Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 146 147 [148] 149 150 ... 327  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contests #1 - #100  (Read 1547468 times)

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

Kudasai

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
  • Respect: +289
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3675 on: October 02, 2019, 01:10:46 pm »
+1

CHALLENGE #46 - BUT IT WASN'T EVEN YOUR TURN - SUBMISSION



Examples: A player can choose Market 4. Market being the Kingdom card and 4 being the card position from the top. If another player (not you) gains the 4th Market, you reveal your secretly recorded note and you get 4VP tokens. More tokens are rewarded the further down a pile you choose as the risk is often greater. You can call the 10th Market going and maybe it never gets