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 - scott_pilgrim

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 107
26
Non-Mafia Game Threads / Re: The Necro Wars
« on: August 21, 2022, 11:21:26 am »
Your proof would work if S and T were independent, randomly drawn sets of size 50, but that's not the case here. For example, it would be easy to modify your proof to show that the probability that f(1) \in S and f(1) \in T is also 50^2/(100*99), but if S and T are chosen to be complements of each other, the actual probability is 0.

27
Non-Mafia Game Threads / Re: The Necro Wars
« on: August 21, 2022, 10:35:14 am »
By the way, I'm not actually sure how [super ultra major spoiler] the proof that the permutations with cycle length at most n/2 appear with probability ~1/e goes; but I think it's a result I've heard cited in other contexts, so I assume it's correct.

28
Non-Mafia Game Threads / Re: The Necro Wars
« on: August 21, 2022, 10:31:39 am »
To confirm, is it correct that the assumed probability distribution for how numbers are put into boxes is uniform over the set of 100! possible distributions?

Yes.

29
Non-Mafia Game Threads / Re: The Necro Wars
« on: August 21, 2022, 10:25:13 am »
If you're stuck, I recommend thinking about the case with n=2 prisoners opening 1 box each. It should be obvious how to do better than the naive 25%. Then think about n=4. You might have to do some case analysis, but hopefully you can find a solid solution there. Then you want to think about how that generalizes to larger n. If you're still stuck, think about what it means for prisoner #1 to succeed with the strategy you used for n=4. What properties do you want the permutation on 4 elements to have? How many permutations have the requisite properties?

I really like this problem because (major spoiler) it teaches you about cycle structure in permutations. The answer is totally non-obvious and counterintuitive at first, but it points to something really beautiful.

30
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #160: Two Base Cards
« on: August 19, 2022, 10:30:36 pm »
Weekly Design Contest 160: Judging

There were a lot of really creative entries this week! Pretty much every card-shaped thing had something to like about it, and a lot seemed to me like they could pass as official card-shaped things (and particularly interesting ones at that!). Below are my comments on each card:

Pot of Gold by Augie279

I like the simplicity. I like things that reward you for getting Duchies. My only issue with it is that I feel like the “always”-effect is too strong and the “bonus”-effect too weak (not in terms of power level, just in terms of interestingness). I’m not sure of a nice fix off the top of my head. A solid entry though.

Midas by majiponi

This is an interesting idea, but I’m not sure how well it works in practice. The treasure-trashing penalty just means you wait until your Coppers are gone before you buy it, which you were probably going to do anyway because it costs $8. But I guess it nerfs the obvious TfB combos that have you trash actions and then fuel the TfB with all the Gold you got. Actually, that initially seemed like the main use to me, but the fact that you junk yourself with Copper when you do it might make it not worth getting at all. I’m not quite sure what to think about this one…

Offering by Gamer3000

I like this one a lot. It’s a really unique idea and it’s still pretty simple. My feeling is that it’s overpriced, but I don’t have anything to base that on and I’m not too concerned with balance anyway. This is definitely a contender.

Lure by Builder_Roberts

I really like the simplicity. I think it’s probably rarely (if ever) worth getting without trashing, but with trashing it becomes an interesting choice whether to take Lure or Silver.

Burglar by Gubump

I like the attack a lot, it is creative, novel, and like Bandit Fort, punishes you for using Silver and/or Gold. It’s not enough to completely shut down a player using lots of Silver/Gold, but that’s fine because it costs $3 and doesn’t need to have a dominating effect. It accentuates other kingdom-dependent sources of coin, which is good design. This is a contender.

Crone by Marpharos

It’s a weaker Witch that defends against itself. That’s sort of an interesting concept, but I think there’s a problem inherent to it. If it appears in the same kingdom as Witch, you’ll always take Witch because it’s basically just better. But as others pointed out, it can’t cost less than Witch, because in the non-mirror it’s the same as Witch. Maybe you could work around this with a Potion or Debt cost, but I’m not sure that does much to fix the issue.

Homestead by segura

This is really neat. I think it’s underpriced, but I don’t care much about balance, it would be easy to adjust with playtesting, and the concept is really good. This is going on my top n list.

