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 - X-tra

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 19
326
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 19, 2020, 01:30:30 pm »
You're missing a key idea about how strictly better works. Imagine this card:

Quote
Other Village - Action -
Choose One:
+1 Card, +2 Actions
OR
Gain a Curse

Almost every time you play this card, it's exactly Village. If you choose the other option, it's way worse than Village. But the card is still strictly better than Village, because every single thing that Village can do for you when you play it, this card can also do for you when you play it.

Hamlet, on the other hand, cannot do every thing for you that Village can do, no matter what choices you make with it. There are 4 total outcomes you can get from playing Village, and none of them have the net effect of +1 action while keeping your handsize the same, which is what Village does.

Other Village, on the other hand, can do what Village does for you (giving +1 action while keeping your handsize the same), but it can also do something else as well. That makes it strictly better.
So is Other Village worth or in the example you’ve shown? You priced it at , is it because you believe that it is worth this cost? If so, then you did the illegal move of pricing a strictly better Village under .

Anyway, Segura said :

It does not matter what the extra option is or that it involves converting one resource into another or whatever.

So technically, the loss of the 2 cards to Hamlet does not matter, since “converting one resource into another” doesn’t matter. That’s what irked me a lil’. But I get it, I understand. Hamlet can never be, at minimum, the same as Village. Like I said, I did not have faith in this argument, sorry I even brought this up. But yeah, to go back on my example in my previous post, a card that says “+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard a card for +1 Buy” should be a , correct? Strictly better than Village cards must always be at least . But now, it’s strictly worse than Worker’s Village. What happens then?

Anyway, sorry for derailing this thread. The conclusion is that, yes, Wager is a card worth . I just had other reasons to believe that it was worth this cost.

327
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 19, 2020, 12:48:30 pm »
This is like saying that Mining Village would be fine at $3 because, duh, what kind of idiot blow ups his village.
Contrary to your claim, the card is Village plus something. The first part is village, then you can either skip the second part or, if you want to, use the extra part.

It does not matter what the extra option is or that it involves converting one resource into another or whatever. The extra option is valuable and thus has to be priced in.

This is nothing controversial but Dominion 101: all villages with a cherry on top cost more than $3.
Counterargument: Hamlet. It does more (and less at the same time, yes) than a Village, but it ain't costing your precious . Village doesn't give the Buy, but Hamlet can! What! Poorly designed official card if you ask me.

Okay. Now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. In truth I don't really think what I said about Hamlet, I'm just being petty. Still, why do you refuse to read the part where I agree'd that it should be a ? I'm just saying that I believe it should be so, not because it's a Village that gives something more, but because it's a Village that has the option of probably be shittier than a normal Village (again, always barring the case where its user turns it into a Laboratory).

Final test: Price me this hypothetical card: "+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard a card for +1 Buy". Hamlet, Worker's Village and Village all say good luck.

I think you're evaluatiing "strictly better" to mean that on play it is stronger than "+1 Card, +2 Actions". And you make good, reasoned arguments for the different play options.

But (and you do consider this with the versatility comment) the point segura is making is that if this is on the board, you would always buy this instead of village. Because it's always can be a village, and in a circumstance where you need it to something different, you can.
A sound argument. I did realise that after making the card. My focus was on the fact that, if you chose to overdraw with Wager, it'd be weaker and overpriced compare to stuff like the Smithy case I mentioned before. However it is true that just giving the user the option to do so, whereas Village do not, is worth bumping up the price by , even if said choices are below mediocre. Choices that will probably put you in a more miserable position than nuking your Mining Villages for cash, dare I add. ;)


Edit: Okay. Removed the unnecessary mean undertones of this post. I'm not that kind of guy, sorry.  :-[

328
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 19, 2020, 10:01:31 am »
Dude, it is a Village with an extra, non-mandatory option.
That is most definitely strictly better, so it has to cost at least $4.
But the options morph Wager into something that really isn't "Village + something", like I listed. In fact, all of the options you can have with it are weaker than their other existing card counter part (except, maybe, when you decide to draw only one card with Wager). Like, a Smithy that gives ? Hardly justifiable at .

