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 - Gubump

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 49
51
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #125: What's the Draw?
« on: August 13, 2021, 12:59:10 pm »



Usually caps at Hunting Grounds (+Cards, +Actions, +Buys, +$), but occasionally can reach +7 Cards (+VP, +Coffers, +Villagers). Pretty hard to get it to reach the cap though.

Version History
v0.1: Initial version
v0.2: Dropped price to as suggested on Discord.

52
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #125: What's the Draw?
« on: August 13, 2021, 12:27:27 pm »
WDC #125: What's the Draw?

Rules:
  • Design a card-shaped thing that draws a variable number of cards that is not a draw-to-X card
  • For the purposes of this week's contest, binary will not be considered to be "variable".  What I mean by that is that cards like Shanty Town (that draws either 0 or 2 cards), Menagerie (that draws 0 or 3 cards), or Conspirator (that draws either 0 or 1 card) would not qualify.
  • As mentioned above, draw-to-X cards like Library, Watchtower, and Cursed Village would not qualify
  • Your submission can be a non-supply card (in which case you should also submit a supply card or WELP which works with the non-supply card)
  • If your submission is a split pile, only one of the cards needs to meet the contest criteria
  • Your submission can be a WELP*
  • Please do not submit any Traveller lines or mixed piles
  • Official cards that would qualify include Crossroads, City Quarter, and Madman
The deadline will be Friday, August 20th at 11:59PM ET.  I will judge over the weekend and aim to post results on Sunday, August 22nd.  It is possible that I will only post the winner and runners-up so that the next contest can start and will provide detailed feedback on the remaining entries later in the week.

*I'm not really sure how you would design a Landmark that fits, but I'm prepared to be surprised

1. Menagerie draws 1 or 3 cards, not 0 or 3.
2. I assume cards like faust's Geographer from the DtX contest that are DtX but have X as a variable number don't qualify either?

53
at the end still some inspiration:

Hooligans $3
+1 action
+1 card
Every opponent shows their hand and then discard their highest cost card, then draws an card.
+1$ if an card that cost 5 or more is discarded.
I have a Scrying Pool, a Fortune, a Colony in hand. Which is the most expensive card?
"
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Potion
"P is orthogonal to $ in a cost; thus, although a card with a cost of $XP is considered to cost "more" than a card costing $x or less with no P, costs of, e.g., $4 and $3P are incomparable—neither is more or less than the other. Many trash-for-benefit cards whose effects depend on a card's cost only consider the cost in $ and ignore P; most Workshop variants can't gain cards with P costs at all."
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Debt
"A cost in D is orthogonal to a cost in a $; cards with D in their cost do not cost less or more than cards with a $ cost. D and P are similarly not comparable."

In "Highest cost" the alternative payment methods are not taken into considiration. That should also be true for this card.
So the Colony

Except your card doesn't say "highest cost in ," it just says "highest cost." Highest cost between Colony, Scrying Pool, and Fortune is undefined, because as what you quoted says, those 3 costs cannot be compared.

54
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Mechanics Week 17: Idle Hands
« on: August 11, 2021, 01:46:55 pm »

This is strictly better than Smithy (if you Throne the Idle Hands the net effects are -1 Action +2 Cards which is the same as Smithy).

1. Play the Liege from your hand, you're down to 4 cards in hand.
2. Gain an Idle Hands to your hand. You have 5 cards in hand.
3. Play the Idle Hands from your hand; you have 4 cards in hand before resolving.
4. After resolving both plays of Idle Hands, you end up with a handsize of 6.
It's only +1 to handsize, not +2. It's a Moat variant, not a Smithy variant.

55
Royal Carriage (or any throner) + Hunting Lodge + Way of the Chameleon

You can Chameleon a Hunting Lodge to discard your hand for +$6, then replay it normally and draw back up to 5 with a bunch of actions to spare. Pretty neat!

I managed to pull off this combo with Scepter once. Then you don't have to worry about potentially discarding anything useful, since you can just play the Scepter last!

56
This is a conditional Lab, not a conditional Cantrip.
I'm not sure by what definition a Lab wouldn't also be a cantrip.

I guess it depends on your definition of Cantrip, but it also just seems weird to me to understate it as a mere conditional Cantrip vs a conditional Lab.

57
Gubump: Collector ⑤ (gives all 3 vanilla bonus token-cards, takes one from everyone else or Curses them)

Just a clarification, Collector doesn't steal tokens/cards, it just makes people lose them (you probably realized this, I'm just clarifying because of the word "takes"). Also, it costs , not .


Inquisition
$5 - Action - Attack
+2 Cards
Each other player with 4 or more cards discards a card.
The player to your left names a card. You may play an Action card from your hand other than the named card.

