Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 106 107 [108] 109 110 ... 114  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 71811 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

naitchman

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2675 on: July 05, 2019, 06:12:55 pm »
0

Okay so here's what I got.


Just changed trashing curses to trashing any cards. I think this takes care of a couple things

1) It makes it always possible for curses to end up in trash so gaining curses from the trash is always possible
2) It keeps with Dark Ages theme of trashing
3) You always get a benefit besides the attack
4) It's no longer worse than sea hag if you don't have curses in hand
5) it's better now compared to ambassador because you can trash anything and you can trash 2 different cards. Also UW will always give out a curse (provided there's one in the supply, trash, or your hand which is very likely). You can also trash cards you wouldn't want your opponent to gain (flag bearer, silk merchant). Consider the following comparisons
    a) Amb-Co-Co vs UW-Co-Co = Both trash/ return 2 coppers but UW gives out a curse compared to a Copper
    b) Amb-E-E vs UW-E-E = Both trash/ return 2 Estates but UW gives out a curse compared to an Estate
    c) Amb-Cu-Cu vs UW-Cu-Cu = Pretty much the same
    d) Amb and two different cards vs UW and two different cards= This is where UW really shines since you can trash 2 cards as opposed to 1 and your opponent will (in most cases) get a curse.
Logged

kru5h

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Respect: +134
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2676 on: July 05, 2019, 06:17:29 pm »
0

Okay so here's what I got.


Just changed trashing curses to trashing any cards. I think this takes care of a couple things

1) It makes it always possible for curses to end up in trash so gaining curses from the trash is always possible
2) It keeps with Dark Ages theme of trashing
3) You always get a benefit besides the attack
4) It's no longer worse than sea hag if you don't have curses in hand
5) it's better now compared to ambassador because you can trash anything and you can trash 2 different cards. Also UW will always give out a curse (provided there's one in the supply, trash, or your hand which is very likely). You can also trash cards you wouldn't want your opponent to gain (flag bearer, silk merchant). Consider the following comparisons
    a) Amb-Co-Co vs UW-Co-Co = Both trash/ return 2 coppers but UW gives out a curse compared to a Copper
    b) Amb-E-E vs UW-E-E = Both trash/ return 2 Estates but UW gives out a curse compared to an Estate
    c) Amb-Cu-Cu vs UW-Cu-Cu = Pretty much the same
    d) Amb and two different cards vs UW and two different cards= This is where UW really shines since you can trash 2 cards as opposed to 1 and your opponent will (in most cases) get a curse.

With every iteration, your card keeps getting more and more similar to my Warlock.

They both trash two cards, both Curse, and both deal with Curses from the trash.

mail-mi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1162
  • Shuffle iT Username: mail-mi
  • Come play some Forum Mafia with us!
  • Respect: +1207
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2677 on: July 06, 2019, 01:53:06 am »
0

So I decided to scrap the Traveler line completely. There were too many problems and Master wasn't nearly strong enough to qualify as the last step of a Traveller chain. I'm still going with an Adventures cursor, and here he is:



Quote
Sorcerer
Action - Reserve - Attack $5
+1 Action
+1 Buy
+ $1
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on top of their deck.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
At the start of your turn, if you haven't called any other Sorcerers this turn, you may call this, and each other player gains a Curse.

Still Adventures, and the 2 themes are Tokens and Reserve Mats. I think attacking from the Reserve mat is a unique niche that would be nice to cover. What do you think?

Also, how do I get the +$1 to be bold like the +1 Action or +1 Buy on Shard of Honor's card creator? When I try "+$1", it makes the $1 huge like it's a treasure, and when I try "+ $1" it doesn't make it bigger like the +1 Action or +1 Buy. And "+ $ 1" doesn't work at all, and neither does "+1 $". Help?
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

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
  • Respect: +290
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2678 on: July 06, 2019, 02:11:53 am »
0



Quote
Sorcerer
Action - Reserve - Attack $5
+1 Action
+1 Buy
+ $1
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on top of their deck.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
At the start of your turn, if you haven't called any other Sorcerers this turn, you may call this, and each other player gains a Curse.

