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 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
176
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 05, 2019, 01:54:57 pm »


I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.
I'd consider a price of $4. At first play it is worse than Sea Hag and "trash 2, junk 1" is similar to Ambassador.

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.

I was going to say that myself. Hmmm... looks like it's back to the drawing board.
Possible things to change
Increase number of curses you can trash (maybe have no limit)
topdeck the gained curse (like sea hag)
Give some other benefit (+$)

In response to king leon: That is true but ambassador is a much more effective trasher and it can work with cards like copper and estate. It's very likely you'll have at least one of those in your hand. (Not to mention the less common case where you use it to give your opponent(s) a province and end the game).

177
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 04, 2019, 08:05:31 pm »


I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.

178
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 04, 2019, 02:59:55 pm »
I'm putting a couple different versions of undead witch out that do give you some bonus. Which one do you think works the best?

179
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 04, 2019, 02:34:03 pm »

Raven
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. you may gain a Raven. If you didn't, put this on your Tavern mat.
When you gain a Province, you may discard this from your Tavern mat. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.
I'm not a big fan of the "cantrip that auto-piles itself." I think Port and Magpie are already pretty bad and they don't even pile themselves as quickly as Raven will. This will split strangely in multiplayer games versus 2-player games. In 2-player games it would not be all too strange to give a player 4 or even 5 Curses with your first Province. In 3-player games you will be the lucky one to give 4 Curses. I think losing the Raven split would be an immediate death sentence in most 2-player games: Receiving 6+ Curses in response to another player gaining 1 Province will probably prevent you from doing anything else the rest of the game.

I agree with this assessment. This is the kind of card that gives a big 1st player advantage. Not only are you more likely to win the raven split because you are 1 turn ahead, but if you can get a province 1st, your opponent might have trouble getting a province himself with all those curses letting you get another province and give him the rest of the curses. At this point, you pretty much won the game. You just can't ignore ravens anytime they're out.

Undead Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Choose one: Each other player gains a Curse; or each other player gains a Curse from the trash; or trash up to 2 Curses from your hand.
In multiplayer games, I worry that the Cursing from the trash will give an uneven number of Curses when it doesn't want to. I'd just have Undead Witch's on-play put all the Curses in the trash back into the Supply and then dole them out normally. Regardless, this looks pretty weak at a cost of $5 without any benefit attached to it except for the unending Cursing. I might want some small value attached to it. Even +$1.
Thanks for the feedback. Both points are valid. I think I'll change the wording so that you can curse from the supply or the trash for each player so it doesn't have this wonkiness.
I was thinking about the lack of benefit when I uploaded this (though the trashing is technically a benefit). I obviously can't add +2 cards, or this will be strictly better than witch and +actions doesn't seem right since non-terminal cursers are very strong. Obviously, the ability to give out curses from the trash is strong so I can't give it too much. I could do +$1. I was also considering raising the number of curses you could trash to 3; what if you got to trash one card unconditionally and then choose cursing or trashing another 2 curses? It would allow this to act a little more like an ambassador (at least in a 2p game). I think I'll make a couple different versions and see which one works best.

Warlock
Types: Action, Attack, Reaction
Cost: $5
Trash 2 cards from your hand. Each other player gains a Curse.
When a player trashes a card, you may reveal this from your hand to return the trashed card to the Supply. Then you may discard this, to gain a copy of the trashed card to your hand.
The wording of the Reaction is confusing, so I hope you don't mind that I expanded it above. I think the ability to duplicate Provinces for yourself with multiple Warlocks is something to be wary of.
Adding a simple "if you do" could fix this

