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 - anordinaryman

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12
51

Quote
Voyage | Night - Duration | $4
If this is the first time you played a Voyage this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one. At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game: gain a Copper.
(This stays in play.)
-
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile)

Each one you gain ends up junking your deck more and more. Maybe you can handle a copper a turn, especially towards the end of the game. Not too many decks can handle gaining 5 coppers each turn.

Trash in play essentially a multi-use seize the day and I'm okay with that.


I updated the card. The previous version did not prevent playing multiple in a turn to get more than 2 turns in a row. Here is the original version:


Quote

Voyage | Night - Duration | $4
If the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one. At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game: gain a Copper.
(This stays in play.)
-
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile)


52
Modifying entry

Thanks for the feedback everyone.



Quote
Medallion | Treasure | $4*
$1
You may play a Copper from your hand. If you do, +$2 +1 Buy
-
This costs $1 more per Copper you have in play.

Each Medallion is now only a gold+ if you have another copper to pair with it, making it considerably harder to activate multiple of them in one turn. Otherwise, without enough coppers, they ironically become coppers themselves.

53


Quote
Cablemaker - $3
Action

+1 Buy

You may trash a Copper from your hand. If you did, cards cost $1 less this turn.
Tricky Moneylenderish Bridge variant: On the one hand easier to acquire than Bridge, and who doesn't like trashing junk better than $1? On the other hand, this does less than nothing for your economy early game, and needs considerably more work to chain.

I think this is a great idea, but I think it should cost $4. $3 is too strong for this. It's miles above trade route, which, we know is a weak $3, but seeing these two at the same price feels wrong to me. If you use the two buys this card is trash a copper for +$2 +1 Buy which then makes it comparable to Money Lender which is $4. So seeing this and Money Lender at the same price point feels right.
If you compare it to Bridge though, well, Bridge is better at the Payload game, but Cablemaker is not necessarily weaker. Trashing Coppers is great. So, again, this feels like it fits in the realm of $4s.

Coppers or Estates? Sure, I'll use both. And I'll keep it simple.



I’ve changed the text and price several times, seeking balance. The top has been Coppersmith (too powerful), a non-cantrip Merchant for Copper (not quite powerful enough), and now a non-cantrip double Merchant for Copper. I also considered several +Buy ideas in order to accelerate Estate/Copper gains: unconditional +1 Buy; conditional +1 Buy on first play of Copper (together with the +$1 or +$2); and even Pouch as an Heirloom, which feels thematic.

Regarding price, without trashing or Shelters, Copper Mine is immediately worth 3VP, so $5 didn’t seem great vis-a-vis Duchy. Then again, Duchy doesn’t force you to keep extra dead cards. But Duchy is never worth more than 3VP. So with the Merchant-like boost for Copper, $6 felt ok. I certainly wouldn’t pay more.

It's hard to calculate this without lots of playtesting, but it certainly feels too strong from a VP perspective. It's pretty easy to ramp this up to a cheaper Province (buy 3 estates... done!). Considering the lengths I go to to get a Duke up to the same value, (have to buy 6 duchies... a lot harder) this feels way to strong to just go for. Consider making it 2 per each 3 sets of copper-estate you have, or perhaps adding another item to the set, or perhaps halving it.

54



Quote
Medallion | Treasure | $4*
$1
The next time you play a Copper this turn, +$2 +1 Buy
-
This costs $1 more per Copper you have in play.

Medallion is a Gold+ if you line it up with a Copper, which is easy when you have lots of Coppers. But if you have lots of Coppers, this is harder to buy ... Coppers don't help you buy this card. This similar to the Grand Market restriction, but actually there are a lot of differences. For example, you can buy a Medallion with Medallion/Silver/Copper. If you play with enough heirlooms, you can even open Medallion. Or if there's Bargain/Demand, etc. There's lots of ways to get treasures in play in your Action phase. Why not buy Cavalry/Villa or use Black Market/Storyteller/etc and get 5 coppers in play, then Displace the now $9 cost Medallion into a Colony?

This is strong for its price in many games and you often won't buy Silver. It's a similar thing to me as Destrier often costing much lower, and you won't often buy Lab.

Open to feedback.