But regardless, you might have omitted to read this here quote:

I’ll concede that maybe the extra versatility of the whole affair is what should bump it to , […]
It addresses the concern you’re raising. ;)

329
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: A Dozen of Custom-made Cards
« on: August 19, 2020, 09:22:47 am »
Thank you for the kind comment, LibraryAdventurer. I wanted to update this thread a little while ago, since I did some more playtesting since then. But I uh, I got lazy, lol. Why fix what’s old when one can always generate more untested crazy cards, hahaha! I kid’, I kid’, but the part about me wanting to revisit and correct some of these cards is true.

I ended up making a set of 30 cards as a weird Frankenstein (‘s monster) consisting of some of these cards here, some of the cards I have submitted in the weekly contest thread and some other ones I have shown in the variant subcategory of the Dominion Discord server for feedback. I’d love to post them here, but this thread will get messier. I’ll just say that, in the set I’ve made, some of the cards here have been dropped. All landscape cards have been dropped for starters, because they were the weakest, in my opinion, in the bunch. Plus, I did not have enough of them to justify adding them to the set. It looked like they were just sort of tossed in and it really looked amateur-ish. Not that my set isn’t! But uhhh, I try D: . Also, Watchmaker has been dropped. While cool in theory, in practice, there hasn’t been any of my playtesting games where our group has been interested in buying one (unless held at gunpoint and forced to gain one so that the damn thing could be tested). So goodbye, Mr.Watchmaker. Maybe I’ll revisit you one day!

I like your suggestions. Mobsters could use some tweaking. Though, so far, people have been happy to buy ‘em in our games. They did well in their deck too, I think. But, that is not ultimate proof that they’re perfect as is. I’m always happy to move stuff around and see what sticks. As for Handler, I think I’m quite content with this little guy costing . It definitely felt like it was worth its price in a lot of our games. Sometimes, there’s the occasional game where the set aside Ways makes Handler feel stronger. But I’m okay with that. ‘Cuz during these games, it’s up to the player to find that out and exploit it. As for Way of the Pig, I thought of this before, but I’m cool with that too. Handler will be weaker this one game and again, it’s alright that it happens. He can’t win ‘em all. :D

Finally, Wager should probably be a , yeah. I commented on that here.

330
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 19, 2020, 08:56:18 am »
First of all, this is strictly better than Village.
Second, even at $4 it might be too strong. If you had to spend the Action to draw it would be OK.

I don’t think it’s strictly better than Village. It’s more along the line of, it’s just different than Village. They’re kind of on 2 different scales. If we analyse Wager more thoroughly, we see that:
  • It’s a Village if played as is.
  • Then, it’s a Laboratory that makes you take (which is probably where you want to be more often than not with Wager).
If you keep drawing, it’s all downhill from there onward.
  • At 3 cards drawn, it’s a Smithy that gives you . Pretty shit deal.
  • Then, we have a Hunting Grounds that gives you AND that sucks one of your spare Actions out. Not even playing a Village before drawing 4 Cards with Wager will save you from it being terminal.
And it goes on. It’s just so different than Village in all the options you can do with it. I’ll concede that maybe the extra versatility of the whole affair is what should bump it to , but no way with these below average choices should it be upgraded to a . But it doesn’t matter anyway. We’re so far into this competition that further changing the card would be a disservice to Pubby. So it’ll have to stay as is.

331
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 18, 2020, 08:27:49 pm »
I am so terribly sorry to post this so late, but I was still not satisfied with my entry, so I narrowed it to this:



Now, regardless if there still are some small hiccups with Wager V3, I'll leave it as is.

332
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 15, 2020, 11:30:30 am »
THIS SUBMISSION HAS BEEN UPDATED. THE UPDATED VERSION (V3) CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 269.

