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 - Something_Smart

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
101
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 27, 2019, 12:47:59 pm »
For example, if you have Talisman in play and buy a Master, do you also gain another Master, from any other pile you choose?
I would assume so; when you're told to gain something that you could gain from multiple piles, such as Tragic Hero's "gain a Treasure," you can pick any pile that has a Treasure on top and gain that Treasure. I wouldn't call gaining a specific card fundamentally different from that; when told to gain a Master, you pick a pile that has a Master on top and gain that Master.

102
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 27, 2019, 12:01:08 pm »
Master - Action-Command - $2
Play a non-Command Action underneath a Master from the supply, leaving it there.
Setup: Place one Master on top of each Kingdom supply pile.
Sucks to get a 5/2 opening!

103
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 22, 2019, 04:13:18 pm »
It's no more inelegant than saying Captain and Procession can't play Duration cards :P

104
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 22, 2019, 02:15:12 pm »
Give me Magpie as Initiate, please. ;D

105
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 22, 2019, 09:42:15 am »
Well yeah, we were discussing whether that restriction is a good idea.

I think it is. There are plenty of actions that are fun to play every turn in a way that doesn't make your opponent's life miserable.

106
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 21, 2019, 11:16:09 pm »
I mean the issue is if one person has Goons and is playing it with Sleepwalker every turn and the other person can't get to $6 to even get a Goons in the first place.

But honestly I think there are attacks that are more degenerate than Goons to be playing every turn, such as Mountebank or the Knights. While I don't think those games would necessarily be unbalanced they would probably not be very fun.

107
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 21, 2019, 09:00:17 pm »
Yeah, you're probably right. It can be spammable in a lot of cases but the non-attack cases seem like they'd be a lot more fun than the attack cases.

108
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 21, 2019, 07:42:46 pm »
That was the intention, yes. There are probably some Dream cards that make this abusable but I don't expect it to get that bad. Even in the Goons case, you're gonna run out of Sleepwalkers to buy before too long, and you're gonna be drawing them dead, and spamming Sleepwalkers is probably beatable by one method or another.

If you think there are some actions that are a bit nuts for this (KC comes to mind, though I'm fairly sure a dream-KC game would be super fun), I could put a cost and/or non-attack restriction on it. I definitely want to allow $5's but maybe I could ban $6's and higher.

It also just occurred to me how funny it would be to have Sleepwalkers and Golems constantly finding each other. I don't think that's a bad thing, though.

109
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 21, 2019, 01:10:32 pm »
Sleepwalker
$2
Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Dream card. Discard the other revealed cards, then play the Dream card.
--
Setup: Choose 3 random non-Attack Action Supply piles other than Sleepwalker. Action cards from those piles are Dream cards.

110
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 19, 2019, 01:21:10 pm »
I totally disagree. If you take a quick look at the other cards in this very contest, you realize that none of them are strictly better than Curses in order to make the decision non-trivial.
Which decision? The decision to include them at the start of the game? Most heirlooms are strictly better than Copper, but that doesn't mean anything because you don't ever choose heirloom or Copper during the game.

I can see why it might not be preferable, but I personally don't think anything's wrong with it. I guess we'll have to see what NMF thinks.
Quote
Also, your card in and of itself, i.e. without he negative VPs, is pretty decent. It is probably a $3 and in many engines likely preferrable to Woodcutter. So we don't talk about some moderate form of improved Curses like Ruins (in which case your notion of a straightforward Curse substitute would have more merit) but a decent Action card.
I think its value can vary significantly, to the point where you might want to buy one if it's the only +Buy. It's definitely stronger when there are cheap cantrips like Hamlet, but it makes it really hard to buy expensive cards without self-junking, so I probably wouldn't price it at $3 without the -1 VP. Maybe $2. But regardless cursers still have bite because you almost never want to play more than one of these in a turn.

(In all honesty I wish this challenge had been "design a new junk card" rather than "design a card with the curse type," but you work with what you have.)

111
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 19, 2019, 10:11:15 am »
I like this, the Copper self-junking is neat.
But I'd definitely give this -2VPs, otherwise it is (barring edge cases of "forced players" like Herald, Golem and Ghost) strictly better than Curse (you can always choose to not play Haunted Shop). I'd also cut the if you can, it seems unlikely that the Copper pile empties (and even if it would, the general rule is always to do as much as possible).
I don't think there's anything wrong with it being strictly better than Curse, given that it replaces the regular Curses. I think if it were -2VP, then Cursers would be way stronger than they already are (and the action of Haunted Shop doesn't help in most cases), and if it were -2VP and placed alongside the Curses, people would never take these unless they had good trashing to get rid of them and if they do have good trashing then which Curse they take doesn't matter much. The way it is takes some of the edge off of Cursers, but playing these can come back to bite you even harder.

