# Dominion Strategy Forum

• May 25, 2020, 04:36:59 am
• Welcome, Guest

### News:

DominionStrategy Wiki

Pages: 1 ... 122 123 [124] 125 126 ... 232  All

1 Member and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

#### Fly-Eagles-Fly

• Duke
• Offline
• Posts: 371
• Respect: +158
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3075 on: August 07, 2019, 11:00:49 am »
+1

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)
Logged

#### spineflu

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 533
• +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
• Respect: +317
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3076 on: August 07, 2019, 11:03:48 am »
+2

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)

I mean, the way to address this is you never earn the VP chits until you trigger a reshuffle - VP chits on the card are lost, meaning if you're gonna do this strategy, you gotta bite the bullet at some point.

(also 15 estates = 3p game + you empty the estates pile + you don't trash your starting three)
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 11:20:10 am by spineflu »
Logged

#### faust

• Margrave
• Offline
• Posts: 2651
• Respect: +3712
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3077 on: August 07, 2019, 11:04:40 am »
0

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)
They don't have have to be Estates, some can be actual Captains. Whether it's a winning strategy... I mean once you Inherited Captains, the first person to do that probably wins no matter what.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

#### Kudasai

• Witch
• Offline
• Posts: 467
• Respect: +274
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3078 on: August 07, 2019, 12:04:10 pm »
+1

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)

I mean, the way to address this is you never earn the VP chits until you trigger a reshuffle - VP chits on the card are lost, meaning if you're gonna do this strategy, you gotta bite the bullet at some point.

(also 15 estates = 3p game + you empty the estates pile + you don't trash your starting three)

It may not be exactly clear, but this is how it is supposed to work. You only get the VP tokens when you shuffle.
Logged

#### Fly-Eagles-Fly

• Duke
• Offline
• Posts: 371
• Respect: +158
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3079 on: August 07, 2019, 12:38:02 pm »
0

Quote
(also 15 estates = 3p game + you empty the estates pile + you don't trash your starting three)
Duh. I guess I counted wrong

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)

I mean, the way to address this is you never earn the VP chits until you trigger a reshuffle - VP chits on the card are lost, meaning if you're gonna do this strategy, you gotta bite the bullet at some point.

(also 15 estates = 3p game + you empty the estates pile + you don't trash your starting three)

It may not be exactly clear, but this is how it is supposed to work. You only get the VP tokens when you shuffle.
Oh yeah, forgot that when reading the fun example.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 02:40:45 pm by Fly-Eagles-Fly »
Logged

#### spineflu

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 533
• +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
• Respect: +317
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3080 on: August 07, 2019, 12:40:00 pm »
+1

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)

I mean, the way to address this is you never earn the VP chits until you trigger a reshuffle - VP chits on the card are lost, meaning if you're gonna do this strategy, you gotta bite the bullet at some point.

(also 15 estates = 3p game + you empty the estates pile + you don't trash your starting three)

It may not be exactly clear, but this is how it is supposed to work. You only get the VP tokens when you shuffle.

a line of errata text might be good, explicitly say that. Or maybe, "at the end of the game, remove all VP tokens on this; they are lost and gone forever" or something.

#### segura

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 563
• Respect: +256
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3081 on: August 07, 2019, 02:18:02 pm »
+1

CHALLENGE #39 - DURATION CARD

Well, most people play Dominion for big engine play, and this is certainly not that. Variety is what keeps Dominion interesting though and this takes on some stuff not seen with the official Dominion cards. Namely, dragging out the time in between shuffles. This may not sound fun, but for me at least it kind of is. Beyond that there is a lot of room here to outplay your opponents other than just gaining more cards than them.

And yes I realize promos should not use physical items introduced in other sets, but (1) anything can be used as debt tokens (I for instance use new pennies) and (2) this isn't really a promo challenge, just a duration challenge that should touch on new mechanics.

Thanks for looking!
Wow, that's a great design which makes slogs and money games more interesting!
On a sidenote, it also neatly avoids the issues that Victory cards with a Debt cost have, namely that if you end the game you can convert one extra Buy into x VPs (e.g. Triumph or Annex).
Logged

#### Kudasai

• Witch
• Offline
• Posts: 467
• Respect: +274
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3082 on: August 07, 2019, 06:15:13 pm »
+1

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)

I mean, the way to address this is you never earn the VP chits until you trigger a reshuffle - VP chits on the card are lost, meaning if you're gonna do this strategy, you gotta bite the bullet at some point.

