Dominion Strategy Forum

• February 16, 2019, 09:21:04 am
• Welcome, Guest

News:

DominionStrategy Wiki

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 [All]

AuthorTopic: Interesting Card Design Challenges  (Read 3430 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Interesting Card Design Challenges
« on: August 12, 2018, 10:18:53 pm »
+1

I'm out of card ideas. Please post interesting card design challenges.

Here's my contribution: An attack card that has an unusual cost. Could cost , could cost . Maybe it has a cost of , costs debt, or you overpay for it.

Whatever, just come up with cards for the posted challenges or post an interesting challenge yourself.

More examples: Victory/Duration card. A pure Reaction card with no Action part. Etc.

Edit: Guys, I meant Victory/Action/Duration. Doesn't need to be pure Duration without an Action part. That's too awkward.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2018, 11:04:50 pm by kru5h »
Logged

Aquila

• Moneylender
• Offline
• Posts: 151
• Respect: +123
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2018, 04:17:48 pm »
+1

Victory/Duration card
I had crossed the idea of pure Durations. A Victory/Duration could be:
Quote
Clayfields - Victory/Duration, \$6 cost.
2VP
-
For the rest of the game, when you buy a Victory card, draw an extra card for your next hand.
When you gain this, play it.
(This stays in play.)
For the potential it has maybe 1VP is enough. Tracking issues as well, especially Villa.
Logged

Chappy7

• Duke
• Offline
• Posts: 390
• Respect: +443
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2018, 04:58:04 pm »
0

Reaction - \$6 Cost

-When you buy this, if you don't already have your -1 card token, you may immediately trash this for \$8 and take your -1 card token.
-When you draw this, you may reveal this.  If you do, +2 Cards.

It's either a double borrow or a non-terminal lab.
Logged

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2018, 05:22:01 pm »
0

Interesting idea. There are some subtle differences to Lab like not throneable and vulnerable to handsize attacks.
I don't like the first option though, seems too similar to Farmland.
Logged

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2018, 10:31:32 pm »
0

Unusual Attack Cost Challenge - Not technically an Attack, but close enough count. Made this one a few years ago and never tried to figure out if it's balanced or not.

Victory-Duration Challenge - Another one that I haven't had time to polish. Not quite sure where this one is going yet. Also, this isn't technically a pure Victory-Duration, so challenge failed.

A challenge I've been trying to crack for a year or so is to come up with a way to incorporate a health bar into Dominion. With States it now seems possible. My idea is to use Estates as your health bar, but beyond that I'm not sure how to execute it or make it fair.

Victory/Duration card
I had crossed the idea of pure Durations. A Victory/Duration could be:
Quote
Clayfields - Victory/Duration, \$6 cost.
2VP
-
For the rest of the game, when you buy a Victory card, draw an extra card for your next hand.
When you gain this, play it.
(This stays in play.)
For the potential it has maybe 1VP is enough. Tracking issues as well, especially Villa.

Very interesting card. Curious how this plays. Going straight into play makes it quite strong. Maybe too strong?
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2018, 01:32:31 am »
0

Unusual Attack Cost Challenge - Not technically an Attack, but close enough count. Made this one a few years ago and never tried to figure out if it's balanced or not.

Seems pretty powerful to Curse players for . I was thinking of a similar card, but I was going to use Jinx tokens. (When a player has 6 or more Jinx tokens, they return 6 to gain a Curse.) It was going to be 2 Jinx tokens per , so a Curse for every you spent. Of course, the card itself would give Jinx tokens too, so it's not a waste to give somebody Just 2 tokens.

Also, I'd be really interested in seeing a attack card from somebody.

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2018, 02:27:57 am »
0

Town Hall is strictly better than Duchy.

Seems pretty powerful to Curse players for .
You have to pay 4 to curse them. And while a cantrip that curses on-buy seems better than IGG the on-play sifting for the opponents can easily compensate for that.
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2018, 02:32:58 am »
0

Town Hall is strictly better than Duchy.

It's strictly better than a 5-cost Duchy, but it makes Duchies cost 4 (or less) for other players.

I still think it's better than Duchy, but since it lowers the price of Duchies, it's not strictly better.

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2018, 02:40:31 am »
+1

Town Hall is strictly better than Duchy.

It's strictly better than a 5-cost Duchy, but it makes Duchies cost 4 (or less) for other players.

I still think it's better than Duchy, but since it lowers the price of Duchies, it's not strictly better.
Sure, technically it is not strictly better but in every other sense it is. Even if the card made Duchies cost \$0 it would very likely be too good.

You gotta keep in mind that Town Hall, if you split it into two cards, would be a Duchy plus a Lab. It is not a big thing with Great Hall and Mill as 1VP is trivial but 3VPs matter.
So the key issue is that rushing Town Halls is probably the dominant strategy, at least with Workshop variants around, whereas "exploiting" that and buying some cheap Duchies early doesn't work as your deck is full of dead cards.
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2018, 02:42:55 am »
0

Town Hall is strictly better than Duchy.

It's strictly better than a 5-cost Duchy, but it makes Duchies cost 4 (or less) for other players.

I still think it's better than Duchy, but since it lowers the price of Duchies, it's not strictly better.
Sure, technically it is not strictly better but in every other sense it is. Even if the card made Duchies cost \$0 it would very likely be too good.

You gotta keep in mind that Town Hall, if you split it into two cards, would be a Duchy plus a Lab. It is not a big thing with Great Hall and Mill as 1VP is trivial but 3VPs matter.
So the key issue is that rushing Town Halls is probably the dominant strategy, at least with Workshop variants around, whereas "exploiting" that and buying some cheap Duchies early doesn't work as your deck is full of dead cards.

I agree. It's "clearly better." I try not to use "strictly" unless it's in a technical sense.

Gazbag

• Minion
• Online
• Posts: 576
• Respect: +773
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2018, 04:25:55 am »
+3

Town Hall is strictly better than Duchy.

It's strictly better than a 5-cost Duchy, but it makes Duchies cost 4 (or less) for other players.

I still think it's better than Duchy, but since it lowers the price of Duchies, it's not strictly better.
Sure, technically it is not strictly better but in every other sense it is. Even if the card made Duchies cost \$0 it would very likely be too good.

You gotta keep in mind that Town Hall, if you split it into two cards, would be a Duchy plus a Lab. It is not a big thing with Great Hall and Mill as 1VP is trivial but 3VPs matter.
So the key issue is that rushing Town Halls is probably the dominant strategy, at least with Workshop variants around, whereas "exploiting" that and buying some cheap Duchies early doesn't work as your deck is full of dead cards.

I agree. It's "clearly better." I try not to use "strictly" unless it's in a technical sense.

You don't have to play it, you just have the option to, which makes it strictly better than Duchy.
Logged

faust

• Mountebank
• Offline
• Posts: 2363
• Respect: +3337
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2018, 06:12:02 am »
0

Card that could get potentially wacky:

Quote
Evil Overlord - Action - Attack, \$7

Choose an non-Duration Action card from the supply costing up to \$5. Each player plays that card, leaving it there.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 06:14:06 am by faust »
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

Commodore Chuckles

• Minion
• Online
• Posts: 709
• Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
• Respect: +1022
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2018, 09:10:05 am »
0

Also, I'd be really interested in seeing a attack card from somebody.

Well, it wouldn't be hard to come up with a card that has a decent attack but is expensive due to the other stuff it does (see Goons). It's much trickier, though, to come up with an attack that itself warrants a high price but isn't completely broken.

Quote
Evil Overlord - Action - Attack, \$7

Choose an non-Duration Action card from the supply costing up to \$5. Each player plays that card, leaving it there.

How exactly does this work? Does everyone gain a copy of the card and play it? Or do they reveal their hands if they don't have a copy to play? And in what order do they play them?

This seems pretty weak/nichey. It's hard to think of cards that will help you but hurt the other guy when you both play them.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 09:18:22 am by Commodore Chuckles »
Logged

LostPhoenix

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 214
• Shuffle iT Username: Lost Phoenix
• The Lurker
• Respect: +232
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2018, 09:32:49 am »
0

Challenge: Create another card with the Curse type, or better yet, replaces the Curse cards altogether.
Logged

ipofanes

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1306
• Respect: +655
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2018, 09:37:47 am »
0

Serfdom - Action, \$4

Sacrifice a card costing \$5 or more from hand. If you do: Gain a Province.
Logged
Lord Rattington denies my undo requests

Aquila

• Moneylender
• Offline
• Posts: 151
• Respect: +123
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2018, 10:54:32 am »
0

Challenge: Create another card with the Curse type, or better yet, replaces the Curse cards altogether.
Quote
Plague - Curse, \$0 cost.
When you trash this, take <1>.
-
Setup: replace the Curse cards with the same number of Plagues. (When you would gain a Curse card, instead gain a Plague.)
If a player doesn't like the -VP bit of curses then they should be harder junk to get rid of, if Donald found Confusions bad.

Serfdom - Action, \$4

Sacrifice a card costing \$5 or more from hand. If you do: Gain a Province.
Expand: is it a fair comparison to this, doing the same but more? Or is the main strength of Expand making estates \$5s?
Logged

spiralstaircase

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 256
• Respect: +418
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2018, 11:17:37 am »
+1

More examples: Victory/Duration card.