Following a very good suggestion by user chronostrike, I will update my entre, Wager, to its v2 version:



The Debt is indeed way better for what this card is trying to achieve, since it's easier to track, doesn't involve negative shenanigans and carries over turns, making you more hesitant to draw your entire deck.

333
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 13, 2020, 10:34:31 am »
THIS SUBMISSION HAS BEEN UPDATED. THE UPDATED VERSION (V3) CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 269.




A potentially dangerous idea here, but I'm waging (lol) that it could be okay. You can draw your entire deck with this one card without any external help. But at what cost? Well I'll tell you at what cost: a lot of .

This is incredibly potent with Traveller cards, junkers, trashers and gainers. In these situations, you do not mind drawing your entire deck without buying a card that turn. But as a pure draw card for your Engine? You might be losing too much income with it. And it goes without saying that this has no room in a Big Money deck.

This could be a for all I know.

334
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 12, 2020, 03:51:13 pm »
Way too powerful; this is basically a triple lab if it hits all victory cards.

Since it's a Lab+, Any Number should at least cost :D :D :D

335
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 10, 2020, 07:48:11 pm »
Cool! Thanks for the kind comments about our cards. I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything you've said in your judging. Inquisition, the first card submitted, already looked like a winning candidate in my book when pubby published it.  :D

Only small thing though... I think you forgot to judge majiponi's entry, Tenshukaku.

336
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 06, 2020, 03:30:13 pm »
At $7 always KC as there is a small chance that KC duds in the situation you described.
If both are of equal cost, still with the same situation described, I think I'd do Master Plan > King's Court > King's Court > etc... There is no real downside of running with only 1 Master Plan, as it can be used to replay a King's Court for the same effect of King's Courting a King's Court. And the upside is that it won't dud, ever, as opposed as a dead King's Court hand. As we go further into that game, King's Court are probably better. But one Master Plan is not bad to have.

In a Master Plan only game, I can still see it being viable. It takes that special kind of game though. Now I wonder if Master Plan should have its cost reduced to a ... It's starting to be pretty good for its price down there.

337
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 06, 2020, 12:35:21 pm »
But I don't want to fall into the weirdness of calling a Master Plan on a Master Plan you've just played. I believe this is why Royal Carriage had that clause in the first place, or part of the reason why.

338
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 06, 2020, 11:52:00 am »
Changed Master Plan's cost:



I get that this was too expensive at . But Master Plan is either a or a . But not a (because, y'know, Royal Carriage). I tried here, but maybe this is still not right? It's definitely better than the previous version at least.

339
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Livery + Hypothetical Cost-Increaser
« on: August 06, 2020, 11:25:28 am »
I pondered upon that idea for a while too. While a cost increasing effect seems like a cool idea, it’s not without its shortcomings and it perhaps is a path worth avoiding. But let’s suppose we want to make this work just for the sake of it. Like you said, we need to avoid instant pile-outs. For now, you’ve targeted Horses. But there’s also Silver with the weird Trader game loop. So to take care of both these cases, how about:

“This turn, Action Supply piles costs more.”

Horses are out-of-Supply. Silvers are not Action cards. So this could work, I think? This simple wording can make for a potential Attack against your opponents (such as with the Attack – Duration saying “Until your next turn, Action Supply piles costs more”, or whatever). This does not cover every case, such as Treasure and Victory Supply piles whom remain unaffected. But it is simple to read and comprehend, doesn’t seem overly broken at first and becomes an effect that can be mixed with other card effects.

Likewise, this can be made to only target cards in one’s hand. That way, the gained cards remain unchanged in their cost and Livery stays unbroken. Like:

“This turn, cards in your hand costs more.”

On its own, not so great. But tied with a remodel-ish bonus on the same card, it becomes more interesting. And it has the potential to really boom if you’d play multiple of these cards-in-hand-cost-increaser in one turn. Maybe even turning a Copper to a Duchy, I dunnno, lol.


