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 - naitchman

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
151
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 28, 2019, 02:58:00 pm »
Alright, here's my submission:


(Each player gets 2 ally tokens)

Going for a conclave like card, but in the opposite direction. Conclave encourages diversity, alliance discourages diversity. Absent of other villages, an alliance engine will only be able to support 2 different types of terminals (technically 3 if you only have 1 copy of the 3rd type).

Update: This card is no longer my submission due to it not qualifying.

152
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 25, 2019, 03:59:22 pm »
Construct
Event: $3
Until the end of this turn, when you buy a card, gain a copy of it.

Heirloom: Pouch

The synergy is straightforward: this event requires + buy, while pouch provides it.
I like big endgame plays, so it is not limited to non-victory card.
This would be fine if it were restricted to non-Victory cards. Without this restriction it is too strong. You only need to hit $11 (instead of $16) and 2 Buys to gain 2 Provinces respectively $19 (instead of $32) and 3 Buys to gain 4 Provinces.

even with a victory card restriction this can be OP. Anytime I would buy 2 of any card $4 or more, I'm getting a good deal. Keep in mind that there's no limit on how many of these you can buy so this with 3 buys and $13 you can get 4 $5 cards. Technically if it were just $5 or $6 cards it would be ok (even though it's a good deal, everyone can get it equally just like delve), but if there are potion cost cards or very expensive cards like overlord, city quarter, prince, or king's court this can be way too strong.

153
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 24, 2019, 09:28:00 pm »
There wasn't any 24 hour warning. Just wanted to check, does the contest end tomorrow?

154
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 23, 2019, 11:00:23 pm »
Okay here is what I am going with. Changed it a bit so it allows any card to be sent to island mat.

155
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 22, 2019, 09:53:07 pm »
wedding, which costs too much to just use it for points.

Well, Wedding will eventually run out the golds, which does lead toward the end of the game.

True. But it could continue to be bought after the golds run out and still give points. So it's not contingent on gaining cards, that's why I included it in the exceptions.

For Monument, simply giving you + is considered enough to "lead toward the end of the game", because it gives you money to buy stuff. I think Wedding giving you Golds counts the same; it's not that it can run out the Gold pile; it's that it puts in your deck which lets you eventually buy Provinces.

Buying stuff is optional. It's not just the money that's the important part (though it does slightly push you toward game end). It's the low point gain for a non terminal. If monument gave 5vp and +$2, this would easily lead to a stalemate where each player is trying to play as many monuments as possible each turn. If they split these monuments 5-5, then adding card to their deck can just make it harder to play 5 monuments a turn.

As an aside, I did a play a game where I abused monuments for insane vp. I was playing double tactician with a deck of only 10 cards (not including tactician in play); 3 kc, 5 monuments, tactician and steward.
kc-kc-kc-m-m-m-m-m-t (discard steward) for 15 vp each turn. I bought and trashed the other monuments to make sure my opponent couldn't copy me, but if he had bought them before me, it could have gone on forever. Notice that here monument essentially gave 3vp and the fact that it was terminal didn't matter as much since there was a kc chain. The only reason I ended up buying cards was to finish the game.

156
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 22, 2019, 09:42:56 pm »
As for leading towards an end game, Liminal Arch requires you to buy Actions and Treasures to work. Generally a lot of them to get good VP amounts. Particularly cantrips and such kind of cards that your deck can handle a lot of. I.e. card piles that can easily empty and lead to a game's end.

Yes, the best idea would be to buy more cantrips (and treasures to balance the cantrips), but there might not always be cantrips to buy. Suppose you have 5 alchemists, a potion, 4 coppers, and 5 LA's. If there are no more non terminals in the supply, your best move would be to forego buying any more cards so as not to upset your balance. You would be able to get 25vp a turn, guaranteed. This is an extreme case, but in general, if there's only terminals, you might just want to stop buying cards and milk you LA's for vp.

