Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 167 168 [169] 170 171 ... 285  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 380576 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

forkofnature

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
  • Respect: +24
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4200 on: December 04, 2019, 01:39:38 pm »
+1

Simultaneously doesn't exist in Dominion. Things happen one at a time, always. Even attacks like Spy are technically supposed to go in turn order, usually irl it doesn't matter and so they do them all at the same time, but here it very much matters. So unfortunately, first setting the cards aside face-down is necessary.

Also, there isn't always a "least," because of Potion and Debt costs. Transmute doesn't cost more or less than Silver, for instance.

As for making ties lose, that's probably too brutal in a 3-player game, especially early on. There's still that element of fear in discarding a Copper because your opponents might be discarding Estates.

Simultaneously exists if you say it does. That's how LCGs work. Also see Masquerade. If there's no least, nobody gains a Curse: simple. The balance point is fair.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 01:47:20 pm by forkofnature »
Logged

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +374
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4201 on: December 04, 2019, 01:47:55 pm »
0


Simultaneously doesn't exist in Dominion. Things happen one at a time, always.
Not true. Masquerade occurs "at once," so anything that happens simultaneously should be described that way (Each player discards a card at once)
Not on the online implementation, if you look at the game log - it's still in turn order, it's just broken into discrete steps. First, each player chooses a card to pass, then in turn order, each player passes the card they selected. There's no "instants" or "interrupts" that make it matter in this case though.

However for things like Tunnel when theres less than the number of players discarding Tunnel's worth of Gold left, you're gonna be doing this in turn order anyway and you may want to rephrase to something like:
"Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand set a card aside, face-down. All players then reveal their set aside card. The player whose revealed card costs the least gains a Curse. All players then discard the set aside cards."
This uses the blue dog rule like, six times but it does the appropriate steps without introducing a "true simultaneous" rule.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 04:56:42 pm by spineflu »
Logged

forkofnature

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
  • Respect: +24
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4202 on: December 04, 2019, 01:53:42 pm »
0


Simultaneously doesn't exist in Dominion. Things happen one at a time, always.
Not true. Masquerade occurs "at once," so anything that happens simultaneously should be described that way (Each player discards a card at once)
Not on the online implementation, if you look at the game log - it's still in turn order, it's just broken into discrete steps. First, each player chooses a card to pass, then in turn order, each player passes the card they selected. There's no "instants" or "interrupts" that make it matter in this case though.

The official FAQ states "At the same time." The online engine might not support simultaneous action, but such a limitation needn't influence the generic rules.
Logged

Something_Smart

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
  • Shuffle iT Username: S_Smart
  • Respect: +140
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4203 on: December 04, 2019, 02:11:56 pm »
0

Oh, I totally forgot about Masquerade, lol. Although I still think the situations aren't the same, because the Masquerade cards aren't publicly revealed.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2848
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4204 on: December 04, 2019, 06:27:40 pm »
+1


Simultaneously doesn't exist in Dominion. Things happen one at a time, always.
Not true. Masquerade occurs "at once," so anything that happens simultaneously should be described that way (Each player discards a card at once)
Not on the online implementation, if you look at the game log - it's still in turn order, it's just broken into discrete steps. First, each player chooses a card to pass, then in turn order, each player passes the card they selected. There's no "instants" or "interrupts" that make it matter in this case though.

The official FAQ states "At the same time." The online engine might not support simultaneous action, but such a limitation needn't influence the generic rules.
This can actually be generalized to "the laws of physics might not support simultaneous action, but such a limitation needn't influence the generic rules".  Two things never really happen at exactly the same time.

MtG doesn't have an "all effects happen in turn order" rule like dominion does, and a very popular card (Liliana of the Veil) causes both players to discard a card, and even though Liliana says to do it simultaneously, players always perform the set-aside face-down to lock it in, then discard procedure because without that it's too difficult to keep one player from gaining unfair information about the other player's discard to inform their own discard.
I think maybe it's possible to do a simultaneous discard on a quantum computer though?  Because maybe you could get the data representing the cards quantum entangled and have them discover their states in disentanglement simultaneously.  Quantum computing is really fascinating.