Anyway, these are merely suggestion to solve OP’s dilemma and they have no value outside of that. And if I thought of stuff like that, then it’s been thought of before. And if it was disregarded before, well, there’s probably been good reasons for it to be. Cost increasing cards are somewhat counter intuitive and I suspect it’s harder to future proof these lil’ fellas. So, after 13 expansions, I think it’s safe to say that we won’t find this kind of card in Dominion. :)

340
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 05, 2020, 11:34:06 am »
I believe, gaining 5 Coppers qualifies as Big Number.


Fountain of Tears
$4D3 - Action
Gain up to 5 Coppers into your hand.

You can grab this as early as in the first two turns trying to rush Provinces, but the slow down effect of Coppers is severe enough to make this strategy not very feasible.
Gardens would like to say hi. :)

341
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 04, 2020, 05:16:29 pm »
Hmmm. I see you guys’ point. It seems that what Master Plan brings in reliability, it loses in combo with itself. Okay, that tradeoff is enough for me to lower the price. I will edit my entry post later.

342
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 04, 2020, 03:45:52 pm »
I think this could get away with costing $6 (or $7 but certainly not $8) as it is unable to chain which is arguably the strongest part of King's Court.
Royal Carriage costs more than Throne Room. The situation is the same here, except that this costs more than King's Court. That's the benchmark I'll base my pricing on.

343
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 04, 2020, 03:26:49 pm »


This is to King's Court what Royal Carriage is to Throne Room. The name "Master plan" follows the footsteps laid by Mastermind.

It's not particularly creative and I'm sure that card has been done before, but eh. I'm okay with that.

344
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles
« on: August 04, 2020, 10:57:37 am »
Festival?
Nope!

What about Marauder?
Nope!

Alright, I'll say what I found. Keep in mind I cheated and had to look at the symbol of the element I suspected was the most common. I did not cheat to know which card it was though. Please do not reveal that answer, there's still people out there who'll want to genuinely find it: it's Snowy Village, for the element of symbol "Sn", Tin. Tin is the most common found set of letters bunched together in Dominion card names.

These Wayfarer solutions are very cute, but my original intended solution is much simpler:


Your solution might be much simpler, but scolapasta's solution is way fairer.

I don't understand what you mean.

Way fairer... Wayfairer! It's meant to be a pun.  :)

345
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles
« on: August 03, 2020, 09:10:38 am »
Festival?
Nope!

What about Marauder?
Nope!

I know what element it is. But I cheated, because, while I knew the name of the element itself, I forgot what was its symbol. Now that I know what the symbol is, I know what the card is as well (without having to look that one up though!)

I can say the answer, but feel bad I had to look up for the symbol for the element I knew was the most common.  :-[

346
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 02, 2020, 02:34:44 pm »
CONTEST 82 JUDGING


As per tradition, here I am late with my judging. Woops. So the rules of this contest were a bit farfetched, I hope that did not stop some of you guys to enter something. I just wanted to try something different to see how it’d go! But still, I’m very please with what you guys entered. Like always, the creativity y’all display here is always so damn interesting. ‘Tis a shame we always have to pick only one winner, that’s the only disappointment. :D

Feel free to discuss my judging should you have any disagreement and stuff. So here we go again:


Way of the Coyote (Way)
You may discard a card for +2 Cards. You may discard a card for +2 Actions.
The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Cards and +2 Actions.
Another cool Way from Grep! Basically, this transforms any Action you have into a possible stronger Hamlet. Hey I like that! With this in play, it is Way (lmao pun) easier to build up your Engine. Terminal collision of 2 draw cards? No problem my dude, just Way of the Coyote one of them into a +2 Action. Too many Action but juuuuust not enough draw that turn? Way of the Coyote one of your extra +2 Actions card into a +2 Cards. I like that flexibility. Although maybe this makes things a little too easy for you? Even then, I can’t say I dislike it. It’s still very fun indeed!

