Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 154  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 104668 times)

2 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

scolapasta

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
  • Respect: +96
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2425 on: June 14, 2019, 12:47:45 pm »
0

Tough challenge this week.

Rather than come up with a card that would competes with other cards you may prefer to buy, I decided to try something a little different: a 0 card cost, that doesn't do much (and in fact, will sometimes get in the way), but still might be worth an extra buy.

Rabbits are a one shot "throne room" for tokens.

[Note: it gives +1 card before repeating the effect of the token, in order to also work better with my entry from last week: Worshippers. Feel free to ignore them when evaluating (or not)]



Changelog:
v0.1 - initial

FAQ:
• Recommended to use only with Kingdoms having at least one card that gives tokens.
• When you trash Rabbits, you repeat the effect of the token, e.g. if you removed a Villager from it's mat, you would get +1 Action (in addition to the Action you got from removing the Villager).

Secret History:
I'm considering making this a base card and having the FAQ say something like, "In games that use Villagers or Coffers [or Worshippers], add this as a base card X% of the time."

Frankly, it's not worded very well. I know what it means due to what you've said outside of the card, but when I first looked at it, I thought "repeat what effect?" It should say "and repeat the token's effect."

Fair enough. I played around with several versions of the text (your suggestion being one of them) and hoped this one with fewer words would be clear enough. Obviously not, so I'll change for the next version.

Aside from the text, though any thoughts on the concept?

It's purposefully designed to be a card that doesn't do much, but could work well with cards that plan your next turn (hence the top decking).

Is this a card you would consider using an extra buy on sometimes or is it just a dud and I should scrap the concept completely?

Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

naitchman

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 165
  • Respect: +119
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2426 on: June 14, 2019, 02:52:26 pm »
0

Yeah and unlike with BoM and Overlord there is no cost restriction. You could play this as copy of anything: Platinum, Fortune, Prince, City Quarters, Goons, Kings's Court, you name it.
Which is why $4 is likely to be too cheap.
Not necessarily a proof; TR also doesn't have any cost restrictions. (BTW Prince and fortune wouldn't work; Prince will not be in play by cleanup, and fortune is useless if played at the start of your turn). Regardless I decided to change the price.


Sure, if you want to get hyper-technical it is not necessary and you could always avoid the Duration type.
Here it makes a lot of sense though. It is not like that type was introduced for mere fun back in the days but to remind players visually not to clean up some cards.
Furthermore it is helpful in gauging the strength of cards. When you see something orange, you immediately associate it all the downsides of Durations.

You don't need the visual reminder not to cleanup; it gets set aside at cleanup and played your very next turn. You never have a cleanup of yours (besides the one you play it in) between when it leaves your hand and when it should get cleaned up. I don't think I should make it a duration just to help people gauge its strength, especially because sometimes it plays immediately and sometimes it does not.

You're supposed to be hyper-technical when designing cards.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2019, 02:57:04 pm by naitchman »
Logged

scolapasta

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
  • Respect: +96
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2427 on: June 14, 2019, 03:20:41 pm »
0

Yeah and unlike with BoM and Overlord there is no cost restriction. You could play this as copy of anything: Platinum, Fortune, Prince, City Quarters, Goons, Kings's Court, you name it.
Which is why $4 is likely to be too cheap.
Not necessarily a proof; TR also doesn't have any cost restrictions. (BTW Prince and fortune wouldn't work; Prince will not be in play by cleanup, and fortune is useless if played at the start of your turn). Regardless I decided to change the price.

Technically, Fortune could be useful if you have other start of play abilities. For example, you have the Key, and you have Summoned a (bridge discounted, and journey token enabled) Giant, that's $6 that Fortune could double.

(for fun, an even crazier possibility: if you had played 3 bridges / highways, etc,  Summoning KC and then KC-ing the Giant, plus the key, gives $12 to double)

These, of course, are edge cases. :)


Sure, if you want to get hyper-technical it is not necessary and you could always avoid the Duration type.
Here it makes a lot of sense though. It is not like that type was introduced for mere fun back in the days but to remind players visually not to clean up some cards.
Furthermore it is helpful in gauging the strength of cards. When you see something orange, you immediately associate it all the downsides of Durations.

You don't need the visual reminder not to cleanup; it gets set aside at cleanup and played your very next turn. You never have a cleanup of yours (besides the one you play it in) between when it leaves your hand and when it should get cleaned up. I don't think I should make it a duration just to help people gauge its strength, especially because sometimes it plays immediately and sometimes it does not.