55

To me it's a ton of text, and the the trash-to-discard and discard-to-trash are the most interesting parts. The "If you did, at the start of your next turn, put this to your hand" seems unnecessary and kind of superfluous. You could make it more elegant by either discarding the card or have it play itself, which would change the cost.

I'm proposing something like these two options:

Quote
Retriever - Action - Reaction - $2
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may discard this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Quote
Retriever - Action - Reaction - $4?? (maybe $3)
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may play this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Other Changes:
* I have also used "this" vs "that" to make it less ambiguous.
* I was worried about infinitely looping but I realize in the proposal 1 it doesn't break the game, it just means that if you discard a Retriever you get to trigger it's bottom ability without having to discard another card. It does let you infinite loop, but it's the same infinite loop that a player may reveal a moat infinite times to a Witch -- it does nothing but waste time.

Other Ideas:
* Keep the play version but tweak the on-play benefit. +2$, a sifter, draw-to-x, or a trasher all would work.

I hear you and your versions do reduce the text to what should be an ideal max. So I'm debating the "discard" version:

I had considered it before, but I was worried that might make it too weak. Do you think it would be worth a buy vs, for example, Moat?

Additionally, I liked the idea that retriever would go and "retrieve" or "bury" a card for you, then come back to you. Felt more thematic. I'm realizing now that that's already covered by Faithful Hound anyway, so yeah, maybe it doesn't need it.

I'm guessing the real test would be playtesting these different versions, but still I'd like this polished as best we can for the contest.

Well, the discard-version of Retriever doesn't do anything special unless there's discard and weak-trashing, or there's trash for benefit. Many kingdoms don't have those, so, yeah, it could be identical (or in the case of attacks) strictly-worse than moat. The ones that do have those -- that benefit isn't always worth discarding a card from your hand for. There's also the fact that Retriever can only-fire once per turn no matter. Then there's the fact that moat doesn't get lost from your hand. So, for those reasons, it can be potentially weak. Upon closer analysis it seems like strengthening it is best, so I recommend the play version; however, this makes it VERY strong in the Kingdoms where it is good. That's okay, because chapel is also VERY strong in the Kingdoms where it is good (pretty much all Kingdoms) -- it just means you can't price it at $5. Should be accessible at $3 and $4 for those reasons. It doesn't have to be +2 Cards, it could be a gainer even (keeps the theme of Retrieving cards, and also self-synergizes with trash for benefits that like Retriever)

If you want to keep the discard version, then I strongly believe the stuff above the line should be able to trigger the stuff below the line. That way the power doesn't vary so wildly in Kingdoms. If the top half is "+2 cards, you may discard two cards for +1$" or "Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put one in your hand and trash or discard the other," then every kingdom can make use of its bottom half.

56
Can I make a wording suggestion, because seven lines of text below the line is A Lot?
[. . .]

I had considered that, but didn't like that weirdness. Plus it changes some interactions, namely with Lurker (hence the "one of your cards") and Improve.

BUT, your post made me reconsider (thanks!) and:
• I can live with the specific interactions as it buffs one, but nerfs the other (the Lurker interaction was more of a concern when all you had to do was reveal Retriever)
• by adding some parenthesis, I have a 6 line version that doesn't have the weirdness (I also had to change "return" to "put"



Quote
Retriever - Action - Reaction - $2
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to put it on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded). If you did, at the start of your next turn, put this to your hand.

To me it's a ton of text, and the the trash-to-discard and discard-to-trash are the most interesting parts. The "If you did, at the start of your next turn, put this to your hand" seems unnecessary and kind of superfluous. You could make it more elegant by either discarding the card or have it play itself, which would change the cost.

I'm proposing something like these two options:

Quote
Retriever - Action - Reaction - $2
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may discard this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Quote
Retriever - Action - Reaction - $4?? (maybe $3)
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may play this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Other Changes:
* I have also used "this" vs "that" to make it less ambiguous.
* I was worried about infinitely looping but I realize in the proposal 1 it doesn't break the game, it just means that if you discard a Retriever you get to trigger it's bottom ability without having to discard another card. It does let you infinite loop, but it's the same infinite loop that a player may reveal a moat infinite times to a Witch -- it does nothing but waste time.

Other Ideas:
* Keep the play version but tweak the on-play benefit. +2$, a sifter, draw-to-x, or a trasher all would work.


