Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 109 110 [111] 112 113 ... 327  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contests #1 - #100  (Read 932804 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
  • Respect: +661
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2750 on: July 13, 2019, 04:37:35 pm »
+2

I decided to try a card that junks itself.

Stockpile is a cheap Gold, but after you use it a couple of times, it's empty and worth $0. Luckily, it can "restock" itself, but at the cost of a Curse.



Changelog:
0.1 Stockpile, Restock - initial
0.2 Stockpile - can now "restock" itself (Restock card removed)



Secret History:

I went through several iterations to get to this "initial" version. First it was just a one treasure card, earning tokens via overpay - it started weak and tokens made it stronger; or you could remove tokens to make it weak again, but with a strong one time bonus. But the text got very tiny, so I tried a split pile. It was not clear to me, however, if it was ever worth buying the 2nd card to trigger the bonus. So it came back to one card again, until I realized I could reverse the token effect - start strong and get weaker. I first tried that with a dependent card to restock it, until I realized how silly that was, and it could just have the option to restock itself.



Questions:

• The main questions I have are all about the numbers: is the cost right? is giving a Gold effective? (I tried +$2 at a cost of $2, but usually you do have $3 and would just get the silver.) Does working twice before being spent seem like the right amount of times?

[this question applied to v0.1]
• Should restock provide some positive when you call it to provide some incentive over just trashing stockpiles? (originally, Stockpile was worth $1 when it spent, but I changed it to $0 to further encourage usage of Restock.

[this question applied to v0.1; v0.2 just uses the Coin tokens]
• Is there a better name than "Spent token"? I did think about just using the Coin tokens, since that's what I'll probably do in practice.


« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 10:01:12 pm by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

kru5h

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 332
  • Respect: +245
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2751 on: July 13, 2019, 08:16:32 pm »
0

My entry.

The number of Plagues = number of Curses or Ruins.

Plague/Plague Doctor
« Last Edit: July 13, 2019, 08:18:51 pm by kru5h »
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1122
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1525
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2752 on: July 13, 2019, 11:54:59 pm »
0



Quote
Gremlin
$5 - Action/Attack/Doom

You may trash this, to move the Jinxed token to an Action supply pile. If you didn't, +2 cards, and each other player gains a card from the Jinxed pile.
-
Setup: Add an Kingdom Action pile costing up to $2 to the supply and put the Jinxed token on it. When a player plays a card from the Jinxed pile, they first receive the next Hex.

A way to use kingdom piles as junk. You can also use it as an expensive one-shot attack on your opponent's engine in a non-mirror. Of coure, instead of using tokens, you could use the randomizer or just an embargo token or something like that.

This is gonna make for really long, slow turns if you put the Jinxed token on something non-terminal.

Only if a player decides that playing all those $2 cards is worth all the Hexes.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 286
  • Respect: +345
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2753 on: July 14, 2019, 06:31:54 pm »
+1


Edit: There is an updated version of this card a few posts down -- the only change was to specify that the card is trashed from your hand. Thank you Gubump.


Silver isn't a junk card... right? Well, the gift of silver is similar to how other Dominion cards of a political nature (Advisor, Envoy, Ambassador) seem to benefit other players but actually end up hurting them. Diplomatic Gift gives a Silver, but it turns Silvers into a copper. This is a junker conditional on one of these being in play.

This is a duration and terminal card, so it's harder to keep them in play the whole time. In a two player game you need to have at least two in your deck in order to pull this off, so it's tricky. However, in 3+ player games, there might always be a Diplomatic Gift in play. It could be theoretically possible to be locked out of the game if silvers only produce 1. That's why this card must cost 4 (more affordable) and itself provide the solution to this junk silver madness --  it gives players the ability to afford expensive cards (like gold) by turning your silvers into +3 (when you trash them).

I imagine games with Diplomatic Gift and no cheap money giving action cards are quite interesting. Luckily those games won't be slogs since every game with Diplomatic Gift comes with an affordable Trash For Benefit for those pesky silvers.

Definitely open to feedback on this one!
« Last Edit: July 14, 2019, 11:43:31 pm by anordinaryman »
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 286
  • Respect: +345
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2754 on: July 14, 2019, 06:41:34 pm »
0

My entry.

The number of Plagues = number of Curses or Ruins.

