Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 132  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 82882 times)

1 Member and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

kru5h

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Respect: +135
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2650 on: July 04, 2019, 02:03:43 pm »
0

I took all the advice on this thread and changed Warlock.

Warlock v2:


Changed "it" to "that card" in most places. Put a restriction to $6 gains so you can't gain provinces.

I also had to get rid of "to your hand." If you could gain a card to your hand, you could potentially trash Mining Village for +$2, Warlock it back to your hand, then play Mining Village again to get the Warlock back into your hand for an infinite loop of money.

naitchman

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 121
  • Respect: +67
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2651 on: July 04, 2019, 02:34:03 pm »
+1


Raven
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. you may gain a Raven. If you didn't, 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'm not a big fan of the "cantrip that auto-piles itself." I think Port and Magpie are already pretty bad and they don't even pile themselves as quickly as Raven will. This will split strangely in multiplayer games versus 2-player games. In 2-player games it would not be all too strange to give a player 4 or even 5 Curses with your first Province. In 3-player games you will be the lucky one to give 4 Curses. I think losing the Raven split would be an immediate death sentence in most 2-player games: Receiving 6+ Curses in response to another player gaining 1 Province will probably prevent you from doing anything else the rest of the game.

I agree with this assessment. This is the kind of card that gives a big 1st player advantage. Not only are you more likely to win the raven split because you are 1 turn ahead, but if you can get a province 1st, your opponent might have trouble getting a province himself with all those curses letting you get another province and give him the rest of the curses. At this point, you pretty much won the game. You just can't ignore ravens anytime they're out.

Undead Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Choose one: Each other player gains a Curse; or each other player gains a Curse from the trash; or trash up to 2 Curses from your hand.
In multiplayer games, I worry that the Cursing from the trash will give an uneven number of Curses when it doesn't want to. I'd just have Undead Witch's on-play put all the Curses in the trash back into the Supply and then dole them out normally. Regardless, this looks pretty weak at a cost of $5 without any benefit attached to it except for the unending Cursing. I might want some small value attached to it. Even +$1.
Thanks for the feedback. Both points are valid. I think I'll change the wording so that you can curse from the supply or the trash for each player so it doesn't have this wonkiness.
I was thinking about the lack of benefit when I uploaded this (though the trashing is technically a benefit). I obviously can't add +2 cards, or this will be strictly better than witch and +actions doesn't seem right since non-terminal cursers are very strong. Obviously, the ability to give out curses from the trash is strong so I can't give it too much. I could do +$1. I was also considering raising the number of curses you could trash to 3; what if you got to trash one card unconditionally and then choose cursing or trashing another 2 curses? It would allow this to act a little more like an ambassador (at least in a 2p game). I think I'll make a couple different versions and see which one works best.

Warlock
Types: Action, Attack, Reaction
Cost: $5
Trash 2 cards from your hand. Each other player gains a Curse.
When a player trashes a card, you may reveal this from your hand to return the trashed card to the Supply. Then you may discard this, to gain a copy of the trashed card to your hand.
The wording of the Reaction is confusing, so I hope you don't mind that I expanded it above. I think the ability to duplicate Provinces for yourself with multiple Warlocks is something to be wary of.
Adding a simple "if you do" could fix this