"If you can" covers other edge cases like Contraband and Mission but you're probably right that it's implied well enough.

112
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 18, 2019, 02:08:07 pm »
I don't think Rotten Egg Basket should be a reaction. Duchess isn't a reaction.

113
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 18, 2019, 01:14:13 pm »


Quote
Haunted Shop
$0
Action - Duration - Curse
+1 Action. Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Buy and +$1.
--
While this is in play, you must use all of your Buys during your Buy phase. -1 VP.

(When playing with this, replace the Supply Curses with an equal number of Haunted Shops.)

114
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 15, 2019, 09:12:49 pm »

Yikes, this is really close to an idea I wrote down but didn't make an image for yet.

To be honest though I wasn't a huge fan of it so I don't feel bad about doing something different :P

115
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 13, 2019, 12:22:32 pm »
Okay, uh, third place goes to Farm Cellar by NoMoreFun. If they also don't want to judge, I guess we can just allow anyone who wants to to volunteer?

116
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 13, 2019, 12:17:13 pm »
Yikes.

I guess I should pick someone for third place?

117
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 12, 2019, 10:01:40 am »
I mean, you'd probably name the cards you don't want more than action/treasure - you name "Ruins", or "Curse" or "Victory", you get to sift past the cards you don't want in your hand anyways and draw the rest.
Yeah that's true, I should have written about that possibility too... didn't want to be working on that post all night, you know.

I think the attack is probably strong enough that it's worth naming something that's likely to hit. Imagine naming Victory, hitting one Victory card, and making your opponent gain a Copper... and compare that to Witch. I guess if your intent was to use it as a Smithy that sometimes attacks, it does that pretty well, but the unreliability might get annoying (especially for the opponent). I do like it more today than I did yesterday, after thinking about it, though.

118
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 11, 2019, 08:38:18 pm »
Belfry by Fragasnap
This is pretty cool, but I feel like the cases where it will draw anything other than a Treasure are very unlikely-- it may trash itself to draw necessary actions in the endgame, or it may trash Ruins, but beyond those, trashing Estates will probably net you nothing and trashing Coppers may net you some coin, kinda like a non-terminal Moneylender. It seems the primary strength is just the ability to non-terminally trash cards. I would play it if there weren't a better trasher on the board, but I probably wouldn't count on it for anything other than trashing. I don't think the cost is that off but it maybe should be priced at $4 to prevent people from opening double Belfry.

Dismiss by Aquila
This feels very abusable if you can find some way to get Golds in your deck without getting Silvers. If the only treasures in your deck are Coppers and Golds, assuming you have a Copper in hand when you play this, it's a double Peddler which is insane priced at $4, Villagers notwithstanding. Less troubling is the strategy where you buy nothing but Dismiss and some other terminal you'd like to play every turn (Mountebank, Wharf, Pirate Ship, etc.) and every hand with two Dismisses nets you a copy of your other terminal. It's a neat idea in the vein of Hunting Party, but as a trade-off for not increasing handsize you get massive control over what it finds. I think this ought to cost $5, at least.

Young Envoy by majiponi
This pretty much seems like a Smithy variant that wants an engine rather than big money. Seems pretty good in an engine, too, especially one with a bunch of non-terminals that it can draw, or one with powerful terminals that you only want one or two of, since you're very unlikely to miss those. Definitely pretty strong for a $4.

Cavern by mail-mi
Probably plays out very similarly to Envoy, if you assume the fifth card you would have drawn is a Silver which probably provides about as much coin as the discarded card. I do like that the opponent has to think a little harder than they do with Envoy, but I don't think this plays out that differently for the player. This might just be strongest in Big Money where it's just +4 Cards -$1 (assuming you reveal a Copper or Silver which both give you -$1 if discarded), better than Smithy if your money density's over $1/card but this is a $5 so that's justified. Not a card I'd fall in love with, probably not even one I'd usually play, but that's just my style. If played in an engine, it probably works best with $4 engine parts which provide the same coin as $5's when discarded but are way easier to get.

Herdsman by mandioca15
An anti-Hunting Party. Cute. Seems like it kinda snowballs in engines where the more of your deck you draw the more this will draw you, which is neat I guess as it probably requires another terminal draw (or a Lab, I suppose) to get off the ground. It's a lot more inconsistent, though. If I could stick with a conventional +Actions/+Cards engine with this on the board, I probably would. This does seem good in games where you're flooding yourself with a certain Treasure, though (Bureaucrat/Jack/Amulet/Trader/Lucky Coin, for instance).

