76
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: December 26, 2019, 02:44:47 pm »
Don't we usually say you have 48 hours to start the next contest?
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.
77
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 04, 2019, 10:03:33 pm »
wait this is contest 50 and we're not doing a gold themed one?
78
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 20, 2019, 06:02:02 pm »
Here's my quick made submission:
Kind of like a miser, you can save up during a year of plenty and make your next YoP better (diminishing returns on YoP when you start cashing them in though). Hope it's clear what it does.
Kind of like a miser, you can save up during a year of plenty and make your next YoP better (diminishing returns on YoP when you start cashing them in though). Hope it's clear what it does.
79
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 10, 2019, 06:24:54 pm »
For Excavation, you trash two treasures of any value that you have in play. Since the event cost's $5, you may get lucky and trash Coppers but you may have to trash something more valuable. You also have to trash a Victory card that isn't an Estate.
The Holy Relic's ability only applies to the standard bonuses a card gives. If the card lacks these bonuses, nothing happens. For example, Village would become +2 Cards, +3 Actions while Throne Room would remain unaffected.
Edit: added majiponi's edit suggestion to Excavation
Despite how difficult it is to get holy relic, I still feel it's too powerful. It's pretty much mandatory to fight for it (there are so many cards with vanilla bonuses, it's pretty much guaranteed to have some in the kingdom). And if I take a couple turns to take it away from my opponent (which can easily happen if I can't get a duchy/alt vp in my hand) he has a huge advantage. Even weak cards like pearl diver suddenly become better than a lost city, lab becomes lost city+ lab, and peddler becomes vilage+ lab+ conspirator. That can be game changing even for only 1 turn let alone the whole game.
80
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 10, 2019, 02:21:13 pm »I like the flexibility of this. Sometimes you only want the Travelling Fair style extra Buy, sometimes you want temporary access to a good $4.
Gives you an extra buy and special access to cards. Like many cards in Dominion, it may or may not be worth it depending on the kingdom.
Yep. It's got a little bit of a parallel to Traveling Fair. Both give you an extra buy for $2, both give you another ability that benefits from that +buy, and both don't give you a benefit (besides the +buy) past the 1st time you buy it each turn.
81
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 09, 2019, 11:43:29 pm » 
Gives you an extra buy and special access to cards. Like many cards in Dominion, it may or may not be worth it depending on the kingdom.
82
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 06, 2019, 08:25:43 am »
Great. 2 people answered and they disagree on everything except the secret chamber q. 
.
Just for the record my guess for q1 is A2.
Q2 and small Q2 I'm uncertain (I could see either way).
I'm wondering if there any concrete rulings on these (would love links if you've got them) or if these are just your gut opinions.
.Just for the record my guess for q1 is A2.
Q2 and small Q2 I'm uncertain (I could see either way).
I'm wondering if there any concrete rulings on these (would love links if you've got them) or if these are just your gut opinions.
83
Rules Questions / Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 06, 2019, 12:43:24 am »
I was making a fan card and started to have questions about the order things resolve,
So there are 2 rules that seem to govern things happening at the same time:
1) If multiple cards resolve at the same time for you, you choose what order to resolve them.
2) A card that affects multiple players during your turn still resolves in player order, affecting you first if it affects all players and then proceeding clockwise.
I am particularly interested in the 2nd rule. I have 2 main questions about it.
Q1: Does it go in turn order always starting with the player's whose turn it is, or does go based on the next player after the player who triggered the card? For example, in a 3p game say A plays saboteur. B reveals a province (trashes it) and gains an IGG and there's only one curse left.
A1: Does C get the curse since he is next after B,
A2: or does A get the curse since we always start at the player whose turn it is and go clockwise?
Q2: What if multiple things must be resolved, and then before they are all resolved, more things must be resolved. For example, say in a 4p game A ambassadors Embassy.
A1: There is a constant Queue of things needing to be resolved. Whenever a new thing gets added to the queue, the queue is updated so that it is in the correct order.
So in this case (assuming the answer to the Q1 is A1) B gains an embassy, C gains an embassy and silver (in whichever order he likes), D gains 2 silvers and an embassy, A gains 3 silvers, B gains 2 silvers, C gains a silver.