Conditional cantrip (the opponent can try to evade it naming a card that would break the chain)

This is a conditional Lab, not a conditional Cantrip.

58
  • Design an Heirloom for a Kingdom card created by the judge.
  • Design a Kingdom card for an Heirloom created by the judge.

59
Quote
Witch's Hat
Action-Attack-Looter
Cost 5

+1 Card
You may play an Action Card. Each other player gains, if played Action cost...
... - : A Curse
... - : A Ruins
... +: A Ruins in their hand.



Witch's Hat is a сantrip junker, the power of which depends on your next Action. Witch's Hat goes well with cheap Actions and combines badly with other Witch's Hat. Witch's Hat deals nicely with those Ruins, that you got from other Witch's Hat and gives other players a Curse in return. Witch's Hat sucks, when it's the last Action in your turn.

Got the wording from Iron Maiden http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0

This needs to specify that the played Action comes from your hand.

60


Here's my entry this week. Prisoner is a Night-Duration-Attack card that "imprisons" an Action or Treasure from your hand and plays it next turn, while forcing other players to discard a card when they play copies of it. This is another one of my old cards that I've revised for this contest: the original was a terminal Action and ended up being very weak. As a Night instead, Prisoner gets the non-terminality it needs to make it useful while also letting you save dead-drawn Actions. There's an interesting relationship between how strong the attack is vs. how strong the next turn effect, with both varying a lot by what you aside (e.g. Copper, especially in the early game vs. an okay Action your opponent has a lot of vs. a strong Action your opponent has only one of).
I'm not completely sure how "first, discard a card" works. You would have to have already selected and shown the card you want to play, right? So you can't discard the card that you're going to play? What happens to the card I want to play if I discard a Village Green and play it as Way of the Mole?

Same way Diplomat's "first reveal this..." and the +1 Card token's "you first get +1 Card" effect work. The card you play goes into play, then before you start resolving it, you discard a card.

Essentially, even when you put a card into play, the game's rules consider you to not have even started playing it until you start following its instructions. Otherwise, Diplomat would need to be revealed before Attacks go into play (i.e. they'd require you to be psychic), and the +1 Card token would give you the +1 Card before the card goes into play (which lacks accountability).

"When you play a card, first do X" is basically shorthand for "when you play a card, before following its instructions, do X." And like other "first" effects, you'd discard a card before you even make the decision of whether to use a Way or not.

61




EDIT: Changed wording as per anordinaryman's suggestion.

I think you intend to attack by handing out curses, not horses.

Oops! Thanks for noticing the typo.

62
I'm gonna just put a bunch of my feedback in one post...



"Return" isn't a concept for tokens. It's "remove any number of tokens from your Coffers" as in Butcher version 2, or  "spend" as in Butcher version 1. So this would be
Quote
each other player may remove a token from their Coffers or Villagers or discard a Horse

I had a hunch that my Collector might've been misworded. Thanks; I've applied the change.

Interest
cost $5 - Treasure - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one of those Treasures, and discards the rest. You may gain and play one of the trashed Treasures.


Strong Thief! It earns at least $2! Prepare not to be Thiefed your Interest!
Unfortunately this falls into a tight design space that makes it hard to balance.
As written, this falls into the same problem as Theif -- it trashes your opponents Coppers. So, it's good for them. Noble Brigand is a better example of how to do a Treasure-trasher. But if you modeled this after Noble Brigand, it becomes WAY too strong in comparison, it generates extra money (2+), and it is non-terminal. Not sure how to resolve those tensions.

That fact that it can trash opponents' Coppers makes sure it's frequently a Gold minus instead of just being a Gold plus, which is correct given the cost. I think it's fine as-is.

63
My submission for this week is a split pile with 5 copies of Philanthropist and 5 copies of Benefaction:



Philanthropist is a cantrip attack that self-junks and also junks your opponent's deck (but likely benefits them in the near term).  You could try to build a deck that will be able to gain Provinces with Philanthropist, but it might be more optimal to trash it early to gain a better card.  Philanthropist and Counting House would be a strong combo, but with only 5 copies of Philanthropist in the Kingdom, it shouldn't be game-breaking.  There are also synergies with cards like Beggar, Settlers, and Ill-Gotten Gains. 

Benefaction can help mitigate the Copper junking from Philanthropist.

Benefaction doesn't need the dividing line. See Improve and your own Philanthropist.

64
Guard
$5
Action - Attack

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
_______________________________________________________________
Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.