157
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 22, 2019, 03:19:06 pm »
wedding, which costs too much to just use it for points.

Well, Wedding will eventually run out the golds, which does lead toward the end of the game.

True. But it could continue to be bought after the golds run out and still give points. So it's not contingent on gaining cards, that's why I included it in the exceptions.

158
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 21, 2019, 10:30:16 pm »
I have a general idea of what I want so I made 2 versions to see what people say.
1.   2.

Notes on the general idea:
This is supposed to be similar to island (if it wasn't obvious). Unlike Island it can be used multiple times, since it doesn't have to put itself on the island mat. To balance that strength, it can only be used on victory cards. It's important to keep in mind that there aren't so many ways to get victory cards out of your deck, while still retaining their vp; it's a pretty useful ability. Most of the cases that exist are relatively limited (island can only be used once, distant lands can only be used on itself, native village can do it but it's not so easy).
The heirloom is pasture. This means there's an extra victory card to use tropical island on. In addition, it makes it more worthwhile to island your estates, since each one is worth 2vp rather than 1vp.

Notes on version 1:
In my opinion, this is the stronger of the two. I think it might be a bit too strong. The +2 cards synergizes with it's other ability since you have a greater chance to have a victory card to tuck away. It also can work well in BM (which can choke on Victory cards) as well as engines (giving you draw plus pseudo trashing).

Notes on version 2:
This is relatively close to island; it gives 2vp, and allows you to island cards or itself. Unlike island you can only put away victory cards, but you don't have to put tropical island on the island mat, allowing you to use it over and over again without having to buy more islands. However, like island, you can put it on the island mat if you no longer want it in your deck. I'm thinking about removing the victory card requirement and allowing you to just island any card.

Thoughts?

159
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 21, 2019, 08:29:08 pm »
CHALLENGE #37 - CREATE A CARD WITH AN EXISTING HEIRLOOM - SUBMISSION

I did a lot of baseline testing for this years ago and it really can put out a lot of VP on the right board, but the amount of kingdoms that worked well with it was limited. The big issue is you end up not playing most of your Coppers to ensure your Action/Treasure amounts are equal. This makes for some fun but tough game play decisions. Do you play out all your Treasure to maximize your coin, or take the extra VP? Ultimately it was a lot of fun and seemed balanced, but was not often useful enough.

Then it dawned on me that Lucky Coin might be a great fix! Silver flooding greatly increases your options for getting a good baseline, mix of coin and VP during your turns. Smart and thoughtful play should still prevail though.



Feels a bit too strong. Since it's not an action or treasure, you can play any number of these (which is easy since it's non-terminal). Not too hard to have your actions and treasure and actions balanced since you could always hold back a treasure if necessary . With a well built engine, it wouldn't be crazy to get 6 actions and 6 treasures (in some cases even more) and then play 4 of these for 24 points. This could easily allow for endless games, since victory cards are going to slow down your ability to get more points per turn, and it might not be worth it buy more actions or treasures if your deck can't afford them to keep your point engine going.

All the cards that give point tokens push the game to finish by either making you gain cards, or making you trash cards, which puts a cap on how long it can go on for. The only exceptions are monument, which is terminal and only gives a single point which makes it hard (though not impossible) to win only on monument, chariot race, which doesn't always give you points, plunder, of which there only 5 of which are available late in the game (and can be covered by encampment) and again only give 1 point (and since it's a treasure can't be TR of KC), and wedding, which costs too much to just use it for points.

160
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 21, 2019, 08:15:07 pm »
My submission:



Is activating the Magic Lamp too hard? Make it smaller! Shrunken Lamp is much easier to activate, but yields a smaller amount of Wishes. In addition to that, downsizing your Lamp takes an entire buy that cannot be done when you hit $2 in a 5/2 opening.

Not necessary, but perhaps you'd want to consider making trashing the lamp for wishes optional, in case you want to try for the full 3 wishes in a future turn.

