Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 130 131 [132] 133 134 ... 327  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contests #1 - #100  (Read 1546287 times)

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

majiponi

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 823
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3275 on: August 21, 2019, 10:20:47 am »
0

Sponsor
cost $3 - Action
+$2
Each other player reveals a Treasure from their hand (or reveals they can't). You may gain a copy of that card. If you do, they do so, too.
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #41 - Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3276 on: August 21, 2019, 11:02:42 am »
+1



Quote
Executioner • Action • $5
The player to your left chooses one of the following for you to do:
Play an action card from your hand twice; or
Play a treasure card from your hand twice; or
Gain a card costing up to $4 and if it is an Action or Treasure, play it immediately.
This is a cool idea, except for the second option. At best, ignoring Platinum, Fortune and $5 Treasures which are situationally better than Gold, this is a terminal Gold for $5 which is not impressive. And this is conditional upon you actually having a Gold in your hand.
So I'd cut the second option. It is still weakish as the opponent will always pick the Crown option early in the game and the Summon option late in the game.

Ballroom from the Season set is similar to this idea but better implemented as you always get the Summon early and the Throne Room later.
Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Contest #41 - Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3277 on: August 21, 2019, 12:48:31 pm »
0



Quote
Executioner • Action • $5
The player to your left chooses one of the following for you to do:
Play an action card from your hand twice; or
+1 Buy, Play a treasure card from your hand three times; or
Gain a card costing up to $4 and if it is an Action or Treasure, play it immediately.
This is a cool idea, except for the second option. At best, ignoring Platinum, Fortune and $5 Treasures which are situationally better than Gold, this is a terminal Gold for $5 which is not impressive. And this is conditional upon you actually having a Gold in your hand.
So I'd cut the second option. It is still weakish as the opponent will always pick the Crown option early in the game and the Summon option late in the game.

Ballroom from the Season set is similar to this idea but better implemented as you always get the Summon early and the Throne Room later.

Would changing the second option to be "+1 Action, Play a treasure card from your hand twice" be sufficient? I'd considered the whole thing as a nonterminal (bumped the cost wayyyy up to compensate) but I kind of like having individual options be non-t~.

update: changed it to +1 Buy, Play a treasure card from your hand three times. Thank you for pointing that out.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 01:08:40 pm by spineflu »
Logged

pubby

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 548
  • Respect: +1046
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3278 on: August 21, 2019, 01:05:24 pm »
+1

bartender - love the idea but I have suggestions. I suggest moving the token when it's bought instead of at start of the game. I also suggest making a card you want multiples of. +$3 +Buy is a nice one-of but not much more than that.

alliance - seems like it's really good to prevent dud turns but I don't see much use beyond that. The benefit your opponent gets is better than what you get so it's not something you can buy just for fun.
Logged

Kudasai

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
  • Respect: +289
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3279 on: August 21, 2019, 01:31:19 pm »
0

Thank you so much! I really appreciated this contest, it made me think a lot about Dominion and balance and game-design. I hope this next contest can inspire people as yours inspired me.

We're going to take aim at one of the more common complaints of Dominion:

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE
Design a card or card-shaped thing that has non-attack player interaction baked into the mechanics of the card/card-shaped thing. I'd prefer original ideas of player interaction, so simply making a new artifact isn't likely to win this contest, but who knows, maybe if the interaction is interesting enough, it could win!

One of my favorite card concepts is Contraband. Lovely player interaction with non-obvious choices for what to limit what your opponent can buy. Can they afford a province this turn? What action card do they really need? Contraband pushes Dominion towards games being different depending on who is playing, rather than just what the Kingdom is. Contraband is too weak to often be useful, but the concept itself is tight. Some other cards with interesting interactions include Council Room, Lurker, Embargo, and Advisor/Envoy. Yes, Embargo would count for this contest.

I really don't want to mess up anybody's entries again. 24 hours before I start judging, I will make a post that has all the current entries. If I have made any mistakes, you will have 24 hours to reply to let me know my mistake (or make new submissions / submit new post updates to old ones). Once I make that post, I will not read anything before that post, so editing past posts will not help.

Would a Forager type card that cares about what's in the trash count? Since the trash is available to all.
Logged

Aquila

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 525
  • Respect: +764
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #41: non-Attack interaction
« Reply #3280 on: August 21, 2019, 04:53:10 pm »
+1



Right now I'm thinking of very few ideas that any play group of any size can use. Maybe I set myself too difficult a challenge here. So here's a card I've posted on the forum already but not in this exact form (terminal at $3), getting supply pile blocking to work using a State. You gain a card, and its being trashed takes priority over anything else that affects where it goes (Royal Seal, Watchtower, Nights gained to hand).
No State does this yet but if Targeted isn't a State what is it?