Quote
Child
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $2
Trash a card from your hand.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Trainee.
Quote
Trainee
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $3*
Gain a non-Traveller card costing up to $3. You may put it on top of your deck.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Sorcererís Apprentice.
(This is not in the Supply)
Quote
Sorcererís Apprentice
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $4*
Put a non-Reserve card from your hand onto your Tavern mat. If it is a... ...Action card, gain a card costing up to $5. ...Treasure card, +$2, +1 Buy. ...Victory or Curse card, +1 Card, +1 Action
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Sorcerer.
(This is not in the Supply)
Quote
Sorcerer
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $5*
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on top of their deck. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. You may trash one. Put the revealed Treasures into your hand, put the revealed Actions back in any order, and discard the rest.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Master.
(This is not in the Supply)
Quote
Master
Types: Action
Cost: $6*
+$1
You may put your +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, or +1 Buy token on the Master pile. (When you play a Master, you first get that bonus). Each other player gains 2 Curses. For each Curse they didnít gain, they gain a Copper instead.
(This is not in the Supply)
I think raw "trash a card" is also too good on the first level of a Traveller: It speeds up your deck and makes it easier to continue the Traveller line. If you want Master, I see little reason you wouldn't open with 4 (or more) Child cards considering it gives so much tempo towards what your deck is trying to do.
Also Sorcerer's Apprentice's ability to tuck Victory cards away forever is trying to slip under the radar here. That effect is pretty ridiculous. I think it should not be able to put Victory cards away, let alone giving a benefit for doing so.
Why doesn't [Sorcerer's Apprentice] just trash the card? Is it just so that it can interact with the Tavern Mat? There's no way to get it back right? The only way I can see this being different from trashing is with Miser.
A Victory or Curse card on your Tavern mat is still a part of your deck and will influence your score. Actions and Treasures typically won't matter, but the wording would become more complex if you treated them differently. Maybe the semantic complexity (players wondering what cards sitting on their Tavern mat are doing) would be worth alleviating with word complexity.
Usually the card at the end of a traveler line has to be powerful (note the current ones Teacher and Champion) and be powerful even if you only have one because getting more is a lot of work. Master just doesn't seem worth it. At best, you get all your tokens on master and now it's a grand market; you probably only have a few of these anyway and it's very likely it's late in the game by the time this happens. The fact that it double curses is cool, but considering all the different cards in this line give you some way to trash or remove cards from your deck and that this would be very late in the game by the time this happens, it doesn't really seem worth it to go for a master. Sorcerer's apprentice on the other hand is a cantrip card that lets you tuck away victory cards and doesn't tuck away itself (like island). It would seem worth going down this line and stopping at sorcerer's apprentice (maybe getting a sorcerer if need be). I agree with fragasnap, this probably should be tweaked.

Greedy Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $2+
+$2. Use a coin token so that each other player gains a Curse.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, take a Coin token.
You need an image to apply for the contest.
Overpaying for Coffers is an issue fraught with huge problems. You can functionally set aside coins to buy Provinces very, very fast. I'd steer clear of the concept of overpaying for Coffers.
You should probably fix up the wording
Put a coin token back in the supply; if you do, each other player gains a Curse.

Sorceress
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$1. Name a card. Each player (including you) may reveal a copy of the named card from their hand. Each player who does gets +1 Coffers. Each player who doesn't gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.
This seems a bit swingy. If I name a card and my opponent doesn't have it (something that will be reliant on luck) he gets a curse (which is -1 point and clogs his deck); if he does have it, not only does he not get a curse, but he gets a coffer. Considering that people consider Hexes swingy because some effects (all of which are pretty much negative) are not as powerful as others at certain times, a positive/negative effect would qualify as swingy too.
I think this is a fair characterization, but is somewhat sidestepping the inherently swingy nature of Curse-centered games. If you have Curses, you have more stop cards, which means the random order of your deck becomes more important.
The original version had no "name a card", always triggering off of Curses (which makes it less Guildsy) and the Cursing was unconditional. Do you suppose making the Cursing unconditional to other players (and therefore increasing the cost to $4) be a major improvement? To do that, I'd probably need to change the "name a card" thing to ensure that it still involves opportunity for other players to get Coffers, but that can be approximated.
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.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 02:44:41 pm by naitchman »
Logged

naitchman

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 121
  • Respect: +67
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2652 on: July 04, 2019, 02:59:55 pm »
0

I'm putting a couple different versions of undead witch out that do give you some bonus. Which one do you think works the best?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 08:04:19 pm by naitchman »
Logged

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 579
  • Respect: +316
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2653 on: July 04, 2019, 03:12:27 pm »
0

Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

segura

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Respect: +98
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2654 on: July 04, 2019, 04:39:20 pm »
+2

Submission for Renaissance.