Peace treaty
Cost: \$3
Types: Victory, Duration
Worth 2VP.
When you buy this, put it into play.  (This card stays in play)
While this is in play, if you play an Attack card, you may gain a curse.  If you do not, return this to the supply.
Logged

ipofanes

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1306
• Respect: +655
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2018, 11:38:56 am »
0

If there are no (attractive) Attacks in play, this may become spammable. But a Province that doesn't clutter your hand for \$9 and three buys sounds still reasonable. Also, I like that it goes to hand when gained by Ironworks/Hermit etc.
Logged
Lord Rattington denies my undo requests

faust

• Mountebank
• Offline
• Posts: 2363
• Respect: +3337
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2018, 12:22:28 pm »
0

Also, I'd be really interested in seeing a attack card from somebody.

Well, it wouldn't be hard to come up with a card that has a decent attack but is expensive due to the other stuff it does (see Goons). It's much trickier, though, to come up with an attack that itself warrants a high price but isn't completely broken.

Quote
Evil Overlord - Action - Attack, \$7

Choose an non-Duration Action card from the supply costing up to \$5. Each player plays that card, leaving it there.

How exactly does this work? Does everyone gain a copy of the card and play it? Or do they reveal their hands if they don't have a copy to play? And in what order do they play them?

This seems pretty weak/nichey. It's hard to think of cards that will help you but hurt the other guy when you both play them.
No, they play exactly the named card from the supply, similar to how Necromancer plays cards from the trash. It will be a bit nichey, but there some good combos:
- Bridge
- in multiplayer, any junking when you can block it.
- any trashing in the mid-to-late game
- possibly Beggar
- Mandarin
- Sacred Grove
- Council Room

It would probably be better if it lets you go last with your play.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

4est

• Bishop
• Offline
• Posts: 117
• Respect: +429
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2018, 01:02:32 pm »
+2

The idea of a \$2 cost Attack is interesting--it's tricky to design since the attack and benefit need to be mild enough to fit the low cost, but not so mild that the attack effectively does nothing (i.e. imagine an attack even milder than Fortune Teller).  My solution is to make the card require multiple copies to actually attack and to get stronger with more copies, so while it's cheap, it still requires an investment.  Note: I have not tested this at all, so it could be a nothing card.

By itself, a single Knave is just a Copper, not a great deal for \$2.  But with two of them in play, you get a nice discard attack, and each one after that Curses your opponent too.  Knave is non-terminal so you can easily play several of them, but the tricky part will be when to gain them and how to line them up to start attacking.  It's a pretty bad opener, and the benefit to your deck apart from the Attack is very slight.  It will take a few turns to start attacking consistently, and once it does, the discarding and cursing will make it harder for players to keep lining them up.  It's possible that unlimited cursing after three in play might get a bit oppressive, but I figured that getting to a point where you play more than three of these consistently will usually take a while.  I toyed with the idea of giving them a +Buy to make it easier to get more of them, but +1 Action +\$1 seemed stronger on average than +1 Action +1 Buy.  Not sure though.  Overpaying to get extra copies or Forum-style "When you buy this, +1 Buy" are also options, but that's a lot of extra text on an already wordy card.

Thoughts?  What are other ways to make a \$2 cost attack work?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 01:05:35 pm by 4est »
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

• Minion
• Online
• Posts: 709
• Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
• Respect: +1022
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2018, 01:36:27 pm »
+1

My attempts at making cheap and expensive attacks:

Quote
Pawnbroker - \$2
Each other player gains a Copper. Each player (including you) may trash a card from their hand.

In general, has a net effect of trashing for you and -1 card for everyone else.

Quote
Master Thief - \$7
Each other player reveals their hand. Gain a card from each hand to yours that is not a Master Thief or Victory card, and then each other player gains to their hand a card costing less than the one they lost.

My attempt at the uber-powerful "Take a card from your opponent's hand and put it in yours" idea. They gain a card costing less so that gaining expensive cards isn't completely discouraged, and it can't gain itself to prevent the swinginess that would probably result.
Logged

Jack Rudd

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1126
• Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
• Respect: +1053
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2018, 05:14:20 pm »
0

I can see all sort of fun issues arising with Evil Overlording Durations.
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

ConMan

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1333
• Respect: +1590
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2018, 08:34:55 pm »
+1

You could possibly have a pure Reaction as part of a split pile, where it reacts to the other card in the pile being played. Something like ...

Card A
Reaction
When another player plays a Card B, you may reveal this from your hand, for <benefit>.

Card B
Action
<Benefit>
If any other player revealed Card B, <benefit>.
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2018, 08:43:53 pm »
0

My attempts at making cheap and expensive attacks:

Quote
Pawnbroker - \$2
Each other player gains a Copper. Each player (including you) may trash a card from their hand.

I came up with almost exactly the same card a few days ago! The only difference was that mine gained you a Silver.

So, this card is actually more powerful than it seems. When it "hits", it's a Cutpurse. When it misses, it's a junker. So it's actually stronger than Cutpurse. You could argue that since you have the option of trashing, it's weaker than Cutpurse, but this hits way more frequently and even damages you when it misses. Overall, I'd say it's slightly stronger.

majiponi

• Tactician
• Offline
• Posts: 448
• Respect: +376
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2018, 01:08:01 am »
+1

My attempts at making cheap and expensive attacks:

Quote
Pawnbroker - \$2
Each other player gains a Copper. Each player (including you) may trash a card from their hand.

I came up with almost exactly the same card a few days ago! The only difference was that mine gained you a Silver.

So, this card is actually more powerful than it seems. When it "hits", it's a Cutpurse. When it misses, it's a junker. So it's actually stronger than Cutpurse. You could argue that since you have the option of trashing, it's weaker than Cutpurse, but this hits way more frequently and even damages you when it misses. Overall, I'd say it's slightly stronger.

I doubt it. At first, your opponents can trash Estates. Replacing Estates to Coppers is nice for them, isn't it?
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2018, 01:12:46 am »
0

My attempts at making cheap and expensive attacks:

Quote
Pawnbroker - \$2
Each other player gains a Copper. Each player (including you) may trash a card from their hand.

I came up with almost exactly the same card a few days ago! The only difference was that mine gained you a Silver.

So, this card is actually more powerful than it seems. When it "hits", it's a Cutpurse. When it misses, it's a junker. So it's actually stronger than Cutpurse. You could argue that since you have the option of trashing, it's weaker than Cutpurse, but this hits way more frequently and even damages you when it misses. Overall, I'd say it's slightly stronger.

I doubt it. At first, your opponents can trash Estates. Replacing Estates to Coppers is nice for them, isn't it?

Ah. On my version you could only trash Coppers. Didn't notice how the subtle wording difference could change the card. Still, seems a bit cheap for it.

majiponi

• Tactician
• Offline
• Posts: 448
• Respect: +376
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2018, 04:01:36 am »
0

The idea of a \$2 cost Attack is interesting--it's tricky to design since the attack and benefit need to be mild enough to fit the low cost, but not so mild that the attack effectively does nothing (i.e. imagine an attack even milder than Fortune Teller).  My solution is to make the card require multiple copies to actually attack and to get stronger with more copies, so while it's cheap, it still requires an investment.  Note: I have not tested this at all, so it could be a nothing card.

By itself, a single Knave is just a Copper, not a great deal for \$2.  But with two of them in play, you get a nice discard attack, and each one after that Curses your opponent too.  Knave is non-terminal so you can easily play several of them, but the tricky part will be when to gain them and how to line them up to start attacking.  It's a pretty bad opener, and the benefit to your deck apart from the Attack is very slight.  It will take a few turns to start attacking consistently, and once it does, the discarding and cursing will make it harder for players to keep lining them up.  It's possible that unlimited cursing after three in play might get a bit oppressive, but I figured that getting to a point where you play more than three of these consistently will usually take a while.  I toyed with the idea of giving them a +Buy to make it easier to get more of them, but +1 Action +\$1 seemed stronger on average than +1 Action +1 Buy.  Not sure though.  Overpaying to get extra copies or Forum-style "When you buy this, +1 Buy" are also options, but that's a lot of extra text on an already wordy card.

Thoughts?  What are other ways to make a \$2 cost attack work?

Quote
Poison
cost \$2 - Action - Duration
At the start of your next turn:
+\$2, if another Poison is in play, each other player gains a Curse, and otherwise, they discard down to 3 cards in hand.
Logged

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2018, 10:49:22 am »
0

The idea of a \$2 cost Attack is interesting--it's tricky to design since the attack and benefit need to be mild enough to fit the low cost, but not so mild that the attack effectively does nothing (i.e. imagine an attack even milder than Fortune Teller).  My solution is to make the card require multiple copies to actually attack and to get stronger with more copies, so while it's cheap, it still requires an investment.  Note: I have not tested this at all, so it could be a nothing card.

By itself, a single Knave is just a Copper, not a great deal for \$2.  But with two of them in play, you get a nice discard attack, and each one after that Curses your opponent too.  Knave is non-terminal so you can easily play several of them, but the tricky part will be when to gain them and how to line them up to start attacking.  It's a pretty bad opener, and the benefit to your deck apart from the Attack is very slight.  It will take a few turns to start attacking consistently, and once it does, the discarding and cursing will make it harder for players to keep lining them up.  It's possible that unlimited cursing after three in play might get a bit oppressive, but I figured that getting to a point where you play more than three of these consistently will usually take a while.  I toyed with the idea of giving them a +Buy to make it easier to get more of them, but +1 Action +\$1 seemed stronger on average than +1 Action +1 Buy.  Not sure though.  Overpaying to get extra copies or Forum-style "When you buy this, +1 Buy" are also options, but that's a lot of extra text on an already wordy card.

