Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Results!)  (Read 5859 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

scott_pilgrim

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 978
  • Respect: +1924
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2016, 06:39:08 pm »
+1

Okay, finally getting around to this.

Quote
Vizier
Types: Action Attack
Cost: $5
You may choose an Action card from your hand. If you do, the player to your left chooses: either you play it twice, or you play it once and every player other than yourself discards down to three cards in hand.

The general idea of this is pretty cool, but the particular implementation doesn't make any sense.  First off, it costs more than Throne Room, but is strictly worse than it.  But okay, let's pretend that's not an issue, we re-price it at $3.  The fact that it anti-stacks I think makes it a lot less interesting, because the decision of what to do with it becomes trivial after the first time you pick discard.  And then when you think about it, if Militia didn't have the +$2, how often would it be better than a random card?  Not too often, so I imagine the discard option is pretty solidly going to be the better option most of the time.  So while I really like the idea of having an opponent choose whether you throne a card or do something else, I don't think the something else really works here, and the price should certainly be less than $4, not more.

Quote
Undertaker
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Choose one: +2 Actions and put any number of cards from your hand on the bottom of your deck; or +2 Cards.

While this is in play, when you would draw from the top of your deck, draw from the bottom instead.

I can't quite decide how I feel about this one, but I think the negative outweighs the positive.  I'm pretty sure I've seen this card elsewhere on the forum, but I don't remember where.  Anyway, everything on this card anti-synergizes so much you just feel silly playing it, is what I think will happen.  If you pick actions, you can save cards for later, but you just gave yourself more actions so that you wouldn't need to save those cards.  If you pick actions and then cards (which feels like a normal thing to do), the saving becomes entirely useless, since you'll be drawing from the bottom of the deck.  So if this top-decked cards instead of bottom-decking them, or even if it just didn't have the while in play part, it might be a cool card, but as it is it just anti-synergizes so much I feel like you'd hardly ever use the bottom-deck option.

Quote
Tribunal
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 action
Discard a card from your hand. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck, put the revealed cards that share a type with the discarded card into your hand, trash the rest.

Probably a high-skill card.  I think I like it.  Of course it has a nice interaction with dual-types.  My only real complaint about it is that it feels sort of disjoint (I don't think that's really the right word).  It feels like the effects are sort of unrelated, but held together by this weird commonality.  But anyway I like it overall.

Quote
Slanderer
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. If it is an Action card, gain three Action cards costing less than it.

It's like a super Stonemason for actions.  Might be okay, but I think this territory is already covered by Stonemason.

Quote
Shady Dealer
Types: Action Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Card
+$2
Each other player gains a Swamp from the Swamp pile

Swamp
Types: Action Reaction
Cost: $0
+1 Buy
You may discard a card. If you do, +1 card

When another player gains a Victory card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, return this card to the supply.

Setup: When Shady Dealer is in the Kingdom or Black Market deck, add the Swamp pile to the kingdom. Have 10 for two players, 20 for three players and 30 for four players.

Okay I honestly just don't see either of these cards being interesting enough to be worth introducing a new supply pile, even if space wasn't a consideration.  I think with the contest set-up, space is even more of a consideration than it would be for a typical expansion, so I'm just not a fan of this.

Quote
Royal Tutor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an action card from your hand. If you do so, play another action from the supply costing up to the cost of the first played card.

Clarification: The second card remains in the supply.

Hmm, I'm worried that there will be too many combination to consider.  If you have only one action in your hand, then its AP is on the order of BoM, but with n actions, you have to consider O(n^2) possibilities I think.  I think this is actually a big concern, since you'll really want this card in engines where you get all those options.  Other than that I like it, but I just really think it will be too slow to play.

Quote
Pledge
Types: Treasure Action
Cost: $4
+ 1 Card + 1 Action
You may trash this card. If you do: + 1 Card.

Worth $2

Clarification: When you play this card in your Action phase, it counts as an Action card, when you play it in your Buy phase (this includes the additional Buy phase of Black Market), it counts as a Treasure Card. (That is, this card can played as a plain cantrip OR a oneshot Laboratory OR a Silver.) As long Pledge is not in play (e. g. if it is in the supply, in a player's deck or on a player's hand), it counts as both Treasure and Action card. But once you put it in play, it counts as only one type of card for the rest of your turn. If you Prince or Golem Pledge, it will always count as Action card, because it comes into play in your Action phase. Mint will only trash Pledge, if it was played in your Buy phase.

Okay I already talked about this one.  I don't like the clarification part, is my issue.  But I'll respond to that in a separate post.  I do think the card is reasonably good otherwise, and if an Action-Treasure were to exist, Intrigue would be the place for it.  But I don't think it's worth doing.

Quote
Penal System
Types: Treasure Victory Reaction
Cost: $3
Worth $1
Worth 1VP

When a player plays an Attack, you may reveal this. If you do, that player may not play any more Action cards this turn.

It's a creative reaction I suppose (with a thematic name too!) but it just shuts down attacks altogether.  Like, you're just done when you play an attack.  I don't think you buy attacks with Penal System on the board.  I wonder if it'd be interesting if it discarded itself (or set itself aside) when they play an attack, and it just eats up another action (instead of effectively eating up all their actions).  Actually I think that would be cool, but it would have all the same issues that this card has, just on a little smaller scale.