As worded, having each other player gain a Curse isn't conditional on calling a Sorcerer. It needs to say "...you may call this. If you do, each other player gains a Curse."
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

kru5h

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Respect: +134
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2679 on: July 06, 2019, 03:56:26 am »
0

I'm changing my entry again.

Here's Warlock v2:

There are some problems with it. What happens if you reveal this when a Fortress is trashed? Does it go to the Supply or to your hand? What happens with Noble Brigand? It says that you gain the trashed treasures. Do you gain them, or do they return to the Supply?

Warlock v3:

Much simpler. Double Cursing can be quite powerful, but you have to trash an Action card to do it. This could be quite powerful with Rats, but you have to wait until there are actually Curses in the Trash before you can double Curse people, so that nerfs that Strategy a bit so that you can't immediately double Curse people. If you could always get Curses from the trash (Like Naitchman's version), it would just be a slog forever. This ensures that the game eventually cleans up unless you keep trashing action cards. Even then, people are trashing 2 and gaining 2 until the Curses run out. Then you're just trashing 2 and gaining 1 Curse, so it will still clean up.

Fragasnap

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 332
  • Respect: +475
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2680 on: July 06, 2019, 06:13:09 am »
+1

Also, for a minute I thought your post was the judging.
Sorry for that. I'm trying to comment on everyone's cards because I was feeling a little frustrated by a lack of input some weeks and for some cards. Best way to solve that problem is to create the input myself. I like commenting anyway.

Raven
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. Choose one: Discard a card for +$1; or put this on your Tavern mat.
When you gain a Province, you may discard this from your Tavern mat. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.
This looks like a fine fit for Adventures, even if it loses the animal-that-gains-more-animals theme. I think a cost of $5 would make this very bad. You already need to get 1 stop card in order to give other players 1+ stop cards. A $5 card would have a much harder time getting to that 3+ Cursing range that I think makes Raven exciting (when acquiring it is difficult).

Undead Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Trash up to 2 cards from your hand. Each other player gains a Curse from the Supply or trash (your choice).
Frankly, I'm not sure why you're so fixated on ensuring Curses end up in the trash. Players typically want to put them there anyway, and the junking+engine cards that exist are typically so game-dominant as it is (Ambassador trashes+junks, Torturer draws+junks). Kingdoms with no trashing would make Undead Witch a normal curser, so you might want to put some Spoils, an on-trash, or some other trash-caring effect on it to make it more Dark-agesy.

There are some problems with it. What happens if you reveal this when a Fortress is trashed? Does it go to the Supply or to your hand? What happens with Noble Brigand? It says that you gain the trashed treasures. Do you gain them, or do they return to the Supply?
Fortress goes where the current turn's player chooses because there are two effects triggering simultaneously (consider resolving Duration cards at the "start of your next turn"). Noble Brigand looks in the trash for the Treasure, but has lost track because Warlock has already moved it.
Warlock
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Trash up to 2 cards from your hand. If you trashed any Action cards, each other player gains a Curse from the trash.
Either way, each other player gains a Curse.
As a matter of semantic follow-through, I'd recommend writing it as I've restructured above: List everything the player does, and then everything the other players do (unless that order matters).
This new Warlock is clever in a bunch of ways. It gives more reason to throw away your Necropolis in Dark Ages games. It will be dominant on most boards due to the importance both of fast-trashing and Cursing. The small inherent buff to situational cards given by these cards that can trash Actions for a benefit is always appreciated. The Curse-from-trash is likely to be seldom with this version, though. Maybe consider putting an on-trash effect on Warlock.

