Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 123 124 [125] 126 127 ... 143  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 95535 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 360
  • Respect: +149
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3100 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.
-
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.

(no revisions to Market Demand track)
Looks good. I think it should say "At the start of your next turn", and maybe should have a ?$ in the top corners.
Logged

spineflu

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
  • Play a spineflu from your hand twice.
  • Respect: +45
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3101 on: August 08, 2019, 11:57:13 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.
-
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.

(no revisions to Market Demand track)
Looks good. I think it should say "At the start of your next turn", and maybe should have a ?$ in the top corners.
good call; fixes made.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1008
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1307
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3102 on: August 08, 2019, 05:33:59 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.

You seem to be forgetting that Keyring gives opponents access to the pile as well.
Logged

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 606
  • Respect: +343
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3103 on: August 08, 2019, 05:40:45 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.

You seem to be forgetting that Keyring gives opponents access to the pile as well.

I realized that shortly after I posted my previous comment. It's probably fine at .
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

Kudasai

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 419
  • Respect: +212
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3104 on: August 08, 2019, 06:05:23 pm »
+1

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.

I should note this cares about how many start of turns you have in between shuffles so the equation is more like ((#Cards / 5) - 1) * 2VP. Early on this means you'd get 2VP per shuffle, not 4VP, so in the start of game situation you show it's about twice as good as Gardens at twice the price. Wonder does start to scale much better than Gardens though and that's mainly why I want a shuffle to occur to get the VP tokens.

The luck issue of getting 2 Wonders in play immediately after your reshuffle is unfortunate, but for now I'm not too concerned. Good reshuffle management should go a long way here. Also, luck for better or worse is apart of the game. Play testing should reveal a lot though.

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis!
« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 06:09:33 pm by Kudasai »
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
  • Respect: +50
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3105 on: August 09, 2019, 12:59:01 am »
+1

Here's something that feels kind of off to me and therefore kind of Promotion-ly



Council Chamber lets you turn a card into a council room, so that you get the bonus when other people play that card. This comes at the cost of having to "lose" a copy of that card to be set aside underneath this. So, if it's a good card people want to play often, well, you're going to have to get rid of your copy of that good card.

It comes at the further "cost" of forcing you to trash a card that's in play when you yourself play a copy. This seems like a strength, but often trashing in-play cards is not ideal. Sometimes the only in-play card you will have to trash will be Council Chamber. The Council Chamber led to its own demise! This is intentional! A few rare times you'll be able to make use of this ability, like if you have ruins you want to trash or if you used some shenanigans to get coppers in play (villa, storyteller).

Without mentioning Night cards directly, Council Chamber works with them just fine. Night cards are nice because they'll let you trash coppers you have in play! Treasures work too, but you can't choose copper -- that turns out to be just too powerful. You get way too many +cards and you also turn all of your coppers into a sort of monastery. That would be over powered.

You can also set aside victory cards. That doesn't seem that useful... it's an expensive Island. However, you can set aside an estate and if other players have bought inheritances... that could be fun.

---------

I'm open to feedback on this. There's a lot of directions to go that are unclear. I could have limited it saying "non-treasure." I could be convinced to do that. I think saying "Action card" is less interesting, I like the ability to make this an Island or have a fun interaction with night cards.
I like the trashing part of this, but perhaps it weakens it too much. It also makes setting aside treasures under this a lot more powerful for the trashing copper ability, is that a problem?. On the other hand, I think the weakening might be important.

Also open to ways to re-word this to clarify it.

I'm now considering doing away with weakening the card with the trash in-play mechanic and then costing it at 6...
« Last Edit: August 09, 2019, 01:10:03 am by anordinaryman »
Logged

faust

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2556
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +3531
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3106 on: August 09, 2019, 01:31:17 am »
+2

I'm open to feedback on this. There's a lot of directions to go that are unclear. I could have limited it saying "non-treasure." I could be convinced to do that. I think saying "Action card" is less interesting, I like the ability to make this an Island or have a fun interaction with night cards.
I like the trashing part of this, but perhaps it weakens it too much. It also makes setting aside treasures under this a lot more powerful for the trashing copper ability, is that a problem?. On the other hand, I think the weakening might be important.

Also open to ways to re-word this to clarify it.

I'm now considering doing away with weakening the card with the trash in-play mechanic and then costing it at 6...
I think a problem is that this card forces mirror matches, which generally speaking is not a lot of fun. If you have a lot of cards that your opponent doesn't, you open yourself to them playing Council Chamber.

Also, the way it is currently worded, the "When a copy of that card is played" effect happens only on the turn you play it. It needs a "while this is in play" clause.
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.

spineflu

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
  • Play a spineflu from your hand twice.
  • Respect: +45
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3107 on: August 09, 2019, 09:17:37 am »
+1

...