57
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #104: Raise the Ceiling
« on: February 13, 2021, 03:14:55 pm »
Cavalcade could say something like this: „When you play an Action card, play it twice and then trash it“

I think that version would be more similar to Procession and also be clearer than the one in which the throning happens after the trashing.
The Horse issue does IMO illustrate why throning before trashing is more natural.

Yeah but the natural reading of "When you play an Action Card, play it twice" means you play each card an infinite number of times because it self-loops. So this phrasing absolutely doesn't work.

Perhaps a clearer phrasing is something akin to Experiment
Quote
Cavalcade | Project | $4
When you play an Action Card, play it again (this second play does not trigger Cavalcade) and then trash it.
However; for some reason I like the fact that the way it is currently stated prevents you from re-playing and trashing cards that have moved. There's tracking complexity with trashed-durations already, I don't want to introduce even more tracking complexity with cards that have moved that are played a second-time.

Probably the least ambiguous way to set this up would be to set aside a card, Mantle that says
Quote
Mantle | Action | $0*
Play a card from your hand twice, then trash it
(This is not in the Supply)
and then Cavalcade says
Quote
Cavalcade | Project | $4
During your Action phase, instead of playing cards from your hand, spend Actions (Actions, not Action Cards) to play Mantle.

Set up: Set aside Mantle
Which is really the spirit of the card. But I find the set-aside single-copy of card less elegant. Perhaps this is better because it's clearer and preserves play-then-trash order? I am unsure. In any case, it's too late to change submissions for the contest now, so I'm leaving it as submitted.



58
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #104: Raise the Ceiling
« on: February 13, 2021, 12:05:34 pm »
Excellent points, Faust. I am unsure how to succinctly resolve all the ambiguities. I think this helps a little bit:
Updated phrasing/submission


Quote
Cavalcade | Project | $4
For the rest of the game, when you finish playing an Action Card, trash it. If you did, play it again from the Trash, leaving it there.


This seems quite similar to Exhaust (v1) to me, as both allow you to replay and trash all your Actions on your last turn. Though Cavalcade is more demanding (and dangerous) as you have to buy it on your penultimate turn already...

Ah, I didn't get a chance to read through the thread that carefully yet. I even did my submission right by the deadline. Looking though, I think there is a huge difference. Exhaust v1 doesn't force you to do all of them, it's a lot easier to use, especially since you can trigger it so easily. Cavalcade is a lot higher-skill, you have to be certain that you will benefit from it next turn. And if you don't, you've ruined your deck, with little chance to recover. There are a few non-engine skill uses of Cavalcade that I think is kind of interesting and help illuminate differences with "Exhaust v1". For a Big Money+X Deck, buying Cavalcade on your last shuffle can help make sure each action gives you a Province. And in a "Good Stuff" deck where Wall is present, you're happy to sacrifice your Action cards in your last Shuffle as well. But in both those cases, "Exhaust v1" is far too easy, it's a no-brainer to trash the cards. With Cavalcade, you have to think a lot if it's worth spending a buy to accomplish those goals. And sometimes it isn't worth it.

Just to be clear, I think Exhaust v2 is a VERY interesting Event and really well-designed, and I'd be very happy if it won this contest. I maintain that it and Cavalcade operate pretty differently. Compare Cathedral and Bonfire.

59
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #104: Raise the Ceiling
« on: February 13, 2021, 11:44:43 am »
Final Update


Quote
Cavalcade | Project | $4
When you finish playing an Action Card, trash it. If you did, play it again from the Trash, leaving it there.

Excellent points, Faust. I am unsure how to succinctly resolve all the ambiguities. I think this helps a little bit:
Updated phrasing/submission


Quote
Cavalcade | Project | $4
For the rest of the game, when you finish playing an Action Card, trash it. If you did, play it again from the Trash, leaving it there.
I think this is better. Minor point: You don't need "for the rest of the game", Projects are always implicitly for the rest of the game.

