126
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 14: 'Tis the Season
« on: July 06, 2021, 02:07:48 pm »
EDIT: This (also) uses X-tra's 12-turn version of the season mechanic.
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.
EDIT: This (also) uses X-tra's 12-turn version of the season mechanic.
127
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 13: Et Factum Est Ita
« on: June 30, 2021, 09:17:04 am »
I think TC had forgotten his duty as judge. Considering he might have gone on vacation with the intention to not log in, I think it's best to not wait much longer. I think Freddy10 should host next week, as his Abundance entry got the highest like count.
128
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 13: Et Factum Est Ita
« on: June 24, 2021, 02:41:32 am »
If I'm not too late, I'd like to alter my submission a little (to make Snowy Village and Bandit Camp less broken under this).
Also about Tribulations: I like the submission the way it is and disagree with kru5h and mxdata.
Also about Tribulations: I like the submission the way it is and disagree with kru5h and mxdata.
129
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 13: Et Factum Est Ita
« on: June 19, 2021, 04:30:07 am »QuoteEdict
Select an unused Kingdom card costing $2 or $3. Each player replaces one of their starting Estates or Shelters with a copy of that card.
Kinda like Heirlooms in that each player starts off with one copy of a particular card. It replaces starting Estates (or Shelters), however, and can be any Kingdom card costing $2 or $3. In a Shelters game, each player gets to choose which of their Shelters to replace*. Whichever card is chosen, it has no pile, making one-shots like Experiment much more powerful, not unlike Way of the Mouse in that respect, except you only get the one
Unlike Mouse, though, it does not have to be an Action card. You can, for example, have a Victory card (Tunnel is currently the only one that would qualify) or Treasure card such as Ducat or Coin of the Realm, or even a Night card such as Monastery. Any set-up for the chosen card would be done as usual - which in some cases could mean that you'd have a mat used only by the selected card
The FAQ would have to clarify how to handle cards from split piles. My thought is that any card that has enough copies for the number of players would be eligible. Thus, cards like Catapult would qualify except in 6-player games, while Humble Castle would qualify in a 2-player - and only in 2-player - game (of course, Humble Castle would be pretty useless in such a game, being nothing more than a Copper with 1 VP)
*I've been going back and forth on this. Should I specify a Shelter to be replaced, or leave it as is?
I'd honestly just replace a starting Copper in the opening phase. This is probably the cleanest and also the most "future proof". Also, anything that produces $1 will leave opening theory mostly intact. Of course, stop cards that don't trash or produce $$ will slow the opening phase, but having a Kingdom deck already in your deck somewhat makes up for it.
130
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 13: Et Factum Est Ita
« on: June 18, 2021, 02:21:24 pm »
I like it, but... why can't it work for $0 costs?
It could, but I think it would be too game changing at that point. For me, these edicts seem to have the most potential to be fun if they change the game but not too much. Being able to easily get rid of coppers/curses/ruins in addition to estates (etc.) seems like too big of an effect for something that is free and you always have. I'd really need to play with it a few times to see for sure, though. Maybe I'll try to do that this week.
Mmm, this might be better on a second thought. I mean, without +Buy this will be somewhat mediocre, but it might be a little automatic with +Buy. (it's pretty terrible at getting rid of Ruins)
131
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 13: Et Factum Est Ita
« on: June 18, 2021, 10:35:14 am »I like it, but... why can't it work for $0 costs?
132
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 13: Et Factum Est Ita
« on: June 17, 2021, 04:21:27 am »
Pretty gamewarping, I know, but I'd like to share this nontheless.
EDIT: This is the updated version. The old version is:
EDIT: This is the updated version. The old version is:
133
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 13: Et Factum Est Ita
« on: June 16, 2021, 12:04:38 pm »A suggestion for a naming convention on these: name them after a continuous-tense verb, so that people can say, like, "we played a game with Juggling and Plowing" and it sounds pretty normal, but also isn't confused for regular cards/landscapes.QuoteHaggling • Edictwhat if everything had overpay?
When you buy a non-Victory card that does not already have an overpay effect, you may overpay for it. For each $3 you overpay, gain an additional copy of it.
now, admittedly, is it a good overpay? not fantastic. but it's also not gamebreaking, which I thought was more important.
Don't wanna be that guy but... I think this works better as a $3 costing Event. "+1 Buy. The next time you buy a non-Victory card this turn, gain a copy."
134
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 12: High on your own Supplier
« on: June 15, 2021, 02:41:46 am »
Congratz Xen3K and great judging by emtzalex!