161
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 21, 2019, 08:11:15 pm »


Meadow
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Heirloom: Goat

Choose two different:
+1 Card; +1 Action; or gain a Meadow.
-
When you trash this, +3 Coffers

To me this is a very powerful card. The ability to terminally always gain more copies of itself to feed to your goat is spectacular and strong. And they *never* Hurt your deck you can always turn them into a cantrip. I think it needs to be priced much higher and I would rethink the "never hurt your deck" aspect of these, because buying them gaining them becomes a non-brainer. You just wait until your goat lines up. It becomes a lot more of an interesting decision if they are terminal or at least not can-trippable. You could turn the top part to simply "you may gain a Meadow." Then each one you gain clogs your deck and is probably better priced at 2.

I think you're overestimating the value. There are only 10 of these. To get one, you have to use a buy and $2, or use up an action (play meadow for +1 card, gain a meadow), or use up a card (play meadow for +1 action, gain a meadow). You then have to trash it, which means another waste of a card space. All this for 3 coffers. Not so crazy. Besides, since you only need to buy one, making it cost more would actually make it more powerful with TfB.

162
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 19, 2019, 09:46:49 am »


This being non-terminal scares me a little into thinking it should cost $5, but it would feel weak there. The presence of any draw card could make building with this too fast...
And tracking the trashes you've done should be OK?

This feels like it got swinginess to it.

Goat, Silver, and 3 Modelers can get you 3 $5 cards. Copper, Silver, and 3 Modelers means your modelers are dead. Like you said, with an engine, this is easy to exploit (draw your deck trash a $4 card and every modeler is a non terminal gain a non-victory card costing up to $6.)

I personally don't like tracking things like cards I trashed, but I don't see why it would be any different than remembering what cards your opponent gained on his turn (smugglers) or how many cards he gained (treasure hunter), so I think it's fine.

163
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 16, 2019, 09:47:08 am »
CHALLENGE #36 - NON-CONVENTIONAL JUNKER SUBMISSION:

A lab cheap Lab variant that can leave you open for counter attacks.



Quote
+1 Action
You may turn your Journey token over. Then if it's face down, +2 Cards. If it's face up, +1 Card.
Each other player with a face down Journey token gains a Ruins.
Cost: $4 Action - Attack - Looter

This is purely a conceptual idea. Potential problems with Ruins distribution, but that can likely be countered with proper play. A lab at $4 may still be too good even with the chance of gaining Ruins thrown in. Especially if you can reach a sort of critical mass of Lancers where you can always get your Journey token flipped back into the up state. But for that to work you need to spend a lot of $4 cost buys on something that only has an effect around mid game. Sort of like Sauna in a way.

Also probably broken levels of good with other Journey token cards, but there are only three others things that care about that so I'm ultimately okay with that.

Thanks for looking!

I'm not a fan of having a bonus for a facedown Journey token that the faceup side doesn't have.  One thing the existing three have in common is that the faceup token is always better, and this card breaks that and feels weird as a result.  Maybe it could have its own token?  It could also flip the token every time but be cheaper, and/or move the +2 Cards to the faceup side.

I agree. Can you just switch the terms (+2 cards for face up, +1 card for face down)? This might even be more interesting if you get ruins for face down journey token because then you have to decide whether you want to leave yourself open to attack or you want to set your next turn up.

About the attack,  it feels too swingy. If my journey token is face up and you play 8 lancers (which is easy since it's a cantrip), I get no ruins, but if it's face down, I get 8 ruins. I could see situations where this could be very frustrating. Imagine my journey token is face up and I only have one lancer in my hand. If I play the lancer, there could be a game changing difference in whether I get another Lancer or not. What if you flipped your opponents journey token when you have a successful ruins attack?

164
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 15, 2019, 09:42:25 pm »
Cockroach: Imagine games where both players open cockroach/cockroach, do nothing but play cockroach, and end the game on estate-curse-cockroach piles.

