Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 143  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 95083 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

spineflu

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
  • +1 Respect. Trash a Respect from your hand.
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2975 on: July 30, 2019, 09:34:13 am »
0


Fete
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action. Choose two (the choices can be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy; or +$1.
I think the Peddler option makes this too much of a no-brainer, let alone its other very decent choices. Maybe give it a buy restriction ($3 Grand Market?), weird cost (<6>?), or an additional benefit to buff it up to $5 (when you gain this, gain a differently named card costing exactly $5?).

I think the most elegant solution to prevent against the no-brainer peddler is move the money option to the first choice.

I'm revising my entry.


Fete
Action
$4
Choose one: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1.
Choose two (the choices may be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy.
-
revision 2
« Last Edit: July 30, 2019, 09:56:06 am by spineflu »
Logged

segura

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2976 on: July 30, 2019, 09:38:43 am »
+1

Plantation
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Card, +1 Action. You may discard a card from your hand. If it is an... Action card: +1 Card and +1 Action; Treasure Card: Gain a Plantation.
This compares very poorly to Hamlet. I would try to vary it more from Hamlet by giving +2 Actions regardless and discarding for either gaining a Plantation or getting a +Card.
My hunch is that this is on average better than Hamlet. Unlike Hamlet it does not decrease handsize when you discard an Action and it provides a simply way to gain more Actions.
Logged

segura

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2977 on: July 30, 2019, 10:43:45 am »
+1


Fete
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action. Choose two (the choices can be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy; or +$1.
I think the Peddler option makes this too much of a no-brainer, let alone its other very decent choices. Maybe give it a buy restriction ($3 Grand Market?), weird cost (<6>?), or an additional benefit to buff it up to $5 (when you gain this, gain a differently named card costing exactly $5?).

I think the most elegant solution to prevent against the no-brainer peddler is move the money option to the first choice.

I'm revising my entry.


Fete
Action
$4
Choose one: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1.
Choose two (the choices may be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy.
-
revision 2
This will mostly be used as Village and Market Square and looks good.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8036
  • Respect: +8818
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2978 on: July 30, 2019, 10:54:54 am »
+1


Fete
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action. Choose two (the choices can be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy; or +$1.
I think the Peddler option makes this too much of a no-brainer, let alone its other very decent choices. Maybe give it a buy restriction ($3 Grand Market?), weird cost (<6>?), or an additional benefit to buff it up to $5 (when you gain this, gain a differently named card costing exactly $5?).

I think the most elegant solution to prevent against the no-brainer peddler is move the money option to the first choice.

I'm revising my entry.


Fete
Action
$4
Choose one: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1.
Choose two (the choices may be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy.
-
revision 2
This will mostly be used as Village and Market Square and looks good.

I think it will be used as Village or Market Square a huge majority of the time; because forgoing the +1 card option really hurts. Which means that it ends up being a weaker version of Worker's Village, which already gives you the extra action and the extra buy instead of having to choose one or the other.

But that's probably fine... a little weaker than Worker's Village, but not strictly weaker because there is a lot of other flexibility there; even though it won't get used in those other ways very often.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2019, 11:02:37 am by GendoIkari »
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

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

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 668
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +864
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2979 on: July 30, 2019, 11:14:09 am »
+1


Fete
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action. Choose two (the choices can be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy; or +$1.
I think the Peddler option makes this too much of a no-brainer, let alone its other very decent choices. Maybe give it a buy restriction ($3 Grand Market?), weird cost (<6>?), or an additional benefit to buff it up to $5 (when you gain this, gain a differently named card costing exactly $5?).

I think the most elegant solution to prevent against the no-brainer peddler is move the money option to the first choice.

I'm revising my entry.


Fete
Action
$4
Choose one: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1.
Choose two (the choices may be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy.
-
revision 2
This will mostly be used as Village and Market Square and looks good.

I think it will be used as Village or Market Square a huge majority of the time; because forgoing the +1 card option really hurts. Which means that it ends up being a weaker version of Worker's Village, which already gives you the extra action and the extra buy instead of having to choose one or the other.

But that's probably fine... a little weaker than Worker's Village, but not strictly weaker because there is a lot of other flexibility there; even though it won't get used in those other ways very often.

