Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All

Author Topic: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures (Results!)  (Read 10288 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +753
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
+9

Results!
View Finalists
View Cards Submitted

This is the first contest for this year's set. This week's challenge: Design a card which would fit well in the Adventures expansion!

Submission Rules

Each participant may submit one card per challenge.
Participation in previous or future challenges is not required to participate in this one.
Submit your card to me via this forum's messaging system. Submissions made after each week's deadline cannot be accepted.
Each card you submit must have a name, a cost, a list of types, and the exact wording that should appear on the card.  Also include a brief description of any special design considerations (e.g., Stash having a unique back), but do NOT include any other information, such as strategic commentary or examples about it would play.
The name you give your card will appear on the ballot. If multiple cards with the same name are submitted, I will differentiate them with letters in a randomly chosen order, e.g. [Card Name] A, [Card Name] B, etc. Cards themselves will likewise be listed in a random order on the ballot.
I will accept revisions to your contest entries provided they are submitted to me before the deadline.  If you submit a revision to an entry you have previously submitted to me, resubmit your revised card(s) in their entirety.
Only submit cards that are your own design.
You may submit cards that have been previously posted here in this forum, including those that have been refined by the community as a whole, provided you can still claim that the central conceit of the card -- and the majority of its final version -- is yours.
A single card might conceivably qualify for multiple challenges within this series. If your card doesn't win the first challenge you submit it to, you may submit it for any and all future challenges (until it wins), provided the card fits those challenges. This is particularly pertinent for cards that don't win the first of two slots for a large expansion, although depending on which card does win, your card may not qualify for the second challenge.
Do not disclose your submissions publicly, either in this thread or elsewhere!

Except where specified, you may not submit cards combine certain mechanics from multiple expansions. The idea is that you could simply slot the cards into their respective sets without needing components or rules specific to another set. Specifically:

Duration cards may only be submitted as candidates for a Seaside or Adventures slot.
Potion-cost cards may only be submitted as candidates for the Alchemy slot.
Cards that use VP tokens or cost $7 or more may only be submitted as candidates for a Prosperity slot.
Cards that use Coin tokens and cards that use overpay may only be submitted as candidates for the Guilds slot.
Cards that use Ruins (Looters) and cards that use Spoils may only be submitted as candidates for a Dark Ages slot.
Traveller cards, Reserve cards, and cards making use of player Tokens may only be submitted as candidates for an Adventures slot.

Many mechanics are fair game for any submission. The following is an incomplete list.

Victory/Action and Victory/Treasure hybrid cards.
Cards that allow you to choose an ability from a list.
Cards with on-buy, would-gain, on-gain, and on-trash abilities.



Challenge #1: Adventures

Design a Kingdom card that would fit into the Adventures expansion. Such a card could have one or more of the following qualities:

Interacts with player Tokens (possibly including new Tokens).
Stays in play for future turns or permanently (Durations).
Interacts with the Tavern mat (Reserves).

Do not submit Events or Travellers for this challenge. There will be separate challenges for those.

Submissions are due by the end of Monday, 2016-01-11.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2016, 11:51:00 am by mith »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9143
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2016, 05:14:33 pm »
+1

Cards that use VP tokens or cost $7 or more may only be submitted as candidates for a Prosperity slot.

I don't think $7+ cost needs to be a Prosperity only thing.  A higher cost doesn't make it harder to slot into a set.  You don't need to own Prosperity to use an expensive card.  I mean, on-trash effects are as much a Dark Ages-only thing but you still list that as fair game for any submission.

Do not submit Events or Travellers for this challenge. There will be separate challenges for those.

This isn't really relevant yet, but I actually don't think a Traveller line would be a good idea.  It's so much harder to judge balance, and is there even room for it in the set?
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4672
  • Respect: +5028
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2016, 06:00:27 pm »
0

Cards that use VP tokens or cost $7 or more may only be submitted as candidates for a Prosperity slot.

I don't think $7+ cost needs to be a Prosperity only thing.  A higher cost doesn't make it harder to slot into a set.  You don't need to own Prosperity to use an expensive card.  I mean, on-trash effects are as much a Dark Ages-only thing but you still list that as fair game for any submission.

Do not submit Events or Travellers for this challenge. There will be separate challenges for those.

This isn't really relevant yet, but I actually don't think a Traveller line would be a good idea.  It's so much harder to judge balance, and is there even room for it in the set?

I know LastFootnote thought about whether the cards would fit in a set when he organized the last contest, but i don't necessarily think they have to. I do agree that a Traveller line is a lot harder to judge than a single card, though.