You're supposed to be hyper-technical when designing cards.

FWIW, I agree with this not being a Duration.
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Kudasai

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 433
  • Respect: +230
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2428 on: June 14, 2019, 04:52:28 pm »
0

Does anyone know if there are any ordering rules for Reactions like Fool's Gold that multiple people can React with at the same time? For instance, in a 3 player game, Player_01 can buy a Province and both Player_02 and Player_03 can react with Fool's Gold to topdeck a Gold. But what if there is only one Gold left. Who gets it? Player_02 because they are the next player? Or whoever reacted first? The former seems most likely, but I cannot find any rules on this.
Logged

scolapasta

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
  • Respect: +96
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2429 on: June 14, 2019, 05:07:26 pm »
+1

Does anyone know if there are any ordering rules for Reactions like Fool's Gold that multiple people can React with at the same time? For instance, in a 3 player game, Player_01 can buy a Province and both Player_02 and Player_03 can react with Fool's Gold to topdeck a Gold. But what if there is only one Gold left. Who gets it? Player_02 because they are the next player? Or whoever reacted first? The former seems most likely, but I cannot find any rules on this.

The wiki states (emphasis mine):

Whenever an effect happens to more than one player, or multiple effects involving different players try to resolve at the same time, they are resolved in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is (or the player who last took a turn). This is important particularly with regards to gaining cards: for example, if a player plays Witch, and there's only one Curse left, only the player next in turn order gains a Curse.
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8075
  • Respect: +8864
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2430 on: June 14, 2019, 05:08:32 pm »
+1

Does anyone know if there are any ordering rules for Reactions like Fool's Gold that multiple people can React with at the same time? For instance, in a 3 player game, Player_01 can buy a Province and both Player_02 and Player_03 can react with Fool's Gold to topdeck a Gold. But what if there is only one Gold left. Who gets it? Player_02 because they are the next player? Or whoever reacted first? The former seems most likely, but I cannot find any rules on this.

It's in turn order. It is governed by the general rule that says that any time anything happens to multiple people, it happens in turn order, starting with the current player. So technically what happens is that player_01 buys a Province. Then player_02 either trashes Fool's Gold or passes. Then player_03 either trashes Fool's Gold or passes.
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

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1059
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1363
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2431 on: June 14, 2019, 06:28:20 pm »
+1



Attempt at a Throne Room for Victory cards.
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 682
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +883
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2432 on: June 14, 2019, 06:41:30 pm »
+2



I liked the idea of having a pure reaction having a nice on-gain effect that it can also trigger again somehow with the reaction part, almost like a two-shot Event. It just reacts to playing a card because I thought given you need a bunch of unique cards in play anyway for it to be good adding another condition on top of that wasn't appropriate. There's also a thing where reacting in your Action phase might let you draw into the card you gain on the same turn, but waiting until your Buy phase means you can play more uniques and gain something more expensive. It only gains Actions because being able to gain Provinces for $4 is probably silly and it obviously can't gain itself because then you could drain the pile.

It's called Fruit Basket because it's reminiscent of Horn of Plenty and a horn of plenty is just a fancy fruit basket.
Logged

King Leon

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 455
  • Respect: +360
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2433 on: June 14, 2019, 08:39:26 pm »
0

Every Reaction that does not specify "from your hand" should be immediately disqualified!

This depends on the whole card text. For example the term "discard" defaults to "from your hand" like "gain" defaults to "from the Supply" if not specified otherwise.
Logged

segura

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 316
  • Respect: +119
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2434 on: June 15, 2019, 04:34:05 am »
0

Sure, if you want to get hyper-technical it is not necessary and you could always avoid the Duration type.
Here it makes a lot of sense though. It is not like that type was introduced for mere fun back in the days but to remind players visually not to clean up some cards.
Furthermore it is helpful in gauging the strength of cards. When you see something orange, you immediately associate it all the downsides of Durations.

You don't need the visual reminder not to cleanup; it gets set aside at cleanup and played your very next turn. You never have a cleanup of yours (besides the one you play it in) between when it leaves your hand and when it should get cleaned up. I don't think I should make it a duration just to help people gauge its strength, especially because sometimes it plays immediately and sometimes it does not.