- Edit -
Changed from a Throne Room variant to a peddler variant following feedback that the can take a while to resolve when chaining the card for a Throne->Throne effect.
There is still a potential element of this to a lesser extent, but on that point I did want to create a card with a potentially stackable attack where subsequent plays have the potential to help opponents rather than hinder them. Personally, I do like Margrave for this reason and  I wanted to make an attack with a similar effect. I accept that some people might not like this though.

This shouldn't have the dividing line. It's also an on-play effect.

65


Djinn
Action - Attack ($5)

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on their deck.

An attacking Peddler Variant. Quick to resolve, doesn't stack (usually, Council Room/Governor could kinda make it stack), no annoying opening swinginess. Hopefully that covers most things people hate about some of the official attacks :P

Isn't this just Relic, only it's a Peddler instead of a Silver, and at the same cost?

Yes it is, and that comparison makes it clear that it's too strong.

66




EDIT: Changed wording as per anordinaryman's suggestion.

67
This sounds complex, but it's really quite simple - a non-terminal, trashing, conditional duration, handsize-reduction attack:

Revolutionist
Action- Attack-Duration, $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, +1 Card, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards 1.

This is great for clearing your early junk and attacking at the same time, but once you clear the junk, it's a boring, expensive cantrip with no benefit, and is a liability if you have terminal draw.

All the discussion has made me want to change my card a bit to make the choice an actual choice (rather than "do I have something i want to trash or not?)

Revolutionist
Action- Duration, $5

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you don't, at the start of your next turn, +1 Card, trash a card.

Edit: updated again

The next-turn trashing also needs to specify "from your hand." It would also read better if it said "at the start of your next turn, +1 Card and trash a card from your hand."

68
This sounds complex, but it's really quite simple - a non-terminal, trashing, conditional duration, handsize-reduction attack:

Revolutionist
Action- Attack-Duration, $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, +1 Card, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards 1.

This is great for clearing your early junk and attacking at the same time, but once you clear the junk, it's a boring, expensive cantrip with no benefit, and is a liability if you have terminal draw.

All the discussion has made me want to change my card a bit to make the choice an actual choice (rather than "do I have something i want to trash or not?)

Revolutionist
Action- Duration, $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you don't, at the start of your next turn, +1 Card.

This is significantly less powerful than the previous version, and I'd want to price it down at $3, but then I think it's too obvious to open with 2 of them most of the time. So it stays at $4. Does it need a buff?

If you don't trash, this is the same as Caravan. This is basically "choose one: Caravan or cantrip trasher", so it's strictly better than Caravan at the same price.

69
This sounds complex, but it's really quite simple - a non-terminal, trashing, conditional duration, handsize-reduction attack:

Revolutionist
Action- Attack-Duration, $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, +1 Card, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards 1.

This is great for clearing your early junk and attacking at the same time, but once you clear the junk, it's a boring, expensive cantrip with no benefit, and is a liability if you have terminal draw.

Wouldn't "Revolutionary" be the more commonly used word? While I'm not sure that a pure cantrip trasher is too strong at $4 (there was a recent discussion about that here), a cantrip optional trasher might be. The other problem that I see with this card is that you always want the Duration effect to trigger. The +1 Card on the following turn is far better than a cantrip (which does nothing), so there is little incentive not to trash. What might be more interesting is if you gave the choice of +$1 this turn or trash a card and +$1 next turn. (The problem there is I have no idea how to price that, as you run into issues with Junk Dealer; it might need dynamic pricing or an on-gain effect).

We use Revolutionary as the person (noun), commonly, but it can also be an adjective describing a person, idea, etc. Revolutionist strictly refers to the person.

Regarding the choice to always trash... yes, to maximize the card's benefit, you want to. But by midgame, there are times you have a hand with no cards you want to trash. I've had more than a few times that I didn't play a Junk Dealer because unless I drew junk, I didn't want to have to trash something.

Maybe the attack added on just makes it too strong then.

To me this card does not follow the chalange. It is not the choise “now or next turn”. The choice is: “is there anything i want to trash”

With that logic, Sawmill doesn't qualify either because the choice is "do I want this to be non-terminal or terminal," and Copycat doesn't qualify because the choice is frequently "do I want to pass up playing an Action to possibly gain a better Action." All three qualify for the same reason, which is that their staying out is optional.

Revolutionist staying out is tied to whether you trash or not, and it gives you the choice of whether or not it trashes, so it does in fact give you the choice of whether it stays out or not.

70



This is strictly better than Hunting Grounds, except for the latter's on-trash ability.

Hunting Grounds is weak and more importantly, as you point out, it has an on-trash ability and thus isn't actually strictly worse. If Hunting Grounds didn't have its on-trash effect, I'd agree that this couldn't cost , but neither one is actually strictly worse or better than the other.