(also 15 estates = 3p game + you empty the estates pile + you don't trash your starting three)

It may not be exactly clear, but this is how it is supposed to work. You only get the VP tokens when you shuffle.

a line of errata text might be good, explicitly say that. Or maybe, "at the end of the game, remove all VP tokens on this; they are lost and gone forever" or something.

Eck, adding more text for clarity is always hard for me, but yes, I think you're correct. I expanded the bottom italics to read:
(This stays in play until you shuffle and the VP on this is not yours until then.)

How does that sound?
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 06:18:49 pm by Kudasai »
Logged

#### Kudasai

• Witch
• Offline
• Posts: 467
• Respect: +274
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3083 on: August 07, 2019, 06:18:23 pm »
0

I like this but since its a victory chit card, it should probably have a sort of wind-down mechanism in it (ie, when you add +2VP, trash the top two cards of your deck, so that you have to buy cards to keep it viable and it runs out the supply that way) other than self-trashing.
I mean, it trashes itself, and there are combos that allow you to keep this out for a long time, but all of them I can think of also deplete piles (Mandarin, or stuff with Armory or Watchtower).
Here's an infinite loop without gaining:

You have 15 Estates which are Inherited Captains. At the start for your turn, 5 Estates are in play, 5 Estates are in your hand, and 5 Estates are in your discard. You play the 5 Estates playing Mountain Villages and drawing Estates. Now you have 10 Estates in hand. You play 5 Estates playing Counts (there's a Ferry token on there) topdecking the other 5 Estates. Repeat.

Not exactly a situation that needs to be addressed, but it was a fun thought experiment.

You'd also need to initially reduce the cost of Captain down to \$4 to be inherited. I guess your scenario calls for Ferry though, so it could still work, just with one extra step.
Logged

#### spineflu

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 533
• +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
• Respect: +317
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3084 on: August 07, 2019, 08:24:31 pm »
0

...
a line of errata text might be good, explicitly say that. Or maybe, "at the end of the game, remove all VP tokens on this; they are lost and gone forever" or something.

Eck, adding more text for clarity is always hard for me, but yes, I think you're correct. I expanded the bottom italics to read:
(This stays in play until you shuffle and the VP on this is not yours until then.)

How does that sound?

sounds good to me

#### Fragasnap

• Duke
• Offline
• Posts: 392
• Respect: +573
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3085 on: August 07, 2019, 08:41:19 pm »
+1

Fishmonger
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: \$5
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy
While this is in play, at the start of your turn, +1 Buy and Action cards cost \$1 less during your turn (but no less than \$0). This stays in play until any player, including you, has 6 Action cards in play. Set it aside and discard it during Clean-up.
I suppose your idea is that you want to race to put 6 Action cards in play so you can turn Fishmonger into a worse Market Square for the player of it. Unfortunately, I think the play-pattern might be more of a Fishmonger rush. I mean, 5 Fishmongers gives you 6 Actions each costing up to \$5 every turn until you decide to play anything: And player 1 is going to be able to set that up much more reliably than player 2. I have to imaging that, if you are the better player, getting 6 \$5-gains will just reveal the better player faster. I imagine even if you can't get to the 5-Fishmonger dream, games will be very fast with so many +Buys and cost-reduction flying about in the early turns.

Quote
Commodity
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: \$5
If you have an even number of Commodities in play, \$2; Otherwise \$1. +\$ based on the current position of the Market Demand track.
On your next turn, +\$1. When you discard this from play, lower the Market Demand track one step.
Setup: In games using this, include the Market Demand track when setting up the Kingdom.
Quote
Market Demand
\$0,\$1,\$1,\$2,\$2,\$3,\$3
Setup: Place a coin token on the right-most space of the track. When a card instructs you to lower the track, move the coin token to the next space on the left.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, this begins producing \$4 and eventually produces \$1. Why even bother counting the number of Commodities you have in play? I'd never buy more than one: The first 2 plays are better than Gold, but from then on it is a degrading Gold, so if I needed a Gold I'd have it by then. With +\$4 how wouldn't you have Gold?
Even worse, in multiplayer games, only 2 plays get to be +\$4, so players 3 and 4 are going to be in a really bad position.

