Print

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

[Limetime]

Also aesthetics are a big part of Dominion. Adding photos aren't that hard. Remember school wasn't a thing back in the good old days where Dominion takes place. Great cards nevertheless.

[AdrianHealey]

Also aesthetics are a big part of Dominion. Adding photos aren't that hard. Remember school wasn't a thing back in the good old days where Dominion takes place. Great cards nevertheless.

Hey, Limetime. I know, and I really like the aesthetic of Dominion. The reason why these cards are black as the night, is because I am going to use pictures out of the personal past of my friends. (School building will have a picture of the old school, and the 'people' (like Viking, Philosopher, etc.) all refer to people within the friends group. It would be a bit weird to put those kind pictures online, so I am just giving the non-edited picture. I could obv edit a more standard picture for the purpose of feedback, but that seemed a bit redundant amount of work.

[AdrianHealey]

As it is, I don't think Creative Artist should be priced more than $3. One can argue that each of the given effects is on their own worth less than $3 (the non-terminal $2 is still strictly worse than silver). I don't think the flexibility is quite enough to warrant its moving from $3 to $4. Note Pawn's ability to choose two makes it in some ways more versatile than this, even if each given choice is less powerful.

The reason why I put it at $4 is because I'm a bit scared that people on a 3/4 opening would just buy two Creative Artists. It's 'as good' as a silver when you have little to no action cards in the beginning and it provides flexibility in the latter stages of the game.

Could it remain priced at $4 if it gave +3 Actions? (The other one's remain as is.)

[AdrianHealey]

Creative Artist:
Would this be a $4 card? (I can put 12 in supply, just like with port.)

Soldier:
Witch and Militia meet Soldier. Attacking others is optional, but there is a price to be paid if you want to.
Possible alternative: put this card at $5 and make it +3 cards.

Viking
Viking is slightly reworked, based on prior (good and useful!) comments. It can now trash a treasure (get rid of coppers), and later in the game, it can provide you with additional silvers if you want.

[GeneralRamos]

As it is, I don't think Creative Artist should be priced more than $3. One can argue that each of the given effects is on their own worth less than $3 (the non-terminal $2 is still strictly worse than silver). I don't think the flexibility is quite enough to warrant its moving from $3 to $4. Note Pawn's ability to choose two makes it in some ways more versatile than this, even if each given choice is less powerful.

The reason why I put it at $4 is because I'm a bit scared that people on a 3/4 opening would just buy two Creative Artists. It's 'as good' as a silver when you have little to no action cards in the beginning and it provides flexibility in the latter stages of the game.

Could it remain priced at $4 if it gave +3 Actions? (The other one's remain as is.)

I don't think it sounds scary at $3. Say you buy two of them in your first two turns. Then you have them both in a hand. The net results of playing them in various combos:
Action/Action=+3 Actions, hand of 3
Action/Card=+1 Action, hand of 5
Action/Buy=+1 Action, +2 Buys
Action/Coin=+1 Action, +$2
Without any additional support, unless you choose actions for the first one, the second is a dead card. There's no serious advantage to buying two on the first two turns, because having the extra actions at that point is not so useful and it is terminal otherwise.
Unless you want to make the pile of Creative Artists more than 10, I would advise against the "gain another Creative Artist" line. It'll pile out very quickly. Cf. Port.

As for Soldier: First, note that there is an official card with this name already, so consider an alternative. Second, and more important, this seems much weaker than Militia for the same cost. The Attack is contingent on you effectively discarding down to 3 cards as well (Play it, have cards left; draw 2, have 6 cards left; discard 3, have 3 cards left) and then puts you at a disadvantage because you cannot play another Action (unless you have played a village previously). I think this needs to be buffed. But I like the contingency of the Attack, so I'd keep that in some fashion.

[AdrianHealey]

As it is, I don't think Creative Artist should be priced more than $3. One can argue that each of the given effects is on their own worth less than $3 (the non-terminal $2 is still strictly worse than silver). I don't think the flexibility is quite enough to warrant its moving from $3 to $4. Note Pawn's ability to choose two makes it in some ways more versatile than this, even if each given choice is less powerful.

The reason why I put it at $4 is because I'm a bit scared that people on a 3/4 opening would just buy two Creative Artists. It's 'as good' as a silver when you have little to no action cards in the beginning and it provides flexibility in the latter stages of the game.