Quote
Parade
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Choose one: Play an action card from your hand twice, or draw until you have 6 cards in hand.

I think I like this a lot.  It is probably bonkers.  My concerns with it are that 1. it might be super strong and 2. It might be hard to track, though both of these I think are debatable and would need testing to determine how significant they really are.  I actually think it'd be okay if this is really strong.  There's a clear self-synergy, but it's not a self-synergy that discourages you from buying other cards, because it just makes other cards stronger.  I think it's fun independently of how strong it is.  Okay, and then it might be hard to track.  I don't actually think it'll be too much harder to track than Throne Room though, because the drawing you just do right when you do it.

Quote
Outskirts
Types: Victory
Cost: $4
Worth 2VP

When you buy this, gain another Outskirts.

Setup: Use 11 copies in 2-player, 15 in 3-4 player, and 18 in 5/6 player games.

Huh, I almost submitted this exact card without the supply rules to the Hinterlands contest last time (and with a different name of course).  Then I had a version that top-decked itself and its copy, then one that top-decked itself and not the copy, then one that got a Duchy instead of a copy of itself so the pile wouldn't go so quickly, with all different combinations of top-decking itself and the other gained card.  Anyway, I like it, but I think it fits a lot better in Hinterlands, and I don't really like the whacky pile sizes.  Port can get away with it because it's obvious, you just pull out all the Ports and play with them all.  I guess it's printed on the card, maybe it's okay.

Quote
Masons
Types: Action Treasure
Cost: $6
If you play this as an action, +3 Cards
If you play this as a treasure, Worth $2

This is the better Action-Treasure I think.  I like that it's terminal as an action, because it gives you good reason to use the different options in different situations.  It feels very Intrigue-y to me.  I don't like that we didn't get a FAQ for this, although I think it's clearer how to play this without a clarification than how to play Pledge with a clarification.  You just want to say something like, you can only play it as an action when you could normally play actions, and you can only play it as a treasure when you could normally play treasures.

Quote
Livery
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+2 cards
You may reveal a card from your hand; if it is an...
Action card, +1 Action
Treasure card, +$1
Victory card, +1 Card

Mm, I don't really like it, not sure why.  It is strictly worse than King's Feast interestingly, but I think that's okay.  I think it could just be choose one rather than reveal.  Also there's no iron in the name, what's up with that.

Quote
Landlord
Types: Action Victory
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +1 Action.

Worth 1 VP per empty Supply pile.

Sort of cute.  With the VP it'll probably be very strong very often, like you might not want Duchy kind of strong.  It probably adds a lot to the game.  I feel like I should vote for it for that reason.

Quote
King's Feast
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Action
Choose 3 times:
+1 Card; +1 Action; +1 Buy; +$1

So this is sort of funny, I playtested this exact card (with a different name of course) a long, long time ago.  (I'm assuming by the way that the "Action" at the top is just not supposed to be there, not that it's +1 Action or something like that.)  Anyway, what I remember from it was that it was crazy strong but also that it had a ton of AP.  Now this is back when I had no idea what I was doing, like I don't think I had played any expansions at the time when I played this card, so the crazy strong thing could just be completely wrong.  However, I think even if it's not strong, it actually makes the game less fun to play, because you get exactly what you need whenever you need it.  A card that has too much flexibility takes all the finesse out of engine building.  I actually think BoM sort of has this problem, but probably not to the same extent as this does.

Quote
Heir
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may discard an Estate. If you do: +3 Cards
You may discard a Duchy. If you do: +$3
You may discard a Victory Card. If you do: +1 Action

Clarification: The options are independent and in order, meaning that you discard 0 to 3 cards.

So I know I've seen this card before and I think I know whose it is.  I've always sort of had mixed feelings about it.  It feels a little awkward to me, but I like that it encourages a new type of strategy.

Quote
Counsellor
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $5.
Each other player chooses one: he draws a card or trashes a card from his hand.

I think I really like this card.  I like having a choice-based drawback, it's something that makes you feel like hey, why didn't Intrigue do that yet.

Quote
Cordwainer
Cost: $5
Types: Action
+3 Cards
Reveal your hand. If you have exactly one Action card in hand, +1 Action.

I have really strong mixed feelings about this one.  On the one hand, I really like how it's unique and encourages you to play a completely new kind of deck that nothing else in Dominion really does.  What I don't like is that I think it'll feel super bad to draw two or more actions dead with this.  I also worry that it'll discourage you from buying actions a bit, there's a question of whether it does that to an extent that it actually makes games less fun.

Quote
Auditor
Types: Action Attack
Cost: $3
All players draw two cards. Each other player reveals his hand. You choose two cards that they have to put on top of their deck.

This is a creative idea for a new attack, that introduces way too much AP to be worth doing I think.  You have so many options to think about, even if you know what you're going to pick because it's trivial (like they have two green cards), it's still a lot of drawing and revealing and choosing and it's just slow to resolve.  The interaction with Tribute is pretty nuts.

Quote
Abandoned Village
Types: Action Reaction
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions

When a player gains a victory card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, gain a Silver, putting it into your hand. Return this to your hand at the start of your next turn.