Source
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: \$4
At the start of each of your turns, you may turn this card by 90° clockwise for +\$1, +1 Action, or +1 Buy. If this is upright after rotation, discard this.
Making the effect optional could be neat, but the effects are not nearly situational enough to make holding on to Source ever worthwhile. You will almost always use it every turn, so you've injected a bunch of complexity into the card to make it optional when it won't really matter.

Sacred Fire
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: \$3
+\$2. You may trash a card.
At the start of each of your turns, you may trash a card for +\$1. If you don't, discard this from play and gain a Curse. (This stays in play)
You need to specify where the trashed card is when you trash it.
I imagine Sacred Fire's 1-3 more down turns than Cathedral, does not offset the fact that you get money from Sacred Fire. It is definitely too strong. Either way though, not trashing with Sacred Fire is such a bad option that it may as well be permanent.

Settlement
Types: Night, Duration
Cost: \$7
If this is the first time you played a Settlement this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one, and do not discard cards from play during your Clean-up Phase this turn.
This will be way stronger in the average Kingdom than Outpost (so much so that swinging to it early will be a game decider, it will be so good at stabilizing a deck), but much weaker than Outpost in the ideal Kingdoms. At its most abusive, you could play your deck in two halves, but that would typically be quite inconsistent (excepting setting aside exactly what you need to draw, making Settlement functionally read as a worse "+1 Buy").
I would find it more compelling if it wasn't limited to once per turn--especially with its cost of \$7. If you don't discard cards from play, you'll eventually run out of cards.
Why is it a Night card, by the by?

Veto
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: <4>
+2 Cards.
While this is in play, Vetos cost \$1 more. When anyone plays a card costing \$4 or less, you may discard this. If you do, they play that card as a different card with the same cost or a cheaper card of their choice from the supply. It is that card until it leaves play.
I think it is worth noting all the awful complexities of Band of Misfits that are probably going to get removed in second edition (and we are still waiting to see how). It will probably change into a Captain sort of wording instead.
This will probably be best to use as a cheap source of draw and then Band of Misfits your own cards, unless you can typically use it to completely shut down engines, in which case we just play money.
Why does it make itself more expensive? It has no real mechanical reason to do so.

Keyring
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: \$4
Choose one of the Locked piles. That pile is in the Kingdom while this is in play. Now and at the start of your next turn: +\$1, +1 Buy.
Setup: Set aside 3 additional Kingdom piles as Locked piles.
I believe it should put the piles into the "Supply," not the "Kingdom."
I think this is really weak. Players will often buy it because it is a non-terminal source of +Buy, but if that isn't important, players will receive incredibly similar benefit from it without having to buy a \$4 Copper. Point being, this can probably cost \$2.

Reward
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: \$4
\$1. At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards, then discard 2 cards.
Effectively worse than Dungeon? If the sifting was going to be useful, I'd much rather have more sifting than a Copper.

Charlatan
Types: Action, Duration, Attack
Cost: \$3
+1 Buy. Until your next turn, when another player buys a card, they choose a card they have in play and exchange it for a card costing at most the same as the chosen card with a different type. If they didn't, they return the bought card to the supply. At the start of your next turn: Gain a Silver to your hand.
Exchanging I'm pretty sure needs to mention that it comes from the Supply (Changeling doesn't mention it because it has to exchange for a Changeling).
Others talked about this one. It seems to me that this effect will either be a largely a benefit to the recipient, and will otherwise completely degenerate the game.

Customs
Types: Night, Duration, Attack
Cost: \$4
Gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals their hand and sets aside a card that you choose face-up (on this). At the start of your next turn, each other player puts the card they set aside into their hand.
I think it's too much. First of all, the effect this has on the opponent's next turn is actually worse than Pillage; with Pillage, they at least have the chance to redraw the discarded card. More importantly however, this sets itself up to be stackable: play Customs one turn, and you will be able to attack with 2 Customs on the following turn. I think this is going to be too crippling.
Hm... the fact that one would have to have N*2 Customs to juggle N cards out of your deck forever and the fact that for your N*2 Customs you will also have N Spoils (because you can't get rid of the Spoils the turn you gain them) (which ends up being a lot of stop cards), I'm not sure I agree.
If it was so much a problem, you could probably fix it by bumping Customs to \$5 and having it gain Gold. That would also make Customs even less like Pillage.