Edit: Targeted just trashes gains, removing returns to the pile or exchanges from it as well.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 04:32:03 am by Aquila »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #41: non-Attack interaction
« Reply #3281 on: August 21, 2019, 04:59:58 pm »
+2



Right now I'm thinking of very few ideas that any play group of any size can use. Maybe I set myself too difficult a challenge here. So here's a card I've posted on the forum already but not in this exact form (terminal at $3), getting supply pile blocking to work using a State. No State does this yet but if Targeted isn't a State what is it? Exchanged cards (vampire) would leave the pile and be trashed, and returned cards (encampment) enter it and would be trashed. Maybe too much wonkiness but I'm trying for simple cleanness.
And I'll say it again, if you want a fresh idea I will comply.

Considering how rare it is for a card to enter or leave a supply pile other then when that card is gained; it seems like it would make more sense just to have it be when -gain.

This feels too much like a less-fun version of Embargo.
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

Kudasai

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
  • Respect: +289
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3282 on: August 21, 2019, 06:49:25 pm »
+3

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE SUBMISSION



Well, this may automatically get dinked because its interactive part is conditional on having a trasher in the Kingdom. I think trashers are common enough though that this should rarely be an issue.

Trashing is such a powerful tool in Dominion that it is rarely passed up. I for one would like to see more cards that reward players for skipping trashing for a few turns. Shaman is my shot at such a card. Akin to Forager, the interactive part comes from forcing players to think a little harder about what cards they put in the trash. This plays a bit different with 3+ player games, but that's just how some cards are.

A few things to clarify:
(1) If neither the Treasure or Victory types have the most cards in the trash, as is the case when the games starts and when there is a tie, Shaman does not trash and does not give +$3 nor +3VP.
(2) If a non-Treasure or non-Victory type like Action has the most in the trash, Shaman does not trash and does not give +$3 nor 3VP.
(3) The type check happens before Shaman trashes, so if when played there are 3 Treasures in the trash and 2 Actions, Shaman would trash and give +$3. There would then be a tie between Treasures and Actions, so the next Shaman played would not trash.

Thanks for looking! 8)

Quote from: Kudasai
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
If the type with the most cards in the trash is:
Treasure, trash this for +$3;
Victory, trash this for +2VP.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 03:53:33 pm by Kudasai »
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1971
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3283 on: August 21, 2019, 09:00:16 pm »
+1


can i choose the same choice twice (and let everyone else load up on villagers/coffers)?

No. I was hoping I wouldn't have to explicitly spell that out because the wording would be messy.
Logged

Kudasai

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
  • Respect: +289
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
« Reply #3284 on: August 22, 2019, 01:32:54 am »
+2



The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.
I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

Buy 2 Moats? I actually like this type of interactivity. It's what makes Dominion interesting.
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3285 on: August 22, 2019, 02:06:52 am »
0



Right now I'm thinking of very few ideas that any play group of any size can use. Maybe I set myself too difficult a challenge here. So here's a card I've posted on the forum already but not in this exact form (terminal at $3), getting supply pile blocking to work using a State. No State does this yet but if Targeted isn't a State what is it? Exchanged cards (vampire) would leave the pile and be trashed, and returned cards (encampment) enter it and would be trashed. Maybe too much wonkiness but I'm trying for simple cleanness.
And I'll say it again, if you want a fresh idea I will comply.

Considering how rare it is for a card to enter or leave a supply pile other then when that card is gained; it seems like it would make more sense just to have it be when -gain.

This feels too much like a less-fun version of Embargo.
There is a significant mechanical difference between Curse tokens that stack and make the buying of cards progressively worse and a singular block token which moves among piles.
I like the new, terminal version of Ambush. With the old one, the blocking was more of an en passant thingy (hey, I want a non-terminal Silver so it is kind of neat that it comes with a little extra) whereas the terminal really puts it into the spotlight. Now I guess it leads to much "tighter" play in non-mirrors, especially with Alt-VP.
Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3286 on: August 22, 2019, 09:01:06 am »
0


can i choose the same choice twice (and let everyone else load up on villagers/coffers)?

No. I was hoping I wouldn't have to explicitly spell that out because the wording would be messy.
No worse than Pawn, surely? "Your choices must be different."
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
« Reply #3287 on: August 22, 2019, 09:23:51 am »
+1



The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.
I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

Buy 2 Moats? I actually like this type of interactivity. It's what makes Dominion interesting.