Could it remain priced at $4 if it gave +3 Actions? (The other one's remain as is.)

I don't think it sounds scary at $3. Say you buy two of them in your first two turns. Then you have them both in a hand. The net results of playing them in various combos:
Action/Action=+3 Actions, hand of 3
Action/Card=+1 Action, hand of 5
Action/Buy=+1 Action, +2 Buys
Action/Coin=+1 Action, +$2
Without any additional support, unless you choose actions for the first one, the second is a dead card. There's no serious advantage to buying two on the first two turns, because having the extra actions at that point is not so useful and it is terminal otherwise.
Unless you want to make the pile of Creative Artists more than 10, I would advise against the "gain another Creative Artist" line. It'll pile out very quickly. Cf. Port.

As for Soldier: First, note that there is an official card with this name already, so consider an alternative. Second, and more important, this seems much weaker than Militia for the same cost. The Attack is contingent on you effectively discarding down to 3 cards as well (Play it, have cards left; draw 2, have 6 cards left; discard 3, have 3 cards left) and then puts you at a disadvantage because you cannot play another Action (unless you have played a village previously). I think this needs to be buffed. But I like the contingency of the Attack, so I'd keep that in some fashion.

I am going for port mechanic with 12 cards. Thanks for the input!

Soldier name: damn travelllers...

Mechanic: idea I am playing now with is: +2 cards. May discard 3. If you do: all other players go to 3 cards. +2 cards.

(So you gain 2, discard 3, gain 2 more, and you attack.) So you end up with 5 cards if it was your only action.
Sounds fair?

[enfynet]

As it is, I don't think Creative Artist should be priced more than $3. One can argue that each of the given effects is on their own worth less than $3 (the non-terminal $2 is still strictly worse than silver). I don't think the flexibility is quite enough to warrant its moving from $3 to $4. Note Pawn's ability to choose two makes it in some ways more versatile than this, even if each given choice is less powerful.

The reason why I put it at $4 is because I'm a bit scared that people on a 3/4 opening would just buy two Creative Artists. It's 'as good' as a silver when you have little to no action cards in the beginning and it provides flexibility in the latter stages of the game.

Could it remain priced at $4 if it gave +3 Actions? (The other one's remain as is.)

I don't think it sounds scary at $3. Say you buy two of them in your first two turns. Then you have them both in a hand. The net results of playing them in various combos:
Action/Action=+3 Actions, hand of 3
Action/Card=+1 Action, hand of 5
Action/Buy=+1 Action, +2 Buys
Action/Coin=+1 Action, +$2
Without any additional support, unless you choose actions for the first one, the second is a dead card. There's no serious advantage to buying two on the first two turns, because having the extra actions at that point is not so useful and it is terminal otherwise.
Unless you want to make the pile of Creative Artists more than 10, I would advise against the "gain another Creative Artist" line. It'll pile out very quickly. Cf. Port.

As for Soldier: First, note that there is an official card with this name already, so consider an alternative. Second, and more important, this seems much weaker than Militia for the same cost. The Attack is contingent on you effectively discarding down to 3 cards as well (Play it, have cards left; draw 2, have 6 cards left; discard 3, have 3 cards left) and then puts you at a disadvantage because you cannot play another Action (unless you have played a village previously). I think this needs to be buffed. But I like the contingency of the Attack, so I'd keep that in some fashion.

I am going for port mechanic with 12 cards. Thanks for the input!

Soldier name: damn travelllers...

Mechanic: idea I am playing now with is: +2 cards. May discard 3. If you do: all other players go to 3 cards. +2 cards.

(So you draw 2, discard 3, draw 2 more, and you attack.) So you end up with 5 cards if it was your only action.
Sounds fair?

That was dangerous. You were substituting "gain" for "draw" in your description.

[AdrianHealey]

Haha, yes, but you, hopefully, knew what I,meant. ^^ What do you think?

[AdrianHealey]

Creative Artist:
12 in supply. This seems like a $4 card.

Army Man:
Get 2 cards. Evaluate your hand. Discard to attack (and draw 2 more) or leave it at that and play with the ones you have. Although I might change it to 'draw until you have 5 cards in your hand'. That way it is it's own defense.

Viking
Viking is slightly reworked, based on prior (good and useful!) comments. It can now trash a treasure (get rid of coppers), and later in the game, it can provide you with additional silvers if you want.

[Gubump]

Creative Artist:
12 in supply. This seems like a $4 card.