You're supposed to be hyper-technical when designing cards.
My point is that you could phrase any official Duration card such that you it would not require the Duration type. It would be technically correct but not particular practical. Visual stuff in games like icons and colours exists to make game data easier to read than a mere block of text.

I am not a rules expert but as far as I know only Durations can remain in your play area between turns (respectively Durations in combination with TR variants) with Prince being the only exception. And Prince isn't really the best example for a clear design (not a critique of the card, I like it and there unlikely to be a much better way to word it but for many players it takes some time to get their head around).

In other words, ordinary players associate orange stuff with "remaining in your play area" and unless you play with Dominion experts who know all rules and FAQs by hear, such visual reminders are incredibly useful.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
  • Respect: +59
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2435 on: June 15, 2019, 01:27:43 pm »
0



Attempt at a Throne Room for Victory cards.

Really Cool concept! I feel like there's some ambiguities on what to do with alt victory cards. If you do gardens, you have to count the size of your deck at that time? Distant Lands would be worth 0? Have you thought about different ways of dealing with that (Like OR 1vp for every 2$ it costs...)?

I think it's stronger than it looks. In many ways it's a much stronger Island. In deck-drawing engines, the end-game focusing on provinces, you would almost never buy duchies. In fact, buying 2 of them could be better than 1 province since you only have to line up one before the end of the game to get all those VP back and if you line up 2, well you got a lot more VP. I'm thinking this could potentially cost 6, especially if you add some clause to deal with non-standard victory cards.

But yeah, really cool card and idea! And it really fits best as a pure-reaction card.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8075
  • Respect: +8864
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2436 on: June 15, 2019, 01:28:46 pm »
0

Sure, if you want to get hyper-technical it is not necessary and you could always avoid the Duration type.
Here it makes a lot of sense though. It is not like that type was introduced for mere fun back in the days but to remind players visually not to clean up some cards.
Furthermore it is helpful in gauging the strength of cards. When you see something orange, you immediately associate it all the downsides of Durations.

You don't need the visual reminder not to cleanup; it gets set aside at cleanup and played your very next turn. You never have a cleanup of yours (besides the one you play it in) between when it leaves your hand and when it should get cleaned up. I don't think I should make it a duration just to help people gauge its strength, especially because sometimes it plays immediately and sometimes it does not.

You're supposed to be hyper-technical when designing cards.
My point is that you could phrase any official Duration card such that you it would not require the Duration type. It would be technically correct but not particular practical. Visual stuff in games like icons and colours exists to make game data easier to read than a mere block of text.

I am not a rules expert but as far as I know only Durations can remain in your play area between turns (respectively Durations in combination with TR variants) with Prince being the only exception. And Prince isn't really the best example for a clear design (not a critique of the card, I like it and there unlikely to be a much better way to word it but for many players it takes some time to get their head around).

In other words, ordinary players associate orange stuff with "remaining in your play area" and unless you play with Dominion experts who know all rules and FAQs by hear, such visual reminders are incredibly useful.

Right but the problem is that it doesn't remain in your play area. It doesn't follow the actual rules set for Duration cards, which is that they are only cleaned up when they are done doing something. It doesn't get cleaned up because it isn't in play. You don't clean up set-aside cards, only cards in play. I don't think it makes sense within the rules to make it a Duration, because it will never actually be in play with that type (unless it is copying another Duration card).
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

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Kudasai

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 433
  • Respect: +230
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2437 on: June 15, 2019, 02:39:54 pm »
0



Attempt at a Throne Room for Victory cards.

Really Cool concept! I feel like there's some ambiguities on what to do with alt victory cards. If you do gardens, you have to count the size of your deck at that time? Distant Lands would be worth 0? Have you thought about different ways of dealing with that (Like OR 1vp for every 2$ it costs...)?

I think it's stronger than it looks. In many ways it's a much stronger Island. In deck-drawing engines, the end-game focusing on provinces, you would almost never buy duchies. In fact, buying 2 of them could be better than 1 province since you only have to line up one before the end of the game to get all those VP back and if you line up 2, well you got a lot more VP. I'm thinking this could potentially cost 6, especially if you add some clause to deal with non-standard victory cards.

But yeah, really cool card and idea! And it really fits best as a pure-reaction card.