I think you'd use this for +3 Actions pretty often, more often than as Market Square I'd wager.
Logged

grrgrrgrr

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
  • Respect: +48
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2980 on: July 30, 2019, 02:17:37 pm »
+1

Theatre
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Play the card on the Theatre mat
Setup: Put a $2 costing Action that gives +1 Action unconditionally onto the Theatre mat.
A comprehensive list of the 15 existing cards that Theatre could play: Cellar, Lurker, Haven, Lighthouse, Pearl Diver, Hamlet, Vagrant, Candlestick Maker, Page, Ratcatcher, Raze, Patrician, Settlers, Pixie, and Border Guard.
I assume from the wording that you mean for Theatre to "Play the card on the Threatre mat, leaving it there." a la Necromancer. Under that assumption, Page, Ratcatcher, and Pixie (20%) make Theatre into an expensive Village with no further effect (except churning the Boons, I guess). Lighthouse and Haven being Durations will leave no cards out so that there will be untrackable Duration effects. The most powerful options I don't think are too unreasonable except for Lurker which sounds really unfun to deal with.

I changed the wording to adress compatibility issues with Durations and Reserves. Thanks for pointing it out.


Quote
Theatre (Action, $4)
This card has the same types and abilities as the card on the Theatre mat, but gives an additional +1 Action when played.
---
Setup: Put a $2 costing Action that gives +1 Action unconditionally onto the tavern mat.

I don't think it will be overpowered with Lurker, as it is a $4 Necropolis if it doesn't align (an $4 Lurkers are harder to amass). It can certainly be annoying though.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2019, 02:39:51 pm by grrgrrgrr »
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1008
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1307
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2981 on: July 30, 2019, 06:03:12 pm »
0

Sprawling Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
The next time you play an Action card this turn, you may ignore its instructions and instead receive +1 Card, +2 Actions.
There are few enough "While this is in play" effects that I wouldn't worry too much about this being overpowered with those. My big concern is that this generally looks pretty bad next to Port. Having played with a self-Enchantress (which makes the card weaker than a Village admittedly, but just the same), losing one of your Action cards is typically a big cost, actually. (Discarding the card to avoid an "overpowered" in-play effect would make Sprawling Village significantly stronger because it would no longer consume your Action cards.) The ability to turn temporary cards (like trashers and cursers) and cheap Actions into Villages is neat, but fairly niche, so this will mostly be an expensive Village. I suppose Dominion can't really have too many of those.

I agree that it compares poorly to Port, but that's true of every $4 Village except Wandering Minstrel. Also, there's no reason to limit its use to cheap and "temporary" Actions. Its strength lies in that it lets you load up on more terminals than usual and then gives you flexibility.
Logged

segura

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2982 on: July 30, 2019, 07:02:00 pm »
0

I suppose Dominion can't really have too many of those.
Huh? There is an abundance of $4 villages with a little extra. Sprawling Village is totally fine and power-level wise also pretty good, i.e. not too crazy like Port, Wandering Ministrel or Worker Village but not too weak like Farming or Mining Village either.

I agree that it compares poorly to Port, but that's true of every $4 Village except Wandering Minstrel. Also, there's no reason to limit its use to cheap and "temporary" Actions. Its strength lies in that it lets you load up on more terminals than usual and then gives you flexibility.
Indeed. It kind of does to Village what Werewolf does to Smithy, it increases the optimal density of terminals (relative to the case in which you'd have Smithy instead of Werewolf respectively Village instead of Sprawing Village).
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1008
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1307
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2983 on: July 30, 2019, 11:59:29 pm »
+1

I suppose Dominion can't really have too many of those.
Huh? There is an abundance of $4 villages with a little extra. Sprawling Village is totally fine and power-level wise also pretty good, i.e. not too crazy like Port, Wandering Ministrel or Worker Village but not too weak like Farming or Mining Village either.

I think that's what he was saying. He used a confusing sort-of-double-negative there.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5356
  • Respect: +2752
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2984 on: July 31, 2019, 04:18:53 pm »
+1

Theatre looks really cool

I'd resub to dominion online if they started adding good fan cards.
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

King Leon

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 448
  • Respect: +355
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2985 on: July 31, 2019, 05:08:12 pm »
0

Parish was to similar to Coin of the Realm, so I came up with a completely new entry. This is Recruiter with +Buy, but without the Villagers.