Plague/Plague Doctor


This is certainly a decision for you, but I worry about the run-away effect this has. Someone who gets unlucky and early on reveals a Plague to the Plague Doctor will now have more Plagues and be more likely to reveal those each time. It snowballs in a negative way. I think a lot of the core principles of Dominion circumvents snow-balling*. I do really like the concept of a specific curse being worse when the curser is played. Also, having the Plague Doctor slow down its plays by gaining a silver is good design. One way you could deal with this is Plague could discard down to 3 cards in hand when revealed, rather than gain an extra Plague when revealed.

*Provinces normally don't benefit you unlike in other games where winning points gives you a benefit. In addition, since you have a whole deck, if you have bad cards one hand, you won't have those same bad cards the next hand. Subtle stuff like that. Of course, some aspect of snow-balling does happen naturally in any resource-based game, but Dominion does a good job of minimizing it when it can.
Logged

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1236
  • Respect: +1057
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2755 on: July 14, 2019, 08:16:37 pm »
+1



It has to specify where the trashed card comes from. I assume from your hand?
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

anordinaryman

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 286
  • Respect: +345
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2756 on: July 14, 2019, 11:41:43 pm »
0



It has to specify where the trashed card comes from. I assume from your hand?

Oh dang! Yes! I totally missed that! Thank you!

Logged

majiponi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 684
  • Respect: +593
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2757 on: July 15, 2019, 02:20:42 am »
0

Cockroach
cost $1 - Action
+1 Action
If the Cockroach pile is empty, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain a Cockroach.
---
Setup: Each player gains a Cockroach.
Logged

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1193
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1002
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2758 on: July 15, 2019, 10:36:32 am »
0

Cockroach
cost $1 - Action
+1 Action
If the Cockroach pile is empty, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain a Cockroach.
---
Setup: Each player gains a Cockroach.

i hate that this could lead to a $3/$3 opening ( 3 copper, 2 estates / 3 copper, 1 estate, 1 cockroach / 1 copper remaining in deck)
« Last Edit: July 15, 2019, 11:03:04 am by spineflu »
Logged

naitchman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +258
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2759 on: July 15, 2019, 12:57:49 pm »
+1

Cockroach
cost $1 - Action
+1 Action
If the Cockroach pile is empty, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain a Cockroach.
---
Setup: Each player gains a Cockroach.

i hate that this could lead to a $3/$3 opening ( 3 copper, 2 estates / 3 copper, 1 estate, 1 cockroach / 1 copper remaining in deck)

Replacing an estate with a cockroach would probably help this
Logged

naitchman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +258
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2760 on: July 15, 2019, 01:10:52 pm »
+1



Will definitely need rewording. The way it's worded now, you gain the Curse/Copper, not them.

As for the idea itself, I admit I'm not particularly enamored with it. The vast majority of the time there will be no other junkers, so it will just be the same as measuring the number of Satanic Rituals you've played this turn. If the attack were based on the number of cards you gained this turn, that could be a lot more interesting.

Thanks for the feedback. I think you're right. it kind of seems arbitrary measuring how many cards your opponents gain when most of the time it's 0 (before any SR are played). It doesn't seem worth it to make this card lose so much of its power just because I played a witch this turn. I think I should just rephrase it to be based on how many SR you have in play. It would also mean I have a little more flexibility what would happen on the first and 2nd play (it doesn't need to make opponents gain cards). I think this idea has potential, but I'm gonna put it aside for now. It would really need to be tested.

So instead I am putting out this idea for a card. The idea was to make a less swingy swindler.


This is kind of somewhere between swindler and militia. It gives you $2 and only decreases your opponent's handsize by 1 (regardless of their handsize), but you can keep going until they're down to 3. It also allows them to choose which card to trash so this becomes more powerful if you play 2 per turn (if you only play 1, they'll mostly trash estates in the beginning, and provinces in the end game). It also eventually hits a limit where your opponent is trashing the stuff you junked them with. It's a little worse than swindler in that your opponent chooses the card to trash, but it also forces them to discard cards as well.
Logged

pubby

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
  • Respect: +992
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2761 on: July 15, 2019, 08:08:44 pm »
0

Cockroach: Imagine games where both players open cockroach/cockroach, do nothing but play cockroach, and end the game on estate-curse-cockroach piles.