Seems nice.  It's sort of a lot of text for an effect that only happens a few times.  That's probably the main thing holding it back for me, that it triggers later in the game and you probably don't see the Silver that much.  I think it's too similar to Mining Village too actually, which I wouldn't mind probably if Mining Village weren't in Intrigue also.
Logged

scott_pilgrim

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 978
  • Respect: +1924
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Voting!)
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2016, 06:46:17 pm »
0

The main issue of Pledge and Masons is that they are too strong respectively too weak, not that it is not specified how they are supposed to interact with Prince/Golem. In the case of Pledge it is explained in a crystal clear way (nor that it wouldn't be clear otherwise that the Action part counts for Prince/Golem). As always with card games, card text or FAQ dominates the general rules.

Maybe I don't understand how the timing of game phases works.  I assumed it was like:

Start of turn
Action phase
Buy phase
Clean-up phase

The fact that you're not confused by the clarification suggests that you think it works like:

Action phase
  • Start of turn
  • Rest of action phase
Buy phase
Clean-up phase

And I actually don't know why I think it works the way I assumed it did, so maybe that's wrong.  Does anyone else know how it works?

So anyway, let's say it works the second way, so that the clarification is consistent with its explanation of Prince.  I still think it's much cleaner if the card is just always both types, but you play it "as an action" whenever you would normally play actions, and you play it "as a treasure" whenever you would normally play treasures.  You still need a more thorough FAQ, but you need that no matter how you do an Action-Treasure.  Either way, I don't think it's compelling enough to be worth all the new rules that would have to come with it.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9126
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2016, 08:39:56 pm »
+1

Quote
Undertaker
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Choose one: +2 Actions and put any number of cards from your hand on the bottom of your deck; or +2 Cards.

While this is in play, when you would draw from the top of your deck, draw from the bottom instead.

I can't quite decide how I feel about this one, but I think the negative outweighs the positive.  I'm pretty sure I've seen this card elsewhere on the forum, but I don't remember where.  Anyway, everything on this card anti-synergizes so much you just feel silly playing it, is what I think will happen.  If you pick actions, you can save cards for later, but you just gave yourself more actions so that you wouldn't need to save those cards.  If you pick actions and then cards (which feels like a normal thing to do), the saving becomes entirely useless, since you'll be drawing from the bottom of the deck.  So if this top-decked cards instead of bottom-decking them, or even if it just didn't have the while in play part, it might be a cool card, but as it is it just anti-synergizes so much I feel like you'd hardly ever use the bottom-deck option.

Hmm, I see the anti-synergy you mention and I wonder how problematic that is.  I didn't notice it before because I focused on the multi-turn synergy.  That is, if you play multiple copies of it on the same turn, then your options become more limited in the same way that playing multiple Courtyards limits their effectiveness.  But the multi-turn synergy is that you can save cards with it across multiple turns until the turn before the shuffle, or until you decide to use this (and probably other, better draw cards) to draw the stuff you saved from the bottom of your deck.  The obvious use case is to put together combo pieces.  But maybe that's too difficult to pull off.

Quote
Landlord
Types: Action Victory
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +1 Action.

Worth 1 VP per empty Supply pile.

Sort of cute.  With the VP it'll probably be very strong very often, like you might not want Duchy kind of strong.  It probably adds a lot to the game.  I feel like I should vote for it for that reason.

What do you mean by this?  Usually it will be worth less than Duchy.  Occasionally it'll be equal and rarely will it be worth more.  I think you'd still want Duchy in the same cases you would want Duchy over Harem or Nobles.

Quote
Counsellor
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $5.
Each other player chooses one: he draws a card or trashes a card from his hand.

I think I really like this card.  I like having a choice-based drawback, it's something that makes you feel like hey, why didn't Intrigue do that yet.

Vault and Bishop are already choice-based drawbacks.  You choose which card to discard/trash, or whether to do it at all.

Quote
Cordwainer
Cost: $5
Types: Action
+3 Cards
Reveal your hand. If you have exactly one Action card in hand, +1 Action.

I have really strong mixed feelings about this one.  On the one hand, I really like how it's unique and encourages you to play a completely new kind of deck that nothing else in Dominion really does.  What I don't like is that I think it'll feel super bad to draw two or more actions dead with this.  I also worry that it'll discourage you from buying actions a bit, there's a question of whether it does that to an extent that it actually makes games less fun.

I'm not sure what kind of deck it really encourages.  If you have too many actions, this is just terminal a lot of the time.  If you have too few actions, then this card may as well be terminal because you won't have another action to play anyway.  Even if you strike the right balance (whatever that is), there's almost nothing you can do to make sure you get that +1 action.  Maybe if it did the check before drawing.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1029
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +719
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Voting!)
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2016, 08:54:34 pm »
+1

<Undertaker>
I totally didn't notice that anti-synergy either until Scott pointed it out, but it can easily be fixed by having the on-play effect put cards on top of the deck.

<Cordwainer>
I agree it'd be a lot better if it did the hand reveal before drawing.


My favorites here are Parade and Heir, but Undertaker's probably my #3.

scott_pilgrim

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 978
  • Respect: +1924
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2016, 09:30:02 pm »
+1

Quote
Landlord
Types: Action Victory
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +1 Action.

Worth 1 VP per empty Supply pile.

Sort of cute.  With the VP it'll probably be very strong very often, like you might not want Duchy kind of strong.  It probably adds a lot to the game.  I feel like I should vote for it for that reason.

What do you mean by this?  Usually it will be worth less than Duchy.  Occasionally it'll be equal and rarely will it be worth more.  I think you'd still want Duchy in the same cases you would want Duchy over Harem or Nobles.