(assuming the answer to the Q1 is A2) B gains an embassy, A gains a silver, C gains an embassy and silver (in whichever order he chooses. we'll say he gains the silvers first for simplicity), A gains a silver, B gains a silver, D gains 2 silvers and an embassy (silvers first for simplicity), A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.
A2: Triggers stop the game and get dealt with first before all other effects that were previously supposed to happen. (this is kind of like yugioh or magic where the last card resolves first)
So in this case (assuming the answer to the Q1 is A1) B gains an embassy, C gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, C gains an embassy, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, D gains an embassy, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.
(assuming the answer to the Q1 is A2) B gains an embassy, A gains a silver, C gains an embassy and silver (in whichever order he chooses. we'll say he gains the silvers first for simplicity), A gains a silver, B gains a silver, D gains 2 silvers and an embassy (silvers first for simplicity), A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.
A3: There is a queue, but it's order does not get updated. Thus when multiple things enter the queue at the same time, they enter in the correct order. If new things get added, they appear at the end in the correct order (correct order among themselves at least).
So in this case (assuming the answer to the Q1 is A1) B gains an embassy, C gains an embassy , D gains an embassy, C gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.
(assuming the answer to the Q1 is A2) B gains an embassy, C gains an embassy , D gains an embassy, A gains a silver, C gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.
A4: Something else
This question stems from a fan card I made that goes something like this (I've since changed it for other reasons, but I'm interested in the answer):
Eavesdropper
$4 Action - Reserve
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern
-
When another player gains a card costing up to $6, you may call this to gain a copy of that card.
The problem comes in a 2p game if A, B and C have 3 of these on their tavern mat each and A buys a card, say grand market (only 5 left in the supply after A bought it), and they both want as many as they can get, how many does each player get (keep in mind A can react to B's calling of eavesdropper).
Here's a breakdown based on the answers to the above questions (I'm doing this late at night so I might have made an error in the logic):
Q1-A1,Q2-A1- B gets 3, C gets 2
Q1-A2,Q2-A1- A gets 4, B gets 1
Q1-A1,Q2-A2- A gets 1, B gets 2, C gets 2 (they chain along)
Q2-A2,Q2-A2- A gets 1, B gets 2, C gets 2
Q2-A1,Q2-A3- B gets 3, C gets 2
Q2-A2,Q2-A3- A gets 3, B gets 2 (A reacts after B gets 1, gaining 3, and then B gains the last one).
In addition to these questions, I have 2 smaller questions.
1) It seems to be understood that if A plays militia and B reacts with a secret chamber, B gets to use SC's ability before discarding. Why is that so? When A plays a card the immediate effect is for it to be resolved. When B reacts he also gets to do stuff. In effect A and B get to do stuff at the same time in reaction to A playing militia (A resolving militia, and B using SC's ability). So shouldn't A go first? Notice all other reactions to attack cards (like moat or beggar) specify that you go first. On secret chamber, it doesn't do that. Is there errata on this that I'm missing? Or are there special rules for reactions (and reserve cards) that let you effectively stop the game and resolve your effects first?
2) When multiple players can react, can I react then wait to see whether an opponent reacts and then react again? In other words does the time to reveal reactions happen in turn order and then finish after the last player, or can we continuously react until the trigger finally gets resolved? for example, A plays an attack (let's say witch). B has 6 cards in hand including an urchin and wants to really hurt C. B reacts with a diplomat (keeping the urchin and diplomat). C has 5 cards in hand and reacts with diplomat. B realizes his urchin won't hurt C anymore and wants to react with diplomat again to change up his hand. Can he do it?
So there are 2 rules that seem to govern things happening at the same time:
1) If multiple cards resolve at the same time for you, you choose what order to resolve them.
2) A card that affects multiple players during your turn still resolves in player order, affecting you first if it affects all players and then proceeding clockwise.
I am particularly interested in the 2nd rule. I have 2 main questions about it.
Q1: Does it go in turn order always starting with the player's whose turn it is, or does go based on the next player after the player who triggered the card? For example, in a 3p game say A plays saboteur. B reveals a province (trashes it) and gains an IGG and there's only one curse left.
A1: Does C get the curse since he is next after B,
A2: or does A get the curse since we always start at the player whose turn it is and go clockwise?
Q2: What if multiple things must be resolved, and then before they are all resolved, more things must be resolved. For example, say in a 4p game A ambassadors Embassy.