Ring (Treasure – Victory)

+1 Villager
-----
Worth 2 if you have 4 or more Villagers.
The two Vanilla effects are: and +1 Villager.
Back when this didn’t have a cost, I theorized that this was worth . I dunno, I thought it compared favourably to Harem. And the non-terminal way of acquiring Villagers is pretty strong. Note that I’m cool with this being worth ; I just think this seems like a pretty powerful card! This card would love to be Crown’d, that’s for sure.
I like the design here, it seems pretty sound. I feel like the clause is a little hard to get to. Perhaps it’s not even worth getting there, since I believe one will get more value in using their Villagers rather than pilling them up. Recruiter could invalidate that statement by trashing a Ring, but you know what I mean, hahaha!

Oubliette (Action)
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Reveal your hand. Discard the duplicates.
The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Cards and +1 Action.
A Laboratory that rewards deck variety. Cornucopia says hello! This doesn’t work too well when you need multiple copies of a card in your deck. In fact, you might even reduce your hand size playing an Oubliette if you’re careless enough! But it does get its usefulness in certain type of decks, especially because of how cheap it is to acquire one of these. This seems to be a little outclassed by Menagerie, but maybe I’m seeing the whole thing wrong here.

Dragon (Action)
+3 Cards
You may trash a card you have in play other than a Dragon. If you do, +1 Action.
The two Vanilla effects are: +3 Cards and +1 Action.
Moving stuff in play during the middle of a turn is always risky since the never-sleeping community here will find a way to create infinite loops with that kind of power. Luckily, I’m not that far into the rabbit’s hole and I won’t try to come up with crazy scenarios where this is possible. :D
The trashing clause here implies that you’ve been able to play at least 1 other card before Dragon which gave way for more Actions. Like a crusty ol’ Pearl Diver or what have you. Dragon really benefit from eating those lil’ inexpensive cantrip fellows.
I can see Dragon really benefiting from those “return to your Action phase” cards. Like, Dragon and Villa is a no brainer and looks like a very good combo. Likewise, Dragon + Black Market; or Dragon + Storyteller can be pretty badass if played right. The fact that I’m already thinking about stuff like that means I do like the card, so yay! :D

Sophia (Action)
+1 Action
Choose one: +; or +1.
-----
Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile costing at least to the Supply.
The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Action and +.
Interesting. But I dunno, I feel like I wouldn’t spend my hard earned on this. There’s tough competition at that price. I’d even consider other disappearing money more, like Festival. Potion stuff is always a little weird. This also screws up a little bit with Alchemist and Apothecary. Especially if they are the “extra Kingdom” out and the only P costing Supply pile. But I can see this being cool with stuff like Scrying Pool.

Figurine (Treasure)
+1 Card
+
Put up to two cards from your hand on top of your deck.
The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Card and +.
I’d prefer if it was just a big coin symbol on top of the +1 Card, that’d fit more with the other Treasure cards out there. :)
This self-replacing Copper is weird, maybe even a little weak. I get that you can topdeck unused (or just drawn) Action cards with this, but I dunno if I’m ready to spend for a Figurine to do so. But it is an utility card and so I’m sure some peeps out there will find a perfect spot in their deck for a Figurine.

Yield (Treasure)
+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. + per different card type you reveal.
-----
During your turns, this costs more per different card type you have in play.
The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Buy and +.
I think it’d be a little (and emphasis on the word “little”, for I do not think the problem is a major one at all) hard to remember how much each Yield can be, since with each play of them, you must reveal your hand. And that value can fluctuate. Like if you play a Yield, revealing another Yield, playing that other Yield and then revealing a Treasure-less hand (two different values for two different Yields). Bank’s like that too, but at least the cards are in play and so it’s easier to see how much each Bank gives.
But like I said, that’s only a teeny-tiny minor complain, so let’s disregard that for a moment. I like the idea of Yield. Deck variety is always a fun thing to toy around with and Cornucopia proved that. The +1 Buy on Yield is appreciated and should help you enable that card more. In fact, any Treasure card with a +1 Buy (ore more, perhaps, if we’re being crazy) is very nice in my book. Overall, cool design!