Personally, i see a cost of $7+ as something that fits very well in Prosperity, and probably should be there if there's no strong reason to put it elsewhere. There is, however, a non-Prosperity card costing $8, and several events costing $7+, so it's not exactly strict. I agree on-trash should only be on a Dark Ages card, honestly.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9143
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2016, 06:30:22 pm »
0

I'm for relaxing the restrictions, actually.  I think it's OK for on-trash to be on non-DA cards, and it's OK for $7+ cards to be outside of Prosperity.  The restriction should mainly be for cards that require set-specific components and cards that need significant set-specific rules explanations (which pretty much means new types like Duration, Reserve and Traveller).  If you're for restricting on-trash to DA, would you also want to restrict on-gain/buy to Hinterlands?
Logged

drsteelhammer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1524
  • Shuffle iT Username: drsteelhammer
  • Respect: +1455
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2016, 06:38:33 pm »
0

I'm for relaxing the restrictions, actually.  I think it's OK for on-trash to be on non-DA cards, and it's OK for $7+ cards to be outside of Prosperity.  The restriction should mainly be for cards that require set-specific components and cards that need significant set-specific rules explanations (which pretty much means new types like Duration, Reserve and Traveller).  If you're for restricting on-trash to DA, would you also want to restrict on-gain/buy to Hinterlands?

I think I would like that, actually. If one looks at the sets, I think there are quite a few cards that really feel like they could only come from that expansions. I think in a Treasure Chest one should aim to have cards like this for each expansion (if possible)

Also this hasn't been discussed yet: What about a contest for the Base set aswell? I would love to see some creative, yet simple cards in a contest. It's definitely one of the trickier ones to create properly.
Logged
Join the Dominion League!

There is no bad shuffle that can not be surmounted by scorn.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4672
  • Respect: +5028
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2016, 06:48:27 pm »
0

I'm for relaxing the restrictions, actually.  I think it's OK for on-trash to be on non-DA cards, and it's OK for $7+ cards to be outside of Prosperity.  The restriction should mainly be for cards that require set-specific components and cards that need significant set-specific rules explanations (which pretty much means new types like Duration, Reserve and Traveller).  If you're for restricting on-trash to DA, would you also want to restrict on-gain/buy to Hinterlands?

No, because those are not Hinterlands-exclusives. I guess i don't want to actually restrict $7+ cards to Prosperity, but i'd say it's something i'll question on a non-Prosperity card and i'd possibly vote it lower because of that. On-trash only appears in Dark Ages, so i'd say it only belongs there.

If you have a card that doesn't need an on-trash to be interesting, put it where it belongs and leave that part out, and if the on-trash is integral part of the card (which i think is the case for only half of the official on-trash cards, even), do you really have to add another mechanic like Duration or coin tokens? Sure, trashing for coin tokens sounds like something interesting, and i guess so does a Potion-cost card that does something when trashed. But, so do overpaying for VP tokens, so do Duration-Ruins, so do Potion-cost Reserves... Heck, Overpay is "pay" like on Storyteller, and "on buy" like on Port*. This doesn't make Masterpiece a suitable Adventures card. You got to draw a line somewhere, because if the contest is "everything goes", it's not a treasure Chest Design contest anymore. mith decided to go with patterns that are present in official expansions, and i think that's fine. I was just agreeing that $7+ cards are not actually reserved to Prosperity with the official cards.

*Donald confirmed it's semantically the same

I'm for relaxing the restrictions, actually.  I think it's OK for on-trash to be on non-DA cards, and it's OK for $7+ cards to be outside of Prosperity.  The restriction should mainly be for cards that require set-specific components and cards that need significant set-specific rules explanations (which pretty much means new types like Duration, Reserve and Traveller).  If you're for restricting on-trash to DA, would you also want to restrict on-gain/buy to Hinterlands?

I think I would like that, actually. If one looks at the sets, I think there are quite a few cards that really feel like they could only come from that expansions. I think in a Treasure Chest one should aim to have cards like this for each expansion (if possible)

Also this hasn't been discussed yet: What about a contest for the Base set aswell? I would love to see some creative, yet simple cards in a contest. It's definitely one of the trickier ones to create properly.

Seconding base set: Can you make a card that's nice, interesting and works WITHOUT fancy mechanics? Now that's a challenge, i think.

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +753
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2016, 06:49:35 pm »
0

The restrictions are largely copied from the previous contest. I'm open to relaxing (or strengthening) them, I suppose.