  • Should make it more clear it does not infinitely loop, (a card that is already in the trash cannot successfully be trashed) and you get exactly two plays of the card. (The "if you did" doesn't apply for a third play)
  • From my understanding, Band of Misfits would play a Bridge from the supply, leaving it there. Then you have finished playing the Action Bridge, so Bridge gets trashed from the Calvacade and then you play the Bridge again from the trash, leaving it there. Then Band of Misfits is done playing so it gets trashed and you play it again, now with all the cards costing 2 less. In the case of BoM, it may be argued that both BoM and Bridge are finished playing at the same time, so you could theoretically choose which order to Calvacade them. You don't get to choose the order with Golem, which has to wait for the second card to be played before it is finished playing.
  • Grave Robber -- first play gain a card from the trash, then it is finished playing so you trash it. Then you play it from the trash and choose to gain itself from the Trash. I think this is consistent. "Leaving it there" isn't a permanent state -- you are allowed to later buy cards from the Supply that you "left there." It just describes what Cavalcade expects but cards can move themselves sometimes to unexpected places.
  • Just to point out, Horses basically become triple lab-horses with Cavalcade. This is thematic with the name of the Project. You could load up on a bunch of terminals and a bunch of horses. Then, your horses will provide you all the draw and actions you need to play the other cards.
Regarding the BoM example -  I am not sure the Bridge would be trashed, as I think stop-moving applies here. Cavalcade expects played Actions to be in play and can only trash from there I believe.
I am not sure what you mean about the Horses. From what I understand, when you finish playing a Horse it is no longer in play, so it won't be trashed (see Procession) and you won't be able to play it again.

You know what, you're right! Cavalcade DOES fail to trash it. And on second thought, Cavalcade does fail to trash Horses as well because they have moved from in-play.

60
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #104: Raise the Ceiling
« on: February 13, 2021, 03:42:23 am »
Excellent points, Faust. I am unsure how to succinctly resolve all the ambiguities. I think this helps a little bit:
Updated phrasing/submission


Quote
Cavalcade | Project | $4
For the rest of the game, when you finish playing an Action Card, trash it. If you did, play it again from the Trash, leaving it there.

Edit: I had to make numerous corrections. Thank you Faust once again for helping me understand my own card :)

  • Should make it more clear it does not infinitely loop, (a card that is already in the trash cannot successfully be trashed) and you get exactly two plays of the card. (The "if you did" doesn't apply for a third play)
  • From my understanding, Band of Misfits would play a Bridge from the supply, leaving it there. Then you have finished playing the Action Bridge, so Bridge gets trashed from the Calvacade and then you play the Bridge again from the trash, leaving it there Cavalcade trashes card "after you play them" and so expects the card to be in-play. So, it fails to trash Bridge. Then, Band of Misfits is done playing so it gets trashed and you play it again, now with all the cards costing 2 1 less. In the case of BoM, it may be argued that both BoM and Bridge are finished playing at the same time, so you could theoretically choose which order to Calvacade them. You don't get to choose the order with Golem, which has to wait for the both cards to be played before it is finished playing.
  • Grave Robber -- first play gain a card from the trash, then it is finished playing so you trash it. Then you play it from the trash and choose to gain itself from the Trash. I think this is consistent. "Leaving it there" isn't a permanent state -- you are allowed to later buy cards from the Supply that you "left there." It just describes what Cavalcade expects but cards can move themselves sometimes to unexpected places.
  • Just to point out, Horses basically become triple lab-horses with Cavalcade. This is thematic with the name of the Project. You could load up on a bunch of terminals and a bunch of horses. Then, your horses will provide you all the draw and actions you need to play the other cards. Actually, this doesn't work. The horse gets returned to the Supply, so Cavalcade fails to trash it and play it again.

61
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #104: Raise the Ceiling
« on: February 12, 2021, 10:26:46 pm »
Submission: THERE IS NOW A Slightly modified phrasing two posts below this


Quote
Cavalcade | Project | $4
For the rest of the game, when you would play an Action card, trash it and play it twice from the Trash, leaving it there.


Preserving above for historical purposes. The most up to date version of the card follows:

Quote

Cavalcade | Project | $4
When you finish playing an Action Card, trash it. If you did, play it again from the Trash, leaving it there.



Maybe not phrased amazingly. Basically adds a Procession that doesn't upgrade in front of every Action. It was the best way I could think to phrase it to make sure the second play doesn't get a second play. Might need a FAQ to clarify. Buying it at the right time is a high-skill ceiling decision, as is understanding when it can be useful.