A1: There is a constant Queue of things needing to be resolved. Whenever a new thing gets added to the queue, the queue is updated so that it is in the correct order.
So in this case (assuming the answer to the Q1 is A1) B gains an embassy, C gains an embassy and silver (in whichever order he likes), D gains 2 silvers and an embassy, A gains 3 silvers, B gains 2 silvers, C gains a silver.
(assuming the answer to the Q1 is A2) B gains an embassy, A gains a silver, C gains an embassy and silver (in whichever order he chooses. we'll say he gains the silvers first for simplicity), A gains a silver, B gains a silver, D gains 2 silvers and an embassy (silvers first for simplicity), A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.
A2: Triggers stop the game and get dealt with first before all other effects that were previously supposed to happen. (this is kind of like yugioh or magic where the last card resolves first)
So in this case (assuming the answer to the Q1 is A1) B gains an embassy, C gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, C gains an embassy, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, D gains an embassy, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.
(assuming the answer to the Q1 is A2) B gains an embassy, A gains a silver, C gains an embassy and silver (in whichever order he chooses. we'll say he gains the silvers first for simplicity), A gains a silver, B gains a silver, D gains 2 silvers and an embassy (silvers first for simplicity), A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.
A3: There is a queue, but it's order does not get updated. Thus when multiple things enter the queue at the same time, they enter in the correct order. If new things get added, they appear at the end in the correct order (correct order among themselves at least).
So in this case (assuming the answer to the Q1 is A1) B gains an embassy, C gains an embassy , D gains an embassy, C gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.
(assuming the answer to the Q1 is A2) B gains an embassy, C gains an embassy , D gains an embassy, A gains a silver, C gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.
A4: Something else
This question stems from a fan card I made that goes something like this (I've since changed it for other reasons, but I'm interested in the answer):
Eavesdropper
$4 Action - Reserve
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern
-
When another player gains a card costing up to $6, you may call this to gain a copy of that card.
The problem comes in a 2p game if A, B and C have 3 of these on their tavern mat each and A buys a card, say grand market (only 5 left in the supply after A bought it), and they both want as many as they can get, how many does each player get (keep in mind A can react to B's calling of eavesdropper).
Here's a breakdown based on the answers to the above questions (I'm doing this late at night so I might have made an error in the logic):
Q1-A1,Q2-A1- B gets 3, C gets 2
Q1-A2,Q2-A1- A gets 4, B gets 1
Q1-A1,Q2-A2- A gets 1, B gets 2, C gets 2 (they chain along)
Q2-A2,Q2-A2- A gets 1, B gets 2, C gets 2
Q2-A1,Q2-A3- B gets 3, C gets 2
Q2-A2,Q2-A3- A gets 3, B gets 2 (A reacts after B gets 1, gaining 3, and then B gains the last one).
In addition to these questions, I have 2 smaller questions.
1) It seems to be understood that if A plays militia and B reacts with a secret chamber, B gets to use SC's ability before discarding. Why is that so? When A plays a card the immediate effect is for it to be resolved. When B reacts he also gets to do stuff. In effect A and B get to do stuff at the same time in reaction to A playing militia (A resolving militia, and B using SC's ability). So shouldn't A go first? Notice all other reactions to attack cards (like moat or beggar) specify that you go first. On secret chamber, it doesn't do that. Is there errata on this that I'm missing? Or are there special rules for reactions (and reserve cards) that let you effectively stop the game and resolve your effects first?
2) When multiple players can react, can I react then wait to see whether an opponent reacts and then react again? In other words does the time to reveal reactions happen in turn order and then finish after the last player, or can we continuously react until the trigger finally gets resolved? for example, A plays an attack (let's say witch). B has 6 cards in hand including an urchin and wants to really hurt C. B reacts with a diplomat (keeping the urchin and diplomat). C has 5 cards in hand and reacts with diplomat. B realizes his urchin won't hurt C anymore and wants to react with diplomat again to change up his hand. Can he do it?