Also a big fan of this one. My wording suggestions would be to say either of the following:

(1) "When you gain a Victory card not worth scaling {VP}". "Scaling VP" is about the closest official lingo I could find in the Dominion manual.
(2) "When you gain a Basic Victory card". More straightforward, but eliminates interactions with a few Kingdom Victory cards that don't have scaling VP.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1059
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1363
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2438 on: June 15, 2019, 09:52:48 pm »
0



Attempt at a Throne Room for Victory cards.

Really Cool concept! I feel like there's some ambiguities on what to do with alt victory cards. If you do gardens, you have to count the size of your deck at that time? Distant Lands would be worth 0? Have you thought about different ways of dealing with that (Like OR 1vp for every 2$ it costs...)?

I think it's stronger than it looks. In many ways it's a much stronger Island. In deck-drawing engines, the end-game focusing on provinces, you would almost never buy duchies. In fact, buying 2 of them could be better than 1 province since you only have to line up one before the end of the game to get all those VP back and if you line up 2, well you got a lot more VP. I'm thinking this could potentially cost 6, especially if you add some clause to deal with non-standard victory cards.

But yeah, really cool card and idea! And it really fits best as a pure-reaction card.

Also a big fan of this one. My wording suggestions would be to say either of the following:

(1) "When you gain a Victory card not worth scaling {VP}". "Scaling VP" is about the closest official lingo I could find in the Dominion manual.
(2) "When you gain a Basic Victory card". More straightforward, but eliminates interactions with a few Kingdom Victory cards that don't have scaling VP.

The idea was that it gives you VP based on what the Victory card is worth the moment you gain it, so yes, for Gardens you would count the size of your deck, and so on, and yes, Distant Lands would not get you any VP. This is what I was trying to get across with the wording "for each VP it is worth in your deck" - that is, how much it's worth at this very moment within the context of being in your deck. I do think it's more interesting if it works for any Victory card. Then again, for something like Silk Road it's going to be really ugly if you don't know off the top of your head how many Victory cards you have. You'd have to do something like look through both your deck and discard pile, then reshuffle your deck. I'll probably change it.
Logged

majiponi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 516
  • Respect: +419
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2439 on: June 16, 2019, 04:16:16 am »
+1



Attempt at a Throne Room for Victory cards.

Really Cool concept! I feel like there's some ambiguities on what to do with alt victory cards. If you do gardens, you have to count the size of your deck at that time? Distant Lands would be worth 0? Have you thought about different ways of dealing with that (Like OR 1vp for every 2$ it costs...)?

I think it's stronger than it looks. In many ways it's a much stronger Island. In deck-drawing engines, the end-game focusing on provinces, you would almost never buy duchies. In fact, buying 2 of them could be better than 1 province since you only have to line up one before the end of the game to get all those VP back and if you line up 2, well you got a lot more VP. I'm thinking this could potentially cost 6, especially if you add some clause to deal with non-standard victory cards.

But yeah, really cool card and idea! And it really fits best as a pure-reaction card.

Also a big fan of this one. My wording suggestions would be to say either of the following:

(1) "When you gain a Victory card not worth scaling {VP}". "Scaling VP" is about the closest official lingo I could find in the Dominion manual.
(2) "When you gain a Basic Victory card". More straightforward, but eliminates interactions with a few Kingdom Victory cards that don't have scaling VP.

The idea was that it gives you VP based on what the Victory card is worth the moment you gain it, so yes, for Gardens you would count the size of your deck, and so on, and yes, Distant Lands would not get you any VP. This is what I was trying to get across with the wording "for each VP it is worth in your deck" - that is, how much it's worth at this very moment within the context of being in your deck. I do think it's more interesting if it works for any Victory card. Then again, for something like Silk Road it's going to be really ugly if you don't know off the top of your head how many Victory cards you have. You'd have to do something like look through both your deck and discard pile, then reshuffle your deck. I'll probably change it.

How about "gain another, setting aside"? It has less confusion.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8075
  • Respect: +8864
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2440 on: June 16, 2019, 10:44:25 am »
0


How about "gain another, setting aside"? It has less confusion.

Seems good. Another option that’s a bit crazier... “set this aside with the gained card. This becomes a copy of that card”.

Stronger because it keeps both VP out of your deck. Maybe even strong enough to give it a $6.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 10:46:33 am by GendoIkari »
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

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8075
  • Respect: +8864
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2441 on: June 16, 2019, 10:53:46 am »
0

These alternate wording suggestions reveal that the card is actually just a Duplicate with the downsides of being one-shot, having to be in your hand at the right time, and only working on Victory cards. But with the upside of not having a price limit.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 10:55:15 am by GendoIkari »
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

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1059
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1363
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2442 on: June 16, 2019, 11:49:03 am »
+1

These alternate wording suggestions reveal that the card is actually just a Duplicate with the downsides of being one-shot, having to be in your hand at the right time, and only working on Victory cards. But with the upside of not having a price limit.