62


$4 is too cheap for this - if you play it from a 5-card hand, it's a terminal Gold

Not to mention it junks opponents on gain with 2 Snows. I understand that  this card turns snows into coppers that disappear essentially. But that's only if you line them up. In reality the 2 snows are junk on gain, and on gain attacking is very strong as opposed to on-play attack. Just look at how terrible of a card IGG is on play and then look at its price point. On the other hand, Snows are a lot better than curses.

I think due to this junking, the card could be +$5 at a cost of $4 or $5, or lower the junking to a single snow and raise the price up to 6 or 7. Consider lower the junking to a single snow also.

This is a really cool card. It's a lot like Poor House, which is a fun card.


63
Before you could play Fortress, then Ice Castle, trashing the Fortress to gain an Ice Castle

Just being pedantic here, but wouldn't you need a 2nd Fortress? You'd need to play the Fortress AFTER the Ice Castle to trash it, not before.
You're right!
I totally got it wrong here and misplayed my own card. You need to play an Ice Castle before a Fortress, making this loop not possible in the same sense, you have to already have an extra fortress in discard/deck per time you want to repeat the loop.

64
Updated Submission



Quote
Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, +2 Cards and gain a card costing up to $1 more.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow.

Two changes:
1. Clarify wording that the trashing happens after you play a card. Of course the Stop Moving rule means that if this card moved itself somewhere after playing (snow, for example), you don't get to put the card in the trash, but you still get the benefit  (in this case, +2 Cards and gain a card costing up to $4).
2. Slightly weaken it to +2 cards first before gaining. The symmetry with +$2 is nice, but the important change is this weakens the card in the case that you have already drawn your full deck. You'll need to have extra draw to put the new card in your hand. This also prevents someone from emptying the pile with a single Fortress and Ice Castle in hand. Before you could play Fortress, then Ice Castle, trashing the Fortress to gain an Ice Castle and a snows, then drawing 2 cards and playing a Fortress, allowing you to repeat this, flooding everyone's deck with snows. Now, since the draw happens first, you have a 33% chance for each repeat of the pattern (the fortress has to draw the Ice Castle instead of the Snow), and the turn you fail to repeat you have at least one top-decked snow. So, it's not super strong. Nevermind: this isn't possible because you need to play Ice Castles before your fortress, which means you have to have a Fortress in hand already per time you want to loop. So this loop doesn't really work.


I admit that "gain a card costing up to $1 more" is slightly ambiguous now that I have shifted that clause later. I believe a reasonable reader will correctly assume that the "$1 more" refers to the trashed card. And I think that's a perfect thing to clarify in a simple rulebook. Dominion convention would say to add a clause like "per card drawn" if I wanted it that way, so I think the canonical reading of this is $1 more than the card trashed.


65


Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.
I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.

The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it.  It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.   

I like Arctic Base.

I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.
I disagree. Would you ever prefer this over Caravan or Advisor?

Games where the only village is Sacrifice I want this over Caravan and Advisor. Games where draw is not too hard, but I want to have lots of cards (Discard for Benefit: Artisan, Artificer, etc. Or Gardens. Or Forge). Games where the only +Buy is salvager so I need something to sacrifice and this prints free snows for me. Tournament games where I badly need to win the first prize, no way I can afford to play Advisor and This gets me my extra card now, rather than waiting for next turn like Caravan.

I don't think these are wild edge cases. I think this card would still have some use as a cantrip snow gainer since many decks can profit over trashing those snows. Making it a lab gives it even more utility. I still think the 3 cost point makes some sense.

66


I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".

I think the comma changes the meaning of this from what you intend to being able to play any non-Command, any Action, or any Treasure. The comma should not be there.
Thanks, I already fixed it, it was a remnant from a previous version.

I would also recommend making it gain and then play a card just so that it's clearer that you keep the card you emulate. You could word it like Summon: "Gain a non-Command Action or Treasure card costing up to $5. Set it aside. If you did, play it." (The setting it aside in this case is for tracking, so you can't topdeck it with Watchtower and then play it without putting it into play.)
I did think about Summon but the wording seemed artificial and less compact. "Play" is clearly defined in the rulebook, you put it into your play area and (normally) discard it in Cleanup.

For a fan card submission a long time ago, that won a contest, I did "Gain and then play." You could also use "Gain and immediately play." Both are pretty compact and help clarify. I didn't understand Builder until I read your explanation, so I think you could make it a little clearer.