Thoughts?  What are other ways to make a \$2 cost attack work?
Of course it has to be tested but it looks sound. 2 Coppers to Militia and 3 Coppers to Witch seems like a fair pooortunity cost at the first glance. What I like most about it is that it is a late Attack that is probably only good in engines so the junking will come later than with other junkers. So no rush for Cursers like in a "normal" game but rather first some engine building and then some Knaves.
Logged

trivialknot

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 662
• Respect: +1013
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2018, 10:15:20 pm »
0

I am bad at card names, but

Quote
Vulture - \$3 Reaction
When another player gains a card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand to gain a cheaper non-victory card, or to draw a card.

Pawnbroker looks pretty cool, but if you're able to stack it, it could get nasty fast.  Imagine playing it 3 times per turn, opponents aren't going to want to trash down to 2 cards.

Challenges: Create a treasure/action card that isn't Crown.  Create a pure debt-cost card.
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2018, 10:33:05 pm »
0

Challenges: Create a treasure/action card that isn't Crown.  Create a pure debt-cost card.

I created an Action/Treasure card for my Conspiracy set, but it's pretty boring.

Quote
Dagger Action - Treasure,
---
When you discard this from play, you may shuffle it into your deck.

Edit: Does anybody have a good template for Action - Treasure cards? The one I'm using looks terrible. I want to give this card an image, but I can't with my current template.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2018, 10:55:34 pm by kru5h »
Logged

Freddy10

• Pearl Diver
• Offline
• Posts: 11
• Respect: +22
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #30 on: August 15, 2018, 11:29:50 pm »
+1

Edit: Does anybody have a good template for Action - Treasure cards? The one I'm using looks terrible. I want to give this card an image, but I can't with my current template.
Have you tried VioletCLM's card generator? https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/
Logged

ConMan

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1333
• Respect: +1590
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #31 on: August 16, 2018, 12:20:18 am »
0

For something a little wacky ...

Coronet
Action - Treasure - \$4
If it's your Action phase, you may play up to 3 Treasure cards from your hand, then draw up to 6 cards in hand.
If it's your Buy phase, discard any number of cards, then draw up to 6 cards in hand.
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #32 on: August 16, 2018, 01:19:57 am »
+1

For a pure reaction:

Quote
King Midas Reaction,
When a player (including you) gains a card costing from to , you may reveal this from your hand to exchange the gained card for a Gold.

If you play it on yourself, it's basically a + since it turns a into a , so not worth that much.

However, stopping your opponent from gaining Duchies or key engine components could be devastating. Maybe too strong.

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2018, 01:38:16 am »
0

Challenges: Create a treasure/action card that isn't Crown.  Create a pure debt-cost card.

Quote
Necklace Action - Treasure,
In either case,
+1 Card
+2 Actions

Edit: Wait, that has some problems with it. Namely that you always want to play this as a Treasure and not an Action. I'll fix it shortly.

Quote
Royal Necklace Action - Treasure,
+1 Card
+2 Actions

« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 01:46:13 am by kru5h »
Logged

ClouduHieh

• Tactician
• Offline
• Posts: 417
• Respect: +71
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #34 on: August 16, 2018, 05:48:30 am »
0

My mad scientist idea is in my alchemy card ideas. It’s an unusual attack. Check it out on my forum. If your interested.
Logged

Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4908
• Respect: +5188
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #35 on: August 16, 2018, 09:35:56 am »
0

And my Sheriff is a cheap attack (a Curser even), albeit with overpay.

GendoIkari

• Offline
• Posts: 7550
• Respect: +8381
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #36 on: August 16, 2018, 09:52:02 am »
0

For a pure reaction:

Quote
King Midas Reaction,
When a player (including you) gains a card costing from to , you may reveal this from your hand to exchange the gained card for a Gold.

If you play it on yourself, it's basically a + since it turns a into a , so not worth that much.

However, stopping your opponent from gaining Duchies or key engine components could be devastating. Maybe too strong.

It's neat. I'd be worried about it slowing down the game too much though; as there's potentially a decision / action to take place for every buy.

I don't think it even needs the - clause; using it on yourself to turn a cheaper card into a Gold doesn't seem that powerful because you still have to have it in hand at the time you buy, and it's not a good card to have to be in your hand. It does need to not work on Provinces though.

Actually, it likely would just turn every game into a big-money; it's going to be hard for anyone to get engine components with this around.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #37 on: August 16, 2018, 10:15:39 am »
+1

I don't think it even needs the - clause; using it on yourself to turn a cheaper card into a Gold doesn't seem that powerful because you still have to have it in hand at the time you buy, and it's not a good card to have to be in your hand.
I agree, it can get away with "costing up to 6". While the card would become stronger as it includes more options, for the "attacked" plyer getting a Gold instead of a 2 or 3 is not that bad relatively to getting a Gold instead of a 5.
Also, whoever plays King Midas probably wants to play money even if the other players forsake King Midas as the card is relatively weaker in a draw engine (the higher the draw power of your deck the lower the strength of a pure Reaction that only works whiel it is not your turn). So as you said it could become too dominant in terms of shifting most Kingdoms in which it is present towards BM.
Logged

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #38 on: August 16, 2018, 06:23:46 pm »
+1

Challenges: Create a treasure/action card that isn't Crown.  Create a pure debt-cost card.

I created an Action/Treasure card for my Conspiracy set, but it's pretty boring.

Quote
Dagger Action - Treasure,
---
When you discard this from play, you may shuffle it into your deck.

Edit: Does anybody have a good template for Action - Treasure cards? The one I'm using looks terrible. I want to give this card an image, but I can't with my current template.

Looks like you found an Action-Treasure back. Just in case though, here is the one I use. Not sure if the quality is any better. Should have Alpha channels built in, but let me know if there isn't any transparency.

Also, I think dagger is pretty neat. It seems to be worth about \$2 and has some interesting play dynamics. Like deciding when to shuffle it or not.
Logged

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #39 on: August 17, 2018, 02:28:08 am »
+1

Quote
Royal Necklace Action - Treasure,
+1 Card
+2 Actions

Not sure why a village that becomes a Necro when drawn dead should have Debt costs; it could probably just cost \$4.
Logged

Aquila

• Moneylender
• Offline
• Posts: 151
• Respect: +123
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #40 on: August 17, 2018, 03:01:18 am »
0

Challenges: Create a pure debt-cost card.
Quote
Victory, <8> cost.
5VP
-
When you gain this, if you have a different number of Actions and Treasures in play, trash it.
If you make a card have an awkward condition to meet to gain it, debt means it's always available when you meet the condition.

Here's a challenge I had a go at tackling: make a two-sided portrait card.
Logged

spiralstaircase

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 256
• Respect: +418
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #41 on: August 17, 2018, 04:32:03 am »
0

Here's a challenge I had a go at tackling: make a two-sided portrait card.

Logged

King Leon

• Explorer
• Offline
• Posts: 303
• Respect: +253
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #42 on: August 17, 2018, 10:10:43 am »
0

Annexation is almost strictly better than Estate (if you forget about Baron and Inheritance). It should cost 3+, which is ok for a Curser. So it is a Great Hall variant.

Challenge: Victory Price card (other than Duchy)
Name: Pagodas
Type: Victory/Price
Cost: 0*

Worth: 6 VP - 1 VP per Province in your deck.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2018, 10:18:09 am by King Leon »
Logged

Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4908
• Respect: +5188
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #43 on: August 17, 2018, 11:13:24 pm »
0

Challenges: Create a pure debt-cost card.
Quote
Victory, <8> cost.
5VP
-
When you gain this, if you have a different number of Actions and Treasures in play, trash it.
If you make a card have an awkward condition to meet to gain it, debt means it's always available when you meet the condition.

Here's a challenge I had a go at tackling: make a two-sided portrait card.

I suggest making the restriction match Grand Market's "You can't buy this". It's very rare you can gain a debt cost card without buying it, either way.

Holger

• Tactician
• Offline
• Posts: 424
• Respect: +205
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #44 on: August 18, 2018, 03:45:38 pm »
0

For a pure reaction:

Quote
King Midas Reaction,
When a player (including you) gains a card costing from to , you may reveal this from your hand to exchange the gained card for a Gold.

If you play it on yourself, it's basically a + since it turns a into a , so not worth that much.

However, stopping your opponent from gaining Duchies or key engine components could be devastating. Maybe too strong.

It's neat. I'd be worried about it slowing down the game too much though; as there's potentially a decision / action to take place for every buy.

I don't think it even needs the - clause; using it on yourself to turn a cheaper card into a Gold doesn't seem that powerful because you still have to have it in hand at the time you buy, and it's not a good card to have to be in your hand. It does need to not work on Provinces though.

Actually, it likely would just turn every game into a big-money; it's going to be hard for anyone to get engine components with this around.