Something_Smart is correct that if he doesn't specify the set-aside procedure then the turn-order-impact rule from the rules FAQs would take effect and ruin the intended gameplay of the card, even though if it was implanted into MtG or several other games as written it would get the set-aside procedure implicitly.

Masquerade overrides that rule with the Golden Rule: since "at once" is wording that contradicts the rules FAQ in a very overt and targeted way, the text on the card wins.
There's no reason S_S couldn't override the rule using "at once" also, it's immaterial whether the zones involved are public.  Masquerade uses the text because even though Masquerade is functional without it, it's more boring, you keep passing player 1's curse around too much of the time.  Same thing for this card, it's functional without it, but it's more boring, you bid the value of the card you discard rather than guessing.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 08:34:25 pm by popsofctown »
Logged

forkofnature

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
  • Respect: +24
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4205 on: December 04, 2019, 08:27:27 pm »
0

All good stuff, but how is "at once" meaningfully different from "simultaneously" as an explicit contradiction of the turn-order rule?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 08:28:31 pm by forkofnature »
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2848
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4206 on: December 04, 2019, 08:31:48 pm »
0

Oh I'm not saying it is, "simultaneously" is fine too.  I'm using them interchangeably.
Logged

Something_Smart

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
  • Shuffle iT Username: S_Smart
  • Respect: +140
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4207 on: December 05, 2019, 10:37:46 am »
+1

By the way, the reason I'm keeping it sequential, even though Masquerade does open up a precedent for doing it simultaneously, is that the right way to play Masquerade irl is obvious. You pass a card, then you pick up the card passed to you. You obviously can't pick up your card before you pass, but you don't have to wait for anyone else-- as soon as you've passed, if there's a card to pick up, you pick it up.

Tithe isn't like that though; everyone has to wait until everyone else is ready, or it doesn't work. So if I tell people to discard "at once" it may imply that they don't need to look at what everyone else is doing, which isn't accurate.
Logged

pst

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 575
  • Respect: +887
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4208 on: December 05, 2019, 04:22:33 pm »
+2

I'm sorry for being late with this. I though I would have time between work and a dinner invitation, which I didn't, but now I'm here.

I probably won't do as thorough write-ups of the cards as some have done. [added: Thorough or not, actually I wrote more than I thought I would.] It's not as if my views on these cards are more insightful than what others have said or are saying anyway. I am the judge though, so it matters what I think! So here are my comments on the 13 submissions are in the order they were given:

Swap (Event with 7 Artifacts) by spineflu

I like the idea of minor startup differences. Sometimes they are not that minor, like if Jade Pendant is the only +Buy in the game, but then there is Swap, which might get used a lot, which can be fun.

This is in top four.

Clown (Action-Attack) by [TP] Inferno

It's inspired by Jester and is said to scale in multiplayer games like that does. I believe this would work fine for 2-Player as well though (like Jester does, incidentally).

Friends (Action-Attack) by majiponi

It's meant only for 4-player games which makes it too restrictive for this challenge.

Unite (Event) by Aquila

I like how it reuses the Flag artifact in a way that will work fine both if Flag Bearer is or isn't in the game. (Even though it would need a reprint of Flag anyway in this imagined multi-player expansion.)

Introducing this new concept of Artifacts being between players might become a problem with some (imagined future) card that does something general with players' Artifacts, but there is nothing like that now at least. (If this card stood on its own not reusing the Flag of course it could use an Artifact that affects you and your neighbour.

I like the Event having that low cost but no extra Buy, which can lead to interesting decisions on when to buy it for your single buy.