84
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 05, 2019, 11:07:45 pm »Abbey by King Leon http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811112#msg811112
I definitely like the idea of trasher with +1 Card. A trasher is something you want at the beginning, which is also when you’re least likely to draw a dead Action card. The card itself is absolutely going to be a powerhouse in the beginning. You get the same trashing as Steward, plus additional cycling, and you’re almost guaranteed to have $3 left over, which can at least get a Silver. Unfortunately, I feel for that reason that the card will play kind of boringly. It will be used to trash and that’s it. The Reaction seems like an odd add-on. It’s a nice way to clear your hand of the card when you’re done trashing, but connecting it to Attacks doesn’t make much sense to me, though it will explicitly help against junkers.
The actual reason for the Reaction was, that it mitigates Chapel’s weakness against hand-size reducers like Militia or Torturer.
Anyway. Here is my submission. Merely a Swamp Witch variant, but let’s see!
Brothel
Type: Action
Cost: $4
+ $2
+1 Buy
Trash a card from the supply. Each other player who has not Lust takes Lust.
Lust
Type: State
During your turns, cards cost $1 more. When you gain a Victory card, return this and each other player gains +1 VP.
This feels a bit too punishing. I'm comparing this to troll bridge. It gives a somewhat similar benefit and a much stronger attack. Troll bridge gives -$1 once. This gives -$1 per card you buy (in addition to hurting cards like workshop) plus an eventual +1vp. More importantly, it doesn't simply go away after one turn. With troll bridge you have to play it every turn to get the attack, with this it continues until they buy a victory card.
In the end game it might not be too bad, since I'm buying victory cards anyway (though that +1 vp still can tip this to be better than troll bridge), but in the beginning this could be devastating (and I could open with it). My opponent (who went first) plays brothel turn 3. I have $5 (which is essentially $4). Next turn I'll have the same problem. I could buy an estate, but not only am I junking myself, there's an opportunity cost. And of course, my opponent will just play brothel again soon.
85
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 05, 2019, 10:53:53 pm »Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.I think this amplies the problematic scenarios of Smugglers where it can cause a stalemate (ideal for both players not to gain anything). Unlike with Smugglers, you'll always know exactly how much benefit your opponent gets from you gaining a card. I'd imagine that in a lot of situations where this is the only way to gain cards, the game breaks down.
I also disagree that this is worse than Duplicate without the +1 Action; Duplicate only allows you to gain two cards of a kind at a time, whereas this is more flexible, and you can get the benefit even when you wouldn't have been able to afford the thing you want to gain.
Thanks for the critique. The more I think about it, the more I'm certain you're right. I'm imagining where 2 players each have 5 eavesdroppers on their mats and have reliable engines that could play all their eavesdroppers every turn. Every card I buy is 5 copies for my opponent: Stalemate.
I was also bothered by another problem. This might work ok in a 2 player game but it gives an advantage to the next player in a 3 or 4 player game. Say player B and C each have 5 eavesdroppers on their mat and there's 6 grand markets left. Player A buys a grand market -> Player B gains 5 grand markets (C doesn't get any).
So I've made a small change that allows only one copy per card gained (that way it's 1 to 1). I feel this solves both problems. In addition, I felt I had to decrease the cost because of this and I thought I'd take off the +1 action to balance it (it was bothering me anyway. it felt like it wasn't in the duplicate and smugglers family if it's non terminal.)
Now it cost the same as smugglers but they each have their strength and weaknesses. Eavesdropper is more flexible, but you can't use multiple on the same card, and unlike smugglers you can't use the card you gained on the turn you play it. In addition, because eavesdropper is a reserve, it (and the card it gains) are more likely to miss the reshuffle.
86
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 04, 2019, 04:10:21 pm »Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.
1) This orginally did not have +1 action. The problem was how to price it. It seemed worse than duplicate, since you had less control and it was more likely to miss reshuffle (since it must stay on your tavern mat for at least 1 turn). It also seemed better than smugglers since it was more versatile since you could hold onto it (ever get smugglers on a turn your opponent didn't buy anything good?) and it could work on any opponent (not strictly better since you get the card later and eavesdropper is more likely to miss the reshuffle). If figured a good solution was to give +1 action and make it $4.
2) I added the "on their turn" clause so it you wouldn't have players using their eavesdroppers on other players eavesdroppers (you'd start having reactions on reactions and it would get confusing who gets to react first). Also, at that point it would start to feel more like a duplicate. This usually won't make too much of a difference since cards gained on other players turns are usually cards you don't like (ruins, curses, etc.)
really like this. Probably more of an FAQ/errata question but: what happens when... say.. three player game, Players B + C have Eavesdropper on their mat, player A plays two Highways and buys the penultimate Province - whose Eavesdropper happens first? whoever's next in turn order?