Uh, I think what I meant is that there will be a lot of times when you know it's worth 3 VP, and then it's just better than Duchy.  Maybe that's not really true.  It just seems like there are a lot of games where you know going into it, there's no way this is going to end on Provinces, and then there are also games where even if it does end on Provinces, there are two piles you're pretty sure are going to run out, so you're still pretty sure it's worth 3 VP.

Quote
Counsellor
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $5.
Each other player chooses one: he draws a card or trashes a card from his hand.

I think I really like this card.  I like having a choice-based drawback, it's something that makes you feel like hey, why didn't Intrigue do that yet.

Vault and Bishop are already choice-based drawbacks.  You choose which card to discard/trash, or whether to do it at all.

Well that's sort of true.  But that's not an Intrigue-style choice.  If a card said "Trash a card from your hand", would you say that that fits into Intrigue, because it offers you a choice of what card to trash?  Probably not.  But if a card said "Choose one: +1 card, or trash a card from your hand", that sounds like Intrigue.  So, Bishop is to that first thing as Counselor is to that second thing.

Quote
Cordwainer
Cost: $5
Types: Action
+3 Cards
Reveal your hand. If you have exactly one Action card in hand, +1 Action.

I have really strong mixed feelings about this one.  On the one hand, I really like how it's unique and encourages you to play a completely new kind of deck that nothing else in Dominion really does.  What I don't like is that I think it'll feel super bad to draw two or more actions dead with this.  I also worry that it'll discourage you from buying actions a bit, there's a question of whether it does that to an extent that it actually makes games less fun.

I'm not sure what kind of deck it really encourages.  If you have too many actions, this is just terminal a lot of the time.  If you have too few actions, then this card may as well be terminal because you won't have another action to play anyway.  Even if you strike the right balance (whatever that is), there's almost nothing you can do to make sure you get that +1 action.  Maybe if it did the check before drawing.

You might be right.  I don't think the positives outweigh the negatives for me anyway, so I don't think I'll be voting for it.  I do feel like it's unique enough that it could give you some new tricks that other cards don't, but I don't have any specific examples.  You're probably right that it would work a lot better if the revealing happened first.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9126
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2016, 11:18:16 pm »
0

<Undertaker>
I totally didn't notice that anti-synergy either until Scott pointed it out, but it can easily be fixed by having the on-play effect put cards on top of the deck.

That removes the multi-turn synergy though.  I don't know which would be better.

Quote
Counsellor
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $5.
Each other player chooses one: he draws a card or trashes a card from his hand.

I think I really like this card.  I like having a choice-based drawback, it's something that makes you feel like hey, why didn't Intrigue do that yet.

Vault and Bishop are already choice-based drawbacks.  You choose which card to discard/trash, or whether to do it at all.

Well that's sort of true.  But that's not an Intrigue-style choice.  If a card said "Trash a card from your hand", would you say that that fits into Intrigue, because it offers you a choice of what card to trash?  Probably not.  But if a card said "Choose one: +1 card, or trash a card from your hand", that sounds like Intrigue.  So, Bishop is to that first thing as Counselor is to that second thing.

Fair enough.  I called out Cordwainer for not fitting an Intrigue theme, but I think there were several others that I didn't mention where the closest tie to Intrigue was an implied choice.  Like... Tribunal, where you just choose a card from your hand.  Or Slanderer, where you just trash a card from your hand.  Or Royal Tutor, where you are choosing a card in the Supply.  So I was in the mindset that a choice is a a choice, but maybe it's worth focusing more on the Intrigue-style choices.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 11:19:37 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

Gubump

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
  • Respect: +173
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue
« Reply #31 on: February 29, 2016, 12:33:41 am »
0

Quote
Vizier
Types: Action Attack
Cost: $5
You may choose an Action card from your hand. If you do, the player to your left chooses: either you play it twice, or you play it once and every player other than yourself discards down to three cards in hand.

Like many people have said, this is strictly worse than Throne Room, and it becomes a Ruined Village-one of the worst cards in the game, mind you-as soon as your opponent chooses the attack.

Quote
Undertaker
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Choose one: +2 Actions and put any number of cards from your hand on the bottom of your deck; or +2 Cards.

While this is in play, when you would draw from the top of your deck, draw from the bottom instead.

Again, as other people have said, this anti-synergizes possibly more than any other card. I would make the on-play effect topdeck your cards instead. Then it would be pretty interesting, and, IMO, still worth $2.

Quote
Tribunal
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 action
Discard a card from your hand. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck, put the revealed cards that share a type with the discarded card into your hand, trash the rest.

Kind of like Wishing Well, but better. On the other hand, it also has blind trashing, which is the entire reason that Lookout is my #1 most hated card of all time.

Quote
Slanderer
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. If it is an Action card, gain three Action cards costing less than it.

Too similar to Stonemason to be interesting. It's also kind of underpowered, IMO; Stonemason costs half as much and is 2/3 as strong, and doesn't have the drawback that the trashed and gained cards have to be Actions, and is still such a weak $2 that it has one of the best overpay effects in the game. In all, I think this should probably cost the same as Stonemason.