Charlatan: Fun idea but it's going to whiff way too often on victory cards.

that's true in the beginning and all the way at the end. That also assumes people aren't trashing their estates. Mid-game, your estates are more diluted.

Besides, there's also the discarding part.

165
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 15, 2019, 01:10:52 pm »


Will definitely need rewording. The way it's worded now, you gain the Curse/Copper, not them.

As for the idea itself, I admit I'm not particularly enamored with it. The vast majority of the time there will be no other junkers, so it will just be the same as measuring the number of Satanic Rituals you've played this turn. If the attack were based on the number of cards you gained this turn, that could be a lot more interesting.

Thanks for the feedback. I think you're right. it kind of seems arbitrary measuring how many cards your opponents gain when most of the time it's 0 (before any SR are played). It doesn't seem worth it to make this card lose so much of its power just because I played a witch this turn. I think I should just rephrase it to be based on how many SR you have in play. It would also mean I have a little more flexibility what would happen on the first and 2nd play (it doesn't need to make opponents gain cards). I think this idea has potential, but I'm gonna put it aside for now. It would really need to be tested.

So instead I am putting out this idea for a card. The idea was to make a less swingy swindler.


This is kind of somewhere between swindler and militia. It gives you $2 and only decreases your opponent's handsize by 1 (regardless of their handsize), but you can keep going until they're down to 3. It also allows them to choose which card to trash so this becomes more powerful if you play 2 per turn (if you only play 1, they'll mostly trash estates in the beginning, and provinces in the end game). It also eventually hits a limit where your opponent is trashing the stuff you junked them with. It's a little worse than swindler in that your opponent chooses the card to trash, but it also forces them to discard cards as well.

166
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 15, 2019, 12:57:49 pm »
Cockroach
cost $1 - Action
+1 Action
If the Cockroach pile is empty, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain a Cockroach.
---
Setup: Each player gains a Cockroach.

i hate that this could lead to a $3/$3 opening ( 3 copper, 2 estates / 3 copper, 1 estate, 1 cockroach / 1 copper remaining in deck)

Replacing an estate with a cockroach would probably help this

167
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 12, 2019, 06:22:26 pm »
Ok, This is definitely not the final version but I'm gonna put this here for comments. This idea was a devil's workshop but an attack. Update: This is no longer my submission. The new submission is here



I think I should add a benefit for the user of the card, not sure what to do (maybe  a +coffer). Any suggestions welcome. I want to keep it at $4 (with the benefit) if possible, but if not the price can change. I'd prefer not to make it a duration if possible.

Just some notes:
Pros
1) Can continue junking after curses run out
2) Is non terminal
3) cannot be drawn dead
4) cost $4 (so it can always be opened with)

Cons
1) Can only junk once per turn (including other junkers you have, like witch), not including its swindler attack
2) Gets worse the more times you play it
3) Gives no benefit (working on that)

Update: This is no longer my submission. The new submission is here

168
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 11, 2019, 09:54:59 pm »

Consulate
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $4
+ $1
Gain a card costing less than this to your hand. Each other player discards the top card of their deck and gains a copy of the card you have gained.

(Reaction cards like Moat can only be revealed before you make your choice, so you could pick Silver, when your opponent reveals a Moat. If the card you have gained loses track (e. g. with Trader) or is the last copy in the Supply, your opponents don't gain any card, but still discard the top card of their deck.)

What's the point of discarding the top card of the deck?

169
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 10, 2019, 11:27:08 am »


For Renaissance.
Even without holy land this seems a bit cheap at $4. If a curser costs $4, it means you can always open with one. The only cursers that cost $4 are young witch, which has a built in defense, and sea hag, which gives no benefit. These weaknesses can counterbalance their cheap costs. Crusade on the other hand curses and has a reasonable benefit with no drawback. Add in Holy Land and it makes it even better, because at least you can utilize the junk you're getting.