Charlatan: Fun idea but it's going to whiff way too often on victory cards.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2019, 08:10:07 pm by pubby »
Logged

naitchman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +258
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2762 on: July 15, 2019, 09:42:25 pm »
0

Cockroach: Imagine games where both players open cockroach/cockroach, do nothing but play cockroach, and end the game on estate-curse-cockroach piles.

Charlatan: Fun idea but it's going to whiff way too often on victory cards.

that's true in the beginning and all the way at the end. That also assumes people aren't trashing their estates. Mid-game, your estates are more diluted.

Besides, there's also the discarding part.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 286
  • Respect: +345
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2763 on: July 15, 2019, 10:23:36 pm »
+1

Cockroach
cost $1 - Action
+1 Action
If the Cockroach pile is empty, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain a Cockroach.
---
Setup: Each player gains a Cockroach.

I would *never* play the Cockroach. I'd treat it like a curse in my deck. I'd be very happy if my opponent played it. They would collected all 10 Cockroaches in the supply (or the remaining 8, whatever it is). They are dead in their deck and it's like they are cursing themselves every shuffle. It's only after those plays can they start cursing me. Ultimately, we both end up with the same number of dead cards in our deck. However, my opponent got their curses early on, and had a harder time building their deck, while I had 8-10 shuffles to build my deck stronger and better and am in a much better position to handle those 10 curses. That difference is *way* worth -10vp. This isn't even counting games with trashing, where by the time I am getting cursed, I've largely trashed down my deck and I can handle all the curses easily.

You could strengthen this card by lowering the number of cockroaches in the supply, but I think that will be less fun. If you make it stronger though, it's a cheap non-terminal curser which is not a fun concept.

I think you could improve this idea by linking this to a split pile with a card that cares about cockroaches. Or, have cockroaches not be in the supply (so there can be like, 5 of them), and have a card that gains you a cockroach on buy or something.
Logged

majiponi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 684
  • Respect: +593
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2764 on: July 15, 2019, 11:09:54 pm »
0

Cockroach
cost $1 - Action
+1 Action
If the Cockroach pile is empty, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain a Cockroach.
---
Setup: Each player gains a Cockroach.

I would *never* play the Cockroach. I'd treat it like a curse in my deck. I'd be very happy if my opponent played it. They would collected all 10 Cockroaches in the supply (or the remaining 8, whatever it is). They are dead in their deck and it's like they are cursing themselves every shuffle. It's only after those plays can they start cursing me. Ultimately, we both end up with the same number of dead cards in our deck. However, my opponent got their curses early on, and had a harder time building their deck, while I had 8-10 shuffles to build my deck stronger and better and am in a much better position to handle those 10 curses. That difference is *way* worth -10vp. This isn't even counting games with trashing, where by the time I am getting cursed, I've largely trashed down my deck and I can handle all the curses easily.

You could strengthen this card by lowering the number of cockroaches in the supply, but I think that will be less fun. If you make it stronger though, it's a cheap non-terminal curser which is not a fun concept.

I think you could improve this idea by linking this to a split pile with a card that cares about cockroaches. Or, have cockroaches not be in the supply (so there can be like, 5 of them), and have a card that gains you a cockroach on buy or something.

Oh, I forgot to say "gain after their first draw". The Cockroach pile has 10-4=6 cards. Maybe giving 2 Curses or Curse and Copper leads you play it.
Logged

Kudasai

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +284
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2765 on: July 16, 2019, 02:45:38 am »
+1

CHALLENGE #36 - NON-CONVENTIONAL JUNKER SUBMISSION:

A lab cheap Lab variant that can leave you open for counter attacks.



Quote
+1 Action
You may turn your Journey token over. Then if it's face down, +2 Cards. If it's face up, +1 Card.
Each other player with a face down Journey token gains a Ruins.
Cost: $4 Action - Attack - Looter

This is purely a conceptual idea. Potential problems with Ruins distribution, but that can likely be countered with proper play. A lab at $4 may still be too good even with the chance of gaining Ruins thrown in. Especially if you can reach a sort of critical mass of Lancers where you can always get your Journey token flipped back into the up state. But for that to work you need to spend a lot of $4 cost buys on something that only has an effect around mid game. Sort of like Sauna in a way.

Also probably broken levels of good with other Journey token cards, but there are only three others things that care about that so I'm ultimately okay with that.