67
ah dang I didn't edit my comment in time. The new wording is this:

Quote
Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow

This does mean that playing a Golem next means you first play both the revealed actions, and only then do you trash the golem. It's confusing by in the same way that kings court - procession -kings court  etc is confusing.

Thanks for your help!

68


Quote
Ice Castle | Action | $5
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow
[...]
At the end of the game, if you don't have enough Treasures to buy a Duchy, end your Action phase with Ice Castle, then play a Vampire, gain a Duchy, and then trashing the Vampire to gain another duchy (and +2 cards).
[...]

Would it trash a Vampire though or does it lose track because of the exchange? (the only official "The next time you play a card this turn" card is Kiln, and since it gains it doesn't care about where the played card is. Also it uses the word first, so you could do that here?
That's feels weird, though, trashing the Vampire then playing it. (and in that case, would the exchange then fail?)

One last note with this - if we determine you don't trash the Vampire (or other cards that move on play, like Horse), then the Otherwise becomes ambiguous. Would it occur if you don't trash (as opposed to if you do trash a non Treasure)

Yeah I just realized Vampire was a bad example. Snow Castle loses track, so the Vampire is not trashed. Good catch. This actually makes Snow Castle pretty good to use on Vampires (gain a free $5!). The draw back is you can't play any Treasures if you want to take advantage of this. I should have used an example like Devil's Workshop.

I didn't intend for the otherwise to be ambiguous, the otherwise was meant for non-Action card. The gaining happens regardless on if you actually trashed a card. If I wanted it to be conditional on successful trashing I would have used either "Trash a card to ..." or "Trash a card. If you did,..." clauses.

Thank you so much for your feedback.

This is my stab at improving the wording:

Quote
Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow

I believe this is unambiguous. The "It" is always satisfied from the previous sentence, the card you played, regardless of whether you were able to trash it or not.

I no longer use the "the next time" in order to very specifically say "After" to clarify that. Thanks to Gubump for that input.

69
This submission has been updated in a subsequent post. This is not the current version
Changes were made (1) to clarify trashing happens after playing (2) to draw cards before gaining when you trash an Action or Night (or new non-Treasure playable type in the future)


Quote
Ice Castle | Action | $5
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow

Buying one of these "junks" everyone, but you're pretty happy to have that "junk." Ice castles love snow, after all! Playing Ice Castle followed by a Snow turns that Snow into a Horses that gain you a $4! Of course, you're going to have trouble playing an Ice Castle and then a Snow, so without Villages, it'll be still hard. And in a game with some junking (Snow) it'll be even harder to line them up. Good thing this is a kind of trasher -- You can think of this like a more flexible Money Lender. Trash coppers in the beginning, and when you're desperate, well you can always turn this into a terminal silver at end of turn and then trash your gold. Great use for your cursed gold, as well.

This can trash Night cards. The +2 Cards you get aren't going to be useful, but the more flexible remaking can be useful. At the end of the game, if you don't have enough Treasures to buy a Duchy, end your Action phase with Ice Castle, then play a Vampire, gain a Duchy, and then trashing the Vampire to gain another duchy (and +2 cards).

Rats, Fortress, self-trashing cards, there's lot's of fun combos with this. The difficulty is having enough actions to do it all, of course.

open to feedback, of course! The one thing I was debating on was the "if you trash" part of the clause, but I think it's fun and gives you another reason to trash your snow castles with snow castles.

70
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« on: January 29, 2021, 11:09:47 am »
oops.

(It'll work for most of the threads anyway...)

Well, that benefit is in direct opposition to the benefit of "continued discussion of cards after content ends".

So we can have one or the other, but not both. :)

I think we still get both. With multiple threads, start on the last page and hit prev once or twice to get the results. With monolithic thread, even if you find a contest start, you have to hit next each time to get to final results. And there’s room to continue discussing cards.

I’ve been convinced that multi thread is the way to now actually.

71
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« on: January 29, 2021, 01:12:56 am »
Another thing that makes it easier with separate threads is that you can just look at the last page of each thread to see all the cards in the judging post.

I do prefer the single monolithic thread, however, this is an excellent argument for separating contests into their own threads.

72
General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: January 14, 2021, 11:28:49 pm »
Actually [i'm thinking of ending things] is one of the greatest things I've ever seen, go watch it it's on Netflix.