Totem
Types: Treasure, Reserve
Cost: $5
$2. When you play this, put it on your Tavern mat.
When you would gain a Curse, you may call this. If you do, each player whose turn it isn't gains a Curse instead.
Being third or fourth player in Totem games sounds frustrating because one player's Curse-gain results in you getting all the Curses because you're one turn behind and haven't gotten to put your Totems onto your mat yet. It's cute otherwise. The exchange of a +Buy for the Cursing effect is neat.

Parade
Types: Project
Cost: $4
When you gain a Victory card, each other player gains a Curse.
The theme is bad here. A Parade should do something for me like Procession. Dominion's not about theme though, so I'll set that aside.
I don't suspect that this will do much to games overall except push games with $4 Victory cards towards rush games. Otherwise this always creates a 1-for-1 stop card effect which awkwardly runs out of steam in multiplayer games.

Mountain Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
If the Curse pile isn't empty, choose one: +2 Cards; +2 Actions; +2 Buys; or +$2. Each other player gains a Curse.
Providing +Actions and +Buys on a powerful Attack is often a bad idea, but the fact that this can only provide those benefits while the temporary Attack persists is an interesting concept. The card becoming totally dead might be overly frustrating when Cursing games can normally be frustrating. I'd have to play with it some.

Sorcerer
Types: Action, Reserve, Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action, +1 Buy, +$1. Each other player puts their -1 Card token on top of their deck. Put this on your Tavern mat.
At the start of your turn, if you haven't called any other Sorcerers this turn, you may call this, and each other player gains a Curse.
A Cursing anti-cantrip. It probably feels bad that you can't block the Curse with Attack-protectors when this card is an Attack otherwise (and getting around that would be clumsy). I am always leery of a card providing +Buys with an important Attack. You'll buy it for the +Buy and end up with Curses by accident.

...
I'm not really sure what your proposal is. Do you mean give each other player a curse and a coffer? That woud definitely be less swingy, and needs to cost $4-$5 (it would also be the only $4 unconditional curser that also gives a benefit if you priced it at $4). You could also allow for naming a card but not give coffers out; either the player gets the curse or doesn't (like a bane card), though I guess that loses the guilds theme even more.
Quote
Sorceress (Guilds v2)
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Coffers. Each other player gains a Curse, putting it into their hand. Reveal the top card of your deck. Discard it or put it back. Either way, each other player may reveal a copy of it from their hand for +1 Coffers.
You get +Coffers and everyone else gets a Curse to hand, but they also get a chance to get the same Coffers by having a card you reveal (revealing the top card of your deck being an approximation of "naming a card," but ensures that the benefit is a little less swingy because you will likely reveal Coppers early and Curses later (without trashing)) (also, fun-fun, draw your deck and no one gets anything because you have no card to reveal).
Maybe +Coffers out-of-turn is a lost concept for accelerating 4-player games too much. Perhaps trading up to Renaissance for the less-volatile Villagers and dropping the "name a card" thing would be better
Quote
Sorceress (Renaissance)
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Each player (including you) may reveal a Curse from their hand for +1 Villager. Each other player gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 07:19:27 am by Fragasnap »
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 653
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +844
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2681 on: July 06, 2019, 09:53:08 am »
+6



For Seaside of course. I ended up designing a card for every expansion (some much more successfully than others) and this was my favourite. I like trying to get more uses in for the mats and tokens in Seaside and this doesn't seem too messed up with Native Village? I think it's okay that this puts face-up cards on your mat?
Logged

artless

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2682 on: July 06, 2019, 10:20:40 am »
+2

For Renaissance:

Dunner
$5 Action - Attack

+2 Coffers
Each other player loses either a Villager or a Coffer, their choice.
Each other player who doesnít gains a Curse.
---
Set up: Each player gets +1 Villager
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 11:42:15 pm by artless »
Logged

mail-mi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1162
  • Shuffle iT Username: mail-mi
  • Come play some Forum Mafia with us!
  • Respect: +1207
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2683 on: July 06, 2019, 02:12:29 pm »
0

For Renaissance:

Dunner
$5 Action - Attack

+2 coffers
Each opponent chooses one:
-1 villager; -1 coffer; gain a curse.
---
Set up: Each player gets +1 villager

(You can't choose -1 villager if you don't have any villager)
You can always choose an option you canít do (see torturer). I would reword it like this:

Each other player who has any Villagers or Coffers loses either a Villager or a Coffers, their choice.
Each other player who doesnít gains a Curse.
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

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1464
  • Respect: +1046
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2684 on: July 06, 2019, 08:01:01 pm »
+1



Deleted my previous entry. This card is for Guilds.

