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.

26

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 25, 2020, 08:32:45 pm »

Scrap this. New entry coming. This is not the time for mediocre!
These cards are no longer my entry. Instead look for Balance and its offshoots Discord and Order.


            

I am hoping its a bit of an effort to get past Entrepreneur. But with deck thinning or just multiple Entrepreneurs (slogging through that debt) you can have a life of idle pleasure. Only momentarily though when you have to sober up and start toiling again.
Eventually the sobrieties will run out and you will have learnt to have fun without the hangover. The theme is a little shaky but its there if you squint.

(I just realised I will need to make changes. It might be that you only "may" exchange an Entrepreneur so that players can choose not to).

27

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 24, 2020, 10:51:17 pm »

Would I be right in thinking this is also the sort of thing Hermit and Madman or Urchin and Mercenary get up to?

28

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 24, 2020, 03:51:50 pm »

Thanks for the positive comments for my card in a week of really cool ideas.

29

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 20, 2020, 10:30:19 am »

@ [TP] Inferno  I amended my post to enable you to click when ready.

I am not sure I have entirely worded it right either. I want it to happen that if Golden Egg is the top card of its supply pile then each other player gains a gold to the top of their deck at the start of your turn. So the under the line effect triggers at the start of each players turn from the supply. Is that even possible?

The hope is that its like a wonderful present for everyone... unless someone buys them up (which would be the equivalent of killing the goose that laid the golden egg).

wouldn't it be better if it is at the end of the turn, so you have some incentive to "kill the goose"?

Because its a split card with Thief (sorry to those who were still guessing) I want it to happen at the start of the turn. This means it makes Thief a little better (which I feel it needs to be) because it puts gold on top of your opponents decks for you to steal that turn. If successful, in a 2 player game at least, for the player with Thieves, your opponents wont ever actually see that gold.
To be fair though Golden Egg might not make Thief entirely better - if you are using it to deny your opponent treasures - as there are going to be extra golds you don't always catch especially in a multiplayer game. But Thief becomes ineffective in games where there simply isnt any big money to steal, because opponents can get their money from actions instead of treasures for example. That at least is fixed by Golden Egg.
I guess the twist I am hoping for is that the players who buy Thief will want to uncover the Golden Egg but not necessarily buy it. The people without Theives might want to though. But whoever buys the last Egg will also be missing out on their own free gold after having just given one away to their opponents.

30

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 19, 2020, 11:21:40 pm »

It's an Action, not a Treasure.

I appreciate that and maybe that is enough of a drawback but given it completely ignores that drawback when discarded I don't think so.

31

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 19, 2020, 08:54:04 pm »

Goods (Action, $5)
[...]
Obviously this plays well with any discarder, with Warehouse being a great example.

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

I agree. I think you could make it a 7 cost Treasure and drop the buy and it would be balanced. The +buy makes it more interesting though.

32

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 19, 2020, 09:08:22 am »

Do people prefer this wording or the one below?

Have a guess as to what the other top half of my split is?




Click this link to know the answer...
https://tinyurl.com/uthqnp8

33

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 18, 2020, 06:48:17 am »

@ [TP] Inferno  I amended my post to enable you to click when ready.

I am not sure I have entirely worded it right either. I want it to happen that if Golden Egg is the top card of its supply pile then each other player gains a gold to the top of their deck at the start of your turn. So the under the line effect triggers at the start of each players turn from the supply. Is that even possible?

The hope is that its like a wonderful present for everyone... unless someone buys them up (which would be the equivalent of killing the goose that laid the golden egg).

34

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 18, 2020, 05:24:27 am »

Have a guess as to what the other top half of my split is?




Click this link to know the answer...
https://tinyurl.com/uthqnp8

35

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 16, 2020, 09:25:09 pm »

I haven't been overly impressed with my own entry this time around but if I do rank then I'll fix up that pesky capital T where it shouldn't be. Otherwise just to be clear I'm going with the second pet mouse of my last entry.

36

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 10, 2020, 06:37:02 am »

Woohoo Runner up again. Its better than winning because I don't have the pressure of judging. 

Here's my idea for this challenge but anyone have thoughts on the wording? I want it to be that if you end the turn with it in your hand (prior to clean up) you will gain a second one and this may lead to you choking on the little blighters if you can't find sifters at least. If however you can distract them from breeding, with a nice big cheesey 5 or more cost card, you could get that province.
It's like an Expand for $2 except its absolutely not.
So it gets you a province on turn 3, if you are completely insane enough to do that off a 5-2 split.




Edit: I'm actually already thinking of changing the above. The way its worded has a bunch of rules problems (can you do it if you have no 5+ cost card in hand? Can you choose not to find the card if its in hand?)
My new thoughts are probably the following, which is both weaker and stronger. You'll always gain a Pet Mouse if you play one.