Without the \$4-\$6 cost restriction it would allow you to buy Gold for \$0, which probably makes BM-Midas overpowered when there's good or spammable +buy around.
If you keep the restriction (at least for the player themself), the card sounds more interesting to me, since it's only a "Gold-Quarry" during your own turn.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2018, 03:47:20 pm by Holger »
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #45 on: August 19, 2018, 02:52:58 am »
0

Challenges: Create a treasure/action card that isn't Crown.

Okay, I tried for a day or two. This is the best I could come up with.

It's pretty basic and has probably been done before, but I kinda like it.

Here's a challenge I had a go at tackling: make a two-sided portrait card.

I'm not sure what this means. Two sides as in back and front? Or two sides as in top side and bottom side? I'm not sure what the difference would be between a card with two sides and a card that simply says "Choose one:".
« Last Edit: August 19, 2018, 03:07:09 am by kru5h »
Logged

King Leon

• Explorer
• Offline
• Posts: 303
• Respect: +253
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #46 on: August 19, 2018, 04:29:14 am »
0

Challenges: Create a pure debt-cost card.
Quote
Victory, <8> cost.
5VP
-
When you gain this, if you have a different number of Actions and Treasures in play, trash it.
If you make a card have an awkward condition to meet to gain it, debt means it's always available when you meet the condition.

Here's a challenge I had a go at tackling: make a two-sided portrait card.

Remodel, Replace, Transmogrify or Zombie Mason a City Quarter, Overlord or Royal Blacksmith to that Victory card sounds nice, but it only works if you played Black Market (which is non-terminal) or Story Teller before or if you bought a Villa.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2018, 04:32:10 am by King Leon »
Logged

Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4908
• Respect: +5188
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #47 on: August 19, 2018, 06:58:39 am »
0

It's pretty basic and has probably been done before, but I kinda like it.

Yes, it has. 😉

I did this as an Action-Reaction before Crown came along as a proof-of-concept.

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2018, 01:21:26 pm »
0

Challenges: Create a treasure/action card that isn't Crown.

Okay, I tried for a day or two. This is the best I could come up with.

It's pretty basic and has probably been done before, but I kinda like it.
Like Courtier, Legionary and Sacred Grove this is a terminal Gold with something extra. You can also read it the other way around, as a Silver plus with the plus being the option to play it as terminal Gold.
Compared to the other cards the non-terminality option of Silver doesn't seem very exciting but it is probably balanced and being a low-risk card is definitely worth something. It can be situationally useful (except for obvious things like drawing it dead), e.g. in a Scrying Pool engine with not enough terminal space this is likely the best Coin-yielding card on the board.
Logged

Aquila

• Moneylender
• Offline
• Posts: 151
• Respect: +123
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #49 on: August 19, 2018, 03:15:10 pm »
0

Here's a challenge I had a go at tackling: make a two-sided portrait card.

I'm not sure what this means. Two sides as in back and front? Or two sides as in top side and bottom side? I'm not sure what the difference would be between a card with two sides and a card that simply says "Choose one:".
I mean back and front. Having 2 different Action choices on the front and back would be better done as a 'choose one' as that saves other players needlessly seeing the back of the card when it's in your hand, or you when it's in your deck. So can you use or get around this factor?

Challenges: Create a treasure/action card that isn't Crown.
Quote
Metalsmith - Action Treasure, \$4 cost.
Logged

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #50 on: August 19, 2018, 03:32:08 pm »
0

Not convinced. In an engine you can be happy when this draws 2 cards so it is too expensive and will likely only see use in money decks.
Logged

Violet CLM

• Young Witch
• Offline
• Posts: 127
• Respect: +306
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #51 on: August 19, 2018, 04:09:24 pm »
0

Ox is basically a Diadem you can only spend one action on. How about...

If it's your Action phase, leave this in play for the rest of the game.
If it's your Treasure phase, +\$2 per CARDNAME you have in play (counting this).
Logged

Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4908
• Respect: +5188
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #52 on: August 19, 2018, 04:42:45 pm »
+1

Some Action-Treasure, Action - Treasure, 5\$
+3 Cards

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #53 on: August 20, 2018, 04:13:08 am »
0

Slightly more useful in some games, but not overpowering.

ipofanes

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1306
• Respect: +655
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #54 on: August 20, 2018, 09:00:00 am »
0

Having an Attack card in hand may occur about as often as having a card not blockable by LHO in hand, so it may be compared to Gladiator, which is a strong \$3. Considering that, unlike Gladiator, this would be effectively non-terminal, and considering what DXV said about the price of Silver-plus cards, \$5 sounds about right.
Logged
Lord Rattington denies my undo requests

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #55 on: August 20, 2018, 01:54:29 pm »
0

Slightly more useful in some games, but not overpowering.
Great idea! I think that mechnically something like this is a necessary buff and "feel-wise" this is a cool enough twist to make the card interesting.
Logged

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #56 on: August 20, 2018, 02:52:12 pm »
0

Ox - Interesting! Is this card name to remain Ox now that it interacts with Attack cards? The flavor seems a little off now.
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #57 on: August 20, 2018, 03:48:17 pm »
0

Ox - Interesting! Is this card name to remain Ox now that it interacts with Attack cards? The flavor seems a little off now.

Maybe rename it to Bull?

Dsell

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1283
• He/Him
• Respect: +906
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #58 on: August 20, 2018, 04:25:07 pm »
0

Ox - Interesting! Is this card name to remain Ox now that it interacts with Attack cards? The flavor seems a little off now.

Maybe rename it to Bull?

How about Bounty? It changes the theme but in a way that maybe works?
Logged
"Quiet you, you'll lynch Dsell when I'm good and ready" - Insomniac

Winner of Forum Survivor Season 2!

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #59 on: August 20, 2018, 08:19:04 pm »
+1

Ox - Interesting! Is this card name to remain Ox now that it interacts with Attack cards? The flavor seems a little off now.

Maybe rename it to Bull?

How about Bounty? It changes the theme but in a way that maybe works?

Yeah, but then I'd have to find new art and I'm really lazy.

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #60 on: August 20, 2018, 08:42:35 pm »
0

Here's a design challenge:

Design a card that's kind of like Transmute, but not garbage.

Quote
Example Action,
Trash a card from your hand, if it costs...
or less, [...]
to , [...]
or more, [...]

Quote
Example2 Action,
Trash a card from your hand, if it has...
One type, [...]
Two types, [...]
Three or more types, [...]
« Last Edit: August 20, 2018, 08:47:38 pm by kru5h »
Logged

ipofanes

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1306
• Respect: +655
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #61 on: August 21, 2018, 02:56:40 am »
0

Ox - Interesting! Is this card name to remain Ox now that it interacts with Attack cards? The flavor seems a little off now.

Maybe rename it to Bull?

How about Bounty? It changes the theme but in a way that maybe works?

Yeah, but then I'd have to find new art and I'm really lazy.

Keep the name, change the art:

Logged
Lord Rattington denies my undo requests

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #62 on: August 21, 2018, 04:03:59 am »
+2

Ox - Interesting! Is this card name to remain Ox now that it interacts with Attack cards? The flavor seems a little off now.

Maybe rename it to Bull?

How about Bounty? It changes the theme but in a way that maybe works?

Yeah, but then I'd have to find new art and I'm really lazy.

Any of these work for Bounty?

Artist Credit: Miguel Coimbra, Robert Rejmak, and Lee Smith (respectively)
« Last Edit: August 21, 2018, 04:09:19 am by Kudasai »
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #63 on: August 22, 2018, 08:07:19 pm »
0

More challenges!

Design a card that gains a card costing up to , but only costs . (Hopefully with some kind of interesting Nerf.)

Design a card that is similar to Bridge/Bridge Troll/Highway at any cost.

Make an interesting Draw to X card.

Make a card that defends twice. That is, you are unaffected by attacks when you reveal it from your hand, AND it's a duration that you are unaffected by attacks while it is in play.

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #64 on: August 22, 2018, 10:54:12 pm »
+1

Design a card that gains a card costing up to , but only costs . (Hopefully with some kind of interesting nerf).

Would a \$5 cost, terminal gainer that gains \$5 cost even need a nerf? Seems balanced on its own.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2018, 12:14:13 am by Kudasai »
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #65 on: August 22, 2018, 11:24:52 pm »
0

Design a card that gains a card costing up to , but only costs . (Hopefully with some kind of interesting nerf).

Would a \$5 cost, terminal gainer that gains \$5 cost even need a nerf? Seems a balanced on its own.

I'd argue that it's worth about \$5.5.

Trash a card from your hand (Altar) and gain it into your hand/deck (Artisan) are not quite enough to bump a \$5 to a \$6.

To me, gaining a \$5 for \$5 would require a tiny nerf.

Gubump

• Duke
• Offline
• Posts: 350
• Respect: +200
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #66 on: August 23, 2018, 12:13:19 am »
+1

Museum:
Gain a card costing up to \$5. Each other player may gain a card costing less than it.
Action \$5

Wagon:
Draw until you have 7 cards in your hand. Discard any number of cards from your hand. Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
Action \$5
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his/her Dominion Card Image Generator.

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #67 on: August 23, 2018, 12:56:27 am »
+1

Here are my attempts:

Draw to X:

Double defense card:

(This is a rewording of an older card I did.)

5-cost gainer:
« Last Edit: August 23, 2018, 04:54:45 am by kru5h »
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

• Minion
• Online
• Posts: 709
• Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
• Respect: +1022
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #68 on: August 23, 2018, 05:07:15 am »
0

The "nerf" on Craftsman is actually a buff, because both options are still better than gaining to discard.