Pot Stirrer (Action-Duration) by NoMoreFun

It would be fun to get the positive effect from it! I think it would need an FAQ to make it clear what being affected by an attack means, though. Are you "affected" by a Swamp Hag when it is played if you don't reveal Moat (or have Lighthouse out or ...) or are you not "affected" by Swamp Hag until you buy a card and get a Curse because of that? Also if there are no Curses left?

I think the first interpretation is the easiest, as when an Attack card is played is when the game "decides" who is immune and not, but I think some players would argue that they were not "affected" by someone playing Pirate Ship or Minion and not choosing the attack option, or someone playing Legionary without revealing Gold, etc.

On the other hand I think that some also would argue that they were not affected by a Young Witch if the revealed a Bane card, even if that's "just" part of following the instructions of the attack they were not immune against.

Story cards (Fragasnap)

I really like that idea of having a property that may disqualify one player, and the winner is determined normally from the others! That can be really interesting, and is obviously not good for 2-player games, so extends the game in a direction not taken before, as I wanted to see!

That could have been a simple Landmark that disqualifies for example a player who has fewer Silvers than any other player, or who has more Victory cards than any other player, or who has a higher combined cost of all their Action cards than any other player, just to take three examples which I think could be interesting (even though I haven't though that much about them, and the last one may be a bit tedious to count).

The Story card concept looks interesting, but for me it looks a bit too complicated to be worth it, and as forkofnature (who commented on this) I'm also a VP counter player, so this uncertainness doesn't suit me.

Usurper's Crown (Artifact) by Artless

Here is another option where one player can be disqualified. I would have liked to test this! But I suspect that often it will just stay out of play, because no one dares to take it. Wouldn't getting double the score of other players often be just too hard?

I wonder if it wouldn't be more interesting with a version which you must take when gaining a Province. On some boards I guess it would lead to no one getting Provs, and players going for Duchies early.

Great Wall (Project) by grep

This looks solid. Personally I'm not that found of players being immune to attacks all the time, since I think attacks make the game more fun. (I would prefer it if playing Champion forced everyone else to discard their Champions, so that there was no eternal immunity even then.)

So it won't be a favourite of mine, but I think it's a good one.

Emissary (Action-Command) by Gubump

This is a card I really would like to play with a few times to see it in action. Actually it gets better and better in my mind just thinking about playing with it, when I notice how exciting that seems to be.

It might be slightly weak in what I wrote about exploring areas that would be harder to do for other C(SO)s, but I see that this would be weak in a 2-player game, so suitable for this imagined expansion for practical reasons.

This is in top four.

Agora (Landmark) by popsofctown

I like the idea of it being good to be in the middle! So very multiplayer-y!

I suspect that 2 VP is too little to matter that much, though. When building an engine, each action card you need multiple copies of will open up the possibility for someone to get 2 VP from that pile. That shouldn't be that much of a deterrent to not get as many as you "need" of the card. Compare that with the 2 VP is what you get for each card with Obelisk.

Flight of Fancy (Action) by forkofnature

The 3+ spirit is there as forkofnature writes, but I don't think it adds anything significant that two different players are naming the cards, instead of the same player naming both of them. So not enough multi-player-specific for this challenge for me.

Tithe (Action-Attack) by Something_Smart

I like the general idea of an attack where it's up to the other players to somehow determine who will get the worst of it. That is also really a multi-player idea!

But since this is an attack, what happens if one or several players are immune against the attack, so there is only one player who discards a card? Does the card cost less to all the cards in the empty set? I suspect most of us say yes, at least if we are math/computer people, but I think it ought to be spelled out.

This is in top four.

Redistribute (Event) by anordinaryman

Sometimes catching up effects in games can be irritating in that they prolong games. But since this leads to someone gaining a good card I don't think it will. I wonder how often it would change how you build your deck, using more $3 and $4 cards. I think it can lead to interesting decisions!

This is in top four.