Industrial Village
Type: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
Trash a card from your hand. +1 Action per $1 it costs.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2019, 05:13:37 pm by King Leon »
Logged

majiponi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 500
  • Respect: +403
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2986 on: July 31, 2019, 05:52:38 pm »
0

Slave Merchant
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1. You may play a Treasure. You may buy a card.
Breaking convention of playing Treasures in the Buy phase is not something I personally like doing very much. Regardless, I think +2 Actions, +2 Buys, +$1 might be a bit strong at $2.

I meant to say "Take an extra Buy phase immediately, in which you can only buy 1 card." So, buying a card via this SPENDS Buys. It doesn't give you +2 Buys. And playing Treasures is necessary to buy a card.
Logged

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 606
  • Respect: +343
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2987 on: July 31, 2019, 08:18:21 pm »
0

And playing Treasures is necessary to buy a card.

Uh, no it's not. There are plenty of Actions that give +. And some cards are free.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

scolapasta

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
  • Respect: +72
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2988 on: August 01, 2019, 12:21:47 am »
0

Developing Village
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
+1 Action. Reveal the top card of your deck. You may trash it and gain a differently named card with the same cost to your hand. If you do, +1 Action; if you don't +1 Card.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 overpaid, +1 Villager
This doesn't need to reveal the card. You can just look at it.
While it shapes itself somewhat like a splitter, I think Developing Village is really hiding an immensely frustrating Estate trasher, largely because it costs $2+. I'd recommend a cost of $3+ instead just to avoid the ability to turn Estates into Developing Villages. I think I disagree that it doesn't need the overpay. There will be a fair number of boards where triggering the +Actions in this will be difficult. The overpay benefit might even need to be larger for an increased cost.
Exchanging the card instead of trashing it would be fine, but don't forget to specify that you exchange for a card in the Supply, because exchange does not imply that (existing Exchanges being the Travellers and Changeling with exchanges for a specific card).

Yes, I can change "reveal" to "look at".

Can you explain what you mean by a "splitter"? I've not heard that term before.

And why is do you suggest turning off the ability to turn estates into DVs? I had thought of that as advantage, in particular on boards with no other $2s.
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 606
  • Respect: +343
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2989 on: August 01, 2019, 01:02:14 am »
+2

Developing Village
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
+1 Action. Reveal the top card of your deck. You may trash it and gain a differently named card with the same cost to your hand. If you do, +1 Action; if you don't +1 Card.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 overpaid, +1 Villager
This doesn't need to reveal the card. You can just look at it.
While it shapes itself somewhat like a splitter, I think Developing Village is really hiding an immensely frustrating Estate trasher, largely because it costs $2+. I'd recommend a cost of $3+ instead just to avoid the ability to turn Estates into Developing Villages. I think I disagree that it doesn't need the overpay. There will be a fair number of boards where triggering the +Actions in this will be difficult. The overpay benefit might even need to be larger for an increased cost.
Exchanging the card instead of trashing it would be fine, but don't forget to specify that you exchange for a card in the Supply, because exchange does not imply that (existing Exchanges being the Travellers and Changeling with exchanges for a specific card).

Yes, I can change "reveal" to "look at".

Can you explain what you mean by a "splitter"? I've not heard that term before.

And why is do you suggest turning off the ability to turn estates into DVs? I had thought of that as advantage, in particular on boards with no other $2s.

Splitter is a (rightfully) less commonly used term for Village variants.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

Fragasnap

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 344
  • Respect: +493
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2990 on: August 01, 2019, 08:18:35 am »
0

Sure, in a deck drawing engine you could try to keep 3 Curses in your deck to generate 3 VPs via this. Seems pretty hard to pull off though; you need to precisely draw everything but those very 3 Curses and then still have Forlorn Villages left to play.
My primary concern is that Forlorn Village looks like a very bad splitter. I start with 0 Actions in my deck typically, so tossing Actions from the top of my deck means that I get +Actions to play the Actions that aren't in my deck anymore. Its VP production would be a difficult use, but is something that Forlorn Village can do that couldn't be substituted by a more consistent card.
What I didn't think so hard about is that Forlorn Village will actually be strong in a Treasure-centric strategy, because it will sift in the early game and produce anywhere from +3 Cards to +$3. That's pretty crazy.

