We could report the post, so a moderator looks at it. I hope that isn't against the rules.Can a Child board like Mini-Set Design Contest be done? I think it solves both problems. I think this thread is popular enough to upgrade it
who do we talk to about that? theory?
Costing $3, because otherwise it would only be able to play Poor House and RuinsIs there any particular reason that Way of the Mouse isn't limited to non-Commands just in case you make anyWe talked about it at the time. I felt like, it would be great to not make any more Command cards, and if I somehow need to make another one, I can sure avoid having it cost $2 or $3. And then, the text doesn't fit on the card in the large font, and it's text I sure want to avoid where possible, it's a confusing thing.or
-cost Command cards in the future?
It does seem unlikely that any future Command cards would make sense at a cost of $2 or $3. They'd either be pretty useless or be way underpriced
The exact same text as Band of Misfits, but costing $2.
If the Moating player doesn't get to see revealed cards, then here is an accountability issue that could arise in a 2 player game:I was aware of the accountability issue, meaning this would go against the intent of the rules, and I never play this way (I let revealed cards be revealed for blocked attacks), but I was wondering if there was actually anything that specifically said that revealing isn't considered an effect of an attack.
A: Plays Ambassador
B: Reveals a Moat from their hand
A: Reveals a Patron from their hand and gets +1 Coffers (and chooses not to return the Patron to the supply)
If B doesn't get to see the revealed Patron card, then there is nothing to stop A from always conveniently finding that they have a Patron in their hand when their Ambassador is Moated.
The "unaffected" only goes so far. Attack cards have a part that clearly affects other players and other parts that don't. The clearest way to do this would have been to have a part of the card's text labeled as the attack, e.g. "Attack: each other player gains a Curse."Other than the revealed cards, do you have an example of a attack card with a non-attack player interaction?
Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game
Updated these two cards:
Maybe add a color to the season type, so you remember to swap them out, similar to the duration orange reminding you to keep it in play.
I made a new serie, a cyclic line with mandatory exchanging.
Feedbacks would be very welcome!
As in with black market, where the +1 Action with diadem helps you afford the cards in the black market.Another question regarding Villa: if I gain it during another player's turn, I get the + Action. When I my turn begins, do I still have the extra action?No. Actions, Coins and Buys get reset at the end of a turn, even an opponent's turn.
(There *are* scenarios where the +Action can matter, but they require Way of the Mouse, Diadem, an Action that can be played on an opponent's turn, and some ways to play Treasures off the Mouse Action.)
They could work as states/artifacts, even if it makes it less thematicCarline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric?
It's one of the Land Grant Landmarks. You can only get it with Land Grant, which means that it only applies to a single player.
Thanks! I scrolled past that so didn't notice it.
Carline, you may want to consider adding some kind of marking (or create a new card type) so that they don't get mixed with standard Landmarks.
tokens on all players' pirate ship mat
Pretty sure that this is still too good. You don't need to trash at all, all your Coppers are Peddlers. And Silvers become the card which shall not exist in an unconditional form.but only for one turn, not the entire game. Maybe as a
it will be hard enough to reach that the power level is okay.
Sorry, missed thatMaybe it should give +1 action, so you can actually play the set aside card
I think maybe Touch of Life could work as an Action. How much do you think it should cost?
It instructs you to play the card.
Maybe it should give +1 action, so you can actually play the set aside card
I think maybe Touch of Life could work as an Action. How much do you think it should cost?
All cards that gain Smogs don't need to specify "from the Smog pile" as of the 2019 Errata. For all cards that mention "the Supply," "Supply" should be capitalized.Or make the smog pile similar to the ruins pile in being in the supply.
What happens with Night cards?I have a few comments on your new cards.
Touch of Life
This seems to be too strong. For example, you can convert all your Coppers to Peddlers.
What about "Once per game"Quote from: CarlineIt was a Project, so it was once per game. When I converted to Event, I forgot to put the clause.
Just to be sure: I would probably put the "once per game" there, but even then I feel that it is still too strong, mainly because of the Coppers.
Changed it to include a discard. Now Coppers, instead of Peddlers, would be endgame Poachers.
I think this should be worth more than two, because with enough plays of it, you'll surpass a village (
Edit: Added Looter to the card type.QuoteArchaeologist
+1 Action
You may Exile a Ruins from your hand or the Supply. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you play an Action card, you may call this to play any number of differently named Ruins on your Exile mat, leaving them there.
At it's most basic level, this can be used to get rid of Ruins from your deck; however, it can also be used to turbo-charge an Action card that you play on your turn. I've priced it at $2 because it takes a bit of work and you are somewhat at the mercy of how the Ruins deck is shuffled.