Quote
Child
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $2
Trash a card from your hand.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Trainee.
Quote
Trainee
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $3*
Gain a non-Traveller card costing up to $3. You may put it on top of your deck.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
(This is not in the Supply)
Quote
Sorcerer’s Apprentice
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $4*
Put a non-Reserve card from your hand onto your Tavern mat. If it is a... ...Action card, gain a card costing up to $5. ...Treasure card, +$2, +1 Buy. ...Victory or Curse card, +1 Card, +1 Action
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Sorcerer.
(This is not in the Supply)
Quote
Sorcerer
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $5*
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on top of their deck. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. You may trash one. Put the revealed Treasures into your hand, put the revealed Actions back in any order, and discard the rest.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Master.
(This is not in the Supply)
Quote
Master
Types: Action
Cost: $6*
+$1
You may put your +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, or +1 Buy token on the Master pile. (When you play a Master, you first get that bonus). Each other player gains 2 Curses. For each Curse they didn’t gain, they gain a Copper instead.
(This is not in the Supply)
I think raw "trash a card" is also too good on the first level of a Traveller: It speeds up your deck and makes it easier to continue the Traveller line. If you want Master, I see little reason you wouldn't open with 4 (or more) Child cards considering it gives so much tempo towards what your deck is trying to do.
Also Sorcerer's Apprentice's ability to tuck Victory cards away forever is trying to slip under the radar here. That effect is pretty ridiculous. I think it should not be able to put Victory cards away, let alone giving a benefit for doing so.
Why doesn't [Sorcerer's Apprentice] just trash the card? Is it just so that it can interact with the Tavern Mat? There's no way to get it back right? The only way I can see this being different from trashing is with Miser.
A Victory or Curse card on your Tavern mat is still a part of your deck and will influence your score. Actions and Treasures typically won't matter, but the wording would become more complex if you treated them differently. Maybe the semantic complexity (players wondering what cards sitting on their Tavern mat are doing) would be worth alleviating with word complexity.
Usually the card at the end of a traveler line has to be powerful (note the current ones Teacher and Champion) and be powerful even if you only have one because getting more is a lot of work. Master just doesn't seem worth it. At best, you get all your tokens on master and now it's a grand market; you probably only have a few of these anyway and it's very likely it's late in the game by the time this happens. The fact that it double curses is cool, but considering all the different cards in this line give you some way to trash or remove cards from your deck and that this would be very late in the game by the time this happens, it doesn't really seem worth it to go for a master. Sorcerer's apprentice on the other hand is a cantrip card that lets you tuck away victory cards and doesn't tuck away itself (like island). It would seem worth going down this line and stopping at sorcerer's apprentice (maybe getting a sorcerer if need be). I agree with fragasnap, this probably should be tweaked.

Greedy Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $2+
+$2. Use a coin token so that each other player gains a Curse.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, take a Coin token.
You need an image to apply for the contest.
Overpaying for Coffers is an issue fraught with huge problems. You can functionally set aside coins to buy Provinces very, very fast. I'd steer clear of the concept of overpaying for Coffers.
You should probably fix up the wording
Put a coin token back in the supply; if you do, each other player gains a Curse.

Sorceress
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$1. Name a card. Each player (including you) may reveal a copy of the named card from their hand. Each player who does gets +1 Coffers. Each player who doesn't gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.
This seems a bit swingy. If I name a card and my opponent doesn't have it (something that will be reliant on luck) he gets a curse (which is -1 point and clogs his deck); if he does have it, not only does he not get a curse, but he gets a coffer. Considering that people consider Hexes swingy because some effects (all of which are pretty much negative) are not as powerful as others at certain times, a positive/negative effect would qualify as swingy too.
I think this is a fair characterization, but is somewhat sidestepping the inherently swingy nature of Curse-centered games. If you have Curses, you have more stop cards, which means the random order of your deck becomes more important.
The original version had no "name a card", always triggering off of Curses (which makes it less Guildsy) and the Cursing was unconditional. Do you suppose making the Cursing unconditional to other players (and therefore increasing the cost to $4) be a major improvement? To do that, I'd probably need to change the "name a card" thing to ensure that it still involves opportunity for other players to get Coffers, but that can be approximated.
I'm not really sure what your proposal is. Do you mean give each other player a curse and a coffer? That woud definitely be less swingy, and needs to cost $4-$5 (it would also be the only $4 unconditional curser that also gives a benefit if you priced it at $4). You could also allow for naming a card but not give coffers out; either the player gets the curse or doesn't (like a bane card), though I guess that loses the guilds theme even more.