Quote
Shady Dealer
Types: Action Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Card
+$2
Each other player gains a Swamp from the Swamp pile

Swamp
Types: Action Reaction
Cost: $0
+1 Buy
You may discard a card. If you do, +1 card

When another player gains a Victory card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, return this card to the supply.

Setup: When Shady Dealer is in the Kingdom or Black Market deck, add the Swamp pile to the kingdom. Have 10 for two players, 20 for three players and 30 for four players.

Shady Dealer: Why +1 Card and +$2? It seems like you pulled two random bonuses out of a hat to make the non-attack portion of the card, which isn't a good thing.

Swamp: I think we have enough garbage cards in this game.

Quote
Royal Tutor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an action card from your hand. If you do so, play another action from the supply costing up to the cost of the first played card.

Clarification: The second card remains in the supply.

Finally, we get to a good card! This kind of reminds me of the outtake Kitchen (plays an Action, remodels it, and plays the gained Action). Unfortunately, I don't know why that was removed from the game. I like this better, though, for two reasons: 1. It doesn't use Potions, 2. It isn't nearly as OP, and has a bit less AP. This also makes me think of a mix between BoM and TR.

Quote
Pledge
Types: Treasure Action
Cost: $4
+ 1 Card + 1 Action
You may trash this card. If you do: + 1 Card.

Worth $2

Clarification: When you play this card in your Action phase, it counts as an Action card, when you play it in your Buy phase (this includes the additional Buy phase of Black Market), it counts as a Treasure Card. (That is, this card can played as a plain cantrip OR a oneshot Laboratory OR a Silver.) As long Pledge is not in play (e. g. if it is in the supply, in a player's deck or on a player's hand), it counts as both Treasure and Action card. But once you put it in play, it counts as only one type of card for the rest of your turn. If you Prince or Golem Pledge, it will always count as Action card, because it comes into play in your Action phase. Mint will only trash Pledge, if it was played in your Buy phase.

The only problem is what happens if Princed. It has yet to be determined whether the turn goes one of 2 ways:

1) Start of Turn > Action Phase > Buy Phase > Cleanup

OR

2) (Action Phase = Start of Turn > Rest of Action Phase) > Buy Phase > Cleanup

In other words, is the start of your turn during or before your Action phase?

Quote
Penal System
Types: Treasure Victory Reaction
Cost: $3
Worth $1
Worth 1VP

When a player plays an Attack, you may reveal this. If you do, that player may not play any more Action cards this turn.

AKA "Attack Contraband." Nobody would buy any attack cards with this in the set. It also relies on having Attack cards to be worth its cost; an outtake was a Treasure/Victory worth 1VP and $1 that also gave a +Buy, and was too weak.

Quote
Parade
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Choose one: Play an action card from your hand twice, or draw until you have 6 cards in hand.

This is another good one. I only worry that it might be too strong a self-synergy, but I don't think it'll be as strong as Royal Carriage, my favorite TR variant.

Quote
Outskirts
Types: Victory
Cost: $4
Worth 2VP

When you buy this, gain another Outskirts.

Setup: Use 11 copies in 2-player, 15 in 3-4 player, and 18 in 5/6 player games.

I don't really have anything to say about this one. It makes me think of a mix between Tunnels and Port.

Quote
Masons
Types: Action Treasure
Cost: $6
If you play this as an action, +3 Cards
If you play this as a treasure, Worth $2

I know somebody else made a card that was basically this as a Reaction, with the reaction being the $2, and it being triggered at the start of your buy phase. I think that one is better, for 2 reasons: 1. It costs $5, which I think is a better price for a Smithy/Silver, and 2. I don't think the rules complications of making a card that is both a Treasure and an Action is worth a card that is just a flat-out combination between two existing cards.

Quote
Livery
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+2 cards
You may reveal a card from your hand; if it is an...
Action card, +1 Action
Treasure card, +$1
Victory card, +1 Card

It is kind of interesting, but I don't think it's different enough from Laboratory and Tribute to be interesting.

Quote
Landlord
Types: Action Victory
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +1 Action.

Worth 1 VP per empty Supply pile.

I like the self-synergy with it being a Victory card itself. I don't think it's different enough from Lab to be interesting, though, and it also has, I think, the lowest realistic cap of any variable-value Victory in the game, yet is one of the hardest cards to reach that gap. Yet another strike against it is that it is, again, I think, the only Victory card that, when it gets more valuable, it gets more valuable for everybody.

Quote
King's Feast
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Action
Choose 3 times:
+1 Card; +1 Action; +1 Buy; +$1

Insanely strong. Probably too strong. Unless it actually means choose three, in which case it's strictly worse than Market. If you can choose the same thing multiple times, however, these are the combinations:

1: +3 Cards
2: +3 Actions
3: +3 Buys
4: +$3
5:+2 Cards +1 Action
6: +2 Cards +1 Buy
7: +2 Cards +$1
8: +1 Card +2 Actions
9: +1 Card +2 Buys
10: +1 Card +$2
11: +1 Card +1 Action +1 Buy
12: +1 Card +1 Action +$1
13: +1 Card +1 Buy +$1
14: +1 Action +1 Buy +$1
15: +2 Actions +1 Buy
16: +2 Actions +$1
17: +1 Action +2 Buys
18: +2 Buys +$1
19: +1 Action +$2
20: +1 Buy +$2

And I think that 20 different combinations is a bit much for a $6-cost card, don't you agree? Count is the most versatile card in the game with its...less than half as many options. Yeah...it would also create a massive amount of AP every time it's played. The especially OP part is that one of its combos, +2 Cards, +1 Action, is the exact effect of a card costing just $1 less. This would probably be too strong at $8. Thanks to scott_pilgrim for pointing out the last 6 that I missed.