Fete
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action; or +$1. Choose two (the choices can be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy.
It looks fine. It might not need the +$1 option at all. Even if players typically don't choose it, its inclusion might make it more complex without adding significant strength to the card--which is not ideal.

I don't think it will be overpowered with Lurker, as it is a $4 Necropolis if it doesn't align (an $4 Lurkers are harder to amass). It can certainly be annoying though.
What I wrote does sound like I am identifying Lurker as a broken combo, but I really meant that it would just be annoying. The change looks good. It fixes all the problems other than my general dislike for having to look at more non-Kingdom cards (which is an inherent function of the card and very much to taste).

I agree that [Sprawling Village] compares poorly to Port, but that's true of every $4 Village except Wandering Minstrel. Also, there's no reason to limit its use to cheap and "temporary" Actions. Its strength lies in that it lets you load up on more terminals than usual and then gives you flexibility.
This is like saying Journeyman is weaker than Wild Hunt. It is true, but missing the point.
Mining Village is a weaker Village-with-a-bonus than Wandering Minstrel, but they each have completely different mission statements. I wouldn't buy Wandering Minstrel if I wanted to spike my economy, and I wouldn't buy Mining Village if I needed to sift through a bunch of Coppers\Curses\Estates.

Port is a Village-with-a-bonus whose bonus is:
"I come with another Village when you buy me."
Sprawling Village is a Village-with-a-bonus whose bonus is (outside of the rare edge-cases):
"I come with another Village when you gain me, except the second one eats one of your other Action cards."
Unless losing one of my other Action cards is not a cost (such as a now-useless Sea Hag), or one of some-five specific cards appear with it, then Sprawling Village is worse than Port. That is a much smaller window of difference than most Village-with-a-bonus cards. Wandering Minstrel's strength versus Farming Village's weakness (as similar deck-sifting splitters) is probably the most similar comparison in this category.
It isn't a problem, but it is quite probably weaker than you seem to be suggesting. I would not put it higher than the middling $4 Village-with-a-bonus cards like Mountain Village and Mining Village.

Industrial Village
Type: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards, +1 Buy. Trash a card from your hand. +1 Action per $1 it costs.
I can tell you from experience:
Prophet
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. You may trash or discard a non-Victory card from your hand. +Actions equal to its cost in coins.
When you trash this, you may gain an Action costing exactly $5, putting it into your hand.
Trashing stuff for such temporary +Actions causes its trashing to take front stage, while the +Actions are functionally ignored. That's why my Prophet gives you the option to discard for +Actions instead so that the trashing ends up being a side-thing while the splitting takes center stage.

Slave Merchant
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1. You may play a Treasure. You may buy a card.
Breaking convention of playing Treasures in the Buy phase is not something I personally like doing very much. Regardless, I think +2 Actions, +2 Buys, +$1 might be a bit strong at $2.
I meant to say "Take an extra Buy phase immediately, in which you can only buy 1 card." So, buying a card via this SPENDS Buys. It doesn't give you +2 Buys. And playing Treasures is necessary to buy a card.
Black Market uses the same wording and doesn't work that way, though. I'd recommend the effect "You may buy a card" be restricted to what kind of cards it can buy instead of wrestling with an entirely new wording. +2 Actions, +2 Buys, +$1 is maybe a little strong at $2, but +2 Actions, +$1 is definitely too weak.
Also, playing a Treasure is fine, but I personally don't like doing it outside of the Buy phase. The tracking of spending and gaining $ might end up being an annoyance on Slave Merchant. Storyteller at least consumes all your $ every time you use it, so you don't have to track any $ once you've resolved it.

Can you explain what you mean by a "splitter"? I've not heard that term before.
It is a less-common term used to refer to cards that give +2 or more Actions. I like the term because I prefer Village-variant for variations of cards that give a minimum of "+1 Card and +2 Actions" (even though cards like Fishing Village don't give those vanilla benefits). Because Throne Room and Developing Village do not unconditionally give "+1 Card and +2 Actions," I think of them as splitters distinctly from Village-variants.
The term refers to a style of laying out Actions that aligns them like a tree: You play your Actions in a line, but offset cards when you play an Action that provides +2 Actions, thereby creating two "branches" to the line of Actions you are playing (the card which provides +2 Actions thereby "splitting" your Action line).