Except if you're gaining Duchies, of course. But I'm not sure that evens it out, and even if it does, it's still not really a nerf.
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #69 on: August 23, 2018, 05:11:34 am »
0

The idea was that if it's on the bottom, it's only a slight improvement, but you run the risk of it missing a shuffle.

I guess getting a card a few turns early is better than the nerf of it possibly missing a shuffle, especially since that can be controlled for.

I just thought it sounded cooler than "chooses whether it's gained to the top of your deck or not."

I can always change it.

Edit:

Not sure if this is much better.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2018, 05:20:10 am by kru5h »
Logged

LastFootnote

• Offline
• Posts: 7020
• Respect: +9723
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #70 on: August 23, 2018, 10:24:44 am »
+3

It doesn't cost \$5, but here's a rejected promo card I created. I dunno, we played some games with it, it was fun. Similar to Tactician.

Regent: Action, \$3
Gain a card costing up to \$5.

We actually tested it at \$4 and it wasn't super strong, so here it is at \$3, which was my original plan for the cost.
Logged

Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4908
• Respect: +5188
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #71 on: August 24, 2018, 07:17:01 am »
+1

Here's the old discussion about a version of Jeweler that I briefly had. Might be useful to assess Ox.

As an interesting note, an even older version of this card was a Smithy that could be used as a Silver instead. During playtests, it was absolutely dominating. Perhaps I should have it give out random bad things instead and call it Werewolf

NoMoreFun

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1432
• Respect: +1019
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #72 on: August 24, 2018, 08:47:33 pm »
+1

Here's a challenge that I think is interesting: Design a card that costs \$3, that gives +2 Actions and +1 Card, that isn't strictly better or strictly worse than Village
Logged

NoMoreFun

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1432
• Respect: +1019
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #73 on: August 24, 2018, 08:55:30 pm »
0

Some ideas I've had that fit "attack that doesn't cost 3 to 6"

Industrial Village
Action/Attack - \$2
+2 Actions
Each player (including you) reveals their hand and discards all cards that aren't Actions or Treasures
Then, draw until you have 4 cards in your hand

Warlock
Action/Attack - \$4/\$3P (it has both costs at once and you choose which to pay when you buy it)
+\$2
+\$P
Each other player with puts a potion from their hand onto their deck (or reveals a hand with no potion)
---
When you gain this, each other player gains a Potion

Plenipotentiary
Action/Attack - \$4P/\$6
+4 Cards
You may return a Potion to the supply from your hand. If you do, each other player gains a Potion and a Curse.
Logged

NoMoreFun

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1432
• Respect: +1019
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #74 on: August 24, 2018, 09:19:24 pm »
+2

Interesting Draw to X Cards

Revolutionary
Action - \$4
+1 Action
Show your hand to the player to your left, who may choose any number of cards for you to discard.
Draw until you have 7 cards in hand

Rules clarification: The player to your left picks specific cards that you to discard, doesn't just give you a number

So the draw-to-X version of Advisor, where you decide which card you want to keep, and then the player to your left can knock the good cards out of your hand, but the more cards he knocks out, the more you can draw. It's the "extreme" version of draw to X cards - it's really, really good to be able to reduce your hand size on your own terms.

Labyrinth
Action - \$4
Do all 3 in any order:
• Trash all but 3 cards in your hand,
• Draw until you have 5 cards in your hand
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #75 on: August 24, 2018, 09:25:31 pm »
0

Here's a challenge that I think is interesting: Design a card that costs \$3, that gives +2 Actions and +1 Card, that isn't strictly better or strictly worse than Village

So, I had a similar challenge for myself when I came up with Bells. The idea was a Village for \$3 (Not necessarily +1 Card, +2 Actions.)

If you want to literally include "+1 Card, +2 Actions", then it would have to be something like, "When you gain this, each player may gain a card costing up to \$4."

Or, maybe

Alt-Village, Action, \$3
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Gain a Copper.
You may trash a Copper from your hand.

Both of those are quite boring, though. So if somebody can do better, be my guest.

NoMoreFun

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1432
• Respect: +1019
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #76 on: August 24, 2018, 09:38:50 pm »
0

Here's a challenge I had a go at tackling: make a two-sided portrait card.

So thoughts are:
A card with competing "while this is in play" effects.
A card that does interesting things when it's on top of your deck.
A card with 2 different duration effects, but you have to decide which one you're using when you play the card.

All of them would need the Stash Wording to establish that it is in fact ok to decide were they go in your shuffle.

So a simple one:

FRONT

Craftsman
Action - \$4
Gain a card costing up to \$4
---
When shuffling this, you may look through your remaining deck, and may put this anywhere in the shuffled cards.

REAR

Retiree
Action/Duration - \$4
For the rest of the game, +1 Action at the start of each of your turns (This remains in play)
---
When shuffling this, you may look through your remaining deck, and may put this anywhere in the shuffled cards.
Logged

NoMoreFun

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1432
• Respect: +1019
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #77 on: August 24, 2018, 09:44:52 pm »
0

Here's a challenge that I think is interesting: Design a card that costs \$3, that gives +2 Actions and +1 Card, that isn't strictly better or strictly worse than Village

So, I had a similar challenge for myself when I came up with Bells. The idea was a Village for \$3 (Not necessarily +1 Card, +2 Actions.)

If you want to literally include "+1 Card, +2 Actions", then it would have to be something like, "When you gain this, each player may gain a card costing up to \$4."

Or, maybe

Alt-Village, Action, \$3
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Gain a Copper.
You may trash a Copper from your hand.

Both of those are quite boring, though. So if somebody can do better, be my guest.

I like Bells

My idea was:

Rival Towns
Action/Reaction - \$3
+2 Actions
+1 Card
---
When another player plays a Rival Towns, you may reveal this for +1 Card, then put this onto your deck.

It has more features than Village, but in games with both this card and Village, you may want to buy villages to avoid triggering your opponents Rival Towns. Again kind of boring, but it has non attack interactivity.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2018, 09:45:56 pm by NoMoreFun »
Logged

NoMoreFun

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1432
• Respect: +1019
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #78 on: August 24, 2018, 09:55:47 pm »
+1

A more nuanced challenge for you:
Make a card (shaped thing) that is better than an existing Kingdom card, but the existing card is strategically relevant in kingdoms with both it and the existing card. You are not allowed to refer to the existing Kingdom card in the text of your designed card.

An example (but not a great one):

Package
Event - \$5
Gain a card costing up to \$6 and 2 coppers.

Now this is better than Cache in most circumstances, because you can gain a Gold and 2 Coppers with this as well as many other possibilities. However in games with Cache, you can gain Cache with Package, which opens up the possibility of "Gain a Gold and 4 coppers" (if that's what you're after).
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #79 on: August 24, 2018, 10:13:10 pm »
+2

A more nuanced challenge for you:
Make a card (shaped thing) that is better than an existing Kingdom card, but the existing card is strategically relevant in kingdoms with both it and the existing card. You are not allowed to refer to the existing Kingdom card in the text of your designed card.

An example (but not a great one):

Package
Event - \$5
Gain a card costing up to \$6 and 2 coppers.

Now this is better than Cache in most circumstances, because you can gain a Gold and 2 Coppers with this as well as many other possibilities. However in games with Cache, you can gain Cache with Package, which opens up the possibility of "Gain a Gold and 4 coppers" (if that's what you're after).

Well, the easy way out would be to make a Victory card, since you always need more of those. (For example, Duchy, but with +2 Cards for the same cost. You still want Duchies when these run out.)

Instead of that, I'm going to do the harder version:

Quote
Mice Action, \$4
+1 Card
+1 Action

Gain a Mice. Trash a card from your hand other than a Mice (or reveal a hand of all Mice.)
-
When you trash this, +2 Cards.

Strictly better than Rats, but you still want Rats because Mice can trash Rats and Rats can trash Mice.

Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4908
• Respect: +5188
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #80 on: August 25, 2018, 08:27:10 am »
0

Grillage, Action, 3
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Gain a Copper to your hand.

Meerkat, Action, 5\$
+1 Card
+1 Action
Cards other than Meerkats cost 1\$ less this turn, but not less than 0\$.

markusin

• Cartographer
• Offline
• Posts: 3715
• I also switched from Starcraft
• Respect: +2284
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #81 on: August 25, 2018, 09:15:39 am »
+2

Here's a challenge that I think is interesting: Design a card that costs \$3, that gives +2 Actions and +1 Card, that isn't strictly better or strictly worse than Village

So, I had a similar challenge for myself when I came up with Bells. The idea was a Village for \$3 (Not necessarily +1 Card, +2 Actions.)

This card is very similar to the Herald in the Dominion outtakes, particular the one in the Guilds outtakes. I suspect it's actually much stronger than it looks bases on the stories Donald X. talks about.
Logged

ThetaSigma12

• Torturer
• Offline
• Posts: 1653
• Respect: +1736
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #82 on: August 25, 2018, 09:38:56 am »
+1

This card is very similar to the Herald in the Dominion outtakes, particular the one in the Guilds outtakes. I suspect it's actually much stronger than it looks bases on the stories Donald X. talks about.

I've played a couple games with Bells, and I remember nerfing it heavily each successive game. I think I got to a version that revealed the top 2, plays an action and put the other back. It was a little weak for , but it was manageable.
Logged
My magnum opus collection of dominion fan cards is available here!