Tyranny by X-tra

This is very clean and simple. It’s like a Duchy, but two cards instead of one, but they can both be trashed (or just the Curse can be trashed, if it’s near the end of the game). I like that it’s so similar to Duchy while still being neither clearly better nor clearly worse, though I imagine on a lot of individual boards it will be either clearly better or clearly worse. I like it overall.

Ledger by nyxfulloftricks

I love this. It’s like a super-ultra Peddler, or a non-terminal Coppersmith with maybe some draw, or something; but then it junks you with more of the fuel that it drives on. I can’t even begin to wrap my head around whether it’s balanced, but it’s definitely game-warping. I think it will be most interesting in engines with some trashing but not a lot, where you can sort of keep up with the junk you’re getting but still keep some around for the Ledgers. This is definitely a strong entry.

Financier by kru5h

So either it’s the 3 terminal options from Courtier, or else it’s a mini Silver-flooder that produces a lot of coin right now. I like the simplicity and this feels like it could be a real published card. I’m guessing which option you choose will generally depend on whether you need exactly $4 right now. Nice card.

Lycantrope by n_sanity

I love the attack, and I love how the on-gain effect hands out a defense for the attack, and how that deters you from opening with it. I’m not so sure about it being a Night-Action with the +2 cards effect; it seems to me like maybe there could have either been a simpler or a more interesting effect to go along with the attack, but there’s nothing particularly wrong with it. I think this is going in my top n list.

Old City by J410

I like this, it’s very simple and it makes sense in terms of playability: the extra card draw compared to Village cancels out with the extra junk card(s), but then you trash those junk cards and now you’re left with just this powerhouse card. So it takes some effort, but in the end you’ve got a Lost City. This seems like what Cache/Banquet should have been (a strong top half that’s not already available in every game), and what I like in comparison to Lost City is that it doesn’t just accelerate everyone, but has an accelerating effect that slows you down to make up for it. I think this deserves to be on the top n list.

Coin Press by Xen3k

So I understand the wording changes, but it wound up as something that’s hard to grok just from reading it. Essentially the effect is get a Silver to hand, or turn two Silvers into a Gold (in-hand), or turn two Coppers into a Silver (or trash other stuff into Silver but that’s uncommon). I think this card is doing a little too much all at once, though I recognize all the effects are all sort of on the same theme. I don’t think it’s a bad card, just not for me. I do kind of like the idea of “melding” treasures into stronger treasures though.

Crook by 4est

So it’s like half a Trading Post, combined with a trashing/junking attack. I like the attack, but it might get nasty in conjunction with discard attacks. It’s neat that the attack can actually help other players in the beginning of the game, which is when the top half of the card is most appealing. Clever design.

Sprite by spineflu

This combines (perhaps not intentionally) some things I liked from previous entries (discarding Silver as an option to an attack, Copper-gaining-to-hand as an attack). Otherwise it seems weak, and not-obviously-fixably weak. Copper-to-hand seems like a weak attack to me, and even if it is strong in a particular game, they have another option to avoid it. Trashing a treasure to gain a Gold is reminiscent of Taxman, one of the weakest cards in the game, though this is better as it always gets Gold and doesn’t top-deck it. But it’s slower since it’s a Duration. So there’s some nice ideas in this card but I’m not sure it really works.

Copper Mine by xyz123

I really like the attack on this, though it might be really nasty (it’s hard for me to estimate since I can’t think of any existing cards to compare it to). Not much else to say about it. Cool idea!

Beachcombers by Dubdubdubdub

I really like this card-shaped thing, because it really feels like it could have been an official Ally. The power level seems in line with existing Allies. “Spend a favor for +$1” is too strong (and also just turns Favors into Coffers), but at the cost of gaining a Copper it gives you some interesting decisions. If you really need that $1 to push you over an important threshold, or if it’s late in the game and you don’t think you’re going to see the Copper again, it becomes really tempting, but with potentially a long-term cost (or maybe not if you have strong trashing). The option to pick up a few extra VP late in the game is nice too. My only complaint is that it’s slightly awkward that it’s limited to three times per turn; I don’t see a way around that though. This is one of my favorite entries, well done!