Right, I didn't go with "gain a copy of it" because it's too similar to something that already exists. It would also have the important side effect of draining piles, which I think goes against the spirit of the idea.
Logged

segura

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 316
  • Respect: +119
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2443 on: June 16, 2019, 11:55:46 am »
0

These alternate wording suggestions reveal that the card is actually just a Duplicate with the downsides of being one-shot, having to be in your hand at the right time, and only working on Victory cards. But with the upside of not having a price limit.
The original version has absolutely nothing to do with Duplicate at all as it yields VPs and even the "copy a green card" wouldn't have: non-terminal, no Reserve, no price restriction, one-shot ... that's far too many differences to rationalize a comparison with a Workshop/Smugglers variant like Duplicate.

The only card which Chuckles' card is remotely similar to is Distant Lands. It has the advantage of being non-terminal and potentially producing more than 4VPs and the disadvantage of having to be in your hand when you green. This is why it is likely to be better than Distant Lands in an engine. You can go for overdrawing, try to get some Royal Acquisitions into your deck and only buy a Province once your gain drawers / gain Royal Acquisitions potential seems to have reached its limit.
Logged

Kudasai

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 433
  • Respect: +230
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2444 on: June 16, 2019, 02:15:51 pm »
0

CHALLENGE #33 - JUST REACT SUBMISSION:

Pretty straightforward card that reacts to gaining Victory cards. Reacting with it during another players turn is quite hard, but very powerful when you do as the gained card goes into your hand and is ready to be played your next turn. This is almost Wish level good. Reacting with it during your turn is much easier to pull off, but in general you won't be able to use the card right away. Keep in mind if this reacts to you buying something during your Buy phase you likely won't be able to play the gained card even though it's in your hand. There are exceptions to this like Night cards and Villa, etc.



Anyways, I really wanted a card that reacted to something other than gaining, but things weren't really clicking. Kudos to those who came up with stuff along those lines!


Quote
Frontier - Reaction - Cost: $4
When any player (including you) gains an Victory card, you may trash this from your hand to gain a non-Frontier card costing up to $2 more than this to your hand.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 02:25:11 pm by Kudasai »
Logged

Kudasai

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 433
  • Respect: +230
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2445 on: June 16, 2019, 02:26:18 pm »
0



Remote Village
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
----------------
On your turn, when you have 0 actions, you may reveal then play this from your hand.
$4 - Reaction


Wanted to go for something a little different. Since it doesn't have the action type, you can't play it normally. It's a village that only works after you play a terminal. Also you can play it during your Buy or Night phase, which is fun.

Not sure if this should be $3 or $4. I put it at $4 for now because it's basically a worse Bazaar, but can be really nice with terminal draw. Much worse in a kingdom without many terminals or Champion, though.

Big fan of this one, but I think it needs to cost at least $5.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
  • Respect: +59
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2446 on: June 16, 2019, 03:35:18 pm »
0

CHALLENGE #33 - JUST REACT SUBMISSION:
EDIT: this is not the final submission, there is an update to the on-trash posted later in this thread

I have made some changes to Convert. Also, convert is meant to be the noun version of convert, not the verb.

There are 12 copies of Convert in the Supply, instead of 10.


Summary of changes:
- I wanted to make it less of a no-brainer to always open double Convert. So, I weakened the on-gain significantly down. There are now more interesting questions... how many coppers can you afford to trash if you buy two. Do you want to be left with 4 coppers? That means it can be a while until you can get a 5-cost.
- I changed the trashing to happen on gain. This allows for synergy with itself (trash a Convert with upgrade, then gain a Convert to trash your hand) and more flexibility. The "may" clause prevents opponents from trashing your hand with ambassador.

Getting stuck with a Convert isn't so great anymore. I think that Smithy/Silver opening, and *then* trying for a mega-convert turn where you trash a lot more cards, might work in a lot of scenarios, rather than opening double Convert. There are more than 10 cards to allow you to delay Convert while still getting the opportunity to buy them later without them running out. It also lets 4 players all get 3 Converts.