Army Man:
Get 2 cards. Evaluate your hand. Discard to attack (and draw 2 more) or leave it at that and play with the ones you have. Although I might change it to 'draw until you have 5 cards in your hand'. That way it is it's own defense.

Viking
Viking is slightly reworked, based on prior (good and useful!) comments. It can now trash a treasure (get rid of coppers), and later in the game, it can provide you with additional silvers if you want.

I would put the second +2 cards for Army Man in the same paragraph as the non-vanilla text, because currently, it doesn't look like it's part of the conditional stuff, which would make it strictly better than Hunting Grounds at a significantly lower cost.

[GeneralRamos]

I would put the second +2 cards for Army Man in the same paragraph as the non-vanilla text, because currently, it doesn't look like it's part of the conditional stuff, which would make it strictly better than Hunting Grounds at a significantly lower cost.

I agree. It might make things clearer if it goes before the attacking stuff as well. As follows:
+2 Cards
You may discard 3 cards; if you do, +2 cards and each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand.

[AdrianHealey]

I would put the second +2 cards for Army Man in the same paragraph as the non-vanilla text, because currently, it doesn't look like it's part of the conditional stuff, which would make it strictly better than Hunting Grounds at a significantly lower cost.

I agree. It might make things clearer if it goes before the attacking stuff as well. As follows:
+2 Cards
You may discard 3 cards; if you do, +2 cards and each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand.

Fair enough. That's a small editing issue, easily fixed. I assume that the card is reasonable as is, then?

[AdrianHealey]

Throne Room has a weird little brother. Yay or nay?

I am sure there is room for phrasing (all suggestions welcome), but do you think the core idea is balanced at 5?

[Awaclus]

Throne Room has a weird little brother. Yay or nay?

I am sure there is room for phrasing (all suggestions welcome), but do you think the core idea is balanced at 5?

I don't think it's worth it to have the "if it costs $4" thing there. A terminal $5 that doesn't do anything except for topdecking a $4 from your discard pile is awful, so people are hardly ever going to do that. If it's too strong to play $4 cards from your discard twice, I think it's better if you can't reveal a card costing $4 in the first place, but I think it might not be too good if you can just play $4 cards twice, too.

[AdrianHealey]

Throne Room has a weird little brother. Yay or nay?

I am sure there is room for phrasing (all suggestions welcome), but do you think the core idea is balanced at 5?

I don't think it's worth it to have the "if it costs $4" thing there. A terminal $5 that doesn't do anything except for topdecking a $4 from your discard pile is awful, so people are hardly ever going to do that. If it's too strong to play $4 cards from your discard twice, I think it's better if you can't reveal a card costing $4 in the first place, but I think it might not be too good if you can just play $4 cards twice, too.

So you'd be fine with going into your discard pile, get a card of 4 and playing it twice? That was the original idea, but I changed it last minute. If you think it's fine with just being able to play a $4 card twice as well, that would be great.

A midway position would be: if it costs $4, play it. If it costs $3 or less: play it twice.

[Awaclus]

Throne Room has a weird little brother. Yay or nay?

I am sure there is room for phrasing (all suggestions welcome), but do you think the core idea is balanced at 5?

I don't think it's worth it to have the "if it costs $4" thing there. A terminal $5 that doesn't do anything except for topdecking a $4 from your discard pile is awful, so people are hardly ever going to do that. If it's too strong to play $4 cards from your discard twice, I think it's better if you can't reveal a card costing $4 in the first place, but I think it might not be too good if you can just play $4 cards twice, too.

So you'd be fine with going into your discard pile, get a card of 4 and playing it twice? That was the original idea, but I changed it last minute. If you think it's fine with just being able to play a $4 card twice as well, that would be great.

Well, compared to Royal Carriage, it has obvious upsides and obvious downsides. I don't even think the upsides are bigger than the downsides.

[AdrianHealey]

Throne Room has a weird little brother. Yay or nay?

I am sure there is room for phrasing (all suggestions welcome), but do you think the core idea is balanced at 5?

I don't think it's worth it to have the "if it costs $4" thing there. A terminal $5 that doesn't do anything except for topdecking a $4 from your discard pile is awful, so people are hardly ever going to do that. If it's too strong to play $4 cards from your discard twice, I think it's better if you can't reveal a card costing $4 in the first place, but I think it might not be too good if you can just play $4 cards twice, too.