Gilders Guild by NoMoreFun

I’ve noticed that I tend to like NoMoreFun’s card-shaped things, and this is no exception. This is another Ally entry, and also another really compelling one that feels like it could be an official Ally. The power level seems about right. In some sense you get +$1.5 value out of each Favor spent, but it’s very limited in what it can do. But there are often lots of ways to gain Silver, and you (pretty much) never wouldn’t rather have a Gold, so it gives a nice boost to your deck if you can find ways to take advantage of it. This is another contender for my top n list.

Amphitheater by emtzalex

I like some of the ideas with this one, but I think the execution is a little off. For one thing, the Curse option feels awkward to me, and I almost get the feeling it’s just there to make the card qualify for the contest. I think the most appealing idea with this card is the way that it can build up coin (by discarding and re-drawing Gold) if you’re overdrawing your deck (which you may well be, since it draws 3 cards semi-non-terminally). But I don’t think +$1 is nearly enough of a reward for that to ever be worth building a strategy around. I also like conditionally non-terminal cards, and this is a neat way to do it, but I think it’s weak at its price point. So I think with some changes this could be a really nice card, but as it is it doesn’t quite do it for me.

Moray by CaptainReklaw

I like alt-VP and I like that this actually makes some sense balance-wise at $7, which is an awkward price to design alt-VP at. Unfortunately, I think it’s terribroken as it is now. In the vast majority of games, it’s just an expensive Duchy, but in the games where it’s good, it’s potentially worth a ton of VP. It has the problem though that if it’s worth a lot of VP, it’s nearly impossible to get, since a Copper-flooded deck won’t generally hit $7. Actually, I think that makes it a really interesting card. You have to get several of them first, then start flooding your deck with Copper. But unfortunately there won’t be many games where it’s worth going for at all, and the extra awkwardness of being hard to get when it’s strong just further nerfs an already weak card. I almost wonder if you could get away with 1 VP per Copper, instead of 1 VP per 2 Coppers…it would be completely game-warping but maybe in a fun way?

Forest Village by AJL828

I really, really love this idea. It’s unique, simple, and different. I like how it slightly anti-combos with itself by making your hand size bigger after every play (and therefore more likely to have Copper/Silver/Gold in it). I also like how it encourages you to focus on kingdom cards and build a deck with alternative sources of coin. This really feels like it could be an official card. Definitely a top n card!

Decay by Chappy7

This is a pretty neat concept. I like the anti-Mine idea, and the handing out your -$1 token if you can’t anti-Mine anything makes sense, since you “should” (in some sense) lose a $1 from your hand. It’s a little wordy for a hex, but the idea is intuitive enough that I think it’s okay.

Writer by Joxeft

This is actually a pretty cool idea: you compress Coppers into Silvers. You don’t change the total coin your deck produces (unless you trash an odd number of Coppers), but you make them take up less space. I wonder if it might be better as an event that trashes from play, since you probably only use it once or twice anyway.

Serenity by arowdok

This is a neat one too, and pretty unique. It gives you an extra way to generate VP by set-collecting on the different types of VP cards. I think it’s overpriced, comparing to Colony, but I’m not too concerned about pricing. I like the way this changes how the game plays. This is going on the top n list.

Empire by binbag420

I like the novelty, but I worry that the effect is underwhelming at any price point. Usually by the time you’re buying Provinces, you’re not going to see the cards you get much more. 8D seems way too much to me, but maybe the fact that it stops you from getting Curses justifies it in some games? I’m not quite sure what to think of this card overall, but I appreciate the idea.





So it turns out I had some difficulty restraining myself from putting things on the top n list, which I guess means you all did a really good job this week! Sorting the list required some really tough choices.

Runners Up
9. Burglar by Gubump
8. Lycantrope by n_sanity
7. Offering by Gamer3000
6. Serenity by arowdok
5. Old City by J410
4. Homestead by segura
3. Ledger by nyxfulloftricks
2. Gilders Guild by NoMoreFun
1. Beachcombers by Dubdubdubdub

Winner
0. Forest Village by AJL828

31
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #160: Two Base Cards
« on: August 19, 2022, 09:19:35 pm »
Contest Closed

Judgment coming soon!

32
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #160: Two Base Cards
« on: August 19, 2022, 04:08:28 am »
Writer
Action - Cost:4
Trash any number of cards from your hand, then gain then half that many silvers.

Feedback is appreciated.