I do agree that there is as much reason to restrict on-trash to Dark Ages as there is to restrict $7+ to Prosperity (though the only exceptions for the latter are a Promo, which is not part of a set, and Events, which are not kingdom cards). On-gain and on-buy have examples outside of Hinterlands (Death Cart/Lost City, Messenger/Port/[Overpay Cards]), but all the on-trash cards are in Dark Ages.
Logged

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +753
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2016, 06:50:23 pm »
+1

And a Base Set card is already on the list.
Logged

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +753
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2016, 06:52:58 pm »
+2

By the way: My wife is due in 11 days, so it is very likely there will be a short delay sometime in the next couple weeks. If I don't immediately post new threads after a deadline, that's probably why.
Logged

drsteelhammer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1524
  • Shuffle iT Username: drsteelhammer
  • Respect: +1455
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2016, 06:55:14 pm »
0

And a Base Set card is already on the list.

My bad, my head told me I saw a list where Base was missing, great to see its on there.

Before yet another thread is derailed, let's move back to this contest :)

What do you think makes an Adventurer card feel like it definitely belongs in this set?

Reserve cards and the tokens are obvious, what else comes to mind? Is there a stylistic difference between Adv and Seaside durations? Have you other themes in mind when talking about this set?
Logged
Join the Dominion League!

There is no bad shuffle that can not be surmounted by scorn.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9143
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2016, 06:57:56 pm »
+1

No, because those are not Hinterlands-exclusives. I guess i don't want to actually restrict $7+ cards to Prosperity, but i'd say it's something i'll question on a non-Prosperity card and i'd possibly vote it lower because of that. On-trash only appears in Dark Ages, so i'd say it only belongs there.

I don't think on-trash will necessarily be DA-exclusive either.  It is right now, but there's no practical reason why it couldn't be in other sets.

To offer another example -- what do you think of Duration-Attacks, or Durations that stay in play for more than 2 turns?  Should those be Adventures-only, since they don't appear in Seaside?
Logged

Roadrunner7671

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1845
  • Shuffle iT Username: Roadrunner7672
  • Forum Mafia Record: 18-33-2
  • Respect: +1331
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2016, 07:03:09 pm »
+1

By the way: My wife is due in 11 days, so it is very likely there will be a short delay sometime in the next couple weeks. If I don't immediately post new threads after a deadline, that's probably why.
Due to have a child?
Congratulations!
Logged
Oh God someone delete this before Roadrunner sees it.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4672
  • Respect: +5028
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2016, 08:06:53 pm »
+1

No, because those are not Hinterlands-exclusives. I guess i don't want to actually restrict $7+ cards to Prosperity, but i'd say it's something i'll question on a non-Prosperity card and i'd possibly vote it lower because of that. On-trash only appears in Dark Ages, so i'd say it only belongs there.

I don't think on-trash will necessarily be DA-exclusive either.  It is right now, but there's no practical reason why it couldn't be in other sets.

To offer another example -- what do you think of Duration-Attacks, or Durations that stay in play for more than 2 turns?  Should those be Adventures-only, since they don't appear in Seaside?

As far as i'm concerned, yes. I think a card suggested for a specific expansion theme should represent that expansion as clean as it can. Seaside has level-1 durations. They all do something on the next turn (unless you did something really out of the ordinary, like playing Tactician or Haven when you get nothing out of it). They also all only have the Duration and Action type. Adventures introduces Durations that stay out longer, might get discarded in regular and good play, attack or give choices. I'd still say that only the examples you brought up should go in an Adventures contest.

That's NOT to say it should be forbidden by the rules to do all that. As i said, there's a line that has to be drawn, and mith is the one to draw it. I'll vote how i think is right, and i guess that gives me enough influence allready. My restrictions don't have to be rules. Edit: In fact, i see why less-restrictive rules might be a little more encouraging to participate. After all, it's still supposed to be fun, isn't it?

Hmm... The more i think about it, my choice for the contest probably wasn't that good. The card could just as well have been in Seaside.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9143
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2016, 08:16:46 pm »
+1

Hmm, OK.  Agree to disagree then.  I think the Adventures Durations could have fit in Seaside just fine.  At the very least, Dungeon and Gear fit your description of Seaside Durations.

I like your point that relaxing restrictions may encourage participation.  I hadn't even considered that aspect.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4672
  • Respect: +5028
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #14 on: January 06, 2016, 08:36:10 pm »
0

Hmm, OK.  Agree to disagree then.  I think the Adventures Durations could have fit in Seaside just fine.  At the very least, Dungeon and Gear fit your description of Seaside Durations.