180
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 04, 2019, 01:46:25 pm »
Coven



I just had an idea (you can take it or leave it). What if there was a single cursed token that was shared by all players. Buying the event would move it to the pile of your liking. This would mean in 4 player games it wouldn't get too crazy with 4 cursed tokens.

Also, it would appear you have a typo on the card (playa)

181
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 03, 2019, 08:07:27 pm »
If I submit this to an earlier round, can I still?

Quote
Sorceress
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$1. Name a card. Each player (including you) may reveal a copy of the named card from their hand. Each player who does gets +1 Coffers. Each player who doesn't gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.
Sorceress is a Guilds-themed Curser that kinda hits everybody. Anyone who can show a named card (Guilds sub-theme) gets 1 Coffers (Guilds main theme), even the player of it. Anyone who can't gains a Curse straight to hand. I'm still surprised there's no official card that gives other players Coffers.

Early you could hit Estates or your other opener for +Coffers and giving a Curse, but the Curse that you give will make it more likely that they can immediately benefit from the Curse by using Sorceress with it.
Later you can use greater variety and deck-drawing capacity to hand out Curses and get Coffers fairly reliably.
You could also name a card that doesn't exist to give out Curses and deal with yours immediately.

This seems a bit swingy. If I name a card and my opponent doesn't have it (something that will be reliant on luck) he gets a curse (which is -1 point and clogs his deck); if he does have it, not only does he not get a curse, but he gets a coffer. Considering that people consider Hexes swingy because some effects (all of which are pretty much negative) are not as powerful as others at certain times, a positive/negative effect would qualify as swingy too.

182
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 03, 2019, 08:01:24 pm »
I'll take a stab at making a promo curser.
Here's Heretic. Super swingy alt-vp that allows you to do an absurd thing like get all the curses and use them instead of money.



Card text is :
Quote
While this card is in play, Curses gain the type "Treasure" and have the ability +$2.
Choose one or both:
• Gain a Curse to your hand.
• Each other player gains a Curse.
-
At the end of the game, if you have the most Curses, 2%

you'd clearly want enough of them to make them actually worth VP to offset the curses you take on.

Alternatively, you can just curse everyone else, and/or yourself!

Also ties into the promo's subtheme of "generally large/strange choices" (Governor, Envoy (for the player on yr left), Prince and Stash also exhibit a similar "large" decision space, Black Market exhibiting "strange" decision space).

edit: fixed image link

The while in play effect should probably be below a line.

183
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 03, 2019, 07:54:52 pm »
Ok. Here's something I thought up right now. I'll probably tweak it a little. Update: This card had undergone a couple of changes. Now I've made a new card. See that Here

Seeing as there are no cursers in Dark Ages, I made Undead Witch for it. It's a witch that never dies. It's a curser that can keep giving curses to people when they trash them. It also allows you to trash your own curses to make sure that curses can even end up in the trash.

Dark Ages theme is cards that care about the trash. This is a trasher (for curses only) and a card that gains cards from the trash.

Thoughts?

Update1: You now get to trash curses and give out curses.
Update2: This card had undergone a couple of changes. Now I've made a new card. See that Here

184
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 03, 2019, 11:42:14 am »
Interesting Contest. Would cards that allow people to get curses but don't directly give people curses be okay (embargo, swamp hag)?

185
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 30, 2019, 10:26:32 pm »
When does the contest end?

186
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 27, 2019, 08:05:51 pm »
I mental mistepped that you'd have to trash at least one.  I think you need to remove the ability to trash 0 even if it stays at 6$, really, it's probably a little too versatile for your remake variant to start slamming double Duchy turns in greening phase no matter what tier of purchase it happened at.  Even altar requires you to lose a copper the turn you gain a Duchy which goes a long way to making it not a double duchy turn.