Racketeer by spineflu
It feels unsatisfying to get all the cards that aren't of the type you're focusing on. That's my first instinct. If you play this in an engine, you're probably naming Action, making it probably dead (to you) or maybe drawing you a Treasure or two if you're lucky. If you play it in Big Money, you name Treasure, and again it's completely dead to you. While the attack is very strong, I understand why there are very few official attacks that give no benefit at all to the person who played them. Even if I did well with this card, I wouldn't feel I was doing well-- I would just feel my opponent was doing badly. You can use it as a Smithy, of course, but then it's just an expensive Smithy.

Florist by Frolouch
I think you've underestimated how good VP chips are, especially from a non-terminal card. Monument is terminal and gives you a single VP chip; this is non-terminal and in a deck built around it can easily give you 3 or 4. I can just imagine a nightmare scenario of a deck-drawing engine that uses something like Vault to discard all its Victory cards and then draws them all back with Florist, multiple times per turn, for 10+ VP's per turn while not changing the game state at all. This should cost at least $5, probably $6, so it's harder to spam them, but I don't see that alleviating the above problem, only making it slower to set up.

Farm Cellar by NoMoreFun
I like this, though I'm having a hard time to determine if it's appropriately priced. I feel like it must be, because a cantrip Cellar that's also sometimes a Lab has to be at least $5. This seems fantastic in slog-like games such as Curser-heavy ones, especially without trashing. However I feel like the price would probably prevent me from taking it in any other type of game, just because there are other $5's that would probably benefit my engine or Big Money more. It's also a cute counter to Fortune Teller and Rabble (and Bureaucrat and Ghost Ship, sort of).

Convulsion of Nature by pubby
This is definitely something I would pick up with a spare $2 without a better $2 buy, but I can't say it would make much of a difference in most games. Oracle/Wishing Well combos are obvious and extremely powerful, Vassal/Doctor/Pawn/the like might benefit somewhat, but most cards that draw, I'll be playing anyway whether or not I know what's on top of my deck. Jester/Swindler/Knights and other top-deck-targeting attacks would actually make this negative utility. Overall kinda funny, but probably not interactive enough for my liking.

Drift by DEGwer
This is just asking for people to make golden decks. Pretty much any board with a trasher and a +Buy can be used to make a 5-card deck that generates $12 with 2 buys, and buys a Province and a Drift, rinse and repeat. Beyond that, I guess it allows you to green earlier, which is cool but not that game-changing as you also have to spend some turns buying Drift. It neuters Cursers, to the point where I probably wouldn't play all but the strongest Cursers (Mountebank for instance would still be appetizing, but most probably wouldn't be worth allowing my opponent to nab 2VP for just $4).

Impressment by grep
This looks a lot like Elder... :o except instead of being terminal draw when it misses, it's a Workshop. This seems like the type of card that loves absolute cantrip spamming; it can gain more copies of itself, so eventually you can just flood your deck with them and with other cantrips, crossing your fingers for those moments when your Impressment reveals two actions and becomes a Lost City. This is cool, except that I don't really see another viable way to play this card, other than an expensive Workshop replacement in a makeshift Workshop/Gardens rush. Noting too that a Workshop (0 actions revealed) is better than a cantrip (1 action revealed), this seems like the only way to use its full strength is to spam your deck with actions and hope you get lucky.

Sawmill by [TP] Inferno
This is cool. Once again I'm drawn to the Gardens strat where you gain a Gardens unless you reveal a Victory card in which case you gain another Sawmill. But it works in an engine too... kinda. Your engine's not gonna love all that Silver. I feel like the best use of this is probably in an extremely strong engine where you can already draw most or all of your deck without too much trouble. With enough non-action cards in your deck, this can probably hit a decent balance of gaining you engine parts versus gaining you Silvers when you do hit an action. This seems like the type of card I'd buy and then regret, and then wonder how I could set things up to make it work. A lot of depth there, for sure.

Servants' Quarters by TheAgileBeast
Can I play this with pubby's Convulsion of Nature, hehe. Free points for people with more homogeneous decks? Encourages Big Money or a mono-engine like Lab, I guess. Makes all deck inspectors stronger (Sentry, Cartographer, Courtyard, Apothecary, even Scout). Beyond that, makes a very tight endgame kinda funny (if I buy this last Province I'll lose, unless I 360 noscope the top card of my deck...) but probably not satisfying for either player.

Mad Scientist by artless
Feels abusable, but I don't think it is. Just really swingy. Probably only good if you can get rid of starting Coppers (Estates are less likely to be a concern). Ideally, I'd want to use this in an engine where both parts are the same cost, because I'd much rather get a village and a terminal draw from this than two villages or two terminal draws. In most other scenarios, I don't think I'd ever pay $5 for it, honestly.