As noted by another user above, this does not have two base cards in it, so would not qualify.

33
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #160: Two Base Cards
« on: August 18, 2022, 09:28:07 pm »
24 hour warning

These are the submissions I have so far. Please let me know if I missed yours:

Pot of Gold by Augie279
Midas by majiponi
Offering by Gamer3000
Lure by Builder_Roberts
Burglar by Gubump
Crone by Marpharos
Homestead by segura
Tyranny by X-tra
Ledger by nyxfulloftricks
Financier by kru5h
Lycantrope by n_sanity
Old City by J410
Coin Press by Xen3k
Crook by 4est
Sprite by spineflu
Copper Mine by xyz123
Beachcombers by Dubdubdubdub
Gilders Guild by NoMoreFun
Amphitheater by emtzalex
Moray by CaptainReklaw
Forest Village by AJL828
Decay by Chappy7

34
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #160: Two Base Cards
« on: August 13, 2022, 02:13:16 pm »
Judge to be clear we are to make a card(s) that uses 2 or more named base cards or exactly 2 named base cards?

It can use two or more base cards.

Some other clarifications (I'll update the OP):
  • Naming the same base card twice is not sufficient.
  • If you use multiple cards (e.g. a split pile), at least one individual card must have two or more base cards named on it.
  • Designing a new doom card does not automatically qualify just because hexes have two or more base cards on them. But you could design a new hex (like Locusts) that has two or more base cards on it. Similarly for Fate cards/Boons.

Names 3 Base cards
Bandit Fort

I'm not sure how you counted 3 base cards for Bandit Fort?

35
Weekly Design Contest / Weekly Design Contest #160: Two Base Cards
« on: August 12, 2022, 08:54:31 pm »
This week's challenge:

Design a card/landscape that contains the names of two base cards in the body of its text.

Base cards include Copper, Silver, Gold, Estate, Duchy, Province, Curse, Potion, Platinum, and Colony. I recommend against using Platinum or Colony, as they won't be present in every game; but if you can find a way to make it work, they are options.

Official card-shaped things that would qualify include Count, Bandit Fort, and Explorer (explorer even names three!).

My judging will mostly be based on simplicity and novelty. I will allow things like split piles, but the more things I have to read the grumpier I will be and therefore you will be less likely to win. I will not be too concerned about balance, as long as I think the card is balanceable with reasonable changes.

Some other clarifications:
  • Naming the same base card twice is not sufficient.
  • If you use multiple cards (e.g. a split pile), at least one individual card must have two or more base cards named on it.
  • Designing a new doom card does not automatically qualify just because hexes have two or more base cards on them. But you could design a new hex (like Locusts) that has two or more base cards on it. Similarly for Fate cards/Boons.

36
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #159: Some Nights
« on: August 12, 2022, 08:37:27 pm »
Thanks for the (very unexpected) win! (And thanks also for finding the time to judge despite being so busy!)

The next contest will be up soon.

37
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #159: Some Nights
« on: July 29, 2022, 09:11:21 am »
Submission (for Guilds):
Quote
Name: Thieves' Guild
Types: Action, Treasure, Night
Cost: $6
Text: +3 Cards, +1 Buy; +1 Coffers per card you've gained this turn.

38
Submission (for Menagerie):
Quote
Name: Hay Farmer
Types: Action, Farmer
Price: $1
Text: +1 Action; Exile a Horse from its pile.
Quote
Name: Animal Trader
Types: Action, Farmer
Price: $1
Text: Trash this. Gain a Horse.
Quote
Name: Rancher
Types: Action, Farmer
Price: $1
Text: +1 Buy

While this is in play, when you play a Horse, you first get +1 Card.

39
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 24, 2020, 09:49:22 pm »
Quote
Name: Spellbook
Cost: $2
Types: Night
Trash two non-Duration Action cards you have in play with the same name. If you did, move your +1 card, +1 action, +1 buy, +$1, trashing, or -$2 cost token to their pile.

40
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 22, 2020, 07:58:45 pm »
Observer by X-tra
I'm not sure if I understand this. Do they steal your card after playing it? There's no "leaving it there", but I don't think you would ever buy this (except maybe in big money?) if it meant you'd be handing all your actions out to the next player, so I assume it's not meant to go to the next player. Is it meant to stay in your hand, or go to your play area? Regardless, it seems somewhat political that only one player gets the bonus, and I don't like that it discourages you from getting lots of Actions, but I do kind of like the idea of letting other players play a card from your hand as a penalty on an otherwise strong card.