Yeah, I don't see any issue at all with the ability to set-aside a Moat and then attack. It's already just luck whether you have Moat in hand when your opponent plays an attack or not. And if you pull off this combo, it means you used your Delegate as a Moat; which is bad.
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

anordinaryman

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
  • Respect: +502
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3288 on: August 22, 2019, 12:28:56 pm »
+3


CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE
Design a card or card-shaped thing that has non-attack player interaction baked into the mechanics of the card/card-shaped thing.
[...]

Would a Forager type card that cares about what's in the trash count? Since the trash is available to all.

Stuff that cares about the trash in general, could count!
Forager would count, as would City (tracking a shared resource). However, both are pretty light on interaction and I don't think those cards would convince someone that Dominion isn't solitaire. Lurker is a better implementation of more direct interactivity with the trash, since it forces you to immediately think when you're playing the card, is it worth trashing something if they get it? Can I trash something they don't want? Messenger also puts some sort of similar interactivity in there -- what card do I want that my opponent does not. Can I adjust my strategy to differ from theirs so that I come ahead? That kind of thinking is clearly not solitaire!


can i choose the same choice twice (and let everyone else load up on villagers/coffers)?

No. I was hoping I wouldn't have to explicitly spell that out because the wording would be messy.

If I read the card as written, right now I would be able to choose the same choice twice. So, reword the card if you want to limit that.




Right now I'm thinking of very few ideas that any play group of any size can use. Maybe I set myself too difficult a challenge here. So here's a card I've posted on the forum already but not in this exact form (terminal at $3), getting supply pile blocking to work using a State. No State does this yet but if Targeted isn't a State what is it? Exchanged cards (vampire) would leave the pile and be trashed, and returned cards (encampment) enter it and would be trashed. Maybe too much wonkiness but I'm trying for simple cleanness.
And I'll say it again, if you want a fresh idea I will comply.

I don't need fresh ideas. As long as it hasn't won or been runner up in a contest yet.

This is a new event (by event I mean like on-buy is an event, on-gain is an event, on-trash etc), concerning when cards enter or leave the pile. Is this a separate event that occurs at a particular time? If so, what is its precedence with other events (return this to the supply event, on-gain event, on-buy event)? If you meant this to be a shortcut for cards that are gained from this pile or returned to this pile, I suggest using those words because those are the words that are already used in Dominion and then the normal event precedence applies (you get to choose which effect plays first when an event triggers two effects)

*meta note*: I am trying to ask questions for cards that have ambiguous effects this time around rather than just waiting for my final feedback. I'm not commenting on quality of cards into judgement though, just asking questions to clarify the card's intent.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2019, 12:41:19 pm by anordinaryman »
Logged

Kudasai

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
  • Respect: +289
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3289 on: August 22, 2019, 01:53:11 pm »
0

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE

My contribution:



Polymath
Action, $3
The player to your left selects a non-Duration Action card from the Supply that you haven't played this turn. Play that, leaving it there.

It uses the same mechanics as Captain for playing a card from the supply. On most boards there are action cards you probably are not interested in playing, like a Ruins or something that doesn't work that well from the supply, like Royal Carriage (just gives a new action). But by playing several of these, of first playing the cheap cards yourself you can get the effects of the Good Cards for a cheaper price (although maybe not the ones you like).

Seems very situational, but if played correctly could lead to amazing value for a $3 cost. Recognizing what boards this works on doesn't seem trivial, so abusing shouldn't be easy. Really nice looking card!
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3290 on: August 22, 2019, 02:53:15 pm »
0

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE

My contribution:



Polymath
Action, $3
The player to your left selects a non-Duration Action card from the Supply that you haven't played this turn. Play that, leaving it there.

It uses the same mechanics as Captain for playing a card from the supply. On most boards there are action cards you probably are not interested in playing, like a Ruins or something that doesn't work that well from the supply, like Royal Carriage (just gives a new action). But by playing several of these, of first playing the cheap cards yourself you can get the effects of the Good Cards for a cheaper price (although maybe not the ones you like).

Tracking might be an issue. Necromancer has the cards turn over so that you can tell which ones have already been played this turn; and that generally has a much smaller card pool to remember from than this. So you might need a similar turn upside down wording.
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

pst

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
  • Respect: +906
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3291 on: August 22, 2019, 04:09:55 pm »
0

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE

My contribution:



Polymath
Action, $3
The player to your left selects a non-Duration Action card from the Supply that you haven't played this turn. Play that, leaving it there.