...

You can also set aside victory cards. That doesn't seem that useful... it's an expensive Island. However, you can set aside an estate and if other players have bought inheritances... that could be fun.

---------

I'm open to feedback on this. There's a lot of directions to go that are unclear. I could have limited it saying "non-treasure." I could be convinced to do that. I think saying "Action card" is less interesting, I like the ability to make this an Island or have a fun interaction with night cards.
I like the trashing part of this, but perhaps it weakens it too much. It also makes setting aside treasures under this a lot more powerful for the trashing copper ability, is that a problem?. On the other hand, I think the weakening might be important.

Also open to ways to re-word this to clarify it.

I'm now considering doing away with weakening the card with the trash in-play mechanic and then costing it at 6...

There's a (major-issue-but-miniscule-opportunity-for-it-to-happen) phrasing issue with "copy" as you've got it on the card.
I think this was probably brought up in the Inheritance/BoM thread but Inheritance breaks a rule of Dominion, which is that cards with the same name are the same - in this case, if you'd set aside an Estate, and your opponent inherited a card, their Estates would no longer be copies of yours (unless you would also inherit the same card). You could get around this by changing your card to say "[...]. When a card with that title is played:[...]" but idk if that would work with like... setting aside a BoM or Overlord, because they shapeshift their title too.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
  • Respect: +50
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3108 on: August 09, 2019, 01:39:48 pm »
0

I'm open to feedback on this. There's a lot of directions to go that are unclear. I could have limited it saying "non-treasure." I could be convinced to do that. I think saying "Action card" is less interesting, I like the ability to make this an Island or have a fun interaction with night cards.
I like the trashing part of this, but perhaps it weakens it too much. It also makes setting aside treasures under this a lot more powerful for the trashing copper ability, is that a problem?. On the other hand, I think the weakening might be important.

Also open to ways to re-word this to clarify it.

I'm now considering doing away with weakening the card with the trash in-play mechanic and then costing it at 6...
I think a problem is that this card forces mirror matches, which generally speaking is not a lot of fun. If you have a lot of cards that your opponent doesn't, you open yourself to them playing Council Chamber.

Also, the way it is currently worded, the "When a copy of that card is played" effect happens only on the turn you play it. It needs a "while this is in play" clause.

Ah yes. Thank you for the word update! I will make that for v2. I am wondering why you think this forces mirror matches? If anything I think this card discourages mirrors.

The presence of the card (without anyone purchasing it) encourages variety. If I build a deck of 6 Hunting Parties, my opponent can get a lot more benefit if they buy a council chamber, than if I built a deck of 3 labs and 3 Hunting Parties. So, I feel that Council Chamber encourages spreading out across the Kingdom which is less of mirroring and more of a Use-everything-in-the-Kingdom. I even think it discourages mirroring. Compare two draw engines one is draw-to-x like festival/library and one is more like village/smithy. In a mirror, we both compete for the same cards. If I want to council chamber a festival, well, I then have to lose one of my festivals, and that's going to hurt my engine if I'm mirroring and also doing the draw-to-x engine. However, it doesn't hurt me nearly as bad if I go the opposite route. Sure, I need to buy 1 copy of the card I want to council chamber, but that is more considered part of the cost of this card and I don't think that forces an entire mirroring. Lastly, because of the trash an in-play card, having a Council Chamber in play (most of the time) makes you playing the same card as your opponent a lot worse because you'll have to sacrifice actions to play it. This is another factor that makes it anti-mirror.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2019, 01:45:33 pm by anordinaryman »
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
  • Respect: +50
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3109 on: August 09, 2019, 01:44:24 pm »
+1

...


...

You can also set aside victory cards. That doesn't seem that useful... it's an expensive Island. However, you can set aside an estate and if other players have bought inheritances... that could be fun.

---------

I'm open to feedback on this. There's a lot of directions to go that are unclear. I could have limited it saying "non-treasure." I could be convinced to do that. I think saying "Action card" is less interesting, I like the ability to make this an Island or have a fun interaction with night cards.
I like the trashing part of this, but perhaps it weakens it too much. It also makes setting aside treasures under this a lot more powerful for the trashing copper ability, is that a problem?. On the other hand, I think the weakening might be important.

Also open to ways to re-word this to clarify it.

I'm now considering doing away with weakening the card with the trash in-play mechanic and then costing it at 6...

There's a (major-issue-but-miniscule-opportunity-for-it-to-happen) phrasing issue with "copy" as you've got it on the card.
I think this was probably brought up in the Inheritance/BoM thread but Inheritance breaks a rule of Dominion, which is that cards with the same name are the same - in this case, if you'd set aside an Estate, and your opponent inherited a card, their Estates would no longer be copies of yours (unless you would also inherit the same card). You could get around this by changing your card to say "[...]. When a card with that title is played:[...]" but idk if that would work with like... setting aside a BoM or Overlord, because they shapeshift their title too.

