natron
$8P - Victory
Worth 8 VP
--
During your Buy phase, this costs $1 less for every Action card you have in play, but not less than $0.

Why didn't I think of this? How to make a straight up 8VP work when Provinces are $8 and Colonies are $11? Potion cost! Then I read its special ability and became very sad. It's almost balanced without it. (I feel like I am repeating myself.) And Vineyards already rewards you for actions, so I don't know we need another Potion cost engine rewarder. I would have loved to see a vanilla 8VP with a correct potion cost (maybe 7P or 8P is it, but then again, I am not very good with evaluation potion costs) or this card with a weaker ability. Maybe an on-gain ability to put a Treasure on your deck to give you a good shot at picking up another Natron next turn?

Tahoe and Natron are like Alchemy's version of Platinum and Colony. They would work really well for non-Potion style play. But if I want that (and I usually do) why not just play with Prosperity?


{one of these cards is mine}

1613

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #10: Potion-Cost Card!

« on: August 09, 2012, 11:09:10 pm »

It is sad that the rule about disallowing 1Potion-card kingdoms isn't enforceable.

But you can choose kingdoms however you want.

1614

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #9: Terminal Silver!

« on: August 09, 2012, 09:28:54 pm »

...A continuation of my previous post.

Trash &/or Gain

Made the Cut: Ruby, Aventurine, Zircon (I do like Zircon more than Kyanite, but it's a weak trasher that doesn't excite me quite as much as some other cards), and Topaz (a safer Lookout, but seems like too strong of a trasher for $3), Obsidian (nice, but hard to get priced right since it's so much like a boring Explorer), Kunzite (I feel like this should read "you may trash a Victory card" instead).   

Missed the Cut: Kyanite, Howlite, Spinel (I wish the ability was a replacement for Spy's ability. Actually, it might just make a good house rule for Spy. It doesn't seem to fit on a terminal silver), and Celestite (I always shuffle Counting Houses to the top of the deck; I'm sure I'd have the same bad luck with this one), Labradorite, Ammolite (mid and late game it seems like it would be a lot better than Haggler which makes nervous)

Ruby
$3 - Action
+$2
You may trash this card. If you do, gain a card costing at most $4.

I like Ruby the best out of all the cards in this category. Like others have said, it's a mini-Feast (and one that I would actually play!). I like Aventurine as well, but not as much as Ruby.

Improve the Top of Your Deck (Again)

Made the Cut: Sunstone (I like this better than Serpentine), Melanite (I think I would prefer this over Lookout in most kingdoms)

Missed the Cut: Garnet, Onyx (too much shuffling), Serpentine,

I'm not sure if these ideas are good enough to win in the terminal silver category....

Odds and Ends

Made the Cut: Amazonite, Sapphire

Missed the Cut: Rhodonite (why is this incentive interesting? Why not just play with Monument? I would just buy stuff anyway...), Pearl (!),
 

Amazonite
$5 - Action
+$2
Discard any number of cards.
Draw the same number of cards. You may set aside any Action cards drawn this way, as you draw them; discard the set aside cards after you finish drawing.

I like the Library x Cellar mechanic here.

Sapphire
$3 - Action
+$2
Each player (including you) reveals the top card of his deck. if yours has or is tied for the lowest cost in $, +2 Buys.

I like the idea of a bonus being random and the interaction (in the Tribute family, I guess), but I don't know if this is the most interesting implementation.


Lots of fun cards this time around. I submitted a card to the contest, but I didn't have any good ideas, so I am enjoying reading other people's good ones.

1615

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #9: Terminal Silver!

« on: August 09, 2012, 06:55:50 pm »

My voting criteria for this challenge: If a card is "worse" than Emerald or Carnelian, I will not give it an approval vote.

In honor of the PGA Championship this weekend, if I like a card better than Emerald, I will deem it to have "made the cut" and I will think about approval voting (or better) from the set of cards that make the cut.