Edit: Just noticed the similarity to the card above it in the thread. I'll leave this up for now. I came up with it as it clicked in my head there'd be an elegant way to combine 3 ideas that have been floating around Guilds for a while (Coin Token attack, giving out Coin tokens as a non-attack interaction, and overpay for coin tokens).
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 08:05:09 pm by NoMoreFun »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7910
  • Respect: +8718
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2685 on: July 06, 2019, 08:58:47 pm »
0



For Seaside of course. I ended up designing a card for every expansion (some much more successfully than others) and this was my favourite. I like trying to get more uses in for the mats and tokens in Seaside and this doesn't seem too messed up with Native Village? I think it's okay that this puts face-up cards on your mat?

The problem I have with this is that it's a completely different card in games that also have Native Village vs games that don't. In a game that doesn't have Native Village, if your opponent isn't also buying Island Warrios, then "gain a Curse to their Native Village mat" is basically another way of saying "+1 ". So this feels much more like a Monument variant most of the time.
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: 7910
  • Respect: +8718
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2686 on: July 06, 2019, 09:00:19 pm »
0

For Renaissance:

Dunner
$5 Action - Attack

+2 coffers
Each opponent chooses one:
-1 villager; -1 coffer; gain a curse.
---
Set up: Each player gets +1 villager

(You can't choose -1 villager if you don't have any villager)
You can always choose an option you canít do (see torturer). I would reword it like this:

Each other player who has any Villagers or Coffers loses either a Villager or a Coffers, their choice.
Each other player who doesnít gains a Curse.

You don't need the "who has any Villagers or Coffers" part. The rest works fine and the same without it.

Each other player loses either a Villager or a Coffers, their choice.
Each other player who doesnít gains a Curse.
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

artless

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2687 on: July 06, 2019, 10:42:58 pm »
0

For Renaissance:

Dunner
$5 Action - Attack

+2 coffers
Each opponent chooses one:
-1 villager; -1 coffer; gain a curse.
---
Set up: Each player gets +1 villager

(You can't choose -1 villager if you don't have any villager)
You can always choose an option you canít do (see torturer). I would reword it like this:

Each other player who has any Villagers or Coffers loses either a Villager or a Coffers, their choice.
Each other player who doesnít gains a Curse.

You don't need the "who has any Villagers or Coffers" part. The rest works fine and the same without it.

Each other player loses either a Villager or a Coffers, their choice.
Each other player who doesnít gains a Curse.

Thanks.
Edited.
Logged

naitchman

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2688 on: July 06, 2019, 11:51:08 pm »
0

Okay so here's what I got.


Just changed trashing curses to trashing any cards. I think this takes care of a couple things

1) It makes it always possible for curses to end up in trash so gaining curses from the trash is always possible
2) It keeps with Dark Ages theme of trashing
3) You always get a benefit besides the attack
4) It's no longer worse than sea hag if you don't have curses in hand
5) it's better now compared to ambassador because you can trash anything and you can trash 2 different cards. Also UW will always give out a curse (provided there's one in the supply, trash, or your hand which is very likely). You can also trash cards you wouldn't want your opponent to gain (flag bearer, silk merchant). Consider the following comparisons
    a) Amb-Co-Co vs UW-Co-Co = Both trash/ return 2 coppers but UW gives out a curse compared to a Copper
    b) Amb-E-E vs UW-E-E = Both trash/ return 2 Estates but UW gives out a curse compared to an Estate
    c) Amb-Cu-Cu vs UW-Cu-Cu = Pretty much the same
    d) Amb and two different cards vs UW and two different cards= This is where UW really shines since you can trash 2 cards as opposed to 1 and your opponent will (in most cases) get a curse.