I think getting rid of the +buy (something that's not so easy to use early game, which is when you want to curse) and raising it to $5 would probably be better. (Even though this would not be a great $5 card without the artifact, the fact that you're fighting over an artifact can artificially increase the price, like flag bearer)

170
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 10, 2019, 11:16:33 am »


I like this one the best.
The problem with this version is that it gives an advantage to the first player. The first player can curse others before their first shuffle, but can't be cursed before his first shuffle. A curse in the first shuffle can hurt alot.

171
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 08, 2019, 03:18:26 pm »



Can you clarify whether you make the choice individually for each player, or whether you choose trash or supply and then it applies to all players in turn order? When do you make the choice? Right now it is ambiguous. I am not trying to provide feedback before judging, but I do need to understand the card to judge it correctly.

Similar to Spy and Oracle, you make the choice individually for each player. Based on precedent, I believe this is the correct way to write this. If it has been one choice for all players it would have been "Choose one: Each other player gains a Curse, or each other player gains a curse from the trash".

172
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 07, 2019, 02:41:28 pm »
2) In games without trashing, this would play a little weaker than a Witch.

+$1 instead of +2 Cards is more than just a little weaker...
Yeah.
It would kind of depend on the rest of the board and your money density. If you have villages, witches can keep the chain going, but without them, you risk drawing other witches dead.

Regardless of how much weaker it is, it has to be weaker than a witch (absent trashing) or it would not be fairly priced compared to witch. Giving it a weakness absent trashing and a strength with trashing is good.

If you have any ideas of what could be a more appropriate benefit then +$1, feel free to post them.

173
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 07, 2019, 01:04:20 pm »
I don't think you were copying, obviously. I just think it's annoying for both of us that out entries are so similar. Also, you're supposed to keep a change log in your original post so we can see all of your changes at once. Right now you only show your final version in your original post and it makes it look like I'm copying you since you posted first. Please edit back in your developments and story along the way so that people can see how our cards evolved separately at a glance.

I guess I agree with the fact that it's annoying our cards our similar. I think you are one of a few that I've seen who keeps an entire log of all the different iterations. I just put new changes under "Updates" which keeps the original post concise (people can see the exact wording of the older card from all the comments on it, and I usually specify what changed in the comments).

With that said, I decided to make some key changes to Undead Witch for the following 2 reasons
1) I generally don't like cards that you have to buy if they're in the kingdom. UW is a card that you have to go for if it's there. For most cursers it's board dependent whether you have to buy them; if there's weak trashing, you have to buy them to be competitive in the cursing race. If there's strong enough trashing you can ignore them and just trash the curses as they come in. If you don't go for UW, you'll get all the curses. Even if you have good trashing, your opponent can give them right back to you.
2) I think the trashing part synergizes too much with the cursing from the trash. Part of what cards interesting is how they vary with strength depending on the kingdom. Considering that trashing is common enough, I don't need to add trashing to UW. The strength will obviously be different depending if there's trashing or not. Also, along the lines of the first point, since the trashing and cursing from the trash are in one card, it's much easier to use it, meaning it will always come into play. If you have to trash with a different card (say steward), then play UW, the game changes alot. You would need to get steward, a curse, and an UW in your hand for this to be effective; If you just had UW (without the trashing part) you couldn't curse, and if you just had steward and trashed your curse, your opponent could give it back to you. Getting these cards together restricts the cases which this could be effective.

To address these points, I've added 2 changes:
1) If you do curse from the trash, you trash it for a new card. This means you can only curse from the trash once. This takes care of point #1.
2) You don't get to trash 2 cards anymore. Instead you get +$1. This takes care of point #2 above
(Also I change the name to Vengeful Witch, since it didn't make sense for an Undead Witch to turn into a Dead Witch)

With that out of the way here is the new card:

This witch is vengeful and is looking to make sure you're cursed if it's the last thing she does. Indeed it is the last thing she does. But even from beyond the grave, there's a destructive power about her.