Yep. As far as I know, that's the general rule (when things happen to multiple players at the same time, they happen in turn order)
87
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 04, 2019, 12:41:15 pm »
Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.
1) This orginally did not have +1 action. The problem was how to price it. It seemed worse than duplicate, since you had less control and it was more likely to miss reshuffle (since it must stay on your tavern mat for at least 1 turn). It also seemed better than smugglers since it was more versatile since you could hold onto it (ever get smugglers on a turn your opponent didn't buy anything good?) and it could work on any opponent (not strictly better since you get the card later and eavesdropper is more likely to miss the reshuffle). If figured a good solution was to give +1 action and make it $4.
2) I added the "on their turn" clause so it you wouldn't have players using their eavesdroppers on other players eavesdroppers (you'd start having reactions on reactions and it would get confusing who gets to react first). Also, at that point it would start to feel more like a duplicate. This usually won't make too much of a difference since cards gained on other players turns are usually cards you don't like (ruins, curses, etc.)
UPDATE: Took away +1 action, lowered price to $3, and now only can gain 1 copy per copy your opponent gains.
1) This orginally did not have +1 action. The problem was how to price it. It seemed worse than duplicate, since you had less control and it was more likely to miss reshuffle (since it must stay on your tavern mat for at least 1 turn). It also seemed better than smugglers since it was more versatile since you could hold onto it (ever get smugglers on a turn your opponent didn't buy anything good?) and it could work on any opponent (not strictly better since you get the card later and eavesdropper is more likely to miss the reshuffle). If figured a good solution was to give +1 action and make it $4.
2) I added the "on their turn" clause so it you wouldn't have players using their eavesdroppers on other players eavesdroppers (you'd start having reactions on reactions and it would get confusing who gets to react first). Also, at that point it would start to feel more like a duplicate. This usually won't make too much of a difference since cards gained on other players turns are usually cards you don't like (ruins, curses, etc.)
UPDATE: Took away +1 action, lowered price to $3, and now only can gain 1 copy per copy your opponent gains.
88
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Really bad card ideas
« on: October 02, 2019, 11:14:44 am »That's not how it works!
$3
Action-Duration
For the whole game, at the start of each of your turns, reveal your hand and discard all useless cards, and when you play an Action card, put it into your discard pile.
When you play a card with +x actions, gain x action cards from the supply (and play then of course)
89
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Contest #46: But it Wasn't Even Your Turn!
« on: September 29, 2019, 12:20:51 am »
Outside of alt-vp or colony games, this feels better than duchy. I'll probably just save all of my totems until the end and cash them out when my opponent buys his last province (probably last or 2nd to last province bought). As long as you play right, it's not likely you'll get left with these on the mat. So basically totem is worth 4 points (to duchy's 3), isn't a dead card in your deck (unlike duchy), and in the event where you need some fodder for TfB, totem can be called early and trashed without losing VP (unlike duchy).
90
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: September 28, 2019, 09:19:30 pm »
Just wondering, do cards like trader, or watchtower count? (They don't gain or return cards, they prevent you from gaining cards which also affects the end game)
What about tomb (even though it doesn't always give you vp on your turn, it makes it possible with cards like swindler)?
What about tomb (even though it doesn't always give you vp on your turn, it makes it possible with cards like swindler)?
91
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: September 28, 2019, 09:17:12 pm »Dueling WitchAction-Reaction
Each other player gains a Curse.
----------------------------------------------------
When any player gains a card (including you), you may discard this from your hand to return a copy of that card to the supply from your hand or the top of your discard pile.
The reaction by itself isn't great, but the presence of this card gives you a reason to pick it up for the reaction, because this is its own defense.
You probably want to have the discard come after returning the card (maybe set aside in between), otherwise the curse won't be on top of the discard pile anymore.
92
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: September 26, 2019, 09:02:09 pm »
When is the judging supposed to be?