Ship Launch by segura
Funnily enough, I was reading about Renaissance today, and discovered that DXV tried this idea:
Quote
Start of turn, reveal top, +1 Card if Treasure. Some people liked this one. A runner-up.
I feel pretty similarly to that about it. I think it pushes you more toward a boring money strategy, but not that far, and otherwise it just will randomly give you extra cards. It's very unlikely that you could control this as you'd have to get a Treasure exactly 6 cards down at the end of your turn, but that's true of Piazza too, I think Piazza's just more interesting because the bonus is something you control by picking what actions are in your deck, rather than just plus some money.

Three-Cards Monte by Abel_K
A whimsical looter that junks at a very leisurely pace. If you can nix your Coppers (and maybe Estates) and make it so this thing only hits duplicates when it's a duplicate of an action you actually want, this seems very strong. The looting attack is certainly strong enough (compare with Cultist, which is better when you can chain it but way worse when you can't), and I think getting the Lab effect to not get stuck on Coppers would make this a very powerful, albeit unreliable, engine card.

Surveyor by scolapasta
This needs a clause for what to do with the other revealed cards, since I think DXV has intentionally avoided making people remember the order cards were in when revealed off your deck. Other than that, it pretty much just seems like a +1VP (or 2 if you're lucky) with some cycling that's mitigated by missing some shuffles. It's not clear what happens if you reveal multiple Victory cards, but I think you would get 1VP for each, because although Surveyor is discarded after you get the first VP, the other triggers were on the stack and still get resolved because the Victory card was revealed while it was still in play? Needs some rewording, I think. Other than that, feels pretty hard to control. Likely a good supplement to any sort of alt-VP strategy, otherwise probably too slow.

Clairvoyant by anordinaryman
Ooh, push your luck. Seems really good for a $3, given that it sifts if it fails to hit. I would probably always go for 4 cards, especially in an engine where if I miss I can put the card I really want to draw next to help keep my engine going even if I don't get the ridiculously strong +4 Cards effect. I think this needs to be at least $4, probably $5 (maybe with the failure condition buffed a bit, like discard any number and put the rest back in any order).

Preacher by FlyerBeast
This doesn't feel all that different from Chapel, honestly. The +$1 is very unlikely to help; the +1 Card will help, but you'll probably be trashing all your starting cards without much trouble anyway, and it's mitigated by the risk of revealing your other opening buy off your deck. Lategame this is a terminal Copper that may trash a card or two (revealing a Copper is risky lategame), not all that great, but better than the mostly dead Chapel at least. Is this worth $4? Probably, but I don't see games with it playing out that differently from Chapel games.


Winner: Sawmill by [TP] Inferno
Runner-up: Three-Cards Monte by Abel_K

119
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 11, 2019, 03:35:38 pm »
Judging in a few hours!

120
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 05, 2019, 01:52:08 pm »
I won't disqualify cards that use "reveal" when they could use "look at," though I may take it into account.

Also, Cavern isn't strictly better than Hunting Grounds because Hunting Grounds has the on-trash ability.

121
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 05, 2019, 07:51:51 am »
I might phrase that "put one copy of each differently-named card into your hand."

122
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 04, 2019, 04:58:59 pm »
Awesome! Thanks for the feedback :)

Contest #50: Design a card (or card-shaped thing) that causes you to reveal one or more cards from the top of your deck.

123
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 27, 2019, 09:23:51 pm »
Thank you, I totally agree and I appreciate your perspective. I actually think it'd be interesting to make the on-play lower hand size -- less synergy could be interesting. I'm thinking one of these variants:
1. Gain a silver to your hand, put a card onto your deck.
2. Put a card onto your deck, gain a silver to your hand.
3. Gain a silver to your hand, discard a card.
4. Discard a treasure card, gain a silver to your hand.
5. +1$ gain a silver to hand, discard 2 cards. (kind of horse traders)
Costing it 4 for all of these.
I'm leaning towards 1 right now.

Any thoughts?
I think 1's good if it costs $4 because then it still slows you down, either this turn or next turn. 4 is also not bad (nor is 2, but I don't think you lose much by allowing them to topdeck the silver if they want).

124
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 27, 2019, 01:05:55 pm »
Mine is one of the weakest cards in the game so I wouldn't use it as a point of comparison myself.
And even then Mine has an advantage over Gild as it gains to hand.

125
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 27, 2019, 12:59:38 pm »
Hm, would you say the same about bureaucrat? Perhaps I should bump the price up to $4?
Bureaucrat gaining onto deck is weaker because it displaces another card in your next hand; gaining to hand doesn't displace anything.

I think as it is it's somewhere between $4 and $5; the reaction essentially serves as a discard for money like Secret Chamber, but it can also be used to avoid curses and such (and it makes gainers like Workshop a LOT more powerful). The reaction is definitely the more interesting part and it'd be cool to see that more accessible so maybe nerf the silver gaining somehow and make it $4.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 18 queries.