Man in Black
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: \$4
Gain 3 Silvers under this. While any cards are under this, at the start of each of your turns, put one of them into your hand. If none remain after, trash this and gain a Curse.
While this is in play, when you gain a Treasure, you may set it aside under this.
Silver flooding is generally pretty underrated. This I imagine will be quite good in slower games, as you can stave it off longer by buying Gold. Without some way to reliably Gold-flood and something to do with that Gold though, I'm not sure how often players will be able to handle the 4 stop cards--especially because its strongest use implies gaining even more Treasures.

Mine Worker
Types: Action, Duration, Reaction
Cost: \$5
Now and at the start of your next turn: you may trash a Victory Card from your hand, to gain a card costing up to \$3 more than it. If you don't, you may discard your hand for +5 Cards.
Before resolving the effect of a Duration at the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, the duration will stay in play and effect will occur the start of your next turn as opposed to this turn.
In games using this, when you start a turn with 3 or more Durations in play, you may gain a Duchy or 3 Estates.
I like the Reaction idea. It definitely has to be married to a Duration effect that you would actually want to delay, which this is. I'm not convinced that it will be as boring as Rebuild: I imagine trashing Estates for \$5 cards other than Mine Worker will generally be better than trying to do any kind of Duchy->Province rush with this.
The In-Games-Using-This effect is too much though. You're not only adding significantly more text to a card that hardly needs more, it's also an effect that will be either trivial (lots of Duration cards are spam-friendly) or virtually impossible when it is the only Duration around.

Wonder
Types: Night, Duration
Cost: <8>
At the start of each of your turns, if this is in play, add 2VP to this. The next time you shuffle your deck, trash this and take the VP.
This is gained to your hand. (This stays in play until you shuffle)
Mitigating the super-rare abuse cases by not giving VP to the player immediately I don't think is worth the added complexity.
In a way, it kind of reads like 2VP per 5 cards in your deck, which is 4 times the points of Gardens, but it's sideways from that because it requires turns to payout and the latter Wonders are worth fewer VP as you slog through your Wonder-turns. I worry mostly that, whenever this is relevant, setting up the multi-Wonder turns will be too swingy. You can buy a Wonder on turn 1, pay it off within those two turns to get a second Wonder on turn 2, and turn 3, and so on; but in a large deck, that will be unreliable.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

#### Commodore Chuckles

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1070
• Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
• Respect: +1415
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3086 on: August 07, 2019, 10:45:21 pm »
0

Keyring
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: \$4
Choose one of the Locked piles. That pile is in the Kingdom while this is in play. Now and at the start of your next turn: +\$1, +1 Buy.
Setup: Set aside 3 additional Kingdom piles as Locked piles.
I believe it should put the piles into the "Supply," not the "Kingdom."
I think this is really weak. Players will often buy it because it is a non-terminal source of +Buy, but if that isn't important, players will receive incredibly similar benefit from it without having to buy a \$4 Copper. Point being, this can probably cost \$2.

Yes, you're right, "Supply" is better.

I also agree that I made it too expensive, but I think it's definitely too good for \$2. It's a Silver, with the minus that some \$ is delayed, but the plus of +Buys and giving strategic and tactical options regarding what people can gain. I'll make it \$3.

« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 10:51:23 pm by Commodore Chuckles »
Logged

#### Gubump

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 765
• Respect: +504
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3087 on: August 07, 2019, 11:03:31 pm »
+1

Changing my submission. This is my new one.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Raised price to and added cost limit to prevent OPness in Platinum games.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 05:31:21 pm by Gubump »
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

#### Gubump

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 765
• Respect: +504
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3088 on: August 07, 2019, 11:06:34 pm »
0

Keyring
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: \$4
Choose one of the Locked piles. That pile is in the Kingdom while this is in play. Now and at the start of your next turn: +\$1, +1 Buy.
Setup: Set aside 3 additional Kingdom piles as Locked piles.
I believe it should put the piles into the "Supply," not the "Kingdom."
I think this is really weak. Players will often buy it because it is a non-terminal source of +Buy, but if that isn't important, players will receive incredibly similar benefit from it without having to buy a \$4 Copper. Point being, this can probably cost \$2.

Yes, you're right, "Supply" is better.

I also agree that I made it too expensive, but I think it's definitely too good for \$2. It's a Silver, with the minus that some \$ is delayed, but the plus of +Buys and giving strategic and tactical options regarding what people can gain. I'll make it \$3.