Thanks for looking!
« Last Edit: July 16, 2019, 02:59:01 am by Kudasai »
Logged

math

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 318
  • Shuffle iT Username: math
  • Respect: +191
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2766 on: July 16, 2019, 06:31:22 am »
0

CHALLENGE #36 - NON-CONVENTIONAL JUNKER SUBMISSION:

A lab cheap Lab variant that can leave you open for counter attacks.



Quote
+1 Action
You may turn your Journey token over. Then if it's face down, +2 Cards. If it's face up, +1 Card.
Each other player with a face down Journey token gains a Ruins.
Cost: $4 Action - Attack - Looter

This is purely a conceptual idea. Potential problems with Ruins distribution, but that can likely be countered with proper play. A lab at $4 may still be too good even with the chance of gaining Ruins thrown in. Especially if you can reach a sort of critical mass of Lancers where you can always get your Journey token flipped back into the up state. But for that to work you need to spend a lot of $4 cost buys on something that only has an effect around mid game. Sort of like Sauna in a way.

Also probably broken levels of good with other Journey token cards, but there are only three others things that care about that so I'm ultimately okay with that.

Thanks for looking!

I'm not a fan of having a bonus for a facedown Journey token that the faceup side doesn't have.  One thing the existing three have in common is that the faceup token is always better, and this card breaks that and feels weird as a result.  Maybe it could have its own token?  It could also flip the token every time but be cheaper, and/or move the +2 Cards to the faceup side.
Logged

naitchman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +258
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2767 on: July 16, 2019, 09:47:08 am »
0

CHALLENGE #36 - NON-CONVENTIONAL JUNKER SUBMISSION:

A lab cheap Lab variant that can leave you open for counter attacks.



Quote
+1 Action
You may turn your Journey token over. Then if it's face down, +2 Cards. If it's face up, +1 Card.
Each other player with a face down Journey token gains a Ruins.
Cost: $4 Action - Attack - Looter

This is purely a conceptual idea. Potential problems with Ruins distribution, but that can likely be countered with proper play. A lab at $4 may still be too good even with the chance of gaining Ruins thrown in. Especially if you can reach a sort of critical mass of Lancers where you can always get your Journey token flipped back into the up state. But for that to work you need to spend a lot of $4 cost buys on something that only has an effect around mid game. Sort of like Sauna in a way.

Also probably broken levels of good with other Journey token cards, but there are only three others things that care about that so I'm ultimately okay with that.

Thanks for looking!

I'm not a fan of having a bonus for a facedown Journey token that the faceup side doesn't have.  One thing the existing three have in common is that the faceup token is always better, and this card breaks that and feels weird as a result.  Maybe it could have its own token?  It could also flip the token every time but be cheaper, and/or move the +2 Cards to the faceup side.

I agree. Can you just switch the terms (+2 cards for face up, +1 card for face down)? This might even be more interesting if you get ruins for face down journey token because then you have to decide whether you want to leave yourself open to attack or you want to set your next turn up.

About the attack,  it feels too swingy. If my journey token is face up and you play 8 lancers (which is easy since it's a cantrip), I get no ruins, but if it's face down, I get 8 ruins. I could see situations where this could be very frustrating. Imagine my journey token is face up and I only have one lancer in my hand. If I play the lancer, there could be a game changing difference in whether I get another Lancer or not. What if you flipped your opponents journey token when you have a successful ruins attack?
Logged

Kudasai

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +284
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2768 on: July 16, 2019, 01:02:25 pm »
0

I'm not a fan of having a bonus for a facedown Journey token that the faceup side doesn't have.  One thing the existing three have in common is that the faceup token is always better, and this card breaks that and feels weird as a result.  Maybe it could have its own token?  It could also flip the token every time but be cheaper, and/or move the +2 Cards to the faceup side.

I also don't feel good about flipping the standard for the Journey token, but I settled on this mainly because I don't want the Ruins gaining to correlate with the default Journey token state (the up state). If it did, Lancers would end up giving out a lot of early Ruins and the only counter would be for opponents to buy Lancers themselves or other Journey token flippers. A completely new token with two states would certainly solve all of this, but it seems weird to me to make a whole new mechanic when the Journey token mechanically speaking works perfect.

About the attack,  it feels too swingy. If my journey token is face up and you play 8 lancers (which is easy since it's a cantrip), I get no ruins, but if it's face down, I get 8 ruins. I could see situations where this could be very frustrating. Imagine my journey token is face up and I only have one lancer in my hand. If I play the lancer, there could be a game changing difference in whether I get another Lancer or not. What if you flipped your opponents journey token when you have a successful ruins attack?