With every iteration, your card keeps getting more and more similar to my Warlock.

They both trash two cards, both Curse, and both deal with Curses from the trash.

1) To be fair I posted Undead Witch before you posted Warlock
2) At the time you posted this, Warlock didn't give curses from the trash
3) The fact that they both curse shouldn't be surprising at all considering the nature of this contest
4) The fact that they both trash 2 cards is still not that surprising since we both chose Dark Ages as our theme
5) I read the other cards but I don't commit them to memory. Now that you point it out, they are similar, but I definitely did not steal any ideas off of Warlock.

As an aside, the fact that UW causes a slog is not terrible. It wouldn't be the only card.

That being said this version may not be the final iteration (that's why I didn't change the original post).
Logged

kru5h

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Respect: +134
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2689 on: July 07, 2019, 12:06:14 am »
0

Okay so here's what I got.


Just changed trashing curses to trashing any cards. I think this takes care of a couple things

1) It makes it always possible for curses to end up in trash so gaining curses from the trash is always possible
2) It keeps with Dark Ages theme of trashing
3) You always get a benefit besides the attack
4) It's no longer worse than sea hag if you don't have curses in hand
5) it's better now compared to ambassador because you can trash anything and you can trash 2 different cards. Also UW will always give out a curse (provided there's one in the supply, trash, or your hand which is very likely). You can also trash cards you wouldn't want your opponent to gain (flag bearer, silk merchant). Consider the following comparisons
    a) Amb-Co-Co vs UW-Co-Co = Both trash/ return 2 coppers but UW gives out a curse compared to a Copper
    b) Amb-E-E vs UW-E-E = Both trash/ return 2 Estates but UW gives out a curse compared to an Estate
    c) Amb-Cu-Cu vs UW-Cu-Cu = Pretty much the same
    d) Amb and two different cards vs UW and two different cards= This is where UW really shines since you can trash 2 cards as opposed to 1 and your opponent will (in most cases) get a curse.

With every iteration, your card keeps getting more and more similar to my Warlock.

They both trash two cards, both Curse, and both deal with Curses from the trash.

1) To be fair I posted Undead Witch before you posted Warlock
2) At the time you posted this, Warlock didn't give curses from the trash
3) The fact that they both curse shouldn't be surprising at all considering the nature of this contest
4) The fact that they both trash 2 cards is still not that surprising since we both chose Dark Ages as our theme
5) I read the other cards but I don't commit them to memory. Now that you point it out, they are similar, but I definitely did not steal any ideas off of Warlock.

As an aside, the fact that UW causes a slog is not terrible. It wouldn't be the only card.

That being said this version may not be the final iteration (that's why I didn't change the original post).

I don't think you were copying, obviously. I just think it's annoying for both of us that out entries are so similar. Also, you're supposed to keep a change log in your original post so we can see all of your changes at once. Right now you only show your final version in your original post and it makes it look like I'm copying you since you posted first. Please edit back in your developments and story along the way so that people can see how our cards evolved separately at a glance.

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 653
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +844
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2690 on: July 07, 2019, 06:48:09 am »
0



For Seaside of course. I ended up designing a card for every expansion (some much more successfully than others) and this was my favourite. I like trying to get more uses in for the mats and tokens in Seaside and this doesn't seem too messed up with Native Village? I think it's okay that this puts face-up cards on your mat?

The problem I have with this is that it's a completely different card in games that also have Native Village vs games that don't. In a game that doesn't have Native Village, if your opponent isn't also buying Island Warrios, then "gain a Curse to their Native Village mat" is basically another way of saying "+1 ". So this feels much more like a Monument variant most of the time.