I think it's probably fine at 7$ as written.  Forge-copper-copper-copper-estate is a little better than
Sanctuary-copper-copper-copper-estate but greening phase Sanctuary-copper-Silver-Silver-Province is a lot better than what Forge offers.

Maybe just restrict to non-victory cards.

Also you could just say gain a card costing $5 minus $1 per card you trashed but not less than $0. It would be a little less wordy.

187
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 27, 2019, 05:41:30 pm »
Returned Adventurer
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.
Cool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.

That would be strictly better than Adventurer.
And? Adventurer is a) removed and is b) underpowered like Mandarin, i.e. it sucks at any price.

Even though it's small, the fact that Embassy gives your opponents a Silver on-gain is intended to act as a drawback; which means that Returned Adventurer having a strictly worse effect for the same price is ok. Though I agree it's probably much weaker than Embassy.

Removed or not; no official second edition cards are strictly stronger or weaker than first edition cards. Even if it's a really minor drawback (like hey, maybe your opponents gain a Silver when you gain it!), I think it should have something to prevent it from being strictly stronger than Adventurer.

Technically, it is not strictly better. If you have 5 victory cards on the top of your deck, adventurer is better since it continues to search. I know that's small but that's enough to make it not strictly better. It's pretty much better but not strictly better, and pretty much better is okay (Noble brigand is pretty much better than Thief).

The strictly better was to the suggested modification of "I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type", not the original.

Oops you're right. Still I think what Segura said is right. Using mispriced cards as a benchmark is a bad idea.

188
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 27, 2019, 05:39:15 pm »
Ok. Looks like we're going with fragasnap's contest. Here's my submission:
 

It's a BoM variant (again, I know) that has specific cards it plays. These cards are not part of the supply, so the only way to play them would be through Crime Lord, and you'll always be able to play Crime Lord as them (unlike BoM when the pile depletes), but there's only 3. Will it be worth it? Depends on the 3 Underlings cards and depends on the kingdom.

Beat ya to it!
Band of Misfits, except made up of even MORE misfits than the other Band-of-misfits
$5                    Action
Play this as if it were one of the set aside cards on the BOMEMUOEMMTTOBOM mat. This is that card until it leaves play.
----
Setup: add 3 action cards not used in this kingdom, each costing $4, to the BOMEMUOEMMTTOBOM mat.


(I actually don't think this would be a horrible idea or anything, but it's still a funny one to me)

HA! I give my word that I thought of this card independently. It's pretty similar, with the exception that I allow $3 cards on the Underlings Mat. Funny that it's in RBCI, like you said it would be fine, it only just has a funny Mat name.

(This kind of reminds me of South Park's "Simpsons Did It" episode)

189
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 27, 2019, 05:31:18 pm »
Returned Adventurer
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.
Cool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.

That would be strictly better than Adventurer.
And? Adventurer is a) removed and is b) underpowered like Mandarin, i.e. it sucks at any price.

Even though it's small, the fact that Embassy gives your opponents a Silver on-gain is intended to act as a drawback; which means that Returned Adventurer having a strictly worse effect for the same price is ok. Though I agree it's probably much weaker than Embassy.

Removed or not; no official second edition cards are strictly stronger or weaker than first edition cards. Even if it's a really minor drawback (like hey, maybe your opponents gain a Silver when you gain it!), I think it should have something to prevent it from being strictly stronger than Adventurer.

Technically, it is not strictly better. If you have 5 victory cards on the top of your deck, adventurer is better since it continues to search. I know that's small but that's enough to make it not strictly better. It's pretty much better but not strictly better, and pretty much better is okay when it comes to universally agreed mispriced cards (Noble brigand is pretty much better than Thief, miser is pretty much better than pirate ship).

190
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 26, 2019, 09:40:13 pm »
Here's my entry for this week's challenge:

Cabal



Cabal is a TR variant that can't be drawn dead. It can also TR Night cards.