Thanks for the judging! But uh, yeah. You did kind of misread my card, I suppose. The player from your left plays a card from THEIR hand, not YOUR hand. It's kind of like Sheepdog when someone plays a Witch: you can put your Sheepdog in play (where it stays in play until your next clean-up) even though it isn't your turn. Similarly, Observer makes it so that the player to your left can play one of their Action cards even though it isn't their turn. In practice, most of the time, it won't be too useful for your neighbour... sometimes it's even bad for them (they lose , Buys and Actions the played Action card yield, since it's not their turn and, just like Caravan Guard, these resources vanish before they can use 'em). But sometimes, they can play an Attack in the middle of your turn, like Militia, which can really mess you up. It's pretty versatile, really!

In a game I played with Observer, the player to my left played an Observer in response to my own Observer, which made me also immediately play another Action even though I was out of Actions! It was pretty funny. :)

Oh, that makes so much more sense! I'm really sorry I misread it. I like it a lot more now, though I don't think enough that it would have been a runner-up. But it is pretty cool. And the interaction with itself is fun too.

41
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 21, 2020, 07:59:21 pm »
Judgment

Wrangler by mandioca15
A goatherd-like piggybacking card where the reward is Horses. I think this is probably fine balance-wise and I could see it being an actual card, but it doesn't seem particularly interesting to me.

Councillor by Aquila
I like this as a concept, but I agree with others that it's probably too similar to Monument, and also pretty much worse than it. Discarding a Copper puts you at the same level as Monument, but I imagine more often than not you'll be discarding something worse than Copper. I get the argument that with +$4 and a Throne Room it just means you can discard (almost) your hand for a Province, but I doubt that would happen much anyway, because it would only be that straightforward in a big money game, where you probably wouldn't be buying throne room anyway. In any case, I think the idea has potential, but probably needs some tweaking to work.

Investor by LittleFish
This is a novel concept, but I don't think it works well in practice. Due to the limited range of prices (which is pretty much necessary), they will only ever name $3, $4 or $6, and I imagine that, based on the board, the decision will be pretty much constant throughout the game. In fact, I think it compares unfavorably to Workshop: If they name $4, the +$2 you get is more or less a wash with the +2 coffers they get, so it's just a Workshop with a +buy for $5, which is already bad; but then it's even worse, because they have the option to name $3 or $6 instead. I don't know if there's a way to make the idea work.

Judge by spineflu
(I assume the victory type in the card image is meant to be action-attack, as in the text below.) This seems like a bit of a combination between Witch and Courtier, but with another player making the decisions...I think I like it, though there is a lot of text on the card. And the fact that it has two types gives you a consolation prize if drawn dead, and also means it's never strictly worse than Witch. I do think it will generally be worse than Witch though, but Witch is a strong card anyway so I think that's okay.

Commune by NoMoreFun
This is a very cool card, it has a built-in self-synergy that rewards everyone (including yourself) when you take advantage of it. I think the self-synergy might make it too game-warping (everyone will start turns with huge hands), though it might be okay power-wise, because the benefit to other players is pretty significant. Regardless, this card is novel, unique, and clever. I love it!
Runner-up

Council by majiponi
Aside from the clunky wording, I think the idea of "bidding" to offer the best card to a player is neat, but inherently political and will make games un-fun. In a 2-player game, this is nearly strictly worse than Butcher, and the entire value of the card comes from the political nature of it, where pitting the players against each other incentivizes them to offer better cards. I don't think this idea really works well in practice.

Extortionist by chronostrike
I think I like this, except that it seems too weak to me. The idea is kind of like a Torturer, except that the vanilla bonus is also tied to the attack being chosen by another player. You usually want to play draw and payload at very different times in your turn, which means that not knowing which one you're getting (or worse, knowing that you'll generally get the worse of those two options) when you play it is a significant drawback, as well as the fact that you'll probably have to rely on other cards to do its jobs for it, since it will only ever be doing whichever job you don't want it to do. I think maybe if it were cheaper, or if the vanilla bonuses were stronger, it would work. Overall, I like it.