The way I see it is that it's just like the Journey token cards, or Butcher with Coffers cards. Pilgrimage especially plays very differently if Ranger or Giant are in the kingdom, and personally I think that's pretty cool! I tried to make it so that Native Village and Island Warriors aren't completely broken when they're in the same kingdom and I think I did an okay job there? Native Village makes it easier to pick up the Golds, but you're also probably adding Curses to your deck then too so it should balance out somewhat. It seems more like a subjective thing that you don't like rather than an objective problem with the design to me.

Yes whether the Curses ever actually get shuffled into your opponent's deck is entirely their decision,  even if your opponent has their own Island Warrior/Native Village they don't have to pick up. I was trying to do a different spin on what a "Curser" is.
Logged

segura

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
  • Respect: +73
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2691 on: July 07, 2019, 07:50:13 am »
0

I wasn't really talking about that kind of rush. I just think being able to spend $2 and a Buy to deplete 2 piles is a very dangerous effect that'll probably lead to many very fast 3 piles, usually in engines.
Not really. If there is an issue with Parade, it is due to an Estate/Gardens/Silk Road rush.

Building up an engine that yields several Buys (and, supposing for the sake of simplicity a non-mirror game in which the opponent simply plays money, can deal with the incoming green) takes time.

16 Coins and 8 Buys lead to a VP spread of 16 and 2 empty piles if one does the Estate thingy.
16 Coins and 2 Buys lead to a VP spread of 12 if one goes for Provinces.

So all those extra Buys provide only moderately more VPs and moderately more (Buys always provide some) pile control. Hard for me to see the supposed brokenness.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 07:51:15 am by segura »
Logged

naitchman

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2692 on: July 07, 2019, 01:04:20 pm »
+1

I don't think you were copying, obviously. I just think it's annoying for both of us that out entries are so similar. Also, you're supposed to keep a change log in your original post so we can see all of your changes at once. Right now you only show your final version in your original post and it makes it look like I'm copying you since you posted first. Please edit back in your developments and story along the way so that people can see how our cards evolved separately at a glance.

I guess I agree with the fact that it's annoying our cards our similar. I think you are one of a few that I've seen who keeps an entire log of all the different iterations. I just put new changes under "Updates" which keeps the original post concise (people can see the exact wording of the older card from all the comments on it, and I usually specify what changed in the comments).

With that said, I decided to make some key changes to Undead Witch for the following 2 reasons
1) I generally don't like cards that you have to buy if they're in the kingdom. UW is a card that you have to go for if it's there. For most cursers it's board dependent whether you have to buy them; if there's weak trashing, you have to buy them to be competitive in the cursing race. If there's strong enough trashing you can ignore them and just trash the curses as they come in. If you don't go for UW, you'll get all the curses. Even if you have good trashing, your opponent can give them right back to you.
2) I think the trashing part synergizes too much with the cursing from the trash. Part of what cards interesting is how they vary with strength depending on the kingdom. Considering that trashing is common enough, I don't need to add trashing to UW. The strength will obviously be different depending if there's trashing or not. Also, along the lines of the first point, since the trashing and cursing from the trash are in one card, it's much easier to use it, meaning it will always come into play. If you have to trash with a different card (say steward), then play UW, the game changes alot. You would need to get steward, a curse, and an UW in your hand for this to be effective; If you just had UW (without the trashing part) you couldn't curse, and if you just had steward and trashed your curse, your opponent could give it back to you. Getting these cards together restricts the cases which this could be effective.

To address these points, I've added 2 changes:
1) If you do curse from the trash, you trash it for a new card. This means you can only curse from the trash once. This takes care of point #1.
2) You don't get to trash 2 cards anymore. Instead you get +$1. This takes care of point #2 above
(Also I change the name to Vengeful Witch, since it didn't make sense for an Undead Witch to turn into a Dead Witch)

With that out of the way here is the new card:

This witch is vengeful and is looking to make sure you're cursed if it's the last thing she does. Indeed it is the last thing she does. But even from beyond the grave, there's a destructive power about her.

