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 - mandioca15

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]
151
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 19, 2019, 03:46:57 pm »
Gatekeeper (Action)

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
You can't play any copies of that card this turn.

This combines ideas from Envoy and Contraband. It might be weak. You'll probably need a diverse deck to get something out of it.

The problem with this type of drawback is, what happens if a copy of the named card is revealed by Golem, Herald, or Venture? They would both try to force you to play the copy. So which card's rules get broken? Does "can't" override "must," or does "must" override "can't?" The former is the one that makes the most sense, but then what happens to the revealed Action you can't play? None of the other cards I mentioned address this issue.

Here's my suggested fix: Instead of "you can't play any copies of that card this turn," say "When you play a copy of that card this turn, ignore its instructions." Sure, while-in-play effects would still trigger, but those generally have a small enough impact without the top part of the card that this isn't anywhere near as big a problem as what I mentioned in my previous paragraph.
That's a good fix. I guess that "When you play a copy of that card this turn, discard it instead." would even undo the triggering of in-play effects.

Thanks for the feedback - I hadn't considered that scenario! Your fix makes sense, so I will modify the card to the following:

Gatekeeper (Action) [$4]

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
When you play a copy of that card this turn, ignore its instructions.

152
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 19, 2019, 01:46:40 pm »
Gatekeeper (Action) [$4]

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
You can't play any copies of that card this turn.

This combines ideas from Envoy and Contraband. It might be weak. You'll probably need a diverse deck to get something out of it.

153
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 05, 2019, 03:23:48 pm »
At the risk of being incredibly unoriginal, here is a Black Market/Captain hybrid:

Bootlegger (Action-Duration) [$5]

Now and at the start of your next turn: reveal the top three cards of the Bootlegger deck and play one of them, leaving it there.
At the end of your turn, move all cards revealed from the Bootlegger deck to the bottom.

---
Setup: make up a Bootlegger deck of non-Duration action cards that do not appear in the Kingdom.

Swingy? Yes. Broken? Probably. It might make a fun promo card, though. It costs less than Captain because you have little control over what cards you get to choose to play.


154
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 27, 2019, 12:55:52 pm »
Very well then - will change my entry to this.

Slum Village (Action - Reaction) [$4]

+1 Card
+2 Actions

———

When an opponent trashes a card, you may discard this from your hand, to gain a copy of that card from the Supply.

155
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 27, 2019, 05:01:17 am »
Mercantile Village (Action) [$4]

+1 Card
+1 Action

Reveal your hand. For each Treasure in your hand, +1 Villager.

156
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 17, 2019, 05:59:31 pm »
Thank you for the feedback, Fragasnap. Based on that, I will modify the wording as follows:

Shyster (Action-Attack) [$5]

+$2

Reveal a card costing more than $0 from your hand. For each copy they have in their hand, every other player takes 1 Debt and gains a Copper.

157
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 11, 2019, 03:35:22 pm »
Shyster (Action-Attack) [$5]

+$2
Reveal a card from your hand. For each copy they have in their hand, each other player gains 1 debt and a Copper.


158
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 24, 2019, 01:50:15 pm »
Hopefully this qualifies:

Emissary (Action) [$5]

Draw until you have 8 cards in your hand. Put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck.

159
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 13, 2019, 03:30:24 am »
I meant cheaper relative to the card the opponent gained, not Foundry itself.

160
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 13, 2019, 03:06:04 am »
Foundry (Reaction) [$4]

When an opponent gains a card, you may trash this from your hand to gain two cheaper cards.

When do you cash this in? The threat of using it might cause some interesting decisions for everyone else...

161
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 06, 2019, 03:07:30 pm »
Newb question: I can't figure out how to post images in this forum. I always think submissions look better when they appear in card form...

162
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 06, 2019, 03:05:08 pm »
Vestry (Action-Duration) [$3]

+1 Card
+1 Action

Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Buy.
---
While this is in play, when an opponent trashes one or more cards, you may trash up to two cards from your hand.