It uses the same mechanics as Captain for playing a card from the supply. On most boards there are action cards you probably are not interested in playing, like a Ruins or something that doesn't work that well from the supply, like Royal Carriage (just gives a new action). But by playing several of these, of first playing the cheap cards yourself you can get the effects of the Good Cards for a cheaper price (although maybe not the ones you like).

Tracking might be an issue. Necromancer has the cards turn over so that you can tell which ones have already been played this turn; and that generally has a much smaller card pool to remember from than this. So you might need a similar turn upside down wording.

When I've tried it tracking was not a big problem.  We would remember what the previous Polymaths had done, and when there were many, which options were not chosen last time. We had to watch out for other played cards that had left the play area though. But all in all I don't think it was a bigger problem than remembering what options there are for Smuggler. I bit more complicated, but closer in time.
Logged

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1532
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1677
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
« Reply #3292 on: August 22, 2019, 04:24:37 pm »
+2



The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.
I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

Buy 2 Moats? I actually like this type of interactivity. It's what makes Dominion interesting.

Yeah, I don't see any issue at all with the ability to set-aside a Moat and then attack. It's already just luck whether you have Moat in hand when your opponent plays an attack or not. And if you pull off this combo, it means you used your Delegate as a Moat; which is bad.

The reason I take issue with it is because it can be a targeted attack. If multiple opponents reveal Moats, then which Moat you chose would become political.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
« Reply #3293 on: August 22, 2019, 04:55:12 pm »
0



The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.
I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

Buy 2 Moats? I actually like this type of interactivity. It's what makes Dominion interesting.

Yeah, I don't see any issue at all with the ability to set-aside a Moat and then attack. It's already just luck whether you have Moat in hand when your opponent plays an attack or not. And if you pull off this combo, it means you used your Delegate as a Moat; which is bad.

The reason I take issue with it is because it can be a targeted attack. If multiple opponents reveal Moats, then which Moat you chose would become political.
You could have all cards with that name get set aside
Logged

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1532
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1677
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
« Reply #3294 on: August 22, 2019, 05:09:06 pm »
0



The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.
I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

Buy 2 Moats? I actually like this type of interactivity. It's what makes Dominion interesting.

Yeah, I don't see any issue at all with the ability to set-aside a Moat and then attack. It's already just luck whether you have Moat in hand when your opponent plays an attack or not. And if you pull off this combo, it means you used your Delegate as a Moat; which is bad.

The reason I take issue with it is because it can be a targeted attack. If multiple opponents reveal Moats, then which Moat you chose would become political.
You could have all cards with that name get set aside

It would be too weak then.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3295 on: August 22, 2019, 05:59:28 pm »
0

Delegate
3$ Action
Each other player reveals her hand, then conceals an Action card from her hand for each corresponding copy you have in play.
Return this to your hand then replay this as if it were another non-Delegate Action card that is visible this way, making this that card until it leaves play.
If you didn't, +2 cards.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2019, 06:08:42 pm by popsofctown »
Logged

King Leon

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 478
  • Respect: +406
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3296 on: August 22, 2019, 06:04:24 pm »
+1

I was looking for a community pile and I found it: The everywhere loved Trash pile.

Trashing Copper and Estates just to get them back later? No problem. Looking for a combination with Lurker, and Remodellers or TfB? You got it. Here comes Antiquarian. It requires Potion for obvious reasons.



Antiquarian
Type: Event
Cost: $2P
Once per turn:
+1 Buy.
Choose one:
Trash up to two cards from your hand,
or gain up to two cards from the trash, setting them aside and put them into your hand at the start of your next turn.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2019, 06:14:37 pm by King Leon »
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2005
  • Respect: +2109
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3297 on: August 22, 2019, 06:39:28 pm »
+1



Climber
Action/Duration - $3
Until your next turn, at the start of every player's buy phase, if another player has more cards in hand than you, draw until you have the same number of cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card.

Clarifications: "Every player" means it includes your own buy phase.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 07:09:08 pm by NoMoreFun »
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1971
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3298 on: August 22, 2019, 08:07:14 pm »
+1



Removed ambiguity. Having "the choices must be different" between the other two turned out to be less awkward than I thought.

I'm starting to think this should only be $1. It looks pretty weak next to Pawn.
Logged

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3299 on: August 22, 2019, 08:20:40 pm »
+1

A weird idea off the top of my head. Not sure how well this would work, also really not sure about the theme.


Would you be open to a couple tweaks?

Yes always. I'll post 2.0 shortly.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 130 131 [132] 133 134 ... 327  All
 

Page created in 0.18 seconds with 21 queries.