I guess I came up with this because I like it when junking happens later in the game. First I wanted to do it on-buy but on-gain seems more fun as funky things can happen e.g. with Ambassador, Replace and Farmland.
Logged

segura

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Respect: +98
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2655 on: July 04, 2019, 04:53:58 pm »
0

Also Sorcerer's Apprentice's ability to tuck Victory cards away forever is trying to slip under the radar here. That effect is pretty ridiculous. I think it should not be able to put Victory cards away, let alone giving a benefit for doing so.
Seems pretty good at the first glance but the fact that this draws after having Tavern-ized the Victory card matters quite a bit (although not as much as the matching problem of ordinary villages & Smithy variants vs. non-drawing villages like Festival/Villa/Conclave & Smithy variants as Sorcerer's Apprentice features other options besides setting aside green).
This is counterbalanced by the ability to always set aside Treasures at near Moneylender like strength and IMO this is the real issue. Without this ability, Sorcerer's Apprentice would be far more risky in non-alt-VP middlegames.

So I'd either keep it as a card that is similar to Sacrifice but change the bonus of setting aside green or I'd do a card that can only set aside green and purple, e.g.
+1 Card
+1 Action

You may put a Victory or Curse card from your hand onto your Tavern mat for [mild bonus].
Logged

Aquila

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 195
  • Respect: +171
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2656 on: July 04, 2019, 05:20:29 pm »
0


Raven
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. you may gain a Raven. If you didn't, 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'm not a big fan of the "cantrip that auto-piles itself." I think Port and Magpie are already pretty bad and they don't even pile themselves as quickly as Raven will. This will split strangely in multiplayer games versus 2-player games. In 2-player games it would not be all too strange to give a player 4 or even 5 Curses with your first Province. In 3-player games you will be the lucky one to give 4 Curses. I think losing the Raven split would be an immediate death sentence in most 2-player games: Receiving 6+ Curses in response to another player gaining 1 Province will probably prevent you from doing anything else the rest of the game.

I agree with this assessment. This is the kind of card that gives a big 1st player advantage. Not only are you more likely to win the raven split because you are 1 turn ahead, but if you can get a province 1st, your opponent might have trouble getting a province himself with all those curses letting you get another province and give him the rest of the curses. At this point, you pretty much won the game. You just can't ignore ravens anytime they're out.
Yes, this is describing the uneasy feelings I had, thanks to you both. A revision:


More work involved to collect them, having a straight Oasis option instead of gain another raven so the Adventures tokens could sit nicely on their pile. Though if you get a Province on the same turn you put these on your tavern mat, they're Familiars... Does this make them cost $5, and if so would Peddler be fair instead of oasis?


Submission for Renaissance.


Would this make a slog of every game by hammering the Estates? A higher price seems much safer so decks build towards bigger greens.
Logged

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 579
  • Respect: +316
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2657 on: July 04, 2019, 05:29:21 pm »
0



Adventures, obviously. Not sure if this counts, you can always buy a Curse to trigger the effect.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Reduced cost from to and can only be called during your turn.
v1.2: Returned cost to and Curses all players whose turn it isn't (which may or may not include you). Restored ability to call it during your turn.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 11:50:00 pm by Gubump »
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

Commodore Chuckles

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 968
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1254
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2658 on: July 04, 2019, 05:36:18 pm »
0



If the ramifications of multiple players calling Totems is too confusing, I'll change it to only be callable on your turn and lower the price.

I think you'll have to do this. As it is this is one of those inadvisable Attack deflectors that makes everyone ignore Attack piles altogether. And yes the ramifications of multiplayer are a can of worms. Alice plays a Curser, Bob and Carol both call a Totem. The order in which they call seems to matter: if Bob calls his first, then does the Curse he just deflected get deflected back on him when Carol calls hers? And when Carol calls hers, it's actual in response to two Curses: the one from Alice and the one Bob deflected. Does she have to immediately call another Totem if she wants to deflect the second Curse?