This certainly could be an issue, but currently this is exactly the kind of game play I'm looking for out of Lancers. I want taking the +2 Cards to be risky. If you can't reliably find another Lancer to flip your token back, maybe the risk isn't worth it. Especially if your opponent ended up with 8 Lancers and you're looking at 8 potential Ruin gains.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 286
  • Respect: +345
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2769 on: July 16, 2019, 02:11:18 pm »
+1

I'm not a fan of having a bonus for a facedown Journey token that the faceup side doesn't have.  One thing the existing three have in common is that the faceup token is always better, and this card breaks that and feels weird as a result.  Maybe it could have its own token?  It could also flip the token every time but be cheaper, and/or move the +2 Cards to the faceup side.

I also don't feel good about flipping the standard for the Journey token, but I settled on this mainly because I don't want the Ruins gaining to correlate with the default Journey token state (the up state). If it did, Lancers would end up giving out a lot of early Ruins and the only counter would be for opponents to buy Lancers themselves or other Journey token flippers. A completely new token with two states would certainly solve all of this, but it seems weird to me to make a whole new mechanic when the Journey token mechanically speaking works perfect.

About the attack,  it feels too swingy. If my journey token is face up and you play 8 lancers (which is easy since it's a cantrip), I get no ruins, but if it's face down, I get 8 ruins. I could see situations where this could be very frustrating. Imagine my journey token is face up and I only have one lancer in my hand. If I play the lancer, there could be a game changing difference in whether I get another Lancer or not. What if you flipped your opponents journey token when you have a successful ruins attack?

This certainly could be an issue, but currently this is exactly the kind of game play I'm looking for out of Lancers. I want taking the +2 Cards to be risky. If you can't reliably find another Lancer to flip your token back, maybe the risk isn't worth it. Especially if your opponent ended up with 8 Lancers and you're looking at 8 potential Ruin gains.

The problem is even if you manage risk pretty well, randomness does happen. Even if you construct your deck well with 10 labs, you can still dud. Normally this means one ruined turn. This card could mean an entire ruined game. That’s not fun. A solution could be to add another requirement that the player of lancers has to have their journey token faceup to give ruins. I think this makes the card better. In a 2 player game you’ll be able to punish with 2-3 ruins rather than 4-6. A half lab is priced decently at 4, it’s not nearly as strong as you’re considering it is. It’s similar to caravan in its strength. The drawback doesn’t have to be devestating.
Logged

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1193
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1002
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2770 on: July 16, 2019, 03:21:45 pm »
0

I wasn't gonna enter this week because I forgot about it but then i saw there was still like two days left in the contest so here I am, with my Potion remodel + Potion overpay junker.



card text:
Metamorphosis • $3+ • Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to [Potion] more than the trashed card.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each [Potion] you overpay, each other player gains a Copper.
Logged

mail-mi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1296
  • Shuffle iT Username: mail-mi
  • Come play some Forum Mafia with us!
  • Respect: +1355
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2771 on: July 16, 2019, 03:35:07 pm »
+2

I wasn't gonna enter this week because I forgot about it but then i saw there was still like two days left in the contest so here I am, with my Potion remodel + Potion overpay junker.



card text:
Metamorphosis • $3+ • Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to [Potion] more than the trashed card.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each [Potion] you overpay, each other player gains a Copper.

This is useless without other potion cards. The top just says “trash a card and gain a card costing up to the same amount” while the bottom only junks if I’ve already junked myself with useless potions. I’m not sure how to fix it. Maybe make it cost potion and overpay with coins? The top part would still be pretty bad though.
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

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1193
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1002
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2772 on: July 16, 2019, 03:46:39 pm »
0

I wasn't gonna enter this week because I forgot about it but then i saw there was still like two days left in the contest so here I am, with my Potion remodel + Potion overpay junker.



card text:
Metamorphosis • $3+ • Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to [Potion] more than the trashed card.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each [Potion] you overpay, each other player gains a Copper.

This is useless without other potion cards. The top just says “trash a card and gain a card costing up to the same amount” while the bottom only junks if I’ve already junked myself with useless potions. I’m not sure how to fix it. Maybe make it cost potion and overpay with coins? The top part would still be pretty bad though.

how about don't play it without other potion cards? it's rare that there'd be only one in a "good" kingdom setup anyway.