So which one is my favourite? I'll go with the last one: Redistribute
Congratulations, anordinaryman! You get to do challenge #54.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
  • Respect: +130
    • View Profile
Weekly Design Contest -- Challenge 54: The Sweetest Sound
« Reply #4209 on: December 05, 2019, 11:38:49 pm »
+2

Thank you, pst!!!

Challenge 54 - The Sweetest Sound
"A person's name is to him or her the sweetest and most important sound in any language." – Dale Carnegie

Your challenge is to create a card or card-shaped thing that refers to copies of itself by name. Examples of cards that do this are Rats, Treasure Map, Magpie, Cultist, Port.  Edit: spineflu reminded me that Gladiator/Fortune also qualifies since Gladiator refers to itself.

Cards that do not count are Death Cart and Raze (they both use the wording "this." If your card wants to refer to itself like those do, precedence in Dominion is to use the word "this," and so those entries won't count. Knights do not count, as they refer to a type, not the name of a card. You can use the self name in negation-- Dumb Chapel: "Trash a card. If it's not a Dumb Chapel, gain a card from the trash." Obviously this is a very bad card design. Just to show an example.

I will judge this card based on how elegantly the card needs to refer to copies of itself. Command cards more effectively use a type. It would not be an elegant solution for Captain to say "Play a non-Captain action" since using the Command type solves the problem better. Ideal cards will be cards that have a convincing reason to refer to copies of itself.

I will also judge this based on balance, fun-ness, and how aligned it is with Dominion precedents (no politics, etc).

If you submit or update an entry, please make it the first non-quoted thing in your post so it's easier for me to see! If you want to make your submission and respond to people in one post, make the submission first. Also it would help if you included image and raw text. Of course, none of this is required, it just makes my job easier.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 10:59:11 am by anordinaryman »
Logged

forkofnature

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
  • Respect: +24
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4210 on: December 06, 2019, 12:37:57 am »
+3



Quote
Refugee Camp, Action, $2
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Discard a card.
-
In games using this, when you buy a more expensive card, you may gain a Refugee Camp.

Simple, but elegance was stated as a judging factor…

Neat challenge!
« Last Edit: December 10, 2019, 09:07:09 pm by forkofnature »
Logged

Aquila

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
  • Respect: +339
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #54: names itself
« Reply #4211 on: December 06, 2019, 08:07:17 am »
+3

Great, let's see if we can fix up Raven:

Quote
Raven - Action Reserve, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action

You may discard a Treasure to gain a Raven. 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.
I've changed the way of gaining another Raven to discarding a Treasure, and lowered the cost to $3. So it's initially a very low opportunity cost but it gradually builds up over time if you increase your flock. Possibly it's too low and everyone rushes to empty the ravens out first, but the provinces are delayed in the process.
Logged

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +374
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4212 on: December 06, 2019, 09:28:55 am »
0

Would a split pile that refers to the other entry count? (i'm thinking Sauna/Avanto)

anordinaryman

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
  • Respect: +130
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4213 on: December 06, 2019, 10:29:35 am »
+1

Would a split pile that refers to the other entry count? (i'm thinking Sauna/Avanto)

No. But if ONE of the cards in the split pile named itself it would count. Like  Bad avanto: you may play a bad sauna from your hand. Bad sauna: you may play a bad avanto from your hand if you do gain a bad sauna. Bad sauna refers to itself so it qualifies.
Logged

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +374
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4214 on: December 06, 2019, 10:37:29 am »
+1

I made a Cartographer/Navigator variant.



Quote
Hoist • $5 • Action - Reaction
+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put any revealed Hoists into your hand. You may discard any of the other revealed cards, then put the rest back in any order.
-
At the start of Clean-up, you may reveal and discard this from your hand for +1 Card when drawing a new hand.
It has a built in dilemma of "when is the topdeck grooming good enough" that gives you +Cards for your next turn.