Submission for Renaissance.


Would this make a slog of every game by hammering the Estates? A higher price seems much safer so decks build towards bigger greens.

I was thinking the same thing. I like the idea, but it needs to be more expensive.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 05:50:25 pm by Commodore Chuckles »
Logged

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 579
  • Respect: +316
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2659 on: July 04, 2019, 05:37:04 pm »
0

Submission for Renaissance.


Would this make a slog of every game by hammering the Estates? A higher price seems much safer so decks build towards bigger greens.

I was thinking the same thing. I like the idea, but it needs to be more expensive.

Or just limit it to non-Action, non-Estate Victory cards.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

Commodore Chuckles

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 968
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1254
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2660 on: July 04, 2019, 05:53:52 pm »
0

splitter

No, not the forbidden word!

Also, for a minute I thought your post was the judging.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5331
  • Respect: +2741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2661 on: July 04, 2019, 05:58:18 pm »
+1

If there is no trashing, then buying the Estates is the same as skipping a 3-4$ buy to take VP from baths.  2 VP advantage generated over the opponent, no overall change in deck quality.  People usually do not rush baths.  If you are playing big money and your opponent is trying to line up Festivals against Smithies you've broken the symmetry a little bit but if we've generated a game where people played engine vs. big money that's definitely a custom card creation accomplishment, not a failure, in today's engine mirror universe.

When trashing is available, buying Estates should be even worse because it feels better to trash a Curse than it does to trash an Estate.  Trash for benefit is unlikely to make enough difference.

So yeah I think the rush criticism fails on its face by comparison to Baths.  It empties one more pile than Baths does but buying two of the curses yourself after you skipped a 4$ buy to unlock these Baths at all doesn't sound like a threatening strategy.
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 660
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +850
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2662 on: July 04, 2019, 06:20:14 pm »
+1

If there is no trashing, then buying the Estates is the same as skipping a 3-4$ buy to take VP from baths.  2 VP advantage generated over the opponent, no overall change in deck quality.  People usually do not rush baths.  If you are playing big money and your opponent is trying to line up Festivals against Smithies you've broken the symmetry a little bit but if we've generated a game where people played engine vs. big money that's definitely a custom card creation accomplishment, not a failure, in today's engine mirror universe.

When trashing is available, buying Estates should be even worse because it feels better to trash a Curse than it does to trash an Estate.  Trash for benefit is unlikely to make enough difference.

So yeah I think the rush criticism fails on its face by comparison to Baths.  It empties one more pile than Baths does but buying two of the curses yourself after you skipped a 4$ buy to unlock these Baths at all doesn't sound like a threatening strategy.
 

Baths doesn't empty 2 supply piles though. It's the pile emptying that makes this dangerous.
Logged

majiponi

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 494
  • Respect: +400
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2663 on: July 04, 2019, 06:32:22 pm »
0

Greedy Witch
cost $2+ - Action - Attack
+$2
Use a coin token so that each other player gains a Curse.
---
When you buy this, if you didn't use a coin token, you may overpay for this. For each $1 you overpaid, take a coin token.

Guilds. Coin token and overpay.

Why "if you didn't use a coin token"? I don't see how this makes any difference. Wouldn't eliminating that clause only add the ability to spend x coin tokens to get x coin tokens back? It wouldn't ever help you to do that.

I worried 5-2 opening, but yes, you are right. This only prevents buying GW while another is in play. But limiting overpay for coin tokens is needed, too. Fmm...
Oh, I didn't say "coffers". So this coin token is like a pirate ship's one.
Logged

naitchman

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 121
  • Respect: +67
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2664 on: July 04, 2019, 08:05:31 pm »
0



I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.
Logged

segura

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Respect: +98
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2665 on: July 05, 2019, 02:11:01 am »
0

Would this make a slog of every game by hammering the Estates? A higher price seems much safer so decks build towards bigger greens.
Naturally Parade will rarely be bought at any price if other Cursers are present, they are simply quicker.
But in the situations in which there are tricks, like e.g. using Farmland to gain a Province hand out 2 Curses, one player might go for Parade instead of the other Curser. This interesting possibility would be undone at a Project price of $5.