Good find! I am definitely not well-versed and all the BoM/Overlord/Inheritance implications and subtle rulings. So, as written right now, the card doesn't work for inherited estates? Interesting. What if I tried "When a card from that pile is played?" That would make it work for split-piles too. And it would continue to work for non-supply piles. Would it work on estates then? Hm, I wonder whether cards in your starting hand are considered from that pile? Right now there are no Dominion cards that switch which pile a card is from, but there's the perpetual fan-favorite card that hides a supply pile by putting a card on top of it. That's a case that would probably require massive errata but hey I don't have to worry about cards that don't exist!
Logged

spineflu

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
  • Play a spineflu from your hand twice.
  • Respect: +45
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3110 on: August 09, 2019, 01:56:40 pm »
+1

@anordinaryman:

card from that pile would work (and count for the estates, inherited or otherwise, since ambassador tracks that correctly, and make it work for Knights/Ruins, and maybe even cards from the Black Market deck??? I'm not super well versed in Black Market rules); would probably fail with shelters and also if someone manages to pull a zombie from the trash, i think, since there's no pile, but that's such a niche case idk if you'd actually have to worry about it.

minor update: would not work with cards purchased from the black market deck that aren't otherwise in the kingdom, as they have no pile, per this thread
« Last Edit: August 09, 2019, 02:35:51 pm by spineflu »
Logged

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 606
  • Respect: +343
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3111 on: August 09, 2019, 02:50:13 pm »
+2

Changing my submission again and for hopefully the last time.

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

polot38

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
  • Respect: +35
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3112 on: August 09, 2019, 03:23:56 pm »
0

Future sight
$4
Action-duration

---
When you play this, put a coin counter, a draw counter, and an action counter on it. At the start of each turn, remove up to 2 counters from this card and gain their corresponding bonuses.
---

Basically, you get a +draw, a +action, and a +coin to use during your next turns.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1008
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1307
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3113 on: August 09, 2019, 05:52:16 pm »
0

Future sight
$4
Action-duration

---
When you play this, put a coin counter, a draw counter, and an action counter on it. At the start of each turn, remove up to 2 counters from this card and gain their corresponding bonuses.
---

Basically, you get a +draw, a +action, and a +coin to use during your next turns.

Does this stay in play for the whole game, or get discarded when all the counters are off? I think you'll have to explicitly mention it either way.
Logged

alion8me

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +21
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3114 on: August 10, 2019, 01:40:00 pm »
+2


Quote
Cultivate v2

+1 Card
+1 Action
-
At the start of your next turn, you may reveal and discard a victory card from your hand. If you do, +1 Card, + $1.

$3
Action - Duration
Quote
Cultivate (old)

+1 Card
+1 Action
-
At the start of your next turn, you may reveal and discard a victory card from your hand. If you do, +1 Card, + $1.

$3
Action - Duration
« Last Edit: August 11, 2019, 12:45:09 pm by alion8me »
Logged

King Leon

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 451
  • Respect: +356
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3115 on: August 10, 2019, 10:12:58 pm »
0


Quote
Cultivate

+1 Card
+1 Action
-
At the start of your next turn, you may reveal and discard a victory card from your hand. If you do, +1 Card, + $1.

$2
Action - Duration

This is a way too strong for a $2 card. I believe, this should cost somewhere between $3 and $4.
Logged

naitchman

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 139
  • Respect: +98
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3116 on: August 10, 2019, 11:31:08 pm »
+1


Quote
Cultivate

+1 Card
+1 Action
-
At the start of your next turn, you may reveal and discard a victory card from your hand. If you do, +1 Card, + $1.

$2
Action - Duration

This is a way too strong for a $2 card. I believe, this should cost somewhere between $3 and $4.

I doubt it. At best it's nothing this turn and next turn play a victory card as if it were a peddler. That's obviously worse than 4. If you don't have a victory in those 5 cards it's nothing. Absent of decks with nobles or mill or something along those lines, it will probably miss most of the time and these become weaker with each play. The fact that it's a duration also means it will miss the reshuffle more often and be played less often. Also the actual effect (playing a victory card as a peddler) is delayed which always lowers the cost (fishing village, a delayed Bazaar, costs only $3).

That being said, the effects are kind of vanilla. It's kind of plain for a promo.
Logged

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 606
  • Respect: +343
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3117 on: August 11, 2019, 12:10:53 am »
0


Quote
Cultivate

+1 Card
+1 Action
-
At the start of your next turn, you may reveal and discard a victory card from your hand. If you do, +1 Card, + $1.