So you'd be fine with going into your discard pile, get a card of 4 and playing it twice? That was the original idea, but I changed it last minute. If you think it's fine with just being able to play a $4 card twice as well, that would be great.

Well, compared to Royal Carriage, it has obvious upsides and obvious downsides. I don't even think the upsides are bigger than the downsides.

Fair enough. Let's keep it at: search a card costing 4 and less, and play it twice. Thanks!

[AdrianHealey]

This is... probably the most 'innovative' card I came up with. The feedback has been useful so far, so I'll try this one as well. It gives a copper and 2 buys. If you can trash coppers, it gives VP's and money.

The reason the second version has the Contraband clause, is to prevent the owner of this card to just buy additional coppers, which might be a completely viable strategy to transform coppers into VP's, especially on a 2/5 opening. So you have to use this card carefully. (I have no problem with buying coppers and transforming them into VP's, but it should be part of an overall strategy, not the only strategy.)

I am more inclined towards the second version, because of the fear of a 2/5 opening and just buying coppers, trashing them and empty-ing the copper pile for lot's of VP's really fast.

What do you think?

[enfynet]

I think I suddenly want to buy Beggar and Counting House.

[AdrianHealey]

I think I suddenly want to buy Beggar and Counting House.

I consider those to be positive side-effects tbh.

[enfynet]

With Beggar, though, your opponent can name Copper all they want and it won't stop you.

I'm thinking the +VP per card seems a bit high, compared to say, Bishop, which trashes one card at a time. This will thin your deck much faster, and your VP comes from junk cards you want to trash anyways.

[AdrianHealey]

With Beggar, though, your opponent can name Copper all they want and it won't stop you.

I'm thinking the +VP per card seems a bit high, compared to say, Bishop, which trashes one card at a time. This will thin your deck much faster, and your VP comes from junk cards you want to trash anyways.

Outside the situation with beggar, it seems hard(er) to gain (lots of) additional coppers, though. The (theoretical) idea is that you need to have a second plan, or your opponent will just name copper and you are 'stuck' with buying other things. Outside of beggar situations, I think you'll loose fuel really fast, unless you can find other ways to gain more coppers. (You always get one for playing it anyway.)

I guess for now, I'll keep it, unless you strongly object. (After i present the cards to my friends, and we play(test) them, we can always see if it needs to change.

[AdrianHealey]

I like stables, so I wanted something similar. Discarding an action card has an anti-synergie with what you get, so the card is cheaper.
I am wondering wether or not the card should maybe give something else (obvious candidate: +1 buy, +$3). Although I am not sure if there is any card similar to that?

Possible danger: it's (almost) always strictly better than smithy in the sense of: if you have another action card, you can't play that action card *anyway*, so you might as well play smithy. It's only not strictly better when you *don't* have another action card, which might happen.

What I really want to keep is the 'discard an action card'.

Possible alternative:

Discard an action card.
Choose one:
+2 Actions, +1 Card
or
+1 buy, +$3.

[GeneralRamos]

Inre: Party Time
A suggestion to tone this powerhouse down a bit would be:
(1) change the "Contraband" clause to simply do what you expect it to be used for: "While this is in play, you cannot buy Copper"; (2) remove the +Buys because if you aren't buying Coppers, why do you need them (at least, why do you need two?).

A few wording notes: where you use "show," official cards use "reveal." The last over-the-line sentence should probably say something like "If you did not trash any Coppers this way..." because as it reads right now it accounts for trashing other cards as well, and is ambiguous about whether it accounts for cards trashed by some previously played card.

[AdrianHealey]

Inre: Party Time
A suggestion to tone this powerhouse down a bit would be:
(1) change the "Contraband" clause to simply do what you expect it to be used for: "While this is in play, you cannot buy Copper"; (2) remove the +Buys because if you aren't buying Coppers, why do you need them (at least, why do you need two?).

A few wording notes: where you use "show," official cards use "reveal." The last over-the-line sentence should probably say something like "If you did not trash any Coppers this way..." because as it reads right now it accounts for trashing other cards as well, and is ambiguous about whether it accounts for cards trashed by some previously played card.

Cause I don't want to prevent it being used for being copper. When someone plays it and they can threaten to (for example) by a province/gold/something else valuable, and that get's contrabanded, they 'should' be able to buy coppers.

Yet again: the wording notes are useful. Thanks!