I have designed cards like this, and they raise a question (which I do not believe arises in any official card's design), which is this: do you have to choose the number of cards you want to draw, then draw them all at once? Or can you draw one at a time, and decide after each (until you reach 4) if you want to draw another card this turn or draw the rest next turn? The latter ability is significantly better than the former.

With cards like Cellar and Chapel, you decide the number up front; you don't get to trash Cultist and then trash one of the cards you drew. I'd rule the same way about Harbor, that you decide up front.

71
You don't need "for the rest of." That's implied (see Bridge, Livery, and Inventor).
I'm pretty sure "from your deck" means "from the top of your deck" unless otherwise specified. Otherwise, both Scrying Pool and Golem (which only say to "reveal cards from your deck" rather than "reveal cards from the top of your deck") would allow you to reveal cards from anywhere in your deck.
Thanks

Quote
Estate trader v 0.2
Action - Duration
Cost
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
This turn, when you gain a Victory card, you may set aside a top card of your deck face down (on this). At the start of your next turn, put those cards into your hand.


My second comment was refuting segura's statement that it should say "from the top of," not agreeing with it. The previous wording was fine except for the unnecessary "for the rest of." In fact, this wording is now grammatically incorrect, so it should either be "you may set aside the top card of your deck" or go back to "you may set aside a card from your deck."

72
Hello there, Dominion Strategy Forum users. I was really interested in this Weekly Design Contest, so here is my first card. English is not my native, so I will gladly take any feedback on my wording.

Quote
Estate trader
Action - Duration
Cost

+2 Cards
+1 Buy
For the rest of this turn, when you gain a Victory card, you may set aside a card from your deck face down (on this). At the start of your next turn, put those cards into your hand.


The wording is ambiguous. I guess you intend "you may draw a card and set it aside" and not that you can look through your deck and pick a card of your choice.

I'm pretty sure "from your deck" means "from the top of your deck" unless otherwise specified. Otherwise, both Scrying Pool and Golem (which only say to "reveal cards from your deck" rather than "reveal cards from the top of your deck") would allow you to reveal cards from anywhere in your deck.

73
Hello there, Dominion Strategy Forum users. I was really interested in this Weekly Design Contest, so here is my first card. English is not my native, so I will gladly take any feedback on my wording.

Quote
Estate trader
Action - Duration
Cost

+2 Cards
+1 Buy
For the rest of this turn, when you gain a Victory card, you may set aside a card from your deck face down (on this). At the start of your next turn, put those cards into your hand.



You don't need "for the rest of." That's implied (see Bridge, Livery, and Inventor).

74
I assume that's supposed to be Merchant Wagon?

75
I'm highly considering this change for Skipper:

Quote
Skipper | Action - Duration | $5
Play an Action card from your hand up to two times. If you played it once, set aside a copy of that card from the Supply under this. At the start of your next turn, play the set aside card and return it to the Supply.
Now Skipper can unambiguously re-play Duration cards. Okay, well there still is some ambiguity.
  • Turn 10: you Skipper Wharf α  (choosing to play it once), you get +2 cards this turn and set aside a Wharf β from the Supply.
  • Turn 11 you get +2 cards from the Wharf α you played, then you play the Wharf β that is set aside for another +2 cards, then you return that Wharf β to the Supply
  • on Turn 12 you have no Wharves in play, but you still get +2 cards from Wharf β, if you remember to do so. This is a tricky case but it already exists in Dominion (see: Bonfire)



But I think this is still much less confusing than the original phrasing what would happen if you played Wharf. The same card is being played again while still in play? Awkward.

These changes also has the affect of "holding" onto a card from the Supply. There's only one Lost City left and I don't want you to gain it, I can then play my Lost City once, then set aside the last one from the Supply. At the start of my turn I play a lost City, return it to the supply and it's ready for me to buy this turn. It's also stronger because next turn I have the chance to draw the card next turn and still play it, along with the copy from the Supply I played.

With these changes, there isn't room for gain to deck.

Thoughts? Is this an actual improvement in card quality?

Setting aside a copy from the Supply that gets returned immediately after it's played anyway seems largely pointless most of the time imo; that very rarely really accomplishes anything different from how it currently works, except allowing you to redraw the played card. This change would also have the unintended consequence of trashing one-shots from the Supply (e.g. the copy of Pillage that was set aside from the Supply would trash itself as part of playing it, and then Stop-Moving would prevent it from being returned to the Supply). Otoh, the current wording doesn't work at all with one-shots, so maybe it's a good change if you really want it to work on those?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 49

Page created in 0.104 seconds with 19 queries.