Draper by Fragasnap
This is deceptively interesting. I like that it provides +buy, so that there's a good chance that it gets weaker as the game goes. I imagine it's strong early and rapidly turns into an Herbalist, but the early momentum boost might be enough to make it worthwhile.

Surveyor by Doom_Shark
I normally do not like Boons, but I think this is a really good way of making them interesting. I like the card, but as others pointed out, it will be very slow to resolve, because you have to read 3 boons every time you play it, and the other player has to make a decision regarding those 3 boons as well. As a strong cantrip, you'll probably be playing it a lot. So I think it might be better to have a different vanilla bonus (and even then, I imagine it's a bit slow).

Atlantis by gambit05
This is one of the best hot potato-like cards I've seen. I don't like the wording, but I understand why you did it that way (I think it would be better to just make it an Action-Victory card and put two lines on it). I always like situational villages, and I think it would be really interesting to see how a game plays out where this is the only village. If you start building an engine, another player can hoard them all, but then they've effectively got a bunch of estates in their deck. It might encourage you to try to build a deck that can function well both with or without villages. I'm not sure if the 1 VP on buy is enough of an incentive to buy it; perhaps it could cost less.

Fanatic by silverspawn
This is very cool! It's a super powerful effect, but potentially shuts down the rest of your turn. It encourages you to have lots of variety, which I like, but does so in a novel and indirect way. I think it will lead to lots of new types of gameplay decisions that we haven't encountered before. My main concern is that it may favor big money too much, as it's generally hard to build an engine without whatever the strongest action on the board is. But what I hope (and this card is unique enough that you would probably only be able to determine whether this is the case by playtesting) is that it really encourages hybrid, "unstable" but adaptable engines, that won't run smoothly but will still do better than a deck without Fanatic.
Runner-up

Developer by anordinaryman
This is another brilliant card! I already think the idea of a trash-for-benefit where the benefit is to simply play a card from the supply based on the cost of your trashed card is very cool and original, but then pushing that choice onto the other player packs some player interaction into that concept, while also letting cards that would otherwise be too weak see some play. That's a lot of very nice principles packed into one card! My only concern is that it seems weak to me, though it's hard to judge its strength since it's so different from existing cards.
Runner-up

Observer by X-tra
I'm not sure if I understand this. Do they steal your card after playing it? There's no "leaving it there", but I don't think you would ever buy this (except maybe in big money?) if it meant you'd be handing all your actions out to the next player, so I assume it's not meant to go to the next player. Is it meant to stay in your hand, or go to your play area? Regardless, it seems somewhat political that only one player gets the bonus, and I don't like that it discourages you from getting lots of Actions, but I do kind of like the idea of letting other players play a card from your hand as a penalty on an otherwise strong card.

Regent by D782802859
I really love the elegance of this. It can either be a Smithy, or else a Moat with +$ or +buy; but always (what your opponent judges to be) the worst of those options. I also love conditional +buy, and I think this will make for very interesting games and interesting decisions, and it's a wonderfully simple design.
Runner-up

Fruitcake by Xen3k
Technically doesn't fit the challenge, but fits the spirit of the challenge, so I'll allow it. This is kind of a bizarre hot potato. It gets passed around between the players who have bought the fewest of them all game. I think I like the way it plays out, but not enough to justify all the text and the extra tokens.

Buffoon by Carline
This is like a more interactive variant of Jester, where they choose what they reveal, and you have more options for what to do with it. So I think usually they'll try to reveal middling cards like Silver, so either you give everyone a Silver and a Copper, or else you take +$4. If they reveal a victory card you can gain a copy of it, so there's good options whether they reveal a victory or non-victory card. I think I like this one a lot.
Runner-up

Escrow by Bbobb
The choices are very similar to each other, so it's a much more specific decision for the player to your left than most of the other entrants we've had. Basically they're just judging what they think you want to buy this turn. I think this card is fine, though I'd guess it's pretty weak. It could probably cost $3, maybe $2.

Gangster by LibraryAdventurer
I think this is a fine card, except possibly swingy, which I guess is what the +1 coffers reward is for if they discard a "good" card. But it is somewhat unique, and I could see it being an official card.

