Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Drab Emordnilap]

I'm always looking for clean, simple dominion cards that haven't been done yet. I was really proud that Garrison won one of the original mini-set design contests, for this reason. Anyways, I was half awake this morning and this idea came to me, and I feel like it's simple enough that someone must have done it somewhere already, right?


Jonesy -- $4
Action
Look at the top four cards of your deck. Discard two, and put the rest in your hand.

Closest comparisons are Oracle, Moat, Smithy. There's no reason this can't cost $4, right?

[Awaclus]

Is there a reason why it can't cost $3?

[Jimmmmm]

Is there a reason why it can't cost $3?

I think it's too much better than Oracle.

[Awaclus]

Is there a reason why it can't cost $3?

I think it's too much better than Oracle.

This doesn't have the attack part, which is nothing to sneeze at.

[Polk5440]

Is there a reason why it can't cost $3?

I think it's too much better than Oracle.

Well, there isn't the attack. It seems like a strong $3/weak $4.

[liopoil]

make it only look at 3 cards and cost it at 3? too weak?

[Jimmmmm]

Is there a reason why it can't cost $3?

I think it's too much better than Oracle.

This doesn't have the attack part, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Hmm, true. I also feel like it would be roughly as good as Smithy. Of course, playtesting and simulations may prove me wrong. It might work at $3.

[Polk5440]

Is there a reason why it can't cost $3?

I think it's too much better than Oracle.

This doesn't have the attack part, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Hmm, true. I also feel like it would be roughly as good as Smithy. Of course, playtesting and simulations may prove me wrong. It might work at $3.

I agree, it could be as strong as Smithy. I don't know, though.

[Awaclus]

Hmm, true. I also feel like it would be roughly as good as Smithy. Of course, playtesting and simulations may prove me wrong. It might work at $3.

Courtyard is often better than Smithy and still fine at $2.

[LastFootnote]

I like the card. It's good to have a few simple cards and this seems fine.

Instinct tells me that $4 is a good cost.

Hmm, true. I also feel like it would be roughly as good as Smithy. Of course, playtesting and simulations may prove me wrong. It might work at $3.

Courtyard is often better than Smithy and still fine at $2.

Courtyard is much worse than Smithy in an engine where you want lots of them. It's OK that it costs $2 because you're usually not buying lots of them, and if you are trying to build an engine with them, you'll need more of them than you would Smithies.

I'm guessing this card will be more in line with Smithy when it comes to engine power. $4 seems right to me.

[soulnet]

I also think $4 is fine, and the card seems fine. Even for BM, this is comparable to Smitty. The accelerated cycle is better at the beginning, but it will make it miss more reshuffles. Also you have more collision control, so I would think Jonesy-BM would beat Smitty-BM. It is easy to simulate, but I do not know how to do it.

[AJD]

Jonesy

…
…

Oh, I get it!

[A Drowned Kernel]

This was actually my submission for the terminal-draw challenge in the first mini-set design contest (Mandrill on the ballot). It remember it not getting a lot of attention, probably because it is so simple.

[popsofctown]

I like it if it looks at 3 cards and costs 3$.  There are not enough 3$ cards in Dominion .

4$ for 4 cards is definitely fine.

[LastFootnote]

I like it if it looks at 3 cards and costs 3$.  There are not enough 3$ cards in Dominion .

4$ for 4 cards is definitely fine.

I find that good $3 cards are difficult to make. $2 cards are even harder.

[LastFootnote]

This was actually my submission for the terminal-draw challenge in the first mini-set design contest (Mandrill on the ballot). It remember it not getting a lot of attention, probably because it is so simple.

Not quite! Your card draws before discarding, so is marginally more powerful in cases where you have fewer than 4 cards left in your deck/discard.

[A Drowned Kernel]

This was actually my submission for the terminal-draw challenge in the first mini-set design contest (Mandrill on the ballot). It remember it not getting a lot of attention, probably because it is so simple.

Not quite! Your card draws before discarding, so is marginally more powerful in cases where you have fewer than 4 cards left in your deck/discard.

Also I guess that my version had you reveal the cards instead of just look at them, which in retrospect isn't necessary.

[Abel_K]

I tried several times this card in my set. It works well, is finely balanced... O problem ! (and quite nice...and simple, as you say)

[eHalcyon]

This was actually my submission for the terminal-draw challenge in the first mini-set design contest (Mandrill on the ballot). It remember it not getting a lot of attention, probably because it is so simple.

But it came in tied for third, which is pretty good.