If there is no trashing, then buying the Estates is the same as skipping a 3-4$ buy to take VP from baths.  2 VP advantage generated over the opponent, no overall change in deck quality.  People usually do not rush baths.  If you are playing big money and your opponent is trying to line up Festivals against Smithies you've broken the symmetry a little bit but if we've generated a game where people played engine vs. big money that's definitely a custom card creation accomplishment, not a failure, in today's engine mirror universe.

When trashing is available, buying Estates should be even worse because it feels better to trash a Curse than it does to trash an Estate.  Trash for benefit is unlikely to make enough difference.

So yeah I think the rush criticism fails on its face by comparison to Baths.  It empties one more pile than Baths does but buying two of the curses yourself after you skipped a 4$ buy to unlock these Baths at all doesn't sound like a threatening strategy.
 

Baths doesn't empty 2 supply piles though. It's the pile emptying that makes this dangerous.
I don't see how a junky deck full of Estates (and Curses if the "buy Estate to distribute Curses" strategy is mirrored) is quickly ably to empty a third pile (except for Mapgies). Even if you gain the Estates via a Workshop variant, it will take quite some time.
And, as popsofctown has mentioned, tempo kind of matters. In a 2P game you need 9-10 (10 if you open 3-4) turns to empty Estates and Curses while having achieved a VP spread of 16 (and as already mentioned, a gainer will not speed this up significantly). In the meantime the other player had the opportunity to do something constructive.

We have evidence of this kind of thing: Followers mainly hurts due to the discarding, and not due the VP spread (you nearly always want to trash the Estate). And Followers doesn't cost a buy to gain the Estate. This is pretty basic, Curses suck mainly because they are dead cards. That they also provide -1VP is less relevant.
Also IGG. The key difference to IGG, which also empties two piles, is that IGG provides economy which often suffices to empty Duchies.

So yeah, I am pretty sure that the Estate rush rarely works which is why one could formalize the idea also as a general rule that does not have to be unlocked, i.e. put it on a Kingdom (Victory) card via a "in games using this" wording.
Logged

segura

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Respect: +98
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2666 on: July 05, 2019, 02:56:02 am »
+1



I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.
I'd consider a price of $4. At first play it is worse than Sea Hag and "trash 2, junk 1" is similar to Ambassador.
Logged

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 579
  • Respect: +316
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2667 on: July 05, 2019, 11:59:25 am »
0



I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.
I'd consider a price of $4. At first play it is worse than Sea Hag and "trash 2, junk 1" is similar to Ambassador.

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 660
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +850
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2668 on: July 05, 2019, 12:33:17 pm »
0

Would this make a slog of every game by hammering the Estates? A higher price seems much safer so decks build towards bigger greens.
Naturally Parade will rarely be bought at any price if other Cursers are present, they are simply quicker.
But in the situations in which there are tricks, like e.g. using Farmland to gain a Province hand out 2 Curses, one player might go for Parade instead of the other Curser. This interesting possibility would be undone at a Project price of $5.


If there is no trashing, then buying the Estates is the same as skipping a 3-4$ buy to take VP from baths.  2 VP advantage generated over the opponent, no overall change in deck quality.  People usually do not rush baths.  If you are playing big money and your opponent is trying to line up Festivals against Smithies you've broken the symmetry a little bit but if we've generated a game where people played engine vs. big money that's definitely a custom card creation accomplishment, not a failure, in today's engine mirror universe.

When trashing is available, buying Estates should be even worse because it feels better to trash a Curse than it does to trash an Estate.  Trash for benefit is unlikely to make enough difference.

So yeah I think the rush criticism fails on its face by comparison to Baths.  It empties one more pile than Baths does but buying two of the curses yourself after you skipped a 4$ buy to unlock these Baths at all doesn't sound like a threatening strategy.
 