93
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Frontiers
« on: September 25, 2019, 11:44:31 pm »
Hey, welcome to the community
I don't know if you know about this but there's a dominion card creator here. It can really help bring the cards to life. I skimmed the cards and here are some quick thoughts (I'll probably add more later)
1) Not a big fan of the new currency diamonds. Alchemy is the least favorite set among most fans because of the potion currency. The inherent problem is that there can only be so many potion cards in Alchemy. If I play a game with only one potion card, I really have to weigh the cost benefit of getting that card and now having a dead potion in my deck (not to mention the risk of not aligning your potion correctly and it being a dead card on turn 3-4). As more sets come out this problem gets worse since the ratio of potion cards get lower and lower and thus it is less likely to have multiple potion cards in one kingdom. Another whole currency just reintroduces the problem.
2) That being said, I think your idea for riches (which doesn't seem like a good idea as a kingdom card if there's no diamond cards in the kingdom) might solve the above problem if you would make it the default diamond producer instead of diamonds (and adjusted it a bit). You'd probably need to reduce the price to $4 (so you can open with it). This would change the relative value of diamonds (if need be you could change it to $2 or 1 diamond), so you'd have to price the other cards accordingly. As an aside, if you're going to have diamonds come in sets of 2, a card with a 3 diamond cost effectively has a 4 diamond cost.
3) I haven't read through all the quests, but I like the idea. You probably should name it something else since quest is already an event (which would make it a little confusing). I've skimmed through some of these and they probably do need a little work. You want to make the reward worth the trouble. For example, if I construct a deck that can trash 5 cards in one turn, I probably don't need to trash 2 more (Purification)
Here are some thoughts on some specific cards:
Riches- as stated above, it doesn't work well as a kingdom card since it's just an expensive silver if there are no diamond cards (which is likely). This idea is really true for all the cards here that produce diamonds (even if they do have diamonds in their cost).
Hostile Natives- expensive, but can easily be abused. Toward the end game, I can make my opponent trash his provinces and get no consolation. It might be better if you gave them the choice (after looking through their discard, so it doesn't become a memory game and slow things down).
Doomed Expedition- comparatively, this is costs more than $6. Seems weak for a card that at best (assuming there are no crowns or capitalism) can either get +1 action +3 cards or +2 actions +2 cards (it also has the risk of trashing itself).
Storage Room- seems pretty weak for what it does. Compare it to caravan. Caravan's way easier to get and doesn't require you to discard cards to be non-terminal.
Sea Monster- Again, if there's no quests (likely), this card has very limited use. Even when there are it doesn't seem to be worth the trouble to get this and play it every turn, just to prevent your opponent from getting a one time benefit,
I don't know if you know about this but there's a dominion card creator here. It can really help bring the cards to life. I skimmed the cards and here are some quick thoughts (I'll probably add more later)
1) Not a big fan of the new currency diamonds. Alchemy is the least favorite set among most fans because of the potion currency. The inherent problem is that there can only be so many potion cards in Alchemy. If I play a game with only one potion card, I really have to weigh the cost benefit of getting that card and now having a dead potion in my deck (not to mention the risk of not aligning your potion correctly and it being a dead card on turn 3-4). As more sets come out this problem gets worse since the ratio of potion cards get lower and lower and thus it is less likely to have multiple potion cards in one kingdom. Another whole currency just reintroduces the problem.
2) That being said, I think your idea for riches (which doesn't seem like a good idea as a kingdom card if there's no diamond cards in the kingdom) might solve the above problem if you would make it the default diamond producer instead of diamonds (and adjusted it a bit). You'd probably need to reduce the price to $4 (so you can open with it). This would change the relative value of diamonds (if need be you could change it to $2 or 1 diamond), so you'd have to price the other cards accordingly. As an aside, if you're going to have diamonds come in sets of 2, a card with a 3 diamond cost effectively has a 4 diamond cost.
3) I haven't read through all the quests, but I like the idea. You probably should name it something else since quest is already an event (which would make it a little confusing). I've skimmed through some of these and they probably do need a little work. You want to make the reward worth the trouble. For example, if I construct a deck that can trash 5 cards in one turn, I probably don't need to trash 2 more (Purification)
Here are some thoughts on some specific cards:
Riches- as stated above, it doesn't work well as a kingdom card since it's just an expensive silver if there are no diamond cards (which is likely). This idea is really true for all the cards here that produce diamonds (even if they do have diamonds in their cost).
Hostile Natives- expensive, but can easily be abused. Toward the end game, I can make my opponent trash his provinces and get no consolation. It might be better if you gave them the choice (after looking through their discard, so it doesn't become a memory game and slow things down).