And why is do you suggest turning off the ability to turn estates into Developing Villages? I had thought of that as advantage, in particular on boards with no other $2s.
The problem is that trashing Estates is really, really good. It would be immensely frustrating (considering the lack of control) for one player to open with Developing Village on a board with no trashing otherwise and luck into trashing a starting Estate on turn 3 that turns it into another Developing Village, thereby necessarily reducing your effective deck size. If Developing Village cost $3, then hitting a starting Estate would only sometimes net you a real benefit based on the other $2 Kingdom cards (if any)--plus Developing Village would then compete with other $3 cards, so buying it for a chance of trashing an Estate would be ill-advised.
There are other cards that can do similar (Necromancer->Zombie Mason I'd argue is even worse), but the fact that official cards exist that can do it does not make it a good design.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

segura

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2991 on: August 01, 2019, 08:37:24 am »
0

Sure, in a deck drawing engine you could try to keep 3 Curses in your deck to generate 3 VPs via this. Seems pretty hard to pull off though; you need to precisely draw everything but those very 3 Curses and then still have Forlorn Villages left to play.
My primary concern is that Forlorn Village looks like a very bad splitter. I start with 0 Actions in my deck typically, so tossing Actions from the top of my deck means that I get +Actions to play the Actions that aren't in my deck anymore.
I already pointed out that this argument is dubious as this card cycles everythng and cycling is good during build-up. It only becomes bad during greening.


Quote
What I didn't think so hard about is that Forlorn Village will actually be strong in a Treasure-centric strategy, because it will sift in the early game and produce anywhere from +3 Cards to +$3. That's pretty crazy.
I don't see the craziness.

Smithy is a $4. And while a pure terminal Gold does not exist, there are many terminal Golds with a cherry on top that cost $5. So it is safe to say that a terminal Gold, if it existed, would have to cost $4 (it would obviously be too boring and could be slightly too weak/strong).
All the in-between, i.e. +2 Cards +1 Coin or +1 Card +2 Coins, don't look stronger than a $4 either.
Logged

grrgrrgrr

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
  • Respect: +48
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2992 on: August 01, 2019, 03:01:39 pm »
0

Developing Village
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
+1 Action. Reveal the top card of your deck. You may trash it and gain a differently named card with the same cost to your hand. If you do, +1 Action; if you don't +1 Card.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 overpaid, +1 Villager
This doesn't need to reveal the card. You can just look at it.
While it shapes itself somewhat like a splitter, I think Developing Village is really hiding an immensely frustrating Estate trasher, largely because it costs $2+. I'd recommend a cost of $3+ instead just to avoid the ability to turn Estates into Developing Villages. I think I disagree that it doesn't need the overpay. There will be a fair number of boards where triggering the +Actions in this will be difficult. The overpay benefit might even need to be larger for an increased cost.
Exchanging the card instead of trashing it would be fine, but don't forget to specify that you exchange for a card in the Supply, because exchange does not imply that (existing Exchanges being the Travellers and Changeling with exchanges for a specific card).

Yes, I can change "reveal" to "look at".

Can you explain what you mean by a "splitter"? I've not heard that term before.

And why is do you suggest turning off the ability to turn estates into DVs? I had thought of that as advantage, in particular on boards with no other $2s.

It is a very luck based advantage, considering this card does absolutely nothing when you hit Copper (unlike Necro). I honestly think you should pair it with a Goat, because hitting an Estate here is very similar to hitting the Flame Gift with Pixie. Goat also makes turning Coppers into Curses when the +Action is needed less unappealing.
(It would add an Heirloom on top of Overpaying and Villagers though; do you want that?)

As far as wording goes, I would say something like: "Put the top card of your deck into your hand" so you can remove the "if you don't..." part.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1008
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1307
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2993 on: August 01, 2019, 06:14:15 pm »
0

Sprawling Village is a Village-with-a-bonus whose bonus is (outside of the rare edge-cases):
"I come with another Village when you gain me, except the second one eats one of your other Action cards."

No, that's not what it is. It doesn't "come" with or "eat" anything when you gain it. You can choose to lose an Action card on one particular turn, but then you get it back. You're neglecting the tactical flexibility it provides that Port doesn't.
Logged

segura

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2994 on: August 01, 2019, 06:53:00 pm »
+1

Sprawling Village is a Village-with-a-bonus whose bonus is (outside of the rare edge-cases):
"I come with another Village when you gain me, except the second one eats one of your other Action cards."