I actually strongly disagree with it costing only . It's very similar to my Travelling Shop, which has been fairly thoroughly playtested by now, and Keyring is enough stronger most of the time that I think it has to cost . (The current version of Travelling Shop puts the Items in the Supply instead of only enabling buying them, but still costs .) The only comparison between the two that is unfavorable towards Keyring is that Keyring only unlocks one of the extra piles, but other than that it's a now and next-turn Travelling Shop.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 11:13:07 pm by Gubump »
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

#### NoMoreFun

• Torturer
• Offline
• Posts: 1590
• Respect: +1222
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3089 on: August 07, 2019, 11:25:53 pm »
+1

Note: Another version involving treasure was posted earlier in this thread and deleted - this is my submission.

Edit: +1 Action added to give you a chance to use a workshop variant or other Action to give you a better chance of gaining a card the first turn you play it. I don't think it's more interesting if people open MIB/Silver compared to MIB/Action

Man in Black
Action - Duration
+1 Action
Gain a Curse, set it aside under this.
While any cards are set aside under this, at the start of each of your turns, put one into your hand, then discard this from play if none remain.
---
While this is in play, when you gain an Action card, you may set it aside under this.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 06:21:45 pm by NoMoreFun »
Logged

#### segura

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 563
• Respect: +256
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3090 on: August 08, 2019, 02:53:12 am »
0

Fishmonger
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: \$5
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy
While this is in play, at the start of your turn, +1 Buy and Action cards cost \$1 less during your turn (but no less than \$0). This stays in play until any player, including you, has 6 Action cards in play. Set it aside and discard it during Clean-up.
I suppose your idea is that you want to race to put 6 Action cards in play so you can turn Fishmonger into a worse Market Square for the player of it. Unfortunately, I think the play-pattern might be more of a Fishmonger rush. I mean, 5 Fishmongers gives you 6 Actions each costing up to \$5 every turn until you decide to play anything: And player 1 is going to be able to set that up much more reliably than player 2. I have to imaging that, if you are the better player, getting 6 \$5-gains will just reveal the better player faster. I imagine even if you can't get to the 5-Fishmonger dream, games will be very fast with so many +Buys and cost-reduction flying about in the early turns.
Good point, this monostrategy is something to watch out for (respectively something to test easily).
But in the presence of sifters, trashers or junkers, a deck of merely Fishmongers is unlikely the dominant strategy. And even if your deck had 5 Fishmongers, it is highly unlikely that you can play them all if your deck contains no sifters or trashers.

That's why I think that the likelihood of this scenario ever emerging is close to zero. Fishmonger is only worth it if the Kingdom enables an engine. Yet if it enables an engine, you want to build up your draw, sifting, trashing or junking power at the same time or earlier as building up your gaining power via gaining more Fishmongers.
Logged

#### pubby

• Tactician
• Offline
• Posts: 403
• Respect: +707
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3091 on: August 08, 2019, 04:14:51 am »
0

OK here's the updated version of Customs. Now it uses a mat for simpler tracking. This changes the semantics slightly in multiplayer games, but it all works out for the better.

I've thought through the strategy of it. Against a draw-your-deck engine, you want to alternate between giving your opponent 4-card dud hands and giving your opponent big 6+ card hands. Typically this means playing with only 1 Customs in your deck. Alternatively, you can play with 3 where you play 1, then 2, then 0 per turn, repeatedly, but that opens yourself up to duds with all the stop cards. You could bump up to 6 and go 1, 2, 3, 0, but man, that's suicide without huge draw.

Against big money, you use an even number, playing the same number each turn. Your opponent will remain at 5 cards in hand, but will have worse distribution. This has the opposite of money smoothing. Perhaps call it money roughing? You want to give them lots of \$2, \$5, and \$7 hands - the worst numbers to have in money.
Logged

#### majiponi

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 577
• Respect: +468
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3092 on: August 08, 2019, 05:53:08 am »
0

cost \$4 - Night - Duration
Set aside a card (under this). At the start of your next turn, if it's an...
Action card, gain a copy of it, playing immediately
Victory card, +1vp
Treasure card, gain a Gold.
Discard the set asided card afterwards.
Logged

#### spineflu

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 533
• +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
• Respect: +317
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3093 on: August 08, 2019, 08:52:48 am »
0