Doomed Expedition- comparatively, this is costs more than $6. Seems weak for a card that at best (assuming there are no crowns or capitalism) can either get +1 action +3 cards or +2 actions +2 cards (it also has the risk of trashing itself).
Storage Room- seems pretty weak for what it does. Compare it to caravan. Caravan's way easier to get and doesn't require you to discard cards to be non-terminal.
Sea Monster- Again, if there's no quests (likely), this card has very limited use. Even when there are it doesn't seem to be worth the trouble to get this and play it every turn, just to prevent your opponent from getting a one time benefit,
94
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: September 25, 2019, 12:26:30 pm »
are we at the 24 hour mark?
95
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:54:20 pm »
After doing some playtesting, I've come to the conclusion that pioneer does need a bit of a bump (though I still think the previous version would be $3 not $2). So I've added +$1. BM+pioneer (1st version) got 4 provinces in 17 turns. BM+pioneer (2nd version) got 4 provinces in 13 turns. When compared to navigator, it seems fair. 1 less coin for an extra (sniped) card. In addition you look at less cards but have more control of them (discard some as opposed to all or nothing).
96
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: September 23, 2019, 09:18:40 pm »
Ok, new card:
The +1 card doesn't hurt since you can reorder and choose what you draw. Thus if you have no actions, you can topdeck a treasure and draw it.
Started out closer to navigator +1 card, but then needed to make a few tweaks. What do you guys think of the price/ number of cards inspected? Should either of those be tweaked?
Update: Added +coin
The +1 card doesn't hurt since you can reorder and choose what you draw. Thus if you have no actions, you can topdeck a treasure and draw it.
Started out closer to navigator +1 card, but then needed to make a few tweaks. What do you guys think of the price/ number of cards inspected? Should either of those be tweaked?
Update: Added +coin
97
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: September 23, 2019, 08:09:57 pm »Okay, after thinking about this some more, I'm afraid I am going to have to reject the card as it currently stands. I'm very sorry naitchman, and I feel especially bad about this as you were the one who gave me the win in the last contest. But in the end, the point of the challenge is to make a card that does something usually considered awkward (drawing a single card and not letting you play it if it's an Action card.) Parade can always play an Action card if there's one in your hand, so the challenge simply isn't there.
I'm not rejecting the idea outright; I'll accept it if the ability to Throne is based on some condition that's not always met (besides an Action card being in your hand, of course.)
It's cool. guess, I'll need to think of something quick.
98
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: September 22, 2019, 07:44:39 pm »Here's my card
I just want to ask Commodore Chuckles whether this follows the rules. It doesn't technically have +action, but it is a TR variant.
I was trying to decide on the cost (between 6 and 7). I think the +card before the TR is super helpful. It pretty much prevents it from being drawn dead (like getting 3 KC and no other actions).
Royal Carriage and Crown are TR variants that (mostly) can't whiff for $5. "Cantrip or Throne Room" was an outtake for $4 when Throne Room was $3.
+1 Card Throne Room is probably fine at $5.
$5 seems way too cheap. Remember it synergizes with itself. Since most parades will be paraded it's going to be better than a lab.
Think of it this way: if you had a parade and 2 smithies in hand, would you rather have another parade or a lab (extra parade means you draw 15 cards, vs labs 11 cards).
Parade will mostly be better than crown and Royal carriage putting it at at least $6. I put it at 7 since the +card is before throning making it much easier to utilize the throning to it's full potential.
99
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion Card Image Generator
« on: September 22, 2019, 04:34:24 pm »
Thanks for the ideas. I'll try them out and see if they work.
100
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: September 22, 2019, 12:50:55 pm »
Here's my card
I just want to ask Commodore Chuckles whether this follows the rules. It doesn't technically have +action, but it is a TR variant.
I was trying to decide on the cost (between 6 and 7). I think the +card before the TR is super helpful. It pretty much prevents it from being drawn dead (like getting 3 KC and no other actions).
I just want to ask Commodore Chuckles whether this follows the rules. It doesn't technically have +action, but it is a TR variant.
I was trying to decide on the cost (between 6 and 7). I think the +card before the TR is super helpful. It pretty much prevents it from being drawn dead (like getting 3 KC and no other actions).