I like your point that relaxing restrictions may encourage participation.  I hadn't even considered that aspect.

Gear sometimes gets discarded during cleanup of the turn it's played, even if you had a good, trivial reason to play it. This doesn't happen with any Seaside duration, as those only get discarded if playing them was pointless (and not exactly standard) in the first place. This means you can just remember "until next turn" for them and still play correctly 99% of the time. But maybe it just seems complicated because the rule only matters for weird cases with Seaside, and if it had been the other way around it would not appear as obscure.

Also, congrats on the child.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7073
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9314
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2016, 09:07:03 pm »
+1

By the way: My wife is due in 11 days, so it is very likely there will be a short delay sometime in the next couple weeks. If I don't immediately post new threads after a deadline, that's probably why.

Congrats!

Due to have a child?
Congratulations!

I certainly hope she's not due to be born, because, man, there are some serious legal issues there.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Roadrunner7671

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1845
  • Shuffle iT Username: Roadrunner7672
  • Forum Mafia Record: 18-33-2
  • Respect: +1331
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2016, 09:14:30 pm »
+1

By the way: My wife is due in 11 days, so it is very likely there will be a short delay sometime in the next couple weeks. If I don't immediately post new threads after a deadline, that's probably why.

Congrats!

Due to have a child?
Congratulations!

I certainly hope she's not due to be born, because, man, there are some serious legal issues there.
Wow. I shouldn't be able to understand that joke.
Logged
Oh God someone delete this before Roadrunner sees it.

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1000
  • Respect: +1956
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2016, 01:21:42 am »
+2

I hate to say this because I can't back it up at all, but my intuition says on-trash and $7 costs should be okay for any set, but the other expansion-specific mechanics are not.  I think the reason I feel this way is because I could easily see a $7 cost card or a card with an on-trash effect being by itself in another expansion, like how Mine had an on-gain effect all by itself in Prosperity, whereas I have trouble seeing that happen with something like overpay.  Actually we already sort of have precedence for $7 cost cards outside of Prosperity with Prince.  But, I do think that the on-trash or expensive cost should be an integral part of the design, and I'm less likely to vote for a card that uses mechanics from the "wrong" expansion like that.

Also I think we should never do anything Traveler-related for the contests.  Like, there's no way I am reading 200+ cards for one contest, let alone sorting through them and trying to pick out my favorites.  In addition to the fact that it's an inefficient use of space.  I'd rather have 4 or 5 regular cards than one Traveler line.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9143
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2016, 03:38:50 am »
+2

Gear sometimes gets discarded during cleanup of the turn it's played, even if you had a good, trivial reason to play it. This doesn't happen with any Seaside duration, as those only get discarded if playing them was pointless (and not exactly standard) in the first place. This means you can just remember "until next turn" for them and still play correctly 99% of the time. But maybe it just seems complicated because the rule only matters for weird cases with Seaside, and if it had been the other way around it would not appear as obscure.

Eh, I don't think the rule is so obscure.  It was already there in Seaside.  Gear feels simpler to me than Outpost or even Tactician.  I can see why it may be obscure to some people, but I would not want a card like Gear or even Haunted Woods to be rejected from a Seaside treasure chest contest (and note that cards like that were a part of the Seaside contest that already ran, way back before Adventures was a thing).

I hate to say this because I can't back it up at all, but my intuition says on-trash and $7 costs should be okay for any set, but the other expansion-specific mechanics are not.  I think the reason I feel this way is because I could easily see a $7 cost card or a card with an on-trash effect being by itself in another expansion, like how Mine had an on-gain effect all by itself in Prosperity, whereas I have trouble seeing that happen with something like overpay.  Actually we already sort of have precedence for $7 cost cards outside of Prosperity with Prince.  But, I do think that the on-trash or expensive cost should be an integral part of the design, and I'm less likely to vote for a card that uses mechanics from the "wrong" expansion like that.

Which "other mechanics" do you mean?  I think we're in agreement.  My broad generalization for what I think should be set-specific was extra components or new card types.  I realize now that overpay would fall outside of those two rules, but I agree that it should be Guilds-specific.  The card types thing was just shorthand to say that the rulebook devotes a fair amount explaining a novel mechanism, which would include overpay.  But does the DA rulebook have a section specifically to talk about when-trash effects?  When-trash is straightforward though, while overpay actually requires defining a new keyword.