Quote
Heir
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may discard an Estate. If you do: +3 Cards
You may discard a Duchy. If you do: +$3
You may discard a Victory Card. If you do: +1 Action

Clarification: The options are independent and in order, meaning that you discard 0 to 3 cards.

I've also seen this one before. It's kind of silly that just having two Estates in your hand can yield double-lab.

Quote
Counsellor
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $5.
Each other player chooses one: he draws a card or trashes a card from his hand.

I'm kind of surprised, honestly, that nobody has created a card where other players choose bonuses for themselves as a drawback. This is a cool one, but I think that just making each other player draw a card is enough of a drawback; it doesn't need a drawback harsher than Council Room when its effect isn't as strong as Council Room's anyway.

Quote
Cordwainer
Cost: $5
Types: Action
+3 Cards
Reveal your hand. If you have exactly one Action card in hand, +1 Action.

This is another cool one. Unfortunately, it kind of anti-synergizes with itself because the +3 Cards can easily push you to having 2 or more Actions. Still voting for it, though.

Quote
Auditor
Types: Action Attack
Cost: $3
All players draw two cards. Each other player reveals his hand. You choose two cards that they have to put on top of their deck.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too strong. This definitely needs to be a $6 at least.

Quote
Abandoned Village
Types: Action Reaction
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions

When a player gains a victory card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, gain a Silver, putting it into your hand. Return this to your hand at the start of your next turn.

Unfortunately, this card's reaction doesn't really fit with its trigger; Victory cards are usually gained late-game, where you don't want Silvers. It's still pretty creative, though, and I'm still voting for it.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 06:43:34 pm by Gubump »
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his/her Dominion Card Image Generator.

scott_pilgrim

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 978
  • Respect: +1924
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue
« Reply #32 on: February 29, 2016, 01:32:30 am »
0

Quote
King's Feast
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Action
Choose 3 times:
+1 Card; +1 Action; +1 Buy; +$1

Insanely strong. Probably too strong. Unless it actually means choose three, in which case it's strictly worse than Market. If you can choose the same thing multiple times, however, these are the combinations:

1: +3 Cards
2: +3 Actions
3: +3 Buys
4: +$3
5:+2 Cards +1 Action
6: +2 Cards +1 Buy
7: +2 Cards +$1
8: +1 Card +2 Actions
9: +1 Card +2 Buys
10: +1 Card +$2
11: +1 Card +1 Action +1 Buy
12: +1 Card +1 Action +$1
13: +1 Card +1 Buy +$1
14: +1 Action +1 Buy +$1

And I think that 14 different combinations is a bit much for a $6-cost card, don't you agree? Count is the most versatile card in the game with its...almost half as many options. Yeah...it would also create a massive amount of AP every time it's played. The especially OP part is that one of its combos, +2 Cards, +1 Action, is the exact effect of a card costing just $1 less. This would probably be too strong at $8.

Actually, there's more than 14; you stopped listing off all the possibilities without +cards.  You would have:

15: +2 Actions, +$1
16: +2 Actions, +1 Buy
17: +1 Action, +$2
18: +1 Action, +1 Buy
19: +$2, +1 Buy
20: +$1, +2 Buys

And I think this should be right, since we should have 1+3+6+10=20 total combinations.  Anyway, I don't actually think the number of combinations speaks directly to power level.  You can't just say that because there are 20 options, it must be strong.  If a card said "Gain any number of Coppers from 0 to 19", well that would be crazy in Gardens games, but you know what I mean.  You'd never pick like 13 Coppers because you'd pretty much always prefer 19 or else closer to 0 or 1.  I think a few of the options are overshadowed by others, like +3 buys is pretty edge-casey.

But I agree with the conclusion.  The flexibility makes it pretty nuts and even if it weren't strong, I think being able to get exactly what you want when you want it makes the game less fun.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +192
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Voting!)
« Reply #33 on: February 29, 2016, 02:25:09 am »
0

The main issue of Pledge and Masons is that they are too strong respectively too weak, not that it is not specified how they are supposed to interact with Prince/Golem. In the case of Pledge it is explained in a crystal clear way (nor that it wouldn't be clear otherwise that the Action part counts for Prince/Golem). As always with card games, card text or FAQ dominates the general rules.

Maybe I don't understand how the timing of game phases works.  I assumed it was like:

Start of turn
Action phase
Buy phase
Clean-up phase

The fact that you're not confused by the clarification suggests that you think it works like:

Action phase
  • Start of turn
  • Rest of action phase
Buy phase
Clean-up phase

And I actually don't know why I think it works the way I assumed it did, so maybe that's wrong.  Does anyone else know how it works?