37

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 07, 2020, 07:53:27 pm »

Just a heads up. I have to judge this weeks contest a little earlier than normal, so expect that to happen sometime Sunday (3/8/20) around 18:00 boardtime (EST). Which I guess is about 24 hours from now. So 24 hour warning everybody! Sorry for any inconvenience.

No worries. I'm happy with my card (Sycophant). I'm also aware that while handy at the start of the game it's second effect wont even work once the Sycophant pile empties because more can't be gained (except, I guess, from the trash if possible). I like that. Makes it a stepping stone card that you don't actually want to keep and one which you have to seriously consider if you want to trigger the second ability more than once per game.
And I find it funny when I accidentally wreck my own decks which this card could feasibly do.

38

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 04, 2020, 07:03:25 am »

Sycophants.
They provide a cheap way to gain gold. You have to buy one, play it and then gain another Sycophant that turn, but doing so gives you the chance to also pick up a gold at effectively half price or with the use of a workshop. The problem is that it comes with a Sycophant. One Sycophant is a handy enabler but several are a nuisance. Because the second ability still applies you may want to play two Sycophants in a  turn in order to gain two golds when you buy a Sycophant, but you'll still have to add more Sycophants to your deck.
That might be gibberish. I've had a long day.
I've priced this to be on par with other 3 cards like Market Square but also Tunnel that can gain golds but its different enough that I am not sure 3 is right.

39

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: March 03, 2020, 06:28:40 am »

Creditors (Action - Duration)

At the start of your Buy phase, reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any revealed Treasures to your hand and discard the rest. If you did not reveal any Treasures, discard this (Otherwise, this stays in play).

If this isn’t a card that wants a deck full of money, I don’t know what is! The idea here is really interesting. I wonder why this activates at the beginning of your Buy phase and not at the start of your turn. Maybe so you can get your deck ready in time for you Buy phase so you draw your Treasures? There are cards, like Scavenger, that can do that well. Anyway, Adventurer does the same thing and guarantees 2 Treasures. Except that this can stay longer, and does not require an Action after the first time you play it. But it can fail. And both have the same price. Seems balanced.

Yay! Runner Up is awesome for me. Thrilled. Tah.
I mainly chose it to activate at the start of your buy phase so that it would activate the turn it was played which I thought was essential given that it would get discarded sometimes. But I also liked how having it activate then made it possible to use your action phase to set up your deck so it wouldn't crash.

This weeks challenge is another interesting one and the brains already ticking.

40

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: February 26, 2020, 05:43:32 am »

It's an alternative to Gold that makes you want a deck full of golds. Ha!  The intention by the way is that if you have no deck to draw (or discard pile to shuffle into your deck of course) then the card will also be discarded. So you really want a fat deck of treasures. If you have that this is a potential +2 cards every turn including the turn you play it. If you're broke.... no more credit for you.



This is a fun challenge.

41

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: February 21, 2020, 06:04:11 pm »

It's "+3 Coffers, you cannot buy cards this turn" most of the time. This might be great for megaturns, comparable to Tactician, but only having another source of +Buys. This card itself could be an enabler if it had "+2 Buys" on buy.

I'm also aware that buying gongfermors lets you empty potentially three piles in a turn. If you have six you can buy a gongfermor, trash a duchy and buy a crossroads for example. That's why I had to make it cost 4 so that its not viable to buy multiple gongfermors a turn. For this reason I'm reluctant to make it +2 buys.

I'd rather see this really shine in kingdoms where you might have other trashers especially knights (you can gongfermor for the knights who die in batttles) or when there's a strategic value to parking cards from the supply before your opponents buy them (like City). And occasionally it can be used to bring on the three pile ending too.

Rather than fully relying on Gongfermors to put cards from the supply into the trash, what if it started with some kinda basic cards _in_ the trash, like Necromancer does? Maybe like a Porcelain shop variant and a "+2 Actions. Trash a card from your hand." per player?

I actually thought about giving a set up rule that had players choose one or two 5 cost kingdom cards not in the supply and put a single copy of them into the trash. This would make a mini Black Market for the Gongfermor. But it felt like way too much decision making at the start of a game.

It could be possible to put a single card that gets retrashed like the following in the trash:
$6 Lost Ring - Treasure - +6, +1 Buy, When this would be discarded from play during clean up, put this into the trash instead.

But that would add to the original card text and moves me away from the focus of the competition I thought.

42

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: February 20, 2020, 05:35:35 pm »

It's "+3 Coffers, you cannot buy cards this turn" most of the time. This might be great for megaturns, comparable to Tactician, but only having another source of +Buys. This card itself could be an enabler if it had "+2 Buys" on buy.