I am considering a simpler Night clause:
"You may play a Night card from your hand twice or put this on top of your deck."

But this current wording doesn't seem too difficult and creates some interesting side effects:
• you can't top deck multiple Cabals
• you may sometimes have a difficult decision when you have a Night card that don't want to play (either once or twice), e.g. Changeling.
• lastly, I'm considering creating several cards that care about revealing (ala Patron) so this may help with that.

I'm comparing this to Royal Carriage.

Besides technical ways in which they TR (RC can't TR self trashers, you can use multiple RC on a single action card) here are the important differences that I see:

Pros of Cabal
1) Can TR night cards- The caveat is that there aren't many night cards (15), and some of them aren't good TR targets (Guardian, Raider).
2) Can TR itself- This is very helpful if you are low on actions

Cons of Cabal
1) Can only save 1 for future turns (unlike RC which has no limit on how many can be on your tavern)
2) When you save it for future turns, it takes up a space in your next hand- You only draw 4 new cards (besides Cabal), whereas with RC you draw 5 new cards

Absent of its ability to TR night cards, Cabal is a TR that can save itself in a weaker way than RC. It would obviously be TR<Cabal<RC. It would have to be more than $4 (because it's better than TR) but it couldn't be $5 (because it's weaker than RC). The Q is whether the ability to TR night cards pushes it up to $5. It doesn't really seem like it unless there's a night heavy kingdom.

Good Analysis. A few points:
1. One other pro to Cabal is that it can't be drawn dead. If you Smithy RC, you'll have to wait until the next shuffle to (possibly) play it.
2. I get that one RC is likely stronger than Cabal. But I think there's room for both. Some kingdoms will have one, some the other, and it's only when they are in the same Kingdom that it's a potential issue.

1. You're absolutely right. I actually thought of that before writing my post and then forgot to include it.

2. Fair point (especially when adding in the pro of never being drawn dead).

191
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 26, 2019, 04:43:48 pm »
Here's a variant on Adventurer/Counting House that will hopefully be more useful than either of them.



Quote
Polymath
$5 - Action

If you don't have Deluded or Envious, take Envious. Look through your discard pile and reveal up to 2 Treasures costing up to $6 from it, and put them into your hand.
(I'm assuming BTW that when you say "costing up to $6" you mean "each costing up to $6" not a total of $6 between the 2 of them)

Even assuming you add the discard your deck part, this is going to have similar problems to adventurer. Take the following scenarios:

There are not any kingdom treasures:
This is a really bad buy here. At best it's a terminal +$2, if you have golds or silvers in hand it can be negative $.

You're playing an engine and there are kingdom treasures:
This is a terminal that draws 2 cards. Also, since it only draws treasures, absent of capitalism or crown, it will only give you cards that don't help your engine continue. This is usually not what you want with an engine.

You're playing BM and there are kingdom treasures:
This is the most promising but still has problems. Keep in mind that most kingdom treasures that cost less than $6 only produce $2. This means this will net you $4. However, If you're playing BM, you'll likely have silver and gold which will cut away from that $4 gain. You could try to go for a deck with kingdom treasures (like idol) and polymaths but I think this could probably be beat with a simple BM smithy or some other BM enabler.

192
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 26, 2019, 04:28:17 pm »
Here's my entry for this week's challenge:

Cabal



Cabal is a TR variant that can't be drawn dead. It can also TR Night cards.

I am considering a simpler Night clause:
"You may play a Night card from your hand twice or put this on top of your deck."

But this current wording doesn't seem too difficult and creates some interesting side effects:
• you can't top deck multiple Cabals
• you may sometimes have a difficult decision when you have a Night card that don't want to play (either once or twice), e.g. Changeling.
• lastly, I'm considering creating several cards that care about revealing (ala Patron) so this may help with that.

I'm comparing this to Royal Carriage.