And now I'm including my original thoughts that still apply


Well, it seems like I accidentally made something that would have been good for the previous contemplate skipping chapel contest. This sort of acts like an event by giving you the on-buy effect. It's a decent trasher, amazing at trashing the starting estates, but you can't trash the cards you had in play to buy it, and it's stuck in your deck as a dead card. Except it isn't a dead card-- if you can trash it, it turns it to something really special! How do you trash it? You could buy another convert. Whatever this religion is, it's spreading! Be careful, if you had terminal actions in hand, you'll have to lose those in the difficult conversion process. And if you started to collected provinces, well, adding another convert is going to really hurt.

One thing I like is that Convert is the great equalizer between openings. No matter your opening, you could open Convert/Convert and after shuffle 1 have 2 converts and 4 coppers. Not so bad. Buy a third convert hoping to trash both your converts and start building up is a fun way to start the game.

This trashes before the first shuffle. So, there's comparisons to bonfire. Well, as a trasher, bonfire gives you flexibility with the ability to trash cards in play and the ability to decide which ones to trash. You can play a bunch of money to buy some cards and then trash them later. However, Convert forces you to not play your treasures in order to trash them, so it effectively costs at least 1 more for every copper you want to trash. Also, Convert has no flexibility, it always trashes your entire hand. So, while at first it seems like you might always buy convert over bonfire, as soon as the game reaches mid or end-game, you're probably buying bonfire instead to clean things up. Similar to the fast trasher, chapel, The cost of $2 is necessary to make sure both players can open it. If it cost $3, 5/2 would be really brutal as you could only buy a 2-cost card and trash 2 coppers. While the 3/4 player could trash all their estates. The trashing would be a lot worse if it cost more, so then the price wouldn't fit as well.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2019, 01:41:04 pm by anordinaryman »
Logged

mail-mi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1202
  • Shuffle iT Username: mail-mi
  • Come play some Forum Mafia with us!
  • Respect: +1236
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2447 on: June 16, 2019, 05:18:33 pm »
0



Remote Village
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
----------------
On your turn, when you have 0 actions, you may reveal then play this from your hand.
$4 - Reaction


Wanted to go for something a little different. Since it doesn't have the action type, you can't play it normally. It's a village that only works after you play a terminal. Also you can play it during your Buy or Night phase, which is fun.

Not sure if this should be $3 or $4. I put it at $4 for now because it's basically a worse Bazaar, but can be really nice with terminal draw. Much worse in a kingdom without many terminals or Champion, though.

Big fan of this one, but I think it needs to cost at least $5.

How does it compare to Bazaar then? I think it's significantly weaker, because you have to have a terminal in hand in order to play it.
Logged
I currently imagine mail-mi wearing a dark trenchcoat and a bowler hat, hunched over a bit, toothpick in his mouth, holding a gun in his pocket.  One bead of sweat trickling down his nose.

'And what is it that ye shall hope for? Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise." - Moroni 7:41, the Book of Mormon

scolapasta

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
  • Respect: +96
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2448 on: June 16, 2019, 05:51:33 pm »
0

I like this Reaction, but I feel it (or the general idea of a village that can't bd drawn dead) would fit better as an Action - Reaction.
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

scolapasta

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
  • Respect: +96
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2449 on: June 16, 2019, 06:15:44 pm »
+1

So, I've decided to change my entry. I still think there's some potential for Rabbits so I'll eventually post in my own thread to get more feedback. But I came up with something I like better for the contest.

It's still in the "not too strong but something to consider getting when you have +1 Buy" category.



Retriever



Changelog:
v0.1 - initial
v0.2 - fixed wording so card is not actually useless
v0.3 - fixed wording (again) to enable multiple Retrievers retrieving multiple discards

FAQ
• If you discard multiple cards (e.g. in reaction to Cellar), you can set aside multiple Retrievers to put that number of discarded cards into your hand.
• If you set aside Retriever during an opponent's turn (e.g. in reaction to Rabble), it is discarded during that opponent's turn.



Retriever can be useful to you both during your turns (e.g. When you discard with something like Cellar or Oasis) and other player's turn (e.g. when they attack with Rabble or other cards discard from your deck). Though they won't help with discarding from hand Attacks like Militia or Torturer.

I'm not sure if it's too strong for $0, I also considered $1 or $2.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 11:54:08 pm by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.
Pages: 1 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 154  All
 

Page created in 0.137 seconds with 20 queries.