Quote
Commodity
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: \$5
If you have an even number of Commodities in play, \$2; Otherwise \$1. +\$ based on the current position of the Market Demand track.
On your next turn, +\$1. When you discard this from play, lower the Market Demand track one step.
Setup: In games using this, include the Market Demand track when setting up the Kingdom.
Quote
Market Demand
\$0,\$1,\$1,\$2,\$2,\$3,\$3
Setup: Place a coin token on the right-most space of the track. When a card instructs you to lower the track, move the coin token to the next space on the left.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, this begins producing \$4 and eventually produces \$1. Why even bother counting the number of Commodities you have in play? I'd never buy more than one: The first 2 plays are better than Gold, but from then on it is a degrading Gold, so if I needed a Gold I'd have it by then. With +\$4 how wouldn't you have Gold?
Even worse, in multiplayer games, only 2 plays get to be +\$4, so players 3 and 4 are going to be in a really bad position.
The commodity track decreases when it's discarded from play - if four players would all open 5/2 and get their commodity in hand on turn 3, each would be worth \$4, and then as each of their next turns resolves, the commodity track plummets.

Do you think it was more interesting with the first revision, where it's worth the number of them you have in play plus the market demand track? (ie,
play one = 0 + MD
play a second = 0 + 1 + 2*MD
a third = 0 + 1 + 2 + 3*MD
etc)
« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 09:32:09 am by spineflu »
Logged

#### 4est

• Young Witch
• Offline
• Posts: 149
• Respect: +509
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3094 on: August 08, 2019, 11:24:22 am »
+1

Here's my submission this week: Prisoner, an Action-Attack-Duration. You "imprison" a card from your hand this turn to play it at the start of your turn next turn, like Summon (though this can play Treasures too, not just Actions).  During other players turns, when they play a copy of the imprisoned card, they must first discard a card.  It hurts you the turn you play it, as it's terminal and you forgo playing the imprisoned card this turn.  You get back what you put in though--playing a Copper at the start of your next turn is meh, but playing a strong action can be very powerful.  The attack can be brutal or non-existent, depending on what you set aside and what the other player decides to play.  The balance of deciding what's best to punish the other player for playing vs. what's best to play next turn vs. what you need to play this turn can create some tough decisions.
Logged

#### artless

• Steward
• Offline
• Posts: 27
• Respect: +28
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3095 on: August 08, 2019, 11:33:29 am »
0

Armor
\$4 Treasure - Victory - Duration

+2\$
---
1VP
---
When another player plays an attack card, you may call this, to be unaffected by it.
Logged

#### segura

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 563
• Respect: +256
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3096 on: August 08, 2019, 11:35:31 am »
0

Armor
\$4 Treasure - Victory - Duration

+2\$
---
1VP
---
When another player plays an attack card, you may call this, to be unaffected by it.
You can only call Reserve cards.
Logged

#### spineflu

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 533
• +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
• Respect: +317
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3097 on: August 08, 2019, 11:42:39 am »
0

I'm revising my entry. It can be "tighter" and also use the non-1:1-ness of the MD track.

Quote
Commodity - Treasure/Duration - \$5
If you have a Commodity in play, increase the Market Demand track one step.

\$1 plus \$ based on the current position of the Market Demand track.
-
When you discard this from play, lower the Market Demand track one step.
-
Setup: In games using this, include the Market Demand track when setting up the Kingdom.

(no revisions to Market Demand track)
« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 11:55:16 am by spineflu »
Logged

#### Fly-Eagles-Fly

• Duke
• Offline
• Posts: 371
• Respect: +158
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3098 on: August 08, 2019, 11:47:22 am »
0

Changing my submission. This is my new one.
This seems too strong compared to Merchant Ship. Worst case scenario this gives an average of \$2 over three turns, though it is not strictly better. It should probably cost at least \$5.
Logged

#### Fly-Eagles-Fly

• Duke
• Offline
• Posts: 371
• Respect: +158
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3099 on: August 08, 2019, 11:50:55 am »
+1

I'm revising my entry. It can be "tighter" and also use the non-1:1-ness of the MD track.

Quote
Commodity - Treasure/Duration - \$5
If you have a Commodity in play, increase the Market Demand track one step.

\$1 plus \$ based on the current position of the Market Demand track.
-