1) I gave a bonus of +$1 seeing that +$2 would make this too strong compared to witch (can curse from the trash once and gets rid of itself when it outlives its usefulness)
2) In games without trashing, this would play a little weaker than a Witch.
3) In games with some trashing, every vengeful witch can curse once from the trash. This means the cursing race will eventually end and it won't go back and forth. It also means that you don't have to get a vengeful witch if there's strong enough trashing. After you trash the VW for a Dead Witch, you also have an additional card that can help deal with curses you have, making this card not a complete slog.
4) Note that while both these cards trash, they both need another trasher for them to actually trash.
5) This is still a Dark Ages Theme: VW curses from the trash, DW trashes cards, and it's a card that turns into another card (like hermit and urchin).

Update: I have relented on point #1 and made it +$2.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 07:42:32 pm by naitchman »
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 915
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1205
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2693 on: July 07, 2019, 01:31:55 pm »
0

2) In games without trashing, this would play a little weaker than a Witch.

+$1 instead of +2 Cards is more than just a little weaker...
Logged

naitchman

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2694 on: July 07, 2019, 02:41:28 pm »
0

2) In games without trashing, this would play a little weaker than a Witch.

+$1 instead of +2 Cards is more than just a little weaker...
Yeah.
It would kind of depend on the rest of the board and your money density. If you have villages, witches can keep the chain going, but without them, you risk drawing other witches dead.

Regardless of how much weaker it is, it has to be weaker than a witch (absent trashing) or it would not be fairly priced compared to witch. Giving it a weakness absent trashing and a strength with trashing is good.

If you have any ideas of what could be a more appropriate benefit then +$1, feel free to post them.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 02:44:21 pm by naitchman »
Logged

math

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
  • Shuffle iT Username: math
  • Respect: +186
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2695 on: July 07, 2019, 05:13:30 pm »
0

2) In games without trashing, this would play a little weaker than a Witch.

+$1 instead of +2 Cards is more than just a little weaker...
Yeah.
It would kind of depend on the rest of the board and your money density. If you have villages, witches can keep the chain going, but without them, you risk drawing other witches dead.

Regardless of how much weaker it is, it has to be weaker than a witch (absent trashing) or it would not be fairly priced compared to witch. Giving it a weakness absent trashing and a strength with trashing is good.

If you have any ideas of what could be a more appropriate benefit then +$1, feel free to post them.

I think +$2 would actually be fine.  It might be a little stronger than Witch, but not by much, and I think it would be worse than Mountebank.  It gives out less junk initially, even if it can actually empty the Curses.  +$ fits well with it being a payload card.
Logged

kru5h

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Respect: +134
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2696 on: July 07, 2019, 07:09:45 pm »
0

I'm slightly changing Warlock.

Warlock v4


I changed "Trash up to 2 cards from your hand" to "Trash up to 2 differently named cards from your hand."

1) This was simply too powerful. It was a must-buy. Especially with junking in the game. All players were forced to buy it.
2) There's no reason to double Curse somebody if they can simply double-trash it. This slows down the trashing so that the Cursing is a bit more effective.

Edit: Fixed typo.

Edit2:

Warlock v5

This might be too powerful. We'll see.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 02:13:15 am by kru5h »
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
  • Respect: +24
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2697 on: July 08, 2019, 02:03:16 pm »
0




Can you clarify whether you make the choice individually for each player, or whether you choose trash or supply and then it applies to all players in turn order? When do you make the choice? Right now it is ambiguous. I am not trying to provide feedback before judging, but I do need to understand the card to judge it correctly.
Logged

naitchman

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2698 on: July 08, 2019, 03:18:26 pm »
0




Can you clarify whether you make the choice individually for each player, or whether you choose trash or supply and then it applies to all players in turn order? When do you make the choice? Right now it is ambiguous. I am not trying to provide feedback before judging, but I do need to understand the card to judge it correctly.