No, that's not what it is. It doesn't "come" with or "eat" anything when you gain it. You can choose to lose an Action card on one particular turn, but then you get it back. You're neglecting the tactical flexibility it provides that Port doesn't.
Fragasnap is totally right that this is weaker than Port and at the same time totally wrong as most $4 Villages suck in comparison to Port.
The main reason Port is stronger is that the 2 villages are "smeared" over your deck whereas Sprawling Village will behave more similarly to +1 Cards +3 Actions (blank an Action card for this turn).

But more interesting that pondering the power level of Sprawling Village is thinking about how interesting it is to play with. I think that it will be very interesting. For example all cheap cantrips become stronger as they can be potentially turned into a village for one turn and managing the ratio of terminals, non-terminals and villages will be topsy-turvy like with Werewolf.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
  • Respect: +50
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2995 on: August 03, 2019, 01:05:54 am »
+2



I thought about Camp when thinking about the "turn X into a village" mechanic. There's at least one submission in this contest that tackles that problem. I remember first thinking about this from a fan card years ago that solved it by saying "set aside a card that does not draw cards" as a way to make sure you don't get cheap laboratories. I thought that card was very interesting but I thought the setup of choosing a particular card felt a little strange to me. Though it's an elegant solution to making sure it's not over-powered. Then I thought, why not let the opponent decide what is the right card to turn into a village?

Camp is sort of like a +1card +3actions but you're going to draw the worst action card in your deck, or perhaps an action card even worse than the worse card in your deck. One the other hand, any action card is probably better than the alternative in a deck where you want villages. And in the beginning of the game, this is a village that actually might make sense to open with because it can't miss. Of course, if you play a bunch of these, your opponent will eventually be forced to name some good cards. In one turn, on the 10th play of this (or less if there aren't 10 non-duration action cards), then the only non-duration action card left un-named in the supply will be Camp, and then you'll just get +4 actions and no cards.

This is called Camp because it's a sort of mobile village. One play it's like this, next play it's like that. You know.

I feel confused how to price this. I think it's between a 4 and a 5 right now.

I'm open to feedback on this, but I'm not sure if there's any meaningful way to change it. The only part that could change to weaken the card is to allow the opponent to continue to name the same card, but that makes this card less interesting since you'll pretty much always know what the card will be, but that change would make it more appropriately priced at 4.

Would costing it 5 be better?
« Last Edit: August 03, 2019, 01:12:35 am by anordinaryman »
Logged

segura

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2996 on: August 03, 2019, 05:21:43 am »
0

This seems closer to $5 than $4. Unless there is something bad in the Kingdom like Beggar, the worst will usually be a cantrip or a terminal Silver with a little extra. The latter is superior to Conclave.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1008
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1307
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2997 on: August 03, 2019, 09:42:32 am »
0

I'm not sure I like the part about the opponent choosing the Action. I understand it's there to make the card a lot weaker, but at the same time, I feel that it might often be tedious to play with. I suspect that a lot of time your opponent will choose cards in the same order every turn. And then if you have enough of them to guarantee you get to some good Actions, they'll end up making a lot of meaningless decisions like with Advisor.
Logged

scolapasta

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
  • Respect: +72
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2998 on: August 04, 2019, 01:14:27 am »
+1

OK, so here is v0.3 of Developing Village:
fixed wording
now costs 3+
now gives +2 Villagers for the overpay

Very good points were made about the luck factor that could into play if you trash an Estate for a DV. Changing it to $3 now means you can't get DVs for your Estates, but it may still need a more drastic change.

I increased the # of Villagers so that it still gives 2 if you pay $4 and by giving 4 for $5 it complete better with actual 5 cards.

Thanks for all the feedback!

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

pst

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 556
  • Respect: +853
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2999 on: August 04, 2019, 01:56:11 am »
+3

My entry is a very simple village. You need more of these than of regular Villages to draw lots of cards together with a Smithy or similar card, since you need to play V-S-V-S and never V-V-S-S to still have an action left.



Calm Village
Action
$2
+1 Card
You have exactly 2 Actions
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 143  All
 

Page created in 0.193 seconds with 22 queries.