There were lots of great submissions this time! Here are my picks:
Runners-up:
4. Buffoon by Carline
3. Regent by D782802859
2. Commune by NoMoreFun
1. Developer by anordinaryman
And the winner is...
0. Fanatic by silverspawn

This was a tough choice, because I really loved all of the runner-ups, but I think Fanatic creates some really fresh and interesting gameplay. Congratulations silverspawn!

42
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 20, 2020, 11:00:20 pm »
24 hour warning

Below is a list of submissions I have so far. Please let me know if I missed yours or linked to the wrong post:

You're missing my entry here.

Thanks, I've added it to my list now.

44
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 14, 2020, 05:46:39 pm »
Investor - Action
+1 Buy
+
The player to your left names a cost greater than
. Gain a card that costs equal or less than the named cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the amount of  in the cost they named.

With no upper bound, couldn't they name Graham's number? Sure you'd get a province, but they'd have unlimited money for the rest of the game.

45
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 14, 2020, 10:14:08 am »
Thanks for the win, glad people liked it!

Contest #95: The player to your (left/right)

Design a card that (meaningfully) contains the string "the player to your".

46
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 10, 2020, 06:32:23 pm »
Quote
Name: Countryside
Cost: $4
Types: Victory
Worth 2 VP per differently named victory card you have more copies of than Countryside.

47
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 07, 2020, 02:39:50 pm »
Feudal Grant (Victory, $5)

1VP

---
When you gain this, +1
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1

Why would you ever buy this over Duchy?
I think I'll edit it down to , or would be better?

Even at $3 I think it's still worse than Tunnel, because the best case outcome is that it's worth 2 VP. In fact, I'm not sure how it plays any differently from a pure victory card that's just worth 2 VP.

I do think the concept of "victory card that's worth less if you get it out of your deck" could be workable, but the on-gain VP then has to be worth more than the on-trash VP everyone else gets, because otherwise you gain nothing by trashing it.
Fixed it to +2 and costing . Look more plausible?

Now I think it's better than Duchy...thinking about it more, I'm not sure if there actually are good parameters, because it basically has to not be comparable to any existing victory card, which means it would probably have to cost $6, which probably makes it too expensive to ever be worth trashing.

48
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 07, 2020, 12:36:34 pm »
Feudal Grant (Victory, $5)

1VP

---
When you gain this, +1
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1

Why would you ever buy this over Duchy?
I think I'll edit it down to , or would be better?

Even at $3 I think it's still worse than Tunnel, because the best case outcome is that it's worth 2 VP. In fact, I'm not sure how it plays any differently from a pure victory card that's just worth 2 VP.

I do think the concept of "victory card that's worth less if you get it out of your deck" could be workable, but the on-gain VP then has to be worth more than the on-trash VP everyone else gets, because otherwise you gain nothing by trashing it.

49
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 07, 2020, 12:30:16 pm »
Feudal Grant (Victory, $5)

1VP

---
When you gain this, +1
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1

Why would you ever buy this over Duchy?

50
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Action-Treasures
« on: October 25, 2020, 10:13:55 am »
It has always sort of bothered me that Crown, and a lot of fan action-treasures, have a separate effect for the action phase and the buy phase.

Wait, how does Crown have a different effect in Action and Buy phases?  Seems to me that it plays exactly the same, "Play a card from your hand twice", the difference in the type of cards it can play simply being a natural consequence of what types of cards *can* be played in those phases ordinarily

I can see that perspective, but my perspective is that if it has to explicitly call out the different phases and state a different effect based on the phase, then those are two different effects. As silverspawn points out, if it was literally the same effect in both phases, then it would let you play action cards in the buy phase and treasure cards in the action phase.

You're right that Horse Trainer is a worse Caravan in the buy phase, not a worse Moat, as it's nonterminal then.
But with 2 or more Actions left, I think it's usually worse than Smithy, not better: Since you still have an Action left after playing it, drawing a third "nonterminal" card now with Smithy is usually better than drawing it at the start of next turn with HT.
So Horse Trainer is basically a slightly weaker Smithy with a back-up option available when drawn dead. I would still try it at $4.

It seems like maybe you're missing that the first Horse will draw the second? Or else I don't understand what you're saying? Regardless, I think you're right that it should cost $4. I'll edit the OP.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 107

Page created in 0.21 seconds with 18 queries.