135
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Really bad card ideas
« on: June 11, 2021, 11:31:18 am »Inflation, Event costing.
Take an extra turn after this one in which cards costmore (but not more than infinity.)
That's some combo potential with Livery!
136
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 12: High on your own Supplier
« on: June 09, 2021, 07:14:21 am »QuoteShrewd Collector - $5
Supplier
+1 Buy
$1: Discard a non-Victory card. If it costs...
$0, trash it.
$1 to $4, gain a copy of it.
$5 or more, +$6.
I went with a design that cares about card cost and does not interact well with Victory cards. Kind of a mashup between a trasher, a gainer, and Baron. The fact that Suppliers take up a card slot that could have been a treasure makes pricing things appropriately strange. I hope I got it right, but this may not be a balanced design. Feedback is welcome.
This card has potential to be interesting as a payload card if you manage to fill your deck with surplus $5+ costing actions, because a net gain of $5 is nothing to sneeze at (and it is also somewhat decent with Gold). You may wanna beef up the other two bonuses a little, especially the gainer one, as they are pretty weak. For the gainer one, you can also just say "gain a card costing up to $4".
137
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Money Bags
« on: June 08, 2021, 01:12:07 pm »Is "give" the same as "play"?As these are fan cards, you are free to formulate other rules. But please make it clear that I am not of this opinion.
So for example, if you were to allow Kingdom treasures to be used for Money Bags, would Spices theoretically only provide +$2 or would it also provide +1 Buy? Would Counterfeit only give +$1 without triggering the on-play ability? Likewise, I think Bank and Fortune wouldn't do anything unless you actually have Treasures in play due to Storyteller or Black Market.
I agree with grrgrrgrr's suggestion to allow Kingdom Treasures, as long as you can clearly define what occurs in some exceptional cases. For example, I'm not sure if Fool's Gold would be worth anything for Money Bags since you technically wouldn't even put one in play.
My intention is that this mechanism has to be immediately playable for all Dominion players, including beginners, without any questions. This has also proven to be good in test games.
All other treausure cards make the rule complicated and there would be incessant discussions about rule interpretations.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
That's cool. I respect that.
138
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 12: High on your own Supplier
« on: June 07, 2021, 05:08:54 pm »
Ok, I don't wanna turn this into a fight. You obviously have made up your mind, and your mechanic is still decent (it is definitely cleaner than just relying on the Night mechanic, especially if you want to add an on-play effect, which you generally should). But I feel I still need to clearify one part.
The thing is, no matter what type you add, the card will ALWAYS be playable during the buy phase under your rule. This makes impossible to design a terminal Action/Supplier card that forces you to use an action to get the options. Your Ranch example would make for a decent $5 Action/Supplier card if you added "+3 Cards" as an on-play effect. But when it has to be playable during the Buy phase (nonterminally), it becomes hella busted.
On the flip side, being a Supplier or a Treasure/Supplier has no intrinsic difference. As such, all type combos you mentioned can be achieved by adding "Treasure" to the typeset in my version. And if you really don't want them to be Treasures, you can also make them Action/Suppliers and make them non-terminal.
Lastly, the Reaction/Supplier is actually possible if you are bold. You can use the "Reaction" part to enable the card being put into play when a specific condition is met. This adds some additional wacky design space, although it should be used with great care.
Do what you think is best I guess. We are only giving feedback. You are narrowing down design space quite significantly as Supply cards are always inherently playable through the Buy phase.
How? Every potential card design available under your suggested rule (Action-Supplier; Treasure-Supplier; Night-Duration-Supplier) is also available under my rule, but mine has additional potential designs available (e.g. plain Suppliers; Supplier-Duration; Supplier-Reaction; Supplier-Victory). Your suggestion limits the design space.
The thing is, no matter what type you add, the card will ALWAYS be playable during the buy phase under your rule. This makes impossible to design a terminal Action/Supplier card that forces you to use an action to get the options. Your Ranch example would make for a decent $5 Action/Supplier card if you added "+3 Cards" as an on-play effect. But when it has to be playable during the Buy phase (nonterminally), it becomes hella busted.
On the flip side, being a Supplier or a Treasure/Supplier has no intrinsic difference. As such, all type combos you mentioned can be achieved by adding "Treasure" to the typeset in my version. And if you really don't want them to be Treasures, you can also make them Action/Suppliers and make them non-terminal.
Lastly, the Reaction/Supplier is actually possible if you are bold. You can use the "Reaction" part to enable the card being put into play when a specific condition is met. This adds some additional wacky design space, although it should be used with great care.