I think the best way to choose movies may be by screen writer, rather than by actors or even by director. The movies I've seen that have been written by Charlie Kaufman are Being John Malkovich, Her, Adaptation, and this one, and I found all of them phenomenal.

Unrelated, how do other people watch non-Netflix movies? Do you just buy them?

Kaufman did not write Her, although lots of people described the movie as Kaufman-esque. Movies by Kaufman that are absolutely worth watching you haven't mentioned are

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Synecdoche, New York

Both are phenomenal films. Roger Ebert called Synecdoche, New York his favorite film of the decade (it came out 2008), and although it did not perform well in the box office, critics did love it. It is definitely the richest and most difficult of his films, but it's absolutely worth it. Just don't try to understand what is happening on a first watch, you'll enjoy it more. It's a lot better on subsequent watches, at least for me, as I started to unpack more of it and resonate more and more with it.  trailer. The trailer can't really spoil this movie.

And Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is also amazing, a great gut-punch romance film. I recommend most people watching it before Synecdoche, New York. trailer.

He also wrote Anomalisa, which is a claymation movie, but I have not seen that yet.


73
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: January 10, 2021, 01:51:54 am »
Contest Submission



Quote
Haunt | Event | $4
Each other player with 5 or more cards puts 2 cards from their hand onto their deck. You may put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck. If you do, gain a Ghost.

Wanted to create a card that bridged the gap between the "Haunted" sub-theme (Haunted Woods, Ghost Ship, Haunted Castle) and the Ghost card.

One fun self-synergy: if you have Ghosts in hand, the cards you top-decked in Haunt to gain another Ghost aren't a problem at all.

74
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Set Expansion Contest
« on: January 06, 2021, 04:38:48 pm »


Quote
Obsolete Denomination (Project, $3)
During your turns, Coppers produce $0. When you play a Copper, trash it.
I like this, it's clever. It's just a shame Renaissance already has Silos.


To me this feels radically different than silos. With Silos, you can still use Coppers for economy, you just get to sift them at start of turn to get to your engine better (or other Coppers). And, like all sifting, you still run the risk of your engine dying to a build draw, even later on. But Obsolete Denomination instantly reduces the economy Coppers provide to $0 and you still have to draw them to trash them.

With Obsolete Denomination a hand of 5 coppers does nothing for this turn, and helps future turns with trashing. With Silos, the hand of 5 coppers is like a guide.

I think Obsolete Denomination is the best fan card I've ever seen. It's simple, but strategically complicated about when you buy it.

75
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: December 30, 2020, 03:01:33 pm »
My ideas for something special for the big 100. These to me feel a little "special"
  • The very first contest again. Design a Treasure Reaction (fika monster already said this, I independently had that idea, too)
  • Using the last three contest winners, design a card that somehow interacts with some of them
  • Design a card that is good on its own and combos with a previous contest winner. OR we can narrow this down by letting participants choose on of the last 5 winners.
  • Make a second edition of an existing expansion -- remove 1 card and add 2 or some variant to Seaside. Or some other expansion.
  • Submit any previously submitted card by anyone
  • Design a card that breaks a design-philosophy. Perhaps we would pick one to break like "don't do sliver+ for 4" or "no strictly better cards at same or cheaper price point" or "don't be political"
  • Create a set of cards that replace Estates, Duchies, Provinces, Coppers, Silvers, and/or Golds. The thought behind this is these are the untouchable aspects of Dominion. Would be wild to do something different here.
  • Fix Scout, or add a card-shaped-thing that combos with Scout and makes Scout strong
  • Propose a fan "fix" to any card. Pirate Ship and Contraband stick out to me personally as interesting mechanics that don't work due to weakness often.
  • Design a "Knight/Castles" like pile where each card is different. Could be a bit of a nightmare of judging complexity which is why I would only propose it for the big 100. I also think we would give the judge extra time to evaluate cards.

I disagree with splitting this off each contest to a new thread. Having a new thread for each contest makes it just as hard to find previous submissions... now you have to search in multiple threads threads for the card you're trying to find. I find it cleanest just to have this same thread. Also, in the contest of the forum, is very fun to have a historical thread that goes on for a long time. It makes you feel connected to a wider history.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12

Page created in 0.102 seconds with 19 queries.