So anyway, let's say it works the second way, so that the clarification is consistent with its explanation of Prince.  I still think it's much cleaner if the card is just always both types, but you play it "as an action" whenever you would normally play actions, and you play it "as a treasure" whenever you would normally play treasures.  You still need a more thorough FAQ, but you need that no matter how you do an Action-Treasure.  Either way, I don't think it's compelling enough to be worth all the new rules that would have to come with it.
You are totally right about the structure and I am not confused about the start of the turn being different from the action phase.
But Prince clearly talks about setting aside an Action card and playing that very Action card at the start of each turn so it should be obvious without any FAQs and rule-lawyering that only the Action part of Action-Treasures counts in the case of Prince or Golem. In addition to that the FAQ of Pledge clarified that.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 02:26:57 am by tristan »
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +766
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Voting!)
« Reply #34 on: February 29, 2016, 06:07:35 am »
0

What's the proper procedure on 'defending' your own card from (pretty valid) comments? After voting? Never? Still anonymous? :)
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9126
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Voting!)
« Reply #35 on: February 29, 2016, 12:48:00 pm »
0

What's the proper procedure on 'defending' your own card from (pretty valid) comments? After voting? Never? Still anonymous? :)

Stay anonymous until after voting. Maybe make an effort to defend not just your own card. :P

@Gubump on Landlord, not sure what you mean by variable-cost here, but the VP cap from empty supply piles is 2.5 times higher than the cap from Fairgrounds on most boards.
Logged

Gubump

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
  • Respect: +173
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Voting!)
« Reply #36 on: February 29, 2016, 06:37:48 pm »
0

What's the proper procedure on 'defending' your own card from (pretty valid) comments? After voting? Never? Still anonymous? :)

Stay anonymous until after voting. Maybe make an effort to defend not just your own card. :P

@Gubump on Landlord, not sure what you mean by variable-cost here, but the VP cap from empty supply piles is 2.5 times higher than the cap from Fairgrounds on most boards.

1. I meant variable-value, I'll fix that when I'm done posting this reply.

2. Um, the smallest possible cap on Fairgrounds is, let's see: 10 Kingdom Piles = 4, and 6 base card piles = 6. The VP cap from empty Supply piles is technically 16, but the chances of running out every Supply pile in a single turn is ridiculously slim. 99.999999% of the time Landlord'll be worth 4 or less VP. I guess Landlord doesn't really have a cap of 3VP, but that's its highest realistic value.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 11:29:11 pm by Gubump »
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his/her Dominion Card Image Generator.

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +192
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Voting!)
« Reply #37 on: February 29, 2016, 07:28:36 pm »
0

What's the proper procedure on 'defending' your own card from (pretty valid) comments? After voting? Never? Still anonymous? :)

Stay anonymous until after voting. Maybe make an effort to defend not just your own card. :P

@Gubump on Landlord, not sure what you mean by variable-cost here, but the VP cap from empty supply piles is 2.5 times higher than the cap from Fairgrounds on most boards.
99.999999% of the time it'll be worth 4 or less VP.
That's obvious nonsense. It doesn't happen very often but you frequently score 6 VPs with Fairgrounds.
Logged

Limetime

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1223
  • Shuffle iT Username: limetime
  • Respect: +1135
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Voting!)
« Reply #38 on: February 29, 2016, 07:32:38 pm »
0

What's the proper procedure on 'defending' your own card from (pretty valid) comments? After voting? Never? Still anonymous? :)

Stay anonymous until after voting. Maybe make an effort to defend not just your own card. :P

@Gubump on Landlord, not sure what you mean by variable-cost here, but the VP cap from empty supply piles is 2.5 times higher than the cap from Fairgrounds on most boards.
99.999999% of the time it'll be worth 4 or less VP.
That's obvious nonsense. It doesn't happen very often but you frequently score 6 VPs with Fairgrounds.
Pretty sure 99.9999999% is hyperbole. It is not very often but it some times it happens that you play 8 highways and have a million buys. I am looking at a kingdom of kc, cost reducer, +buy, and draw.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9126
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Voting!)
« Reply #39 on: February 29, 2016, 09:32:02 pm »
0

2. Um, the smallest possible cap on Fairgrounds is, let's see: 10 Kingdom Piles = 4, and 6 base card piles = 6. The VP cap from empty Supply piles is technically 16, but the chances of running out every Supply pile in a single turn is ridiculously slim. 99.999999% of the time it'll be worth 4 or less VP. I guess Landlord doesn't really have a cap of 3VP, but that's its highest realistic value.

Sure it's unlikely, but unlikelihood doesn't matter when you're talking about the cap.

Even if the cap really was tiny, I don't think it's really a problem.  You can just think of it as a small step above fixed value VP cards.
Logged

Gubump

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
  • Respect: +173
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Voting!)
« Reply #40 on: February 29, 2016, 11:28:41 pm »
0

What's the proper procedure on 'defending' your own card from (pretty valid) comments? After voting? Never? Still anonymous? :)

Stay anonymous until after voting. Maybe make an effort to defend not just your own card. :P

@Gubump on Landlord, not sure what you mean by variable-cost here, but the VP cap from empty supply piles is 2.5 times higher than the cap from Fairgrounds on most boards.
99.999999% of the time it'll be worth 4 or less VP.
That's obvious nonsense. It doesn't happen very often but you frequently score 6 VPs with Fairgrounds.

And Fairgrounds isn't the card I'm talking about.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his/her Dominion Card Image Generator.