Besides technical ways in which they TR (RC can't TR self trashers, you can use multiple RC on a single action card) here are the important differences that I see:

Pros of Cabal
1) Can TR night cards- The caveat is that there aren't many night cards (15), and some of them aren't good TR targets (Guardian, Raider).
2) Can TR itself- This is very helpful if you are low on actions

Cons of Cabal
1) Can only save 1 for future turns (unlike RC which has no limit on how many can be on your tavern)
2) When you save it for future turns, it takes up a space in your next hand- You only draw 4 new cards (besides Cabal), whereas with RC you draw 5 new cards

Absent of its ability to TR night cards, Cabal is a TR that can save itself in a weaker way than RC. It would obviously be TR<Cabal<RC. It would have to be more than $4 (because it's better than TR) but it couldn't be $5 (because it's weaker than RC). The Q is whether the ability to TR night cards pushes it up to $5. It doesn't really seem like it unless there's a night heavy kingdom.

193
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 26, 2019, 04:10:10 pm »


Here's my entry.  Smelter is an odd trash for benefit card that offers a choice of either a Salvager/Beggar effect (trash a card, gain a bunch of Coppers to your hand) or a Forge-like gaining effect that works only on Coppers.  Early game, it's nice for turning clumps of Coppers into Silvers or engine parts, or occasionally for trashing Estates to hit a certain price point.  Later, the two options can work more closely in tandem (especially if you're able to play multiples per turn) for trashing expensive cards into Coppers and then the Coppers into Provinces.  Also be alert: Smelters can empty the Copper pile very quickly if you're not careful.

I have a hard time seeing the usefulness of this card.

At its price point it's not really an early game card, and even if you do get a 2/5 split, you could easily get unlucky and get Smelter-C-C-E-E or something like that on turn 3.

The ability to trash is necessary early on and by the time you can get it (turn 5-6) your deck has too many non coppers that make this ability less useful. Besides you only start with 7 coppers so how much can you use this (yes I know of it's other ability, I'll get to that in a second)?

It's other ability is gaining coppers which you usually don't want to do (beggar is usually not a great card unless there's some alt VP strat or something like that). Salvager would seem better. Not only is it cheaper, but it doesn't flood your deck with coppers.

Using the abilities together is not so great either. If you throne room a smelter (or play 2) to trash a card and then gain a card from all those coppers, you get an effect that is not as good as a single play of salvager (if you salvage a $4 card with $2 silvers in hand, you can buy a province or 2 $4 cards. If you Smelt a $4 card with 2 silvers in hand and then smelt again you get 2 $4 cards. You could get a province but then you'd have to keep the copper).

I think the price needs to come down probably to $3 (at least to $4 so you can open with it).

194
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 25, 2019, 01:55:45 pm »
Here's my entry. part of a set i'm working on that emphasizes non-attack player interaction.
Gossip - Action-Duration - $3
Until the end of your next turn, Villagers can be removed from Villagers mats during their owner's Action phase for +1 Action each or +1 Card each. This card affects all players.


link to card creator image bc i can't remember how to resize images using phpbb syntax

With a card like this, you should allow some way for villagers to come into play. Otherwise if there's no way to get villagers (which is pretty likely with the current sets) this will be a completely useless card. I also agree with Gubump's critique. The solution would be to give +2 villagers or something along those lines. Of course, it wouldn't work with the contest then.

195
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 25, 2019, 09:37:52 am »
Not to mention that its best option also only stacks up to N times (N being player count) at best, whereas Platinum stacks up to as many Platinums as you have (which is at most 12, instead of at most 6).