Would a split pile that refers to the other entry count? (i'm thinking Sauna/Avanto)

No. But if ONE of the cards in the split pile named itself it would count. Like  Bad avanto: you may play a bad sauna from your hand. Bad sauna: you may play a bad avanto from your hand if you do gain a bad sauna. Bad sauna refers to itself so it qualifies.
So Gladiator/Fortune qualifies. Nice.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 03:50:43 pm by spineflu »
Logged

Something_Smart

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
  • Shuffle iT Username: S_Smart
  • Respect: +140
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4215 on: December 06, 2019, 12:26:36 pm »
+2

Quote
Refugee Camp, Action, $2
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Discard a card.
-
In games using this, when you gain a more expensive card, you may gain a Refugee Camp.
Interesting concept, but as worded it might be broken with Trader?

Buy Silver, gain Refugee Camp, reveal Trader to gain Silver instead, gain Refugee Camp, reveal Trader to gain Silver instead, etc.

You might need to change "when you gain a more expensive card" to "when you buy a more expensive card." Or just rephrase the wording somehow to make this not allowed.
Logged

forkofnature

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
  • Respect: +24
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4216 on: December 06, 2019, 12:33:47 pm »
0

Quote
Refugee Camp, Action, $2
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Discard a card.
-
In games using this, when you gain a more expensive card, you may gain a Refugee Camp.
Interesting concept, but as worded it might be broken with Trader?

Buy Silver, gain Refugee Camp, reveal Trader to gain Silver instead, gain Refugee Camp, reveal Trader to gain Silver instead, etc.

You might need to change "when you gain a more expensive card" to "when you buy a more expensive card." Or just rephrase the wording somehow to make this not allowed.

Ooh, nice catch. As much as my Johnnie sensibilities love the idea of emptying the Silvers on T3, I'll switch it to when you buy  ;)



Great, let's see if we can fix up Raven:

Quote
Raven - Action Reserve, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action

You may discard a Treasure to gain a Raven. 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.
I've changed the way of gaining another Raven to discarding a Treasure, and lowered the cost to $3. So it's initially a very low opportunity cost but it gradually builds up over time if you increase your flock. Possibly it's too low and everyone rushes to empty the ravens out first, but the provinces are delayed in the process.

This is cool. Rushing Ravens puts you way behind anybody building an actual deck, but then you can slam the opponent with like 8 curses out of nowhere. This probably isn't worth it if any normal Curser is on the board, but I like it!
« Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 12:45:45 pm by forkofnature »
Logged

grep

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +212
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4217 on: December 06, 2019, 01:53:11 pm »
+2


Quote
Rabbit - $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
If you have an even number of Rabbits in play, +$1 and gain a Rabbit.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1619
  • Respect: +1272
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4218 on: December 06, 2019, 03:22:08 pm »
+3


Loner
Action - $4
+2 Cards
+1 Action
This turn, at the start of Clean-up, if you have exactly one Loner in play, gain a Loner. Otherwise, return all Loners in play to the supply.

Edit: Changed wording to avoid any situation where you both return and gain Loners on the same turn. You can still gain many Loners by playing them with Command cards, Procession, TR, Necromancer, etc. as long as you have exactly one in play at the start of Clean Up.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 01:20:14 am by NoMoreFun »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
  • Respect: +613
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4219 on: December 06, 2019, 05:22:54 pm »
0


Quote
Censure
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action. The player to your left may reveal a Censure or Victory card from their hand. If they don't, +1 Card and then discard a card.

HISTORY
Previously only blocked with a revealed Censure, then a revealed Censure or Province.  I decided something to hold it down early and late made more sense.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2019, 01:51:32 pm by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

forkofnature

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
  • Respect: +24
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4220 on: December 06, 2019, 05:34:15 pm »
+1


Quote
Censure
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action. The player to your left may reveal a Censure from their hand. If they don't, +1 Card and then discard a card.