Ikon (Treasure)
If you have an odd number of Ikons in play, +2 Cards. Otherwise, +. You may discard an Action card to gain an Ikon.
The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Cards and +.
Weew, lots of Treasures this time around! Ikon’s nice, let’s not lie to ourselves here. Ikon could justify being in an Action heavy deck more than your average Treasure card and that is nice. This flexibility makes for interesting strategies. I could see someone opening Ikon/Chapel, trashing stuff with the good ol’ Chap at first and discarding it later for more Ikons and more sweet cash. Overall, a nice and sound design.

Mad Scientist (Action)
+
Trash 2 cards from your hand. If at least one costs or more, gain a North Magnet and a South Magnet, both onto your deck.
North Magnet (Action)
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
Look through your discard pile. You may reveal and play a South Magnet from your hand or discard pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)
South Magnet (Action)
+1 Action
+
Look through your discard pile. You may reveal and play a North Magnet from your hand or discard pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)
The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Cards and +1 Buy AND +1 Action and +.
Nice! I like how the 2 cards to be gained both qualify for this “2 vanilla effects” contest. The flavour’s pretty neat! Mad Scientist is a nice trasher (albeilt a little late to get one, since, you know for a Mad Scientist isn’t much early game anyway; although I’d consider it more for that propriety if it’s the only trasher in the Kingdom or with a 5/2 split). I like that the Scientist can trash one of his Magnets to get… more Magnets! And the Magnets themselves are pretty swell. When you gain ‘em, you’ll pretty much be able to play both of them together since they come together, which makes you look forward for your next turn. Together, these are pretty much a Grand Market (+2 Cards instead of +1 Card, but it takes you 2 cards to get there, so it cancels out). Anyway, I like it. And I feel like the trash condition to obtain the Magnets isn’t too punishing either, so it’s definitely worth considering.

Fairy Godmother (Action – Reaction – Fate)
+1 Buy
+
Receive a Boon.
-----
When another player plays an Attack card, you may first reveal and discard this from your hand, to be unaffected by it. If you do, take a Boon. Receive it at the start of your next turn.
The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Buy and +.
There is, I think, a little too much text for my taste on this card. Donald said that Secret Chamber’s reaction was a little too confusing, now imagine his reaction (I hate myself for that pun) to Fairy Godmother. I believe that you can simply say “You may first discard this from your hand” instead of shoehorning a “reveal” in there.
Still, despite all this, I like the Boon receiving reaction. It’s pretty unique and makes for a cool effect!

Dark Path (Action – Curse – Traveler)
+1 Action
-----
-2
------
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Jungle.
Jungle (Treasure – Traveler)

-----
-2
------
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Crossroad.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Crossroad (Treasure – Traveler)

+1 Buy
-----
-3
------
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Loophole.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Loophole (Treasure – Traveler)

-----
-4
------
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Atman.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Atman (Treasure – Victory)

Trash this.
-----
2
------
(This is not in the Supply.)
The two Vanilla effects are: and +1 Buy.
Well this is pretty exotic. I mean, I know what you’re doing here, but this is very hard to play it in my head. It messes a lot with the Curse givers like Witch since you can now choose to take a Dark Path instead. It’s not too hard to exchange these since they are all non-Terminal… Still I’ll just say that I’m not too big of a fan of the last guy in this Traveler line, Atman, which might as well not have the 2 printed on it. This is the Dame Josephine syndrome all over again.
Also, it is weird that Crossroad has a +1 Buy slapped on it as opposed to the rest of this line. Like, why that one in particular? I mean, at least this is that one effect that makes this set of cards eligible for this week’s contest.
I wonder why Jungle, Crossroad and Loophole don’t have a Curse label on the bottom. I mean, they’re out-of-Supply cards anyway, not like you can gain them when being attacked by a Witch anyway.
Lastly, I’ll just say I’m not the biggest fan of cards with 2 dividing lines. A card with 2 dividing lines is a good indicator to see if your design is stepping too far into card weirdness; I feel like it screams to be streamlined at this point.
But yeah, this is too different from anything I’ve seen in Dominion for me to truly comprehend what’s going on there (non-terminal Curse Traveler line which ends on a self-trash instead of an overpowered card).