139
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Money Bags
« on: June 07, 2021, 12:45:49 pm »Is "give" the same as "play"?
So for example, if you were to allow Kingdom treasures to be used for Money Bags, would Spices theoretically only provide +$2 or would it also provide +1 Buy? Would Counterfeit only give +$1 without triggering the on-play ability? Likewise, I think Bank and Fortune wouldn't do anything unless you actually have Treasures in play due to Storyteller or Black Market.
I agree with grrgrrgrr's suggestion to allow Kingdom Treasures, as long as you can clearly define what occurs in some exceptional cases. For example, I'm not sure if Fool's Gold would be worth anything for Money Bags since you technically wouldn't even put one in play.
No. When you put it below, you ignore the text of the Treasure itself and pay attention to the top part of the card. So Spices and Relic just act like silvers here.
I like this mechanic a lot, but I'd still appreciate it if it also works with Kingdom treasures. You see, Treasures always have a vanilla part that is displayed at the top of the card. Why not use that to determine how much it contributes to the money bag?It is deliberately specified that only the basic treasures may be used to fill a money bag. This is a restriction and a main idea so that the bonus purchased through it is not too easy to achieve. I.e. you are never allowed to use your money account or other treasures. On the other hand, you don't need a buy to use the bonus through a money bag either.
Obviously, there are a few where the value is a "?", so you still need to come with a convention for those. In worst case, you could still short circuit those specific Treasures.
The chance of a moneybag card being in the same Kingdom as a Kingdom treasure is already low. Plus, forgoing the non-vanilla part is pretty suboptimal in most cases. So I don't see the added value of ditching kingdom treasures altogether.
140
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Money Bags
« on: June 07, 2021, 06:13:07 am »
I like this mechanic a lot, but I'd still appreciate it if it also works with Kingdom treasures. You see, Treasures always have a vanilla part that is displayed at the top of the card. Why not use that to determine how much it contributes to the money bag?
Obviously, there are a few where the value is a "?", so you still need to come with a convention for those. In worst case, you could still short circuit those specific Treasures.
Obviously, there are a few where the value is a "?", so you still need to come with a convention for those. In worst case, you could still short circuit those specific Treasures.
141
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 12: High on your own Supplier
« on: June 07, 2021, 02:37:05 am »I agree with the suggestion of making these dual-type cards, unless there is a compelling reason to have an entirely separate card type. It could allow for some cool (or unintended) interactions with Storyteller, Black Market, Crown, etc.
I think this mechanic is interesting, but I echo this sentiment as well. In fact, I would go for the following approach.
- The Supplier is a subtype of any type of card that can be in play during the Buy phase. The Supplier type has no say in when the card is playable. (so a Night/Duration/Supplier card would be possible if you are bold)
- The purchasing options are available during your buy phase if and only if the card is in play. (so for a Night/Duration/Supplier card, the options are available next turn)
This is another way that Suppliers could be implemented, but I don't see a really good reason for it. I don't understand the problem with a new type of card that is played in a fairly straightforward way. (I put all of the complex rules interactions in the description because the nature of this contest is that those end up being implicated, but the vast majority of the time the cards will simply be played during a player's Buy phase). If the "can-play-it-after-a-buy" element is that confusing/challenging, I would rather drop that then really significantly rework the cards as this suggests.
The thing is, Dominion has four primary types: Action Cards, Treasures, Victory Cards and Curses (the latter of which is only used by one card). Virtually all already existing cards are designed around this principle. Violating this by introducing a new primary type should not be done without a very good reason. You are introducing a type of cards that can be played at the same moments as Treasure Cards: during the Buy phase. The only differentiator is that Supplier cards can be played after buying. Which is totally redundant here!
Quote
By requiring them to be dual-type, you are needlessly complicating and adding potentially unwanted interactions to the simplest of these cards (i.e. the ones that just offer something for sale). All of those interactions are still possible where Supplier is its own type (by making it a dual-type card) without forcing the complexity on the cards that don't need it.
You got it backwards. These "complicating" interactions are part of Dominion! And by making a card having a new primary type also creates new complications. The card is not playable through Gamble. You can't Throne it, not even with Crown (and no, that is not preferable). Ironworks/Groom don't come with anything. And if you don't want your examples to be Treasures, make them Actions!
Speaking of unwanted interactions, the Night Card/Haunted Woods interaction is far worse than anything you mentioned here, yet it has been greenlighted.