Carnelian
$1 - Action
+$2


Emerald
$2 - Action
+$2

For the sake of completeness, I actually like Emerald better than Carnelian and Duchess. With Duchess, it always slows the game down too much with all it's options that don't matter that much, and I would rather play with a weak straight up terminal silver at the same price in most games than it. With Carnelian, I would rather have Poor House as the $1 card that ruins my Remaking and Upgrading of Copper. And hey -- soon I'll get my wish!

The Sifters: Draw 2, Discard 2

Made the cut: Mica, Dioptase, Beryl
Missed the cut: Citrine

So better players than me think Mica is the balanced card here, huh? Well, I think it's too boring and I like Dioptase better. Yes, it's more powerful, but I am not convinced it's more powerful than other power 5s. And it looks like a lot of fun to play. There is an interesting dynamic here with only getting VP chips when you discard Copper: How much buying power to sacrifice for VP? If you have $8 in hand after the draw, do you discard two Coppers (if you have them) and pick up a Gold and 2 VP chips? Or buy the Province?

Dioptase
$5 - Action
+$2
+2 Cards, discard 2 cards.  For each Copper discarded, +1 VP.

Announcer: Too much green clogging up your engine?
Sad Person: (nods and pouts)
Announcer: How would you like an Invisible Estate?
Person, now Happy: (Smiles and nods)
Announcer: Introducing: The Invisible Estate! It gives you all the VP benefits of a regular Estate without all the deck clog! Amazing! It must be really pricy right? Got some extra money in hand? Well, have I got a deal for you! For the price of a regular Estate, you can have the brand new Invisible Estate instead! And you don't even need an extra Buy!
Person: Wow! Sounds like a great deal! But I don't know...
Announcer: But wait, there's more! For a limited time only, Invisible Estates are half price! If you vote now, you can get Invisible Estates on every turn you play this card for just $1! It's such a good deal, some are calling it toooooo good!
Voice Over, spoken artificially quickly: Restrictions Apply. Limit 2 Invisible Estates per person per turn. You must have a Dioptase in play to purchase. Only Copper is accepted as payment.

Beryl
$4 - Action-Attack
+$2
Draw 2 cards.
Discard 2 cards.
Everyone else discards a card and gains a Copper to their hand.

I also like Beryl. I think the attack is more interesting than Young Witch. Maybe too much power for $4, but I like the concept of this card. I am all for more attacks that clog other peoples' engines.

Cheap Cards

Missed the Cut: Amber, Agate, and Jade.

Attacks

Made the Cut: Amethyst, Apatite, Iolite, Tanzanite, Hackmanite, Jasper, Aquamarine

Missed the Cut: Turquoise (too similar to Cutpurse), Brandburg (a Saboteur for Treasure in Hand for $6? ehck...), Chalcedony (worse than Militia much of the time), Moonstone (too much like a political Fortune Teller for my taste), Bloodstone (I'd rather just play with Jester), Opal (an out of place buy phase? Sounds too much like my least favorite card ever, Black Market), Malachite (too much going on), Peridot (too much like Sea Hag, which I don't really care for), Larimar (shouldn't be an attack, would play too slowly; I would rather play with Jester), Tourmaline (unfun Copper flood), Ametrine (doesn't seem that fun), Axinite (would rather just have Mountebank),  Alaxandrite (I wish this didn't have the last sentence. Otherwise, I would like it. Too strong.).

As you can see, I am not that fond of attacks.

Tanzanite
$4 - Action-Attack
+$2
All other players gain a Curse and choose to either trash a card from their hand or draw a card.

I like this style of attack: Positive and negative externalities! And not too many choices that it would slow the game down. Slick. One of the few attacks submitted that actually feels like the +$2 belongs for balance and style and isn't just stuck there as a requirement of the contest.

Hackmanite
$5 - Action-Attack
+$2
Choose one of the following:
Gain a Copper, each other opponent gains a Curse;
Gain a Silver, each other opponent gains a Copper;
Gain a Gold, each other opponent gains a Silver.

I like the choice of attack or benefit, but on a first read, it doesn't quite excite me like Tanzanite did.