$2
Action - Duration

This is a way too strong for a $2 card. I believe, this should cost somewhere between $3 and $4.

I doubt it. At best it's nothing this turn and next turn play a victory card as if it were a peddler. That's obviously worse than 4. If you don't have a victory in those 5 cards it's nothing. Absent of decks with nobles or mill or something along those lines, it will probably miss most of the time and these become weaker with each play. The fact that it's a duration also means it will miss the reshuffle more often and be played less often. Also the actual effect (playing a victory card as a peddler) is delayed which always lowers the cost (fishing village, a delayed Bazaar, costs only $3).

That being said, the effects are kind of vanilla. It's kind of plain for a promo.

I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

NoMoreFun

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
  • Respect: +1078
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3118 on: August 11, 2019, 12:48:57 am »
0


I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.

It's a big if though. Just say "better" if it's situational. "Strictly better" means it's better without any caveats.
Logged

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 606
  • Respect: +343
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3119 on: August 11, 2019, 10:53:22 am »
0


I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.

It's a big if though.

Not really. It's a pretty small if in the early game and in the greening stage, so you'd mainly be buying them early, which is when price matters most. I'd say it would be justified at .
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 668
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +864
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3120 on: August 11, 2019, 11:43:35 am »
0


I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.

It's a big if though.

Not really. It's a pretty small if in the early game and in the greening stage, so you'd mainly be buying them early, which is when price matters most. I'd say it would be justified at .

Even when you do trigger it it isn't strictly better than Caravan, you have to discard the victory.

My take on this is that it's probably too potent in the opening for a $2 cantrip, so I'd start it at $3.
Logged

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 606
  • Respect: +343
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3121 on: August 11, 2019, 12:10:17 pm »
0


I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.

It's a big if though.

Not really. It's a pretty small if in the early game and in the greening stage, so you'd mainly be buying them early, which is when price matters most. I'd say it would be justified at .

Even when you do trigger it it isn't strictly better than Caravan, you have to discard the victory.

My take on this is that it's probably too potent in the opening for a $2 cantrip, so I'd start it at $3.

Discarding Victories doesn't really mean much, though, unless it's one of the few Action or Treasure - Victory cards. They were just sitting in your hand doing nothing, anyway.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 668
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +864
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3122 on: August 11, 2019, 12:12:34 pm »
0


I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.

It's a big if though.

Not really. It's a pretty small if in the early game and in the greening stage, so you'd mainly be buying them early, which is when price matters most. I'd say it would be justified at .

Even when you do trigger it it isn't strictly better than Caravan, you have to discard the victory.

My take on this is that it's probably too potent in the opening for a $2 cantrip, so I'd start it at $3.

Discarding Victories doesn't really mean much, though, unless it's one of the few Action or Treasure - Victory cards. They were just sitting in your hand doing nothing, anyway.

It can totally mean much, if you trigger a shuffle then you'll have an extra dead card in there! And then there's all the card specific things like Shepherd or any trasher or whatever.
Logged

alion8me

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +21
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3123 on: August 11, 2019, 12:45:31 pm »
0


I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.

It's a big if though.

Not really. It's a pretty small if in the early game and in the greening stage, so you'd mainly be buying them early, which is when price matters most. I'd say it would be justified at .

Even when you do trigger it it isn't strictly better than Caravan, you have to discard the victory.

My take on this is that it's probably too potent in the opening for a $2 cantrip, so I'd start it at $3.

Discarding Victories doesn't really mean much, though, unless it's one of the few Action or Treasure - Victory cards. They were just sitting in your hand doing nothing, anyway.

It can totally mean much, if you trigger a shuffle then you'll have an extra dead card in there! And then there's all the card specific things like Shepherd or any trasher or whatever.

Thank ya'll for the feedback! I was wondering if people would think it was too strong at $2, it took me a while to decide on the price when I was writing it up.

This conversation made me want to simulate how the card would do on the first/second shuffle. It turns out that the card fires 88% of the time on turn 3 and 80% of the time on turn 3/4, assuming you buy one non-victory card per turn (which is obviously not always the case). I also did it with a 25 card deck (3 estates, 21 other cards, and one cultivate) and it still fires 52% of the time.

Those percentages are way higher than I thought they would be when writing the card up, which makes me agree with those who think Cultivate should cost $3 - I'm going back to edit my original submission to reflect that after this. Even with these rather large percentages I still don't think a cost of $4 is appropriate though, given how poorly the card works with any decent estate trashing.
Logged

Aquila

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 206
  • Respect: +184
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3124 on: August 11, 2019, 03:09:43 pm »
+2

Things look like things will stay on schedule, so there are 19 hours left until judgment.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 123 124 [125] 126 127 ... 143  All
 

Page created in 0.12 seconds with 22 queries.