Similar to Spy and Oracle, you make the choice individually for each player. Based on precedent, I believe this is the correct way to write this. If it has been one choice for all players it would have been "Choose one: Each other player gains a Curse, or each other player gains a curse from the trash".
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 04:44:57 pm by naitchman »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 332
  • Respect: +475
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2699 on: July 08, 2019, 08:48:05 pm »
+2

Island Warrior
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Gain a Gold to your Native Village mat; or put all cards from your mat into your hand. Each other player gains a Curse to their Native Village mat.
I think this will have huge turn order issues around the fact that Gold flooding is inconsistent and thus not particularly great. Assuming this is relevant, after 5-plays apiece to empty the Curse pile in a 2-player game, players will have $15 waiting on their Native Village mat. If +Buys are available, Player-1 will get to cash in +$15 (or +$12, if that's all that is needed) first, quite possibly to end the game and never have to deal with the Curses anyway.

Landlord
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3+
+$2. Each other player with Coffers puts one of their Coffers tokens onto the Landlord pile. If they didn't, they gain a Curse and +1 Coffers.
When you buy this, you may overpay. For each $1 you overpay, +1 Coffers from the Landlord pile.
Landlord generates Coffers, but for others--and it does so particularly to take them from players to fuel its overpay. It's a fair number of hoops to jump through to be able to justify overpay for Coffers, but it looks like it could work. I mostly wonder if the cost of $3 is too low--especially in multiplayer games where the overpay-Coffers can pile up more easily.

Quote
Vengeful Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player gains a Curse from the supply or trash (your choice. If any player gained a Curse from the trash this way, trash this card and gain a Dead Witch from the Dead Witch pile.
Quote
Dead Witch
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. You may trash a card from your hand. (This is not in the supply)
Most Cursing cards run out of steam and become super weak cards, but Vengeful Witch has an ability to throw itself away once the Curse pile is otherwise empty. The Dead Witch thing likely makes Vengeful Witch no less mandatory in Kingdoms with trashing, though. The real question is if throwing Vengeful Witch away early will ever be worth the trouble.
I might consider making gaining Dead Witch an on-trash effect, for fun.

Warlock
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Trash up to 2 differently named cards from your hand. Each other player gains a Curse. If you trashed any Action cards, each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand and gains a Curse from the trash.
I do believe trashing Cursers will inevitably be overpowered. I am personally fine with that. I think finding the Actions to trash with this will be fun enough.

I've decided to update my card wholesale into a Renaissance themed Curser with an Artifact. I'd appreciate feedback, if you have any.

Quote
Chronicler
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Each player (including you) may reveal a Curse from their hand for +1 Villager and to take the Tome. Each other player gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.
Quote
Tome
Types: Artifact
At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard a Curse for +1 Coffers.
Chronicler is a Renaissance-themed Curser using Villagers, Coffers, and an Artifact. Everyone can get Villagers by revealing a Curse. The last player in turn order to reveal a Curse gets the Tome (because turn order applies. If everyone reveals a Curse, each player, starting with the current turn's player, takes the Tome). Then everyone else gets a Curse straight to their hand.
If someone can think of a better wording to make turn-order clearer for taking the Tome, let me know.

It can act as a splitter if you have Curses in your deck. The Tome lets you use 1 Curse for a Coffers each turn, but you can only get it by having a Curse when other players don't. The fact that Chronicler is non-terminal is neat, but will act against you if you actually double-Curse by giving the player to your right the Tome (until the Curse pile is emptied, anyway).
The Curse going to hand is also neat because players third or later in turn order are very likely to reveal a Curse to a turn 3 or 4 Chronicler, counterbalancing the typical first-player advantage in a way. You might not get to keep the Tome, though. Tome could just circle forever without ever triggering.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 106 107 [108] 109 110 ... 114  All
 

Page created in 0.156 seconds with 20 queries.