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #83 on: August 25, 2018, 07:27:37 pm »
0

Wow. Looks like I need a new village for my set! Thanks for the feedback, guys.

Edit:

Quote
Alt-Village Action,
+2 Actions
While this is in play, play with the top card of your deck revealed and you may swap a card from your hand for the revealed card at any time.

Slightly worse than +1 card, but the swap ability lets you set up your next turn or topdeck extra treasure. Not sure about this one.

Edit 2:
Actually, the above is weak. It's fine for the first Alt-Village you play, but subsequent ones are just Necropolis. I should make it cost 2.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2018, 07:50:45 pm by kru5h »
Logged

ipofanes

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1306
• Respect: +655
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #84 on: August 27, 2018, 10:53:11 am »
0

Here's a challenge that I think is interesting: Design a card that costs \$3, that gives +2 Actions and +1 Card, that isn't strictly better or strictly worse than Village

So, I had a similar challenge for myself when I came up with Bells. The idea was a Village for \$3 (Not necessarily +1 Card, +2 Actions.)

This card is very similar to the Herald in the Dominion outtakes, particular the one in the Guilds outtakes. I suspect it's actually much stronger than it looks bases on the stories Donald X. talks about.

Other than Herald, you get one less card but have a much higher chance for hitting, and you can choose not to play the card.

I rather thought about Sage. It is worse than Sage if none of the next 3 cards is an Action and as long as Victory cards that Sage finds are not in the Kingdom. Other than that, it is a lot better than Sage (choice between up to three cards, play it without eating an Action).
Logged
Lord Rattington denies my undo requests

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #85 on: August 27, 2018, 02:07:54 pm »
0

Alt-Village, Action, \$3
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Gain a Copper.
You may trash a Copper from your hand.

Both of those are quite boring, though. So if somebody can do better, be my guest.
You could argue that if you use this village to consistently trash Coppers this boils down to being an anti-Lab, i.e. the card is in practice just a Necropolis.
Logged

NoMoreFun

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1432
• Respect: +1019
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #86 on: September 15, 2018, 08:33:41 am »
0

Challenge: Infinite Play
Create a balanced card costing up to \$6 with either "Do this any number of times" or "You may play this again" in this card text.
Hard Mode - You can not assign a condition to the text allowing you to play the card infinitely many times (no "if" or "to" statements in front of "you may play this again".)
Logged

Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4908
• Respect: +5188
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #87 on: September 16, 2018, 06:17:38 am »
+1

Challenge: Infinite Play
Create a balanced card costing up to \$6 with either "Do this any number of times" or "You may play this again" in this card text.
Hard Mode - You can not assign a condition to the text allowing you to play the card infinitely many times (no "if" or "to" statements in front of "you may play this again".)

Basilika, 3\$, Action
Do this any number of times:
Discard a card for +1\$ or trash a card from your hand.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2018, 06:18:45 am by Asper »
Logged

NoMoreFun

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1432
• Respect: +1019
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #88 on: September 16, 2018, 12:34:03 pm »
0

Challenge: Infinite Play
Create a balanced card costing up to \$6 with either "Do this any number of times" or "You may play this again" in this card text.
Hard Mode - You can not assign a condition to the text allowing you to play the card infinitely many times (no "if" or "to" statements in front of "you may play this again".)

Basilika, 3\$, Action
Do this any number of times:
Discard a card for +1\$ or trash a card from your hand.

I guess the challenge isn't as interesting as I thought.

You'd could trash the same Fortress over and over again to get infinite points with Tomb, but broken 3 card combos aren't anything new.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

• Minion
• Online
• Posts: 709
• Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
• Respect: +1022
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #89 on: September 16, 2018, 01:38:46 pm »
0

You'd could trash the same Fortress over and over again to get infinite points with Tomb, but broken 3 card combos aren't anything new.

This would be much worse than the Goons-Forum thing though. Goons-Forum is a 4-card combo, and then it takes a while to set up. With this, the loop can begin as soon as you have Fortress and Basilica in the same hand.

The card itself looks kind of need but defs OP.
Logged

Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4908
• Respect: +5188
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #90 on: September 17, 2018, 03:36:10 am »
+1

I was just too lazy to copy over Secret Chamber's reaction text, because I originally intended to post its top. Apparently trying to invent something was a mistake. So:

Chamber of Secrets, 2\$, Action - Reaction
Do this any number of times: Discard a card for +1\$.
---
When another player plays an Attack, you may first reveal this from your hand for +2 Cards, then put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck.

Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4908
• Respect: +5188
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #91 on: September 19, 2018, 04:04:28 am »
0

Thinking about it, every Reaction card that is just revealed can be worded as an "any number of times" - including Secret Chamber.

If Basilica was a real card, I'd of course make it "Trash any number of cards from your hand. Discard any number of cards for +1\$ each." instead of the loop.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2018, 04:05:41 am by Asper »
Logged

msw188

• Pearl Diver
• Offline
• Posts: 11
• Respect: +6
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #92 on: September 21, 2018, 10:26:09 pm »
0

For the infinite loop challenge:
Gain a curse and a copper
Gain a curse from the trash
You may play any action card from your hand twice
You may play this again

Could this cost 6, or even 5?  Maybe too bonkers with strong trashing, too self-damaging with no trashing?  Would be nice if Bridge didn't get doubled.
Logged

Aquila

• Moneylender
• Offline
• Posts: 151
• Respect: +123
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #93 on: September 22, 2018, 08:16:55 am »
0

For the infinite loop challenge:
Gain a curse and a copper
Gain a curse from the trash
You may play any action card from your hand twice
You may play this again

Could this cost 6, or even 5?  Maybe too bonkers with strong trashing, too self-damaging with no trashing?  Would be nice if Bridge didn't get doubled.
Throning every Action in hand by itself might be a nice effect to do on a hard-to-get card. Since it would be so expensive it might even make a nice pure debt card, to go with another challenge posted here.
But this setback I would say is very harsh. Not only that, but you can also empty the whole Curse and Copper piles at once, meaning you can get an unassailable lead if some cards are in the game like Gardens or Fountain (deny opponents their 10 Coppers), or empty 2 of 3 piles and win that way.
Logged

msw188

• Pearl Diver
• Offline
• Posts: 11
• Respect: +6
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #94 on: September 22, 2018, 03:07:17 pm »
0

Oh right, I didn't think about Gardens.  Hm...
What about the copper only comes from the trash?  So this only really hurts in cases where there were methods to thin down... in which case there should be a way to mitigate the damage (hopefully on the same turn).  And if there weren't any thinners, did you really want a throne room anyways?

Gain a curse
Gain a curse and a copper from the trash
You may play any action card from your hand twice
You may play this again

I tend to prefer cards that are not strong enough to cost more than 5 or 6.  Cards that stand to get some use throughout the game, rather than cards you need to build towards acquiring.  Not a hard and fast rule by any means (I still love Inheritance!), but I still think it would be cool to arrange this card to be available early (and without large debt - although I also like that mechanic).  Adds to the challenge of the design in any case!
Logged

mameluke

• Duke
• Offline
• Posts: 377
• Respect: +440
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #95 on: September 23, 2018, 05:09:56 am »
0

How about something that is difficult to buy, like it costs 2 Buys to buy one copy? It would have to come with an Heirloom like Pouch to make it viable, or I suppose you could gain it in other ways on boards without +Buy.
Logged

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #96 on: September 23, 2018, 07:20:23 am »
+1

The purpose of Debt is to make this ungainable via Remodelers.
Another idea to guarantee that there is an extra Buy in the Kingdom besides simply including Pouch as Heirloom would be a split pile with some cheap card that provides extra Buy on top, some Market Square variant or whatever.
Logged

Gubump

• Duke
• Offline
• Posts: 350
• Respect: +200
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #97 on: September 23, 2018, 12:59:08 pm »
0

Split pile:
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his/her Dominion Card Image Generator.

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #98 on: September 23, 2018, 01:09:53 pm »
0

Overall a cool variation on Mountebank.

I don't like the Coin-Debt thingy on Bribe though as it only matters if you don't use the extra Buy.
So either this is +2 Coins +1 Buy or it is a Capital variant: +3 Coins | When you discard this from play, take 1 Debt, and then you may pay off Debt.
Logged

Fly-Eagles-Fly

• Explorer
• Offline
• Posts: 300
• Respect: +112
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #99 on: October 12, 2018, 06:04:28 pm »
0

Overall a cool variation on Mountebank.

I don't like the Coin-Debt thingy on Bribe though as it only matters if you don't use the extra Buy.
So either this is +2 Coins +1 Buy or it is a Capital variant: +3 Coins | When you discard this from play, take 1 Debt, and then you may pay off Debt.
It could be: Cards (everywhere) cost \$1 less this turn. At the end of this turn, take 1 debt per card you bought, then you may pay off debt.
Logged
Is anyone here also on the Chess.com Variants forum? This is the same FEF.