Quote
I'm not really understanding what is so challenging about the mechanic as I laid it out. If it's really the color's similarity to Treasure, I'll find a different color. That being said, if you want to submit a card with a modified version of the rules, you can feel free to do so, and I'll judge them in that context (but your submission post needs to expressly state this; otherwise, I will presume you are using my rules as set out in the original post).Do what you think is best I guess. We are only giving feedback. You are narrowing down design space quite significantly as Supply cards are always inherently playable through the Buy phase.
142
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 12: High on your own Supplier
« on: June 05, 2021, 01:49:48 pm »
Anyway, here is my submission.
143
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 12: High on your own Supplier
« on: June 05, 2021, 09:27:58 am »I agree with the suggestion of making these dual-type cards, unless there is a compelling reason to have an entirely separate card type. It could allow for some cool (or unintended) interactions with Storyteller, Black Market, Crown, etc.
I think this mechanic is interesting, but I echo this sentiment as well. In fact, I would go for the following approach.
- The Supplier is a subtype of any type of card that can be in play during the Buy phase. The Supplier type has no say in when the card is playable. (so a Night/Duration/Supplier card would be possible if you are bold)
- The purchasing options are available during your buy phase if and only if the card is in play. (so for a Night/Duration/Supplier card, the options are available next turn)
144
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Mechanics Week #11: Acting Sideways
« on: June 03, 2021, 03:42:45 pm »My idea is that its like chapel: Its really strong and drastically changes the games it is in.Late entry
fika monsters motto: when in doubt, put Throne Room on it!
This is great for the opening. You get to thin and you're guaranteed to be able to hit $5 before the first shuffle. I would think that playing this on Coppers early in the game would be the optimal thing to do, rather than on your Actions (unless it's something like Doctor).
Looks fun, but it's probably quite game-warping.
Rules question - if you play this on a Horse, you play it twice and the Horse gets returned to its pile; but do you then still Exile it? Procession doesn't trash Horses, so I'm assuming the same would happen here, but I wasn't sure.
Chapel isn't nearly as automatic though. Enhance doesn't work on Victory Cards because othewise, this would be super automatic in a 4/3 opening. To be fair, this also works in a 5/2 opening, so it isn't as unfair.
(I'd honestly make it only work with Actions, as the interactions with Silver and Gold aren't very likeable either)
145
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Mechanics Week #11: Acting Sideways
« on: May 31, 2021, 12:44:51 pm »
Not quite sold on the concept of dual-type acts. There is a reason why Raid and Summon aren't dual type events. Anyway, my submission:
146
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #113: Power Up!
« on: April 30, 2021, 07:21:53 am »is laser token a global token? ie, like the journey token but it is up or down for everyone?QuoteLaser Army ($5, Action - Attack)
+3 Cards
If the Laser token is face down, you may reveal a Gold from your hand to turn it face up.
If the Laser token is face up, each other player gains a Curse.
(it starts face down)
It is global indeed
147
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #113: Power Up!
« on: April 30, 2021, 06:57:42 am »
Quote
Laser Army ($5, Action - Attack)
+3 Cards
If the Laser token is face down, you may reveal a Gold from your hand to turn it face up.
If the Laser token is face up, each other player gains a Curse.
(it starts face down)
EDIT: The laser token is global.
148
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Set Expansion Contest
« on: January 31, 2021, 01:56:38 pm »
Personally, I'd discontinue this series and start a brand new series (in a different topic) in its stead. Not sure what, though.
149
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Set Expansion Contest
« on: January 24, 2021, 12:24:29 am »Suggested wording along the lines of Command cards:
Play the set aside acard, leaving it there. +1 Action per Action it gives.
This would make the card absolutely ludicrous with Encampment, and vanilla with Page, Ratcatcher and Pixie. On top of that, the card's effect is the same for every player throughout the entire game (unlike Inheritance and the Command cards), so there won't be any confusions.
Wacky idea incoming! Posted and tweaked via the help of some Dominion Discord users. If Giants, Golems, Werewolves and Witches can exist within Dominion’s, then so can...
There are 3 copies of each 4 Dragons, for 12 cards total (no matter the player count). Like Knights, they are shuffled, and all 4 Dragons share that one junking/discarding Attack. Speaking of which, there are no Attacking Promo cards, so this fills that niche!
Just to be clear on the matter, Blue Dragon sets itself aside forever with no returning mechanic when used for its Reaction, just like Prince.
Cool idea! Maybe adding a Yellow Dragon to the mix that is an Action-Treasure (or Black Dragon, as Night cards are allowed). And I'd rework the Blue Dragon cause this is just straight up confusing.