Baths doesn't empty 2 supply piles though. It's the pile emptying that makes this dangerous.
I don't see how a junky deck full of Estates (and Curses if the "buy Estate to distribute Curses" strategy is mirrored) is quickly ably to empty a third pile (except for Mapgies). Even if you gain the Estates via a Workshop variant, it will take quite some time.
And, as popsofctown has mentioned, tempo kind of matters. In a 2P game you need 9-10 (10 if you open 3-4) turns to empty Estates and Curses while having achieved a VP spread of 16 (and as already mentioned, a gainer will not speed this up significantly). In the meantime the other player had the opportunity to do something constructive.

We have evidence of this kind of thing: Followers mainly hurts due to the discarding, and not due the VP spread (you nearly always want to trash the Estate). And Followers doesn't cost a buy to gain the Estate. This is pretty basic, Curses suck mainly because they are dead cards. That they also provide -1VP is less relevant.
Also IGG. The key difference to IGG, which also empties two piles, is that IGG provides economy which often suffices to empty Duchies.

So yeah, I am pretty sure that the Estate rush rarely works which is why one could formalize the idea also as a general rule that does not have to be unlocked, i.e. put it on a Kingdom (Victory) card via a "in games using this" wording.

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.
Logged

King Leon

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 439
  • Respect: +339
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2669 on: July 05, 2019, 01:32:35 pm »
0

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.

Ambassador requires you to have the Curses on your hand. Undead Witch generates them herself.
Logged

naitchman

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 121
  • Respect: +67
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2670 on: July 05, 2019, 01:54:57 pm »
0



I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.
I'd consider a price of $4. At first play it is worse than Sea Hag and "trash 2, junk 1" is similar to Ambassador.

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.

I was going to say that myself. Hmmm... looks like it's back to the drawing board.
Possible things to change
Increase number of curses you can trash (maybe have no limit)
topdeck the gained curse (like sea hag)
Give some other benefit (+$)

In response to king leon: That is true but ambassador is a much more effective trasher and it can work with cards like copper and estate. It's very likely you'll have at least one of those in your hand. (Not to mention the less common case where you use it to give your opponent(s) a province and end the game).
« Last Edit: July 05, 2019, 02:01:13 pm by naitchman »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8004
  • Respect: +8796
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2671 on: July 05, 2019, 02:29:33 pm »
0

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.

Ambassador requires you to have the Curses on your hand. Undead Witch generates them herself.

True, though also true that Ambassador comes with 10 junk cards to give out, 3 which are worse than the other 7.
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

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 579
  • Respect: +316
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2672 on: July 05, 2019, 02:33:24 pm »
0

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.

Ambassador requires you to have the Curses on your hand. Undead Witch generates them herself.

I said that.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 579
  • Respect: +316
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2673 on: July 05, 2019, 02:34:52 pm »
0



I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.
I'd consider a price of $4. At first play it is worse than Sea Hag and "trash 2, junk 1" is similar to Ambassador.

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.

I was going to say that myself. Hmmm... looks like it's back to the drawing board.
Possible things to change
Increase number of curses you can trash (maybe have no limit)
topdeck the gained curse (like sea hag)
Give some other benefit (+$)

In response to king leon: That is true but ambassador is a much more effective trasher and it can work with cards like copper and estate. It's very likely you'll have at least one of those in your hand. (Not to mention the less common case where you use it to give your opponent(s) a province and end the game).

I think you could get away with making it give +. + would make it compare too favorably to Witch at the cost of .
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

grrgrrgrr

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +36
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2674 on: July 05, 2019, 03:04:54 pm »
+1

My submission:


This card is obviously Intrigue themed. It is better than witch when there are curses, but completely dead when the pile is empty. The name choice refers to extra mobility, which is represented by the extra choices it has.

« Last Edit: July 05, 2019, 03:24:22 pm by grrgrrgrr »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 132  All
 

Page created in 0.181 seconds with 21 queries.