King Leon

• Explorer
• Offline
• Posts: 303
• Respect: +253
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #100 on: October 13, 2018, 02:50:27 am »
+1

Farrier
Type: Action
Cost: \$4

Choose one:
+2 Cards. Put this into your hand.
or
+2 Actions
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 02:53:08 am by King Leon »
Logged

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #101 on: October 13, 2018, 03:25:09 am »
+4

Challenge: Infinite Play
Create a balanced card costing up to \$6 with either "Do this any number of times" or "You may play this again" in this card text.
Hard Mode - You can not assign a condition to the text allowing you to play the card infinitely many times (no "if" or "to" statements in front of "you may play this again".)

Basilika, 3\$, Action
Do this any number of times:
Discard a card for +1\$ or trash a card from your hand.

I guess the challenge isn't as interesting as I thought.

You'd could trash the same Fortress over and over again to get infinite points with Tomb, but broken 3 card combos aren't anything new.

I think it's a great challenge! Every loop should have a way for it to end though or a player could technically keep their turn going indefinitely. But as these cards will only be played in physical games with friends, I think it's fair to ignore this.

Here is my INFINITE CHALLENGE SUBMISSION:

[EDIT 10/13/2018] Changed the wording to be more clear.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 02:57:57 pm by Kudasai »
Logged

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #102 on: October 13, 2018, 03:43:02 am »
0

Farrier
Type: Action
Cost: \$4

Choose one:
+2 Cards. Put this into your hand.
or
+2 Actions

Interesting. Looks like another take on Asper's legendary/infamous Road card. I like the concept, but I think the issue people run into is if a card like this has a +1 Action token on it, or if you have Champion in play, one of these will draw your whole deck. In this case you could draw your whole deck and get +3 Actions.

Beyond that I think the second option should give +3 Actions. Otherwise, if you have 2 of these and play the first as +2 Actions and the second as +2 Cards, you will have ended right back to where you started (5 Cards, 1 Action). With +3 Actions you could play the second Ferrier again and end up with 6 Cards and 1 Action. Essentially you are rewarded a Laboratory play for pairing the 2 Ferriers.

I'm sure it's been discussed, but I wonder if someone has come up with a fix for how cards like this interact with Champion and such. In other words, I wonder if there is a card instruction that would make it exempt from getting the +1 Action.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 03:46:07 am by Kudasai »
Logged

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #103 on: October 13, 2018, 10:10:34 am »
0

Beyond that I think the second option should give +3 Actions. Otherwise, if you have 2 of these and play the first as +2 Actions and the second as +2 Cards, you will have ended right back to where you started (5 Cards, 1 Action). With +3 Actions you could play the second Ferrier again and end up with 6 Cards and 1 Action. Essentially you are rewarded a Laboratory play for pairing the 2 Ferriers.
I think you missed that the second Ferrier that is played for draw always comes back to your hand. So 2 Ferriers net draw one card (+2 Actions, +2 Cards, Ferrier comes back to hand) whereas 2 Ferries of the +3 Actions version net draw 3 cards (+3 Actions, +2 Cards, Ferrier comes back to hand, +2 Cards, Ferrier comes back to hand). This is clearly too good for \$4.

I don't know how good the +2 Actions version is and whether it is too weak at \$4 (it definitely looks weaker than Asper's Town/Road) but I guess that it can be used as "half-Lab" in a mono-card strategy as we just analyzed but also as consistency-increasing sidekick in a draw engine.

Here is my INFINITE CHALLENGE SUBMISSION:

This is a great idea! Not that this is a surprise anymore when you come up with a new card.
I only fear that Lost City for me, VP for the others is a bit too weak. My totally uneducated hunch is that this would be OK if there were 1/2 VPs.
On the other hand it makes perhaps more sense to read this as a cheap \$2 cantrip with a bonus for everybody that you only want to use a few times, during crucial moments.
Logged

Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4908
• Respect: +5188
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #104 on: October 13, 2018, 10:51:39 am »
0

You know you can play Bivouac an arbitrary number of times, right?
Eh, I mean, that's the challenge. Of course you know.

That said, it's a pretty clever design.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 11:11:37 am by Asper »
Logged

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #105 on: October 13, 2018, 03:18:29 pm »
0

Here is my INFINITE CHALLENGE SUBMISSION:

This is a great idea! Not that this is a surprise anymore when you come up with a new card.
I only fear that Lost City for me, VP for the others is a bit too weak. My totally uneducated hunch is that this would be OK if there were 1/2 VPs.
On the other hand it makes perhaps more sense to read this as a cheap \$2 cantrip with a bonus for everybody that you only want to use a few times, during crucial moments.

Thank you both for the praise! I'm not sure if the values are correct; I just threw this together more to highlight the concept. The "+1 Card and +1 Action" can probably be replaced with anything that you might want a lot of and the "+1 VP token" could just as easily be "+1 Villagers" or "+1 Coffers." The cantrip option is safest though as it does not deplete any piles or give infinite money. +1 VP token per play after the first is pretty generous, but then again so is potentially drawing and playing all the cards in your deck.

Also, I changed the wording to be more precise. Still plays the same though.

Beyond that I think the second option should give +3 Actions. Otherwise, if you have 2 of these and play the first as +2 Actions and the second as +2 Cards, you will have ended right back to where you started (5 Cards, 1 Action). With +3 Actions you could play the second Ferrier again and end up with 6 Cards and 1 Action. Essentially you are rewarded a Laboratory play for pairing the 2 Ferriers.
I think you missed that the second Ferrier that is played for draw always comes back to your hand. So 2 Ferriers net draw one card (+2 Actions, +2 Cards, Ferrier comes back to hand) whereas 2 Ferries of the +3 Actions version net draw 3 cards (+3 Actions, +2 Cards, Ferrier comes back to hand, +2 Cards, Ferrier comes back to hand). This is clearly too good for \$4.

I don't know how good the +2 Actions version is and whether it is too weak at \$4 (it definitely looks weaker than Asper's Town/Road) but I guess that it can be used as "half-Lab" in a mono-card strategy as we just analyzed but also as consistency-increasing sidekick in a draw engine.

I see that Farriers played for +2 Cards return to your hand. I'm just saying that if you play a Farrier for +2 Actions and then +2 Cards you end up right where you started (5 Cards and 1 Action). You still have a Farrier in your hand, but the +2 Actions essentially did nothing. You can now play the Farrier again for +2 Cards, but your now only up to 6 Cards and no Actions. That's two \$4 cost cards played for a Moat play.

But maybe this is designed not to draw without other Villages or Draw cards. If so, this should cost a lot cheaper.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 03:20:10 pm by Kudasai »
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

• Minion
• Online
• Posts: 709
• Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
• Respect: +1022
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #106 on: October 13, 2018, 11:39:53 pm »
0

Beyond that I think the second option should give +3 Actions. Otherwise, if you have 2 of these and play the first as +2 Actions and the second as +2 Cards, you will have ended right back to where you started (5 Cards, 1 Action). With +3 Actions you could play the second Ferrier again and end up with 6 Cards and 1 Action. Essentially you are rewarded a Laboratory play for pairing the 2 Ferriers.
I think you missed that the second Ferrier that is played for draw always comes back to your hand. So 2 Ferriers net draw one card (+2 Actions, +2 Cards, Ferrier comes back to hand) whereas 2 Ferries of the +3 Actions version net draw 3 cards (+3 Actions, +2 Cards, Ferrier comes back to hand, +2 Cards, Ferrier comes back to hand). This is clearly too good for \$4.

I don't know how good the +2 Actions version is and whether it is too weak at \$4 (it definitely looks weaker than Asper's Town/Road) but I guess that it can be used as "half-Lab" in a mono-card strategy as we just analyzed but also as consistency-increasing sidekick in a draw engine.

I see that Farriers played for +2 Cards return to your hand. I'm just saying that if you play a Farrier for +2 Actions and then +2 Cards you end up right where you started (5 Cards and 1 Action). You still have a Farrier in your hand, but the +2 Actions essentially did nothing. You can now play the Farrier again for +2 Cards, but your now only up to 6 Cards and no Actions. That's two \$4 cost cards played for a Moat play.

But maybe this is designed not to draw without other Villages or Draw cards. If so, this should cost a lot cheaper.

You get 5 cards and 1 action before returning it to your hand. So it is, in fact, two \$4s for a Lab (and actually it's better than that because one of them can be used for draw over and over.)
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 11:43:07 pm by Commodore Chuckles »
Logged

Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4908
• Respect: +5188
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #107 on: October 13, 2018, 11:54:47 pm »
0

I think Bivouac is nicest if it gives VP to your opponents. Otherwise putting the +1\$ token on it (together with some way to generate enough buys) will mean you can empty the Province pile, which will make whatever the other players get pointless.

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #108 on: October 14, 2018, 12:49:59 am »
0

Beyond that I think the second option should give +3 Actions. Otherwise, if you have 2 of these and play the first as +2 Actions and the second as +2 Cards, you will have ended right back to where you started (5 Cards, 1 Action). With +3 Actions you could play the second Ferrier again and end up with 6 Cards and 1 Action. Essentially you are rewarded a Laboratory play for pairing the 2 Ferriers.
I think you missed that the second Ferrier that is played for draw always comes back to your hand. So 2 Ferriers net draw one card (+2 Actions, +2 Cards, Ferrier comes back to hand) whereas 2 Ferries of the +3 Actions version net draw 3 cards (+3 Actions, +2 Cards, Ferrier comes back to hand, +2 Cards, Ferrier comes back to hand). This is clearly too good for \$4.