1) I gave a bonus of +$1 seeing that +$2 would make this too strong compared to witch (can curse from the trash once and gets rid of itself when it outlives its usefulness)
2) In games without trashing, this would play a little weaker than a Witch.
3) In games with some trashing, every vengeful witch can curse once from the trash. This means the cursing race will eventually end and it won't go back and forth. It also means that you don't have to get a vengeful witch if there's strong enough trashing. After you trash the VW for a Dead Witch, you also have an additional card that can help deal with curses you have, making this card not a complete slog.
4) Note that while both these cards trash, they both need another trasher for them to actually trash.
5) This is still a Dark Ages Theme: VW curses from the trash, DW trashes cards, and it's a card that turns into another card (like hermit and urchin).

Update: I have relented on point #1 and made it +$2.

174
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 06, 2019, 11:51:08 pm »
Okay so here's what I got.


Just changed trashing curses to trashing any cards. I think this takes care of a couple things

1) It makes it always possible for curses to end up in trash so gaining curses from the trash is always possible
2) It keeps with Dark Ages theme of trashing
3) You always get a benefit besides the attack
4) It's no longer worse than sea hag if you don't have curses in hand
5) it's better now compared to ambassador because you can trash anything and you can trash 2 different cards. Also UW will always give out a curse (provided there's one in the supply, trash, or your hand which is very likely). You can also trash cards you wouldn't want your opponent to gain (flag bearer, silk merchant). Consider the following comparisons
    a) Amb-Co-Co vs UW-Co-Co = Both trash/ return 2 coppers but UW gives out a curse compared to a Copper
    b) Amb-E-E vs UW-E-E = Both trash/ return 2 Estates but UW gives out a curse compared to an Estate
    c) Amb-Cu-Cu vs UW-Cu-Cu = Pretty much the same
    d) Amb and two different cards vs UW and two different cards= This is where UW really shines since you can trash 2 cards as opposed to 1 and your opponent will (in most cases) get a curse.

With every iteration, your card keeps getting more and more similar to my Warlock.

They both trash two cards, both Curse, and both deal with Curses from the trash.

1) To be fair I posted Undead Witch before you posted Warlock
2) At the time you posted this, Warlock didn't give curses from the trash
3) The fact that they both curse shouldn't be surprising at all considering the nature of this contest
4) The fact that they both trash 2 cards is still not that surprising since we both chose Dark Ages as our theme
5) I read the other cards but I don't commit them to memory. Now that you point it out, they are similar, but I definitely did not steal any ideas off of Warlock.

As an aside, the fact that UW causes a slog is not terrible. It wouldn't be the only card.

That being said this version may not be the final iteration (that's why I didn't change the original post).

175
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 05, 2019, 06:12:55 pm »
Okay so here's what I got.


Just changed trashing curses to trashing any cards. I think this takes care of a couple things

1) It makes it always possible for curses to end up in trash so gaining curses from the trash is always possible
2) It keeps with Dark Ages theme of trashing
3) You always get a benefit besides the attack
4) It's no longer worse than sea hag if you don't have curses in hand
5) it's better now compared to ambassador because you can trash anything and you can trash 2 different cards. Also UW will always give out a curse (provided there's one in the supply, trash, or your hand which is very likely). You can also trash cards you wouldn't want your opponent to gain (flag bearer, silk merchant). Consider the following comparisons
    a) Amb-Co-Co vs UW-Co-Co = Both trash/ return 2 coppers but UW gives out a curse compared to a Copper
    b) Amb-E-E vs UW-E-E = Both trash/ return 2 Estates but UW gives out a curse compared to an Estate
    c) Amb-Cu-Cu vs UW-Cu-Cu = Pretty much the same
    d) Amb and two different cards vs UW and two different cards= This is where UW really shines since you can trash 2 cards as opposed to 1 and your opponent will (in most cases) get a curse.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10

Page created in 0.099 seconds with 18 queries.