163
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 30, 2019, 03:22:39 pm »
Privateer (Action-Duration) [$5]

Now and at the start of your next turn, +$3.
---
While this in play, when an opponent gains
VP and you have more than 3 cards in your
hand, discard a card.


When I say "gains VP", I mean "gains a VP token" or "gains a Victory card".

This might force opponents to buy a VP card earlier than they want to. Or, maybe they have cards that can gain VP tokens to defend against this...

164
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 13, 2019, 04:41:32 pm »
A sequence of one-shot cards: effectively Traveller for Treasures, but in reverse order.

Diamond (Treasure-Jewel) [$7]
$4
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Ruby.

Ruby (Treasure-Jewel) [$5*]
$3
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Pearl.
(This is not in the Supply)

Pearl (Treasure-Jewel) [$2*]
$2
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for an Emerald.
(This is not in the Supply)

Emerald (Treasure-Jewel) [$0*]
$1
+1 Buy
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a card costing up to $2.
(This is not in the Supply)
Considering that these are Treasures, I think you would be safe to just exchange them on play.

This changes the interaction behavior with Bank, Mint, Mandarin, Herbalist, Monastery and other cards.

I think my original wording makes the card(s) slightly more interesting.

165
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: April 11, 2019, 02:11:24 pm »
A sequence of one-shot cards: effectively Traveller for Treasures, but in reverse order.

Diamond (Treasure-Jewel) [$7]
$4
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Ruby.

Ruby (Treasure-Jewel) [$5*]
$3
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Pearl.
(This is not in the Supply)

Pearl (Treasure-Jewel) [$2*]
$2
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for an Emerald.
(This is not in the Supply)

Emerald (Treasure-Jewel) [$0*]
$1
+1 Buy
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a card costing up to $2.
(This is not in the Supply)

166
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Indian Reservation
« on: March 23, 2019, 02:36:06 pm »
I wasn't aware that the name might cause upset. You learn something new every day... Will try to think of a less controversial name. The name was meant to be a nod to Reserve cards, since you effectively play a card twice, as happens with cards of that type.

Thanks for the welcome, sudgy.

167
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Indian Reservation
« on: March 22, 2019, 07:10:00 pm »
I meant "set aside a card from your hand". Setting aside a Victory card wouldn't do anything, naturally, but it does mean it might miss the shuffle.

The intention of the card is to turn any non-Duration card into a Duration card. I don't see why it's strictly worse than a Throne Room: we're told that Wharf is one of the strongest $5 cards there is because of its Duration effect. You start your next turn with 7 cards and an extra Buy. Surely converting a card into a Duration card is more valuable than $4 on many occasions?

Once Indian Reservation has finished resolving (i.e. next turn), both it and the card you set aside go into your discard pile.

Taking any card from the Supply and putting it under Indian Reservation, gaining it once it finishes resolving, is an intriguing idea. I hadn't thought of that interpretation of my original wording...

168
Variants and Fan Cards / Indian Reservation
« on: March 18, 2019, 05:12:24 pm »
This is my first post on here.

I recently designed a fan expansion for Dominion, with a Wild West theme. One of the cards I was thinking of adding to this is as follows:

Indian Reservation [Action-Duration] ($6)
Set aside a non-Duration card under this.
Now and at the start of your next turn,
invoke the set aside card.

By invoke, I mean "do what the card says". For example, setting aside a Silver would give you +$2 now, and +$2 at the start of your next turn. Setting aside a Smithy would give you +3 cards now, and +3 cards at the start of your next turn.

Invoking doesn't mean you use an action, so you would start your reserved Smithy turn with 8 cards and 1 action.

Two questions regarding this:

1) Is this hideously broken?
2) If not, what should the price be? I have discussed this a bit with Udzu - he reckons it should be $5 because it is comparable with Crown, but I think it should be higher because of the Duration effect.

Any thoughts?

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]

Page created in 1.003 seconds with 18 queries.