I don't know how good the +2 Actions version is and whether it is too weak at \$4 (it definitely looks weaker than Asper's Town/Road) but I guess that it can be used as "half-Lab" in a mono-card strategy as we just analyzed but also as consistency-increasing sidekick in a draw engine.

I see that Farriers played for +2 Cards return to your hand. I'm just saying that if you play a Farrier for +2 Actions and then +2 Cards you end up right where you started (5 Cards and 1 Action). You still have a Farrier in your hand, but the +2 Actions essentially did nothing. You can now play the Farrier again for +2 Cards, but your now only up to 6 Cards and no Actions. That's two \$4 cost cards played for a Moat play.

But maybe this is designed not to draw without other Villages or Draw cards. If so, this should cost a lot cheaper.

You get 5 cards and 1 action before returning it to your hand. So it is, in fact, two \$4s for a Lab (and actually it's better than that because one of them can be used for draw over and over.)

Ahh, I see now. Apologies to you and Holunder9.
Logged

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #109 on: October 14, 2018, 02:11:20 am »
+1

I think Bivouac is nicest if it gives VP to your opponents. Otherwise putting the +1\$ token on it (together with some way to generate enough buys) will mean you can empty the Province pile, which will make whatever the other players get pointless.

Ahh, nice catch! I think it's best to make sure Bivouac doesn't interact with tokens. I think this version (v0.3) clears this up.

Logged

Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4908
• Respect: +5188
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #110 on: October 14, 2018, 03:29:59 am »
0

I think Bivouac is nicest if it gives VP to your opponents. Otherwise putting the +1\$ token on it (together with some way to generate enough buys) will mean you can empty the Province pile, which will make whatever the other players get pointless.

Ahh, nice catch! I think it's best to make sure Bivouac doesn't interact with tokens. I think this version (v0.3) clears this up.

I don't actually mind it as long as it doesn't pay, which I think should be the case here. Note that your change makes the card weaker, as now you need to decide upfront how many Cards/Actions you need.

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #111 on: October 14, 2018, 05:42:03 am »
+2

Monk, \$2, Night

Do this any number of times: each other player gets +1 Coffers and for each card you've gained this turn, +1 Villager.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 10:01:06 am by Holunder9 »
Logged

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #112 on: October 14, 2018, 05:28:40 pm »
0

I think Bivouac is nicest if it gives VP to your opponents. Otherwise putting the +1\$ token on it (together with some way to generate enough buys) will mean you can empty the Province pile, which will make whatever the other players get pointless.

Ahh, nice catch! I think it's best to make sure Bivouac doesn't interact with tokens. I think this version (v0.3) clears this up.

I don't actually mind it as long as it doesn't pay, which I think should be the case here. Note that your change makes the card weaker, as now you need to decide upfront how many Cards/Actions you need.

It was not my intention to make Bivouac weaker, but I think I'm okay with this. Now there is even more incentive to know your deck and how much you need to draw, versus just mindlessly drawing until your hand is good enough to win outright. Also, grabbing more than a few Bivouacs now makes more sense.
Logged

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #113 on: October 14, 2018, 05:40:55 pm »
0

Monk, \$2, Night

Do this any number of times: for each card you've gained this
turn, +1 Villager and each other player gets +1 Coffers.

Really interesting card! Attaching a scalable property to a potentially infinite loop is a great idea! 1:1 on Villagers to Coffers is pretty bad, but 2:1 and 3:1 is probably quite good. In Kingdoms without extra gaining, this seems rarely worth getting though. Perhaps only if there are also no Villages (splitters). I think Dominion is diverse enough that this would rarely be an issue.

If it did prove too weak at a 1:1 you could try reversing the tokens. You get +Coffers and everyone else gets +1 Villager. Amassing any amount of Coffers is dangerous though, even if you have to wait a turn to use them.

I'd also tweak the wording a bit to make it more clear that the +Villagers you give out do not scale with how many cards you've gained. At least I'm assuming this is the case. My suggestion:

Do this any number of times: Each other player gets +1 Coffers and for each card you've gained this turn, +1 Villager.
Logged

NoMoreFun

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1432
• Respect: +1019
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #114 on: October 14, 2018, 10:34:35 pm »
0

Monk, \$2, Night

Do this any number of times: for each card you've gained this
turn, +1 Villager and each other player gets +1 Coffers.

Not sure why it has a "for each card you've gained" but I love it - tying something with diminishing returns for you with something with less diminishing returns for them.
Logged

kru5h

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 237
• Respect: +117
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #115 on: October 15, 2018, 07:34:45 am »
0

Here's a challenge. Design a card where you get to pick a number.

Example: Pick a number. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it costs that many coins, put it into your hand.

Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +374
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #116 on: October 15, 2018, 10:02:40 am »
0

Monk, \$2, Night

Do this any number of times: for each card you've gained this
turn, +1 Villager and each other player gets +1 Coffers.

Really interesting card! Attaching a scalable property to a potentially infinite loop is a great idea! 1:1 on Villagers to Coffers is pretty bad, but 2:1 and 3:1 is probably quite good. In Kingdoms without extra gaining, this seems rarely worth getting though. Perhaps only if there are also no Villages (splitters). I think Dominion is diverse enough that this would rarely be an issue.

If it did prove too weak at a 1:1 you could try reversing the tokens. You get +Coffers and everyone else gets +1 Villager. Amassing any amount of Coffers is dangerous though, even if you have to wait a turn to use them.

I'd also tweak the wording a bit to make it more clear that the +Villagers you give out do not scale with how many cards you've gained. At least I'm assuming this is the case. My suggestion:

Do this any number of times: Each other player gets +1 Coffers and for each card you've gained this turn, +1 Villager.
Thanks, I changed the wording. I think that the other way around, you get Coffers and they get Villagers, is far too good.
Logged

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #117 on: October 15, 2018, 03:15:31 pm »
0

Here's a challenge. Design a card where you get to pick a number.

Example: Pick a number. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it costs that many coins, put it into your hand.

Not quite as simple as picking a number, but I made this card awhile ago and is very similar:

Cool challenge though. I'm going to have to think of some more cards along these lines. Excited to see what others come up with.

As for your card idea, I like it. A cantrip version would be interesting, but maybe too similar to Wishing Well.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

• Minion
• Online
• Posts: 709
• Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
• Respect: +1022
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #118 on: October 15, 2018, 08:34:45 pm »
0

Inspector
Action - Attack - \$5
+\$3
Pick a number. Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card costing exactly that many \$ or reveals a hand with no such cards.

With cards where you pick a cost, this could maybe be broadened to "name a cost" to include Debt and Potions.
Logged

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1213
• Respect: +937
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #119 on: October 16, 2018, 12:18:37 am »
0

This looks like it could cost \$5 easily, maybe even \$6. With any decent trashing, seems like it'd be easy to make this an always-activated conspirator.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 12:20:23 am by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

Kudasai

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 275
• Respect: +110
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #120 on: October 16, 2018, 04:45:43 pm »
+1

This looks like it could cost \$5 easily, maybe even \$6. With any decent trashing, seems like it'd be easy to make this an always-activated conspirator.

I love this card because half the people say it's terrible and the other half say it's too good. In reality I think it's about on par with Silver. Stadium certainly benefits from a good trasher, but I think most cards do.

Increasing the price to \$5 or \$6 would actually buff this, as it would help enable itself to hit those \$2 and \$3 Coins for your next turn. At cost \$3, massing Stadiums just gets in the way. If I were to ever nerf this, I would first adjust the cap on how much coin you can make for your next turn to \$3.
Logged

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1213
• Respect: +937
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #121 on: October 16, 2018, 07:23:08 pm »
0

This looks like it could cost \$5 easily, maybe even \$6. With any decent trashing, seems like it'd be easy to make this an always-activated conspirator.

I love this card because half the people say it's terrible and the other half say it's too good. In reality I think it's about on par with Silver. Stadium certainly benefits from a good trasher, but I think most cards do.

Increasing the price to \$5 or \$6 would actually buff this, as it would help enable itself to hit those \$2 and \$3 Coins for your next turn. At cost \$3, massing Stadiums just gets in the way. If I were to ever nerf this, I would first adjust the cap on how much coin you can make for your next turn to \$3.
You could price it

Fly-Eagles-Fly

• Explorer
• Offline
• Posts: 300
• Respect: +112
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #122 on: October 17, 2018, 01:37:06 pm »
0

Here's a challenge I don't expect to have fulfilled soon: Make Traveller line that uses at least 10 (Or any other arbitrary number) of the various themes introduced so far. Examples include:
Duration
Choose one
Reserve
Overpay/When gain
Night
Boon/Hex
Coffers
Villagers
Artifacts/States
Looters
VP Tokens
Debt
Logged
Is anyone here also on the Chess.com Variants forum? This is the same FEF.

Fly-Eagles-Fly

• Explorer
• Offline
• Posts: 300
• Respect: +112
Re: Interesting Card Design Challenges
« Reply #123 on: November 04, 2018, 11:58:17 am »
0

I seem to have killed the thread. Here's a better, shorter challenge. Make a weird Reaction card, in that something about it is unlike (at least almost) all other Reaction cards. Maybe it's a new type combination, maybe it has a new trigger, maybe what it does is just odd, maybe it's just a Reaction, etc.
Logged
Is anyone here also on the Chess.com Variants forum? This is the same FEF.
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 [All]

Page created in 0.361 seconds with 20 queries.