Iolite
$4 - Action-Attack
+$2
Each other player discards an Action card (or reveals a hand with no Actions).

Apatite
$4 - Action-Attack
+$2
Each other player discards a card from his hand that is not a Victory card (or reveals a hand with only Victory cards) and gains a Copper, putting it in his hand.

Amethyst
$3 - Action-Attack
+$2
Each other player may discard a Treasure or Victory card; if he doesn't, he gains a Curse.

I like these discard attacks. I like that Iolite is nice and simple, but I also like that Amethyst and Apatite have clogging potential without being overpowered. Apatite's clogging with Coppers is a good idea in my book. Scrying Pool engine builders should have to think twice more often. And Coppers don't run out as quickly as Curses! I like that Copper clogs are different than Curse clogs. Copper at least helps you buy things, and there's a couple of different ways of dealing with Coppers (Loan and Mint) that doesn't apply to Curses. So the fact they clog differently is interesting.

Jasper
$3 - Action-Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck. He gains a number of Coppers equal to the number of Action cards revealed. Discard all revealed cards.

Another Copper clog.

I am a little concerned that cards that deal out so many Coppers (like Apatite and Jasper) without also giving engine builders a way to deal with so much clog could be uninteresting in too many games (remove multiple paths to victory). I am also holding onto my own version of Copper clog for a future contest which I like a whole lot better than any of these. So I like the idea but am a little biased against these particular cards for that reason.

Aquamarine
$4 - Action Attack
+$2
Each player including yourself draws a card and reveals their hand.  For each hand revealed, choose one card and return it to the top of each player's deck.

I think I like it, but I worry that it would play too slowly or be too uninteresting. I don't know if everyone would like revealing their hands all the time, either. Some revealing is tolerable, but hands are supposed to be private information most of the time!

The Rest

Good grief, there's more entries every week! I Will think about the rest later....

1616

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #9: Terminal Silver!

« on: August 09, 2012, 03:24:31 pm »

Carnelian a.k.a. Strictly Better Than Strictly Better Than Strictly Worse Than Silver
$1 - Action
+$2

Emerald a.k.a. Strictly Better Than Strictly Worse Than Silver
$2 - Action
+$2

These are the cards to beat!

1617

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #9: Terminal Silver!

« on: August 08, 2012, 05:14:56 pm »

Man, it sucks when you submit a card to a challenge and then the next day Donald X. has to go and preview a card that has the same unique mechanic. I won't say more to give away my card, but just know that I didn't steal the idea, promise!

There's still time to resubmit!

I thought about it but don't think I will. The cards are different enough besides that mechanic to make them both have reason to exist as cards.

I've been secretly hoping one of the Dark Ages cards is EXACTLY like one of the cards I have submitted or have on deck to submit in the future. Play testing would already be taken care of and it would be (almost) guaranteed to be balanced. In addition, I could brag that I've "created" an actual Dominion card that finds print! I think this would be more validation for an idea than winning a vote!

1618

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Holiday Village/Mustard (My Challenge #7 - Village Card)

« on: August 07, 2012, 10:53:47 am »

I voted for it, and I would like to play with it, as well. The concept sounds like so much fun. Honestly I really like the card text as is, and if I played with it myself my only concern is the price (4 or 5?).

When playtesting I would be most concerned with the following at $4:

Gainers: Talisman, Workshop, Ironworks, etc. Getting multiple Holiday Villages early would be very nice, and some cards may make it too easy to do so at $4.
Dual Type Green: Great Hall and Nobels.

I am mainly concerned about the card being too swingy. But the games in which these cards appear is relatively small. 

Maybe with testing, if it is a really weak $5 or strong $4, you could weaken the card further by putting the vanilla bonuses after the conditional bonus, so you never get a free chance at drawing another Holiday Village:

HOLIDAY VILLAGE (B)
---
You may put a Victory card from your hand on top of your deck. If you do, +1 Buy, +$2.