Gondolier (Night – Reserve)
For each card you’ve bought this turn, +1 Coffers. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-----
At the start of your Buy phase, you may call this for +1 Buy.
The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Coffers and +1 Buy.
I think you have priced this correctly. Yes, non-terminal +Coffers can be quite scary design wise. I think, however, that this is done well here. The Coffers cannot be immediately spent when you’re player Gondoliers. Gondoliers also go directly on your Tavern mat, meaning that their Coffers gaining ability get disabled every other turn. So yeah, play 3 Gondoliers on a turn where you’ve bought 2 cards for 6 Coffers. I think this is fair. But you know what, I’m a little narrow minded too and I might not be seeing the bigger, game breaking combo here if it exists.

Carpenter (Action – Duration)
Either now or at the start of your next turn, +2 Cards.
-----
While this is in play, the first time you gain a Treasure card each turn, +1 Buy.
The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Cards and +1 Buy.
Heh that’s funny. Back in the days, I made a (crappy) set of card with my bro for Dominion and he made a card called Carpenter with that exact same picture as well. Ahhh good memories. :D
So yeah. At first, I was a little confused by the wording of “each turn”. I dunno what that meant. Then I understood that this mean both turns the Duration is in play. I feel like there could be a less awkward way of wording that, but heck if I know. The card itself is pretty swell. Big fan of the new “either now or at the start of your next turn” introduced in Menagerie, like with Barge. A good and sometimes tough choice to make. Especially with the bottom clause of this here Carpenter. Do you need more cards now to fire off the +Buy? Or are you okay now and so you can save those 2 extra cards in anticipation for your next turn? I like it!

Jhum (Action)
Reveal your hand. Trash 3 cards from your hand costing or more. If you did, then +2 Buys and +.
The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Buys and +.
Ouch, this seems rather harsh for whoever plays this. Trashing cards costing or more? These are starting to be pretty valuable cards. And 3 of them? In your hand at once? Even if you weren’t punishing yourself so hard with Jhum, gathering the ingredients for the benefit to be fired is not the easiest task. And the reward is pretty underwhelming honestly. I’ll just buy a Capital instead, which also gives me and a Buy at the cost of no Action and I’ll be punished less harshly for doing so.

Apiary (Action)
Choose 1: +1 Villager and +1 Buy; or gain a Honey.
Honey (Treasure)

If you have no Coffers, +1 Coffers.
(This is not in the Supply.)
The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Villager and +1 Buy AND and +1 Coffers.
Nice little duo of cards both falling in line within the rules of this week’s contest :) . I appreciate the effort you took to ensure that this came to be even if only one card was required to have 2 vanilla effects. That’s very thematic!
Apiary has trouble being paired with the Honeys it dispatches since you probably want a draw card in your deck to have a bunch of Honeys at once. The +1 Villager and +1 Buy choice is a little disappointing, since you’ll eat through that Villager to play more Actions. So it’s one less card in your hand for an extra Buy. No truly, I think the “gain a Honey” clause is where it’s at. ‘Cuz Honey seems pretty swell to me. Play one Honey, spend the Coffers immediately, play another Honey, spend that other Coffers immediately, rinse and repeat.

Seagull (Action)
+3 Cards
You may discard a Seagull from your hand. If you do, choose one: +1 Action; or gain a Seagull.
The two Vanilla effects are: +3 Cards and +1 Action.
A Smithy plus like you said. Or like a Forum, really, where you discard one less card, but a more valuable one. Difference between this and Forum is that this can gain another Seagull at the cost of your Action, whereas Forum gives a +Buy on gain. 2 niche effects, but that have a reason to exist. I like Seagull, it seems sound to me. The choice on a “if you do” thingy is a little funky, but the card itself is pretty simple anyway, so it’s fine.