I wouldn't make this a cantrip. Buying a handful of these doesn't affect your deck all that much so what's likely to end up happening is everybody wastes a few turns buying these to prevent their opponents getting the full effect and the game state goes nowhere. If this were terminal, it would be a more interesting decision whether or not to clog your own deck to hurt your opponent.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 05:41:23 pm by forkofnature »
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2848
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4221 on: December 06, 2019, 05:56:49 pm »
+2

I'm skeptical that the optimal play will simply be Censure>0-4$ cards until the stack is empty since a sifter-lab is going to synergize with a dense nugget of money. I think you squeeze a terminal silver or silver in there, probably.

I will point out though that this is a 3$ version of 4$ "+2 Cards +1 Action Discard a card" which reportedly flunked beta testing according to DXV's secret history.  Censure's weakness is that people might buy Censure, which is a self-referential weakness that reinforces the idea that it will be very strong and hard to skip, it can't be any easier to skip than the flunked beta card. 
Since just 1 copy of Censure in the player-to-the-left's hand can neutralize numerous Censures, maybe Censure doesn't consume as many purchases as the flunked card, but it's still really brushing elbows with the flunked card. 



Hoist is really sweet
« Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 08:29:47 pm by popsofctown »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
  • Respect: +613
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4222 on: December 06, 2019, 07:50:45 pm »
0

I'm skeptical that the optimal play will simply be Censure>0-4$ cards until the stack is empty since a sifter-lab is going to synergize with a dense nugget of money. I think you squeeze a terminal silver or silver in there, probably.

I will point out though that this is a 3$ version of 4$ "+2 Cards +1 Action Discard a card" which reportedly flunked beta testing according to DXV's secret history.  Censure's weakness is that people might buy Censure, which is a self-referential weakness that reinforces the idea that it will be very strong and hard to skip, it can't be any hard to skip than the flunked beta card. 
Since just 1 copy of Censure in the player-to-the-left's hand can neutralize numerous Censures, maybe Censure doesn't consume as many purchases as the flunked card, but it's still really brushing elbows with the flunked card. 
I did intend Censure to be a variation of the $4.5 cost small-Forum.  Because Censure doesn't increase your handsize, you need stuff to actually sift to, so Censure>0-4$ cards is a little silly to suggest.  Blocking it being wholly reliant upon Censure might make it too much of a degenerate gamble though.  What other cards do you suppose could non-trivially block it?  Censure, Silver, or Gold?  Century or a Victory card?
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2848
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4223 on: December 06, 2019, 08:38:51 pm »
+2

The card's so close to being balanced already that even "Province" might be enough to balance it.  I think 4$ sifterlab is barely too strong.  If Province isn't enough I think Gold almost certainly is.  Gold works better than Silver because it's at a different price point, I think.

Another angle to go would be if it was an Heirloom card that came with an Heirloom that can block Censures  (and possibly that could trash itself).  I'm not sure exactly how you design the Heirloom but I think there could be an interesting angle there.  The ability to trash the heirloom and then your opponent picking up some Censures and then you go hey not so fast, I can't get the heirloom back but I'll decide how many censures to buy to keep you in check, that could be cool, and I think there'd be plenty of games where you don't buy the first Censure if the Heirloom is designed right.

« Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 08:39:52 pm by popsofctown »
Logged

[TP] Inferno

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 177
  • I have no +Buys :(
  • Respect: +159
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4224 on: December 07, 2019, 02:38:35 am »
+1

Storeroom
$2
Action
+1 Action
Gain a Storeroom. Do this twice: +2 Cards, then discard 2 cards.

Tried to make it simple. Basically, it offers some nice sifting search space, but do you really want more copies of it? Worse comes to worst though, it can sift through other copies of itself.
Logged
Counting House is the best card in the game. Change my mind.
Pages: 1 ... 167 168 [169] 170 171 ... 285  All
 

Page created in 0.093 seconds with 21 queries.