Like I said in my original post, there's no limit on how many DE you can play on your turn (assuming there are at least 2 spoils in the supply or in your hand). You can keep reusing the same spoils:
with a hand of 5 DE

Play DE (get 2 spoils)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)
Play DE (get 2 spoils back)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)
Play DE (get 2 spoils back)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)
Play DE (get 2 spoils back)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)
Play DE (get 2 spoils back)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)

In retrospect, I guess it's obvious why there's no +buy (wouldn't qualify for the contest  ;))

196
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 24, 2019, 09:35:23 pm »
CHALLENGE #34 - NO VANILLA SUBMISSION:



I'm not sure if it's clear, but the condition for gaining a Wish is not gaining 2 Spoils. Even if you only gain one Spoils due to that pile running out, you still gain a Wish.


Quote
When you play this, gain 2 Spoils from the Spoils pile to your hand. If you can't, gain a Wish from the Wish pile.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setup: Only add 2 Spoils per player to the Spoils pile.

This seems extremely weak for its cost. It can either effectively produce immediately, gain two one-shot Golds that you could save for later, or gain a Wish, which later returns itself to the Supply for an on-demand -cost. All 3 options are terrible for a card that costs a literal fortune.

Hmmm. I'm trying to figure out what this should cost. Like you said it has the option of producing $6 which makes it strictly better than platinum. The other options should give it a small bump in price. Keep in mind, unlike with fortune you could buy multiples of these and use them effectively (play 2 spoils, play dragon egg, repeat).

One of the problems is this card can be overkill in many games. At least all platinum games have colonies too which makes getting that extra coin important. Fortune comes with a +buy which is important if you're gonna have a load of $. You have to forego a province for each DE you get which then begs the Q if it's really worth it in the long run if provinces are your real goal (in non colony games at least). A +buy would definitely help this. Maybe also, instead of gaining a wish get the benefit right away (gain a card costing up to $6) but then only make it if you gain no spoils (or else you can gain spoil and gold which is better than 2 spoils).

It would need to be playtested but I wouldn't be surprised if with a +buy this could be priced right as it is (or maybe a little less debt). Keep in mind that this could be bought right away unlike with fortune (which has gladiators on top) and can be used multiple times each turn.

197
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 24, 2019, 09:10:54 pm »
CHALLENGE #34 - No Vanilla Bonuses Submission:

Quote
Consul
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left chooses an action card costing more than it for you to gain and play.



Seems like I only submit cards that involve some sort of trashing! My favorite interaction cards are ones like Contraband, Advisor, and Envoy. So, here is a sorta upgrade variant in that vein! I will say this card nicely has some cool synergy with alt-cost cards without having to spell them out, and I like that. You can get your opponent to consul you into upgrading an engineer into a fortune if those are the only debt-cost cards on board. You can always turn your golds into possessions. Good advice! Of course, watch out, your opponent might consul you to bring in more consuls and force you to trash something in your hand you don't want to, like a card that no action card that costs more!

Of course the losing track rule can make you not be able to play the card. I'm open to any feedback. I wasn't sure exactly the best way to phrase "gain and play."

This is the kind of card that could work sometimes, but often will be trouble. There are just so many cards that can hurt this. An opponent that just keeps giving you terminal actions costing $5 is a likely scenario. In addition there are plenty of cards that you only really want a 1 or 2 of (outpost, trading post, mint), not to mention cards that can really screw with your current turn (tacticion,  trading post, storyteller)

198
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 24, 2019, 05:08:24 pm »
Ok. Looks like we're going with fragasnap's contest. Here's my submission:
 

It's a BoM variant (again, I know) that has specific cards it plays. These cards are not part of the supply, so the only way to play them would be through Crime Lord, and you'll always be able to play Crime Lord as them (unlike BoM when the pile depletes), but there's only 3. Will it be worth it? Depends on the 3 Underlings cards and depends on the kingdom.

(Update: Changed wording to clarify that 3 kingdom cards come from unused cards)

199
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 24, 2019, 03:02:15 pm »
Does +$1/card per _____ count? (like vault, harvest, crossroads etc.)

200
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 23, 2019, 05:19:34 pm »
Fragasnap, if you're there, I think you can start the next contest. (King Leon you might want to name a 3rd place if he doesn't respond).

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

Page created in 0.322 seconds with 18 queries.