Extort (Action – Duration – Attack)
Until the start of your next turn, when a player ends their Buy phase with less than , +1 Card and they draw one less card for their next hand. At the start of your next turn, +2 Coffers.
The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Card and +2 Coffers.
First, I’ll say that I’m glad you gave this a name :) . I know this sounds silly, but I feel like the name plays a part of the whole card creation process, just like the price of the card does, just like the effects of the card does, etc.
Anyway, for the card itself: On a lil’ technical note, I think it’d be better to say “ unspent” (see Wine Merchant) for more clarity.
Okay, so I realize that this is unlikely, but what if you have a couple of err… Extorts out? At 3 Extorts in play, a careless opponent might end up with a starting hand of 2 cards for their next turn. Likewise, you could simply King’s court an Extort to get that effect. In fact, I’m pretty sure you can pin your opponent with this. King’s Court > King’s Court > Extort > Extort is sufficient to lock an opponent who has less than in unspent . Because they’d then start their next turn with 0 cards, which means they’d have less than in unspent once more. So you can lock their turns.

Crumbling City (Action)
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
-----
When you discard this from play, set it aside and put it into your discard pile at the end of the turn (after drawing).
The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Cards and +2 Actions.
A pretty sexy card. I kinda like the consequence of this Lost City variant, with its weird Faithful Hound mechanic of doing something directly after you draw your next hand. In fact, it’d be cool if more cards in Dominion did stuff like that, affecting your discard pile for your next turn and preventing these cards-into-discard-pile to be drawn in your next hand no matter what. I tried to do something like this in the Variant subcategory of the Dominion Discord server (you may remember what it was), but it was pretty eeeeeeh. Here, the idea is exploited way better. I like Crumbling City. And I feel like asking for that card is correct.



Semifinalists: Gondolier; Ring; Mad Scientist; Seagull; Dragon

Finalist: Way of the Coyote; Ikon

Winner: Crumbling City


A late addition to this contest by Something_Smart, and yet a very interesting one, Crumbling City swoops in and snatch the Victory for this week. :D

Placing those finalists/semifinalists was torture. I kept changing them around. Dragon and Seagull were both finalists at first, but then I kept switching stuff around. In the end, I settled with this placement for the cards. This is cruel at best, hahaha!

Anyway, thank you everyone for your patience. Now the ball is in Something_Smart’s camp!

347
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: August 01, 2020, 12:08:54 pm »
24 HOURS REMAINING

Sorry I did not put a judging date on my contest post, I kinda forgot. Also, contest this week is uhhh 1 week + 1 day. That's because I was really busy all week and couldn't really check the cards 'til today, so I'm giving myself a buffer day to judge everything nicely.

348
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 27, 2020, 01:21:50 pm »
Dude, X-tra explicitly said that he considers only VP token gaining as a vanilla effect, not static VP values.
To be fair, the 3rd card in this Traveller line, Crossroad, fits within the rules ( and +1 Buy). And one card being valid in a set is enough to be good for the competition.

349
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 27, 2020, 11:45:04 am »
Mad Scientist only has one vanilla bonus.

This is actually something I tackled last page. Granted that precision was wedged between a lot of other posts, but eh. :D

In a set of multiple cards submitted together, only one of the cards must have 2 vanilla effects. This is to give you guys more design space for this week's competition. Therefore Mad Scientist is a valid candidate.

My contest post was edited to further clarify that aspect.  :)

350
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: July 27, 2020, 10:17:33 am »
Contest question: are designs with multiple cards permitted? And if so, does only one of the cards have to fulfill the two vanilla effects criterion?

I'm thinking about things like split piles, hermit/madman, vampire/bat, heirlooms, and travelers here.

Sorry about the slow answer. But yeah. At first I thought that all cards in a given suggested set should follow the "2 vanilla effects, no less, no more" rule, but then I decided to be more leniant.

So to answer your question: If you post a set of cards with more than 1 card in it, then only 1 of those cards need to follow the rules of this contest. This should give more design space that way. So for instance, if you design a split pile, then only one of those 2 cards must have exactly 2 vanilla effects. :)

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 19

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 18 queries.