Rules clarification: You can play the differently named Ruins on your Exile mat in any order. I'm not sure if that needs to be on the card, or if it is self-explanatory.
) quite quickly
QuoteQuoteBuffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards. I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester. I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester).
[imgwidth=150]https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074[/img]
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of giving your opponent a choice, and then making a decision based on what they choose. I'm still concerned about the power level. One potential consequence of Buffoon is that because one of the options is for every other player to gain a copy of the card, in multi-player games some Supply piles could run out faster. In such a scenario, your opponent could reveal a card whose Supply pile is empty, and your choices would be either to play that card twice (which may not necessarily be useful for you) or force everyone else to gain a Copper, which is fairly weak compared to other junking attacks. In certain games where your opponent is winning, it may actually be beneficial for them to reveal an Estate. If you choose the junking attack, you risk accelerating the end of the game by emptying out a Supply pile, whereas if you choose to gain an Estate, that wouldn't help you much.
Also, how would this work with Ruins? I may be wrong about the rules, but if a player reveals "Abandoned Mine", for instance, you can't force them to gain a copy of it unless it also happens to be the top card in the Ruins Supply pile.
Many attack cards don't do the attack part when a supply pile is empty (Curses for Witch, the revelead card pile for Jester, etc).
Right, but Witch gives you +2 Cards and Jester gives you $2 (and in games with 3+ players you'd have to be unlucky if all players revealed something from an empty Supply pile). Buffoon doesn't do anything in this case other than the sub-par junking effect in this case.QuoteWith Ruins, you may always play them twice if the top card of the pile is not the same of the revelead one.
Depending on what is revealed, it may not always be that helpful.
Have you considered giving Buffoon some vanilla bonuses in addition to the attack?
Good point. Any ideas for a fix?QuoteHeist- Event
Everyone (including you) reveals the top two cards of their deck. Gain a treasure costingrevealed. Return the cards back to the top of their deck in any order (player's choice)
What happens if you reveal a Victory card worth variable
would adding "may gain a treasure" and then making only the player to left/right balance it slightly?Seems risky, pay $3 adn gain a Copper. So perhaps make it non-mandatory?QuoteHeist- Event
Everyone (including you) reveals the top two cards of their deck. Gain a treasure costing
I'd also reconsider the scaling, in 3P games it is 50% better than in 2P games.
Maybe "non-Command nor Victory" card?Quote
Changed "show" to "reveals".
The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?
In this edge case you pointed, the solution is easy: if you would buy a Province and win the game, you don't need to play the Buffoon. However, I agree that in general it's strange that there is a play option and they can reveal a non-playable card. Should I add something like "if it's a playable card..." to the option?
Okay, your +token is on the Buffoon pile and you'd be
I may be getting the rule wrong, but doesn't the game end at the end of the turn, not the moment the pile is empty, so you could both gain the duchy and then go on to buy the province?
You're right. It's a bad example. But my point that you could be in a situation in which the only right move is to play a Victory card still stands.
EDIT: Just thought of an example where getting a Duchy and a Province would cost you the game, but just a Province wouldn't.
You have Wolf Den and Wall as Landmarks. Getting a Duchy would give you a net loss of 1
I think there's no need to find more examples related to endgame edge cases, at least for the purposes of Buffoon analysis. I think the point about playing a Victory is already demonstrated by you and I already said that I don't think it's a good feature in general to be able to choose the option of playing when a non-playable card is revealed. So, I ask again: do you think that add a "if it's a playable card" to the option fix this?
EDIT: Does this wording works?
"Playable" isn't really a defined keyword in Dominion, and there aren't very many playable cards aside from Treasures and Actions, so I'd prefer limiting it to those two types, but your new wording is probably fine. Assuming it's intended that you can choose the Throne option with non-playable cards as effectively a do-nothing option.
Heist- Event
Everyone (including you) reveals the top two cards of their deck. Gain a treasure costing
I may be getting the rule wrong, but doesn't the game end at the end of the turn, not the moment the pile is empty, so you could both gain the duchy and then go on to buy the province?Quote
Changed "show" to "reveals".
The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?
In this edge case you pointed, the solution is easy: if you would buy a Province and win the game, you don't need to play the Buffoon. However, I agree that in general it's strange that there is a play option and they can reveal a non-playable card. Should I add something like "if it's a playable card..." to the option?
I understand the mechanical requirement for it, I'm just saying that thematically, more land would mean less value.I know this isn't your submission, but wouldn't having more land mean it's worth less because of supply and demand?
I think the setup clause is needed to the Landmark works. Otherwise, you have to count on a lucky randomize to have a Kingdom Victory pile.