+1 Card
+2 Actions
--

This way, if you don't put a victory card on your deck you get a Village; if you do, you get EXACTLY a Festival (since you draw the green card back in hand). This seems to be what you described anyway when you clarified your card and justified the price point at $4. This still gives you the choice (when you have a green card, anyway) between a Festival and a Village, and that choice itself it adds some strength to the card.

But, one version I was thinking about that would be interesting (and most certainly priced at least $5, probably $6) is:

HOLIDAY VILLAGE (C)
---
+1 Card
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
+$2

Put a Victory card from your hand on top of your deck.
---

This is a much stronger version since you get the bonus even if you don't have green. This version would also easily combo with trashers to get rid of early Estates, and cards that discard, cycle, or reorder (Hamlet, Inn, Warehouse, Cartographer, Young Witch, Embassy, etc.) to avoid the penalty more often.

Honestly, I am not sure I like this better than what you have, but it is another direction to take the card.

1619

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: The Contest Set Card List

« on: August 07, 2012, 10:17:02 am »

psst.....Captain Frisk......I like Museum better than Feodum......

1620

Dominion: Dark Ages Previews / Re: Dark Ages Preview #2

« on: August 07, 2012, 10:11:01 am »

Ruinses, it turns out, are a pile of cards like Curses, with three ways to get them, besides just buying them or something. They only show up in games with a Looter, which is a word you may have been wondering about on Cultist. There are five different ones (ten copies each) and they’re shuffled together, I’m not making this up.

Actually, I was under the impression that Donald DID, in fact, make this game up. 

As with Curses you only use ten total per opponent. Not two of each per opponent, just whatever random mix you got. So when you play Cultist, your opponent will get one of these five cards. You will know which one is on top of the Ruins pile, but not what’s under it. You won’t really care; even though some are worse than others, they’re all bad.

So that's why Dark Ages is such a large expansion! It's stuffed full of junk....

1621

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Renaming: Amulet

« on: August 06, 2012, 10:21:08 pm »

I like relic more than reliquary.

I like your suggestion of Charm from the other thread better than either of these. It captures the vibe of something good happening to others around you.

Maybe even Lucky Charm?

1622

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Renaming: Amulet

« on: August 06, 2012, 09:23:17 pm »

I wasn't kidding when I suggested Dragonfruit or Dragon's Fruit. I just think it's neat.

1623

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #7: Village!

« on: August 06, 2012, 08:24:37 pm »

Given how much it got pooped on in here, I thought Flying Machine would finish way lower than it did

I got that impression for Merchant's Village too. But then it wasn't really clear whether people were pooping on it or just imagining the craziness. FWIW I have my own thoughts on the card that I'll be sharing at the end of the contest. But basically, yeah, the whole time I was reading the thread I was thinking "b...b...but I thought people *like* Goons?"

I think it's easier to get the impression that more people dislike your card than is really the case because I think people (myself to some extent, too) simply ignore the uninteresting/obviously broken cards and don't always say the most positive things about the ones they like. A person doesn't have to like everything about a card to vote for it. For instance, I was planning on giving Mustard/Holiday Village an approval vote even before Tejayes's justification about it's cost.

4th place! I knew my justification that it was between Village and Festival would garner some extra points. Still, I'm very happy with the winner, as it was my favorite village. I also really liked the two other cards that beat me, so I'm delighted with this result.

 By the way, I maintain it's under-priced. 

1624

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Observatory Village (Challenge 7 card)

« on: August 06, 2012, 07:19:25 pm »

I just thought this card was better as a deck improver than village, as well. I don't know that I worry about the power so much. Deck reordering is sneaky powerful sometimes -- especially if you are trying to consistently line up combos. Yes Cartographer lets you reorder and discard, but it needs help to move that Bridge you need into your hand, and this card does not. That seems to be an acceptable tradeoff to me.

 I also agree it would slow play.

1625

Dominion: Dark Ages Previews / Re: Dominion: Dark Ages on Rio Grande Games' Website

« on: August 06, 2012, 05:19:49 pm »

BATTLEAXE IN THE CORNER!  WHO CALLED IT?

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2909.0

Do I get a prize or something?

You get a +1