Like... yall need a breather - not every card is good in a random kingdom. Let there be weirdness and edgecases. That's how you make a fun game. Yall wanted an unconventional junker. This is not a conventional junker. It's gonna have setups where it's underpowered / not worthwhile. Those aren't its interesting cases - its interesting cases are the ones where its a contender.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2019, 03:48:09 pm by spineflu »
Logged

math

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 318
  • Shuffle iT Username: math
  • Respect: +191
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2773 on: July 16, 2019, 03:57:33 pm »
+1

I wasn't gonna enter this week because I forgot about it but then i saw there was still like two days left in the contest so here I am, with my Potion remodel + Potion overpay junker.



card text:
Metamorphosis • $3+ • Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to [Potion] more than the trashed card.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each [Potion] you overpay, each other player gains a Copper.

This is useless without other potion cards. The top just says “trash a card and gain a card costing up to the same amount” while the bottom only junks if I’ve already junked myself with useless potions. I’m not sure how to fix it. Maybe make it cost potion and overpay with coins? The top part would still be pretty bad though.

how about don't play it without other potion cards? it's rare that there'd be only one in a "good" kingdom setup anyway.

Like... yall need a breather - not every card is good in a random kingdom. Let there be weirdness and edgecases. That's how you make a fun game. Yall wanted an unconventional junker. This is not a conventional junker. It's gonna have setups where it's underpowered / not worthwhile. Those aren't its interesting cases - its interesting cases are the ones where its a contender.

Having a card that is completely useless in some kingdoms is a design flaw.  It's the reason why Donald X cut a card that was "+$2, return this to your hand" - it was almost useless without villages (I forget its cost, but it was at least $3).  It's the reason why every card that gains or plays a card from the trash also has a way to put good cards into the trash (Graverobber, Rogue, Lurker, Necromancer).  It's also the reason why every Reaction card has an effect that might be useful even if there is no opportunity to use the reaction, such as Moat for +2 Cards without attacks and Tunnel for 2 VP with no way to discard it.

I strongly suggest changing this to have a positive effect even in games without other Potion-cost cards.  A different above-the-line effect that interacts with Potions would be one possibility, something like Apothecary or Alchemist.  That would prevent the Potion you bought from being a dead card.
Logged

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1193
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1002
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2774 on: July 16, 2019, 04:37:46 pm »
0

I wasn't gonna enter this week because I forgot about it but then i saw there was still like two days left in the contest so here I am, with my Potion remodel + Potion overpay junker.



card text:
Metamorphosis • $3+ • Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to [Potion] more than the trashed card.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each [Potion] you overpay, each other player gains a Copper.

This is useless without other potion cards. The top just says “trash a card and gain a card costing up to the same amount” while the bottom only junks if I’ve already junked myself with useless potions. I’m not sure how to fix it. Maybe make it cost potion and overpay with coins? The top part would still be pretty bad though.

how about don't play it without other potion cards? it's rare that there'd be only one in a "good" kingdom setup anyway.

Like... yall need a breather - not every card is good in a random kingdom. Let there be weirdness and edgecases. That's how you make a fun game. Yall wanted an unconventional junker. This is not a conventional junker. It's gonna have setups where it's underpowered / not worthwhile. Those aren't its interesting cases - its interesting cases are the ones where its a contender.

Having a card that is completely useless in some kingdoms is a design flaw.  It's the reason why Donald X cut a card that was "+$2, return this to your hand" - it was almost useless without villages (I forget its cost, but it was at least $3).  It's the reason why every card that gains or plays a card from the trash also has a way to put good cards into the trash (Graverobber, Rogue, Lurker, Necromancer).  It's also the reason why every Reaction card has an effect that might be useful even if there is no opportunity to use the reaction, such as Moat for +2 Cards without attacks and Tunnel for 2 VP with no way to discard it.

I strongly suggest changing this to have a positive effect even in games without other Potion-cost cards.  A different above-the-line effect that interacts with Potions would be one possibility, something like Apothecary or Alchemist.  That would prevent the Potion you bought from being a dead card.

Honestly I prefer a different Donald X anecdote. It's fine - it's gonna be worthless in a bunch of kingdoms. It's also going to be an interesting card for both top and bottom in a bunch of kingdoms. Make your own version if you're unhappy with it.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 109 110 [111] 112 113 ... 327  All
 

Page created in 0.197 seconds with 22 queries.