I'm also aware that buying gongfermors lets you empty potentially three piles in a turn. If you have six you can buy a gongfermor, trash a duchy and buy a crossroads for example. That's why I had to make it cost 4 so that its not viable to buy multiple gongfermors a turn. For this reason I'm reluctant to make it +2 buys.

I'd rather see this really shine in kingdoms where you might have other trashers especially knights (you can gongfermor for the knights who die in batttles) or when there's a strategic value to parking cards from the supply before your opponents buy them (like City). And occasionally it can be used to bring on the three pile ending too.

43

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: February 19, 2020, 08:54:33 am »

New Idea.
The buy on this card is a little less crucial than I'd like, but having it there enables you to grab one of these in order to dump a province in the trash and then buy that province that turn. Or similar. Just in case the trash is empty of cards you want.

44

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: February 17, 2020, 07:45:17 am »

Edit: I'm a little bored by this as I look at it so I'm working on a new idea and will post later.



Getting in early again. The easiest to imagine use of this card is that you can pick up a copper with that extra buy and it will be at least a silver instead (not a great five card at that point) but it can (if supported by actual coin) also turn a purchase of two silvers into a gain of two golds meaning that you just picked up an effective +6 off this card.
The problem is that it doesn't generate any coin itself and if you need to buy a province it is useless. In this way its a bit like quarry but that card would be devestating with a + Buy attached. Minters Token however needs it to be any good.

I've tried to write it by the way so that its ability wont stack. You can't turn a buy of a copper into a gain of a gold with two of these in play. That's intentional. I hope I succeeded.

45

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Garrison - an attacking village

« on: February 14, 2020, 09:10:20 pm »

I think you’d rather have a village AND Militia than this. +1 Card looks weird on terminals, even if they are optional terminals.

I think I'd definitely rather have in my hand both a village and a militia than this but that would take two buys and a bit of luck in my draw.
Now a curious question is would I rather have a village and a militia than two of these (and I don't want to hijack this thread with my suggest).
And the real question is would I rather have one of these than a random one of a militia and a village.
I think this optional attack does allow people to overinvest in this card knowing they won't suck if they draw multiples.

46

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Garrison - an attacking village

« on: February 14, 2020, 07:02:55 pm »

How about making it a choice.
Garrison
Action - Attack
+1 card.
Choose one:
+2 Actions or Each other player discards down to 3 cards.

That would probably be worth $4.

47

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: February 13, 2020, 08:24:47 am »

Posting this in case I miss the deadline.




 Also Kudasai those Leader cards are fun. I want to choose Tactical which is perhaps why I'm actually seldom winning my games.

48

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: February 11, 2020, 05:09:55 pm »

Not seeing what the Swindler interaction is.

Obviously by Swindler I meant Ambassador. All the cool kids are using Swindler to mean Ambassador now. 

49

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: February 11, 2020, 04:30:31 pm »

You could just have it affect Kingdom cards and keep it at $3; that way you can't blockade Silvers, Curses, etc. Or have it only affect non-Treasure piles. That'd keep Silvers in play but allow curse-blockades.

It does feel thematic that it doesn't stop treasures by the way. Its always possible to smuggle coin past a blockade. That might be a useful tweak.

50

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: February 11, 2020, 04:27:13 pm »

At $5, its still buyable in the opening and a first-player $5 hand can still screw over everyone else. It also seems way overpriced at $5, but maybe that's just me.

Does it though? You start 5/2 and blockade a pile. Other player can will still buy something for 3 and 4, while you only get a 2.

The other alternative is if you start 2/5 and bought chapel, then blockaded it. But other players will still get a turn - while they might have to use their 4 for chapel instead of 3, they'd still be at an advantage after the first 2 turns.

Note: it may still be overpriced at 5, I just don't see it as a first two turns buy.

I'm going to agree with scolapasta here in that the cost makes it a poor first turn buy. You might stop someone else making a buy but because thats at best a 5 dollar buy you hurt yourself as much or more by buying blockade.

As far as blocking gains, you'll probably want errata about a blockaded supply pile should be treated as though the supply pile was empty - this keeps adventures tokens, inheritance, rats, etc working normally.

I don't want to do this because I don't want to have the game end from a pile being blockaded. I guess I want the pile to be as if empty for gaining and buying but not for ending the game.
Is that a reasonable implication or does it need more detail on the card?

I do want it to block gains though and affect cards like curses because I think that justifies the price. It would be well worth paying 5 in a number of scenarios to switch a blockade from one card to the next.

I also just thought of a different problem. Cards like swindler. And anything that returns things to the supply. In my head they returned their cards to beneath the face down top card. That isn't intuitive at all. 
Man, aiming for a simple new mechanic is hard.