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +192
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Voting!)
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2016, 07:17:33 am »
0

What's the proper procedure on 'defending' your own card from (pretty valid) comments? After voting? Never? Still anonymous? :)

Stay anonymous until after voting. Maybe make an effort to defend not just your own card. :P

@Gubump on Landlord, not sure what you mean by variable-cost here, but the VP cap from empty supply piles is 2.5 times higher than the cap from Fairgrounds on most boards.
99.999999% of the time it'll be worth 4 or less VP.
That's obvious nonsense. It doesn't happen very often but you frequently score 6 VPs with Fairgrounds.

And Fairgrounds isn't the card I'm talking about.
My misktake. 99.999999% is still hyperbole as I haven't played millions of Dominion games yet I still frequently encounter 4 pile endings and faintly remember one or two 5 pile endings.
Logged

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 742
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +716
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Voting!)
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2016, 01:30:08 pm »
0

Preliminary Results:

Landlord - 11
Heir - 10
Royal Tutor - 9
Counsellor - 8
Abandoned Village - 7
Parade - 7

Cordwainer - 6
Undertaker - 6
Masons - 5
Livery - 4
Slanderer - 4
King's Feast - 3
Pledge - 3
Auditor - 2
Outskirts - 2
Penal System - 2
Shady Dealer - 2
Tribunal - 1
Vizier - 1
Logged

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 742
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +716
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Voting!)
« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2016, 01:33:02 pm »
0

Note that there are six finalists, due to a tie for fifth in the preliminary round.

Quote
Abandoned Village
Types: Action Reaction
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions

When a player gains a victory card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, gain a Silver, putting it into your hand. Return this to your hand at the start of your next turn.

Quote
Counsellor
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $5.
Each other player chooses one: he draws a card or trashes a card from his hand.

Quote
Heir
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may discard an Estate. If you do: +3 Cards
You may discard a Duchy. If you do: +$3
You may discard a Victory Card. If you do: +1 Action

Clarification: The options are independent and in order, meaning that you discard 0 to 3 cards.

Quote
Landlord
Types: Action Victory
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +1 Action.

Worth 1 VP per empty Supply pile.

Quote
Parade
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Choose one: Play an action card from your hand twice, or draw until you have 6 cards in hand.

Quote
Royal Tutor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an action card from your hand. If you do so, play another action from the supply costing up to the cost of the first played card.

Clarification: The second card remains in the supply.

Submit your votes to me via this forum's messaging system. To vote, give each card a score from 0 to 10. (It is recommended, but not required, that you give at least one card a 0 and at least one card a 10, to maximize your voting input.) The winner will be the card with the highest sum. Feel free to discuss the cards (but not your scores) in this thread.
Logged

Garth One-eye

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • Respect: +22
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Finalists!)
« Reply #44 on: March 02, 2016, 11:01:42 am »
0

I created Penal System.
I was intentionally trying to create a counter-attack reaction that wouldn't make attacks worthless, but I obviously made the punishment too harsh.
I was thinking it wouldn't overly punish attacks because you could still have one per turn that wouldn't effect you as long as you played it last, but I didn't really consider that if that was the case Penal System probably isn't worth buying on that board.

Maybe just making the restriction on playing further attacks so it shuts down Minion, Scrying Pool, Urchin, and somewhat drawing attacks might have been better.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +766
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Finalists!)
« Reply #45 on: March 02, 2016, 11:05:30 am »
0

King's Feast is mine. And I agree with the 'damn, this card is flexible', but I am ok with that. It might need to be a little pricier (7? 8?) or have a penalty or restriction on gaining it (think grand market).

Anyone have any suggestions on improving it?
Logged

spiralstaircase

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 181
  • Respect: +330
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Finalists!)
« Reply #46 on: March 02, 2016, 01:11:10 pm »
0

Masons was mine.  People seem to like my ideas so far, but I've yet to get the price right once.
Logged

King Leon

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
  • Respect: +107
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Finalists!)
« Reply #47 on: March 02, 2016, 05:17:35 pm »
0

Masons was mine.  People seem to like my ideas so far, but I've yet to get the price right once.

I created Pledge. My first idea was a Silver+, which could be played as a cantrip, which trashes itself, when playing as Action card. So you could get rid of the Silver, when better cards are available.
But there was a big problem in pricing this card. Plegde was strictly better than Silver (just consider Noble Brigand and Ironworks), and so it required to cost more than Silver. But it still was not worth $4.

So I started with the price of $3, but added the restriction, that you cannot buy Pledge, as long you have other Treasury Cards than Copper in play. This was too weird and people were still buying two or three Pledges in their first five turns.

Then I changed the cost to $4, made the trashing optional and added a small benefit, if you trash it, making the card similar to Mining Village.

Obviously there is a huge lack of clarity how a mixed Action/Treasury card behaves in different situations (e. g. played by Prince). So this was an experiment and although it got only two votes, I am happy that the community has found an opinion regarding this type of card. Thank you a lot!
Logged

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 742
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +716
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Finalists!)
« Reply #48 on: March 07, 2016, 05:27:24 pm »
0

Last day for voting!
Logged

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 742
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +716
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 4: Intrigue (Finalists!)
« Reply #49 on: March 08, 2016, 11:04:17 am »
+4

Results:

Royal Tutor (Beyond Awesome) - 55
Counsellor (RobertJ) - 47
Landlord (?) - 43
Parade (scott_pilgrim) - 43
Heir (Asper) - 37
Abandoned Village (Graystripe77) - 23

Congrats, Beyond Awesome!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

Page created in 0.174 seconds with 20 queries.