Are there other mechanics to consider?
Logged

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1000
  • Respect: +1956
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2016, 04:17:13 am »
+1

I hate to say this because I can't back it up at all, but my intuition says on-trash and $7 costs should be okay for any set, but the other expansion-specific mechanics are not.  I think the reason I feel this way is because I could easily see a $7 cost card or a card with an on-trash effect being by itself in another expansion, like how Mine had an on-gain effect all by itself in Prosperity, whereas I have trouble seeing that happen with something like overpay.  Actually we already sort of have precedence for $7 cost cards outside of Prosperity with Prince.  But, I do think that the on-trash or expensive cost should be an integral part of the design, and I'm less likely to vote for a card that uses mechanics from the "wrong" expansion like that.

Which "other mechanics" do you mean?  I think we're in agreement.  My broad generalization for what I think should be set-specific was extra components or new card types.  I realize now that overpay would fall outside of those two rules, but I agree that it should be Guilds-specific.  The card types thing was just shorthand to say that the rulebook devotes a fair amount explaining a novel mechanism, which would include overpay.  But does the DA rulebook have a section specifically to talk about when-trash effects?  When-trash is straightforward though, while overpay actually requires defining a new keyword.

Are there other mechanics to consider?

I'm not sure if there are others, I just wanted to make sure my post was general enough.  I think we are in agreement too.  On-trash is okay to include in other expansions because you would know exactly how it works when you read the card, the same reason we were okay with having Mint's on-gain effect before Hinterlands came out.  We could have had on-trash effects before Dark Ages or $7 cards before Prosperity and no one would have been confused.
Logged

drsteelhammer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1524
  • Shuffle iT Username: drsteelhammer
  • Respect: +1455
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2016, 07:56:37 am »
+1

I hate to say this because I can't back it up at all, but my intuition says on-trash and $7 costs should be okay for any set, but the other expansion-specific mechanics are not.  I think the reason I feel this way is because I could easily see a $7 cost card or a card with an on-trash effect being by itself in another expansion, like how Mine had an on-gain effect all by itself in Prosperity, whereas I have trouble seeing that happen with something like overpay.  Actually we already sort of have precedence for $7 cost cards outside of Prosperity with Prince.  But, I do think that the on-trash or expensive cost should be an integral part of the design, and I'm less likely to vote for a card that uses mechanics from the "wrong" expansion like that.

Which "other mechanics" do you mean?  I think we're in agreement.  My broad generalization for what I think should be set-specific was extra components or new card types.  I realize now that overpay would fall outside of those two rules, but I agree that it should be Guilds-specific.  The card types thing was just shorthand to say that the rulebook devotes a fair amount explaining a novel mechanism, which would include overpay.  But does the DA rulebook have a section specifically to talk about when-trash effects?  When-trash is straightforward though, while overpay actually requires defining a new keyword.

Are there other mechanics to consider?

I'm not sure if there are others, I just wanted to make sure my post was general enough.  I think we are in agreement too.  On-trash is okay to include in other expansions because you would know exactly how it works when you read the card, the same reason we were okay with having Mint's on-gain effect before Hinterlands came out.  We could have had on-trash effects before Dark Ages or $7 cards before Prosperity and no one would have been confused.

I think your point is valid, but I don't think it makes sense for a treasure chest. It's not a rulebook issue. If you play with a Treasure chest, you'll have to be familiar with every rulebook anyway, since it contains cards from every expansion. The requirements should come from its theme instead, even if that is more restrictive than the original sets are.
Logged
Join the Dominion League!

There is no bad shuffle that can not be surmounted by scorn.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9143
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2016, 02:31:46 pm »
0

The intent is that a random person who only owns (for example) Prosperity could mock up the Prosperity card from this Treasure Chest and go on their way.  That's why it's a rulebook issue.
Logged

Graystripe77

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 421
  • 1.61803398874989...
  • Respect: +92
    • View Profile
    • Dreamkeeperscomic.com
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2016, 11:15:25 pm »
0

I'm gonna submit a card even though I haven't played with Adventures yet. Let's see how good my theorycrafting is.
Logged

ConMan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1295
  • Respect: +1523
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2016, 11:36:52 pm »
0

My card is in, it almost certainly either doesn't play interestingly or has a fatal flaw I didn't notice and is terribroken. Based on that, you should all submit your ideas too because you've got a decent chance of beating me.
Logged

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1682
  • Respect: +1147
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 1: Adventures
« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2016, 12:08:00 am »
0

I'm gonna read up on my Adventures rule book tonight before bed. Perhaps I will stir up something worthwhile. I do like the idea of more cards that use those Tokens.
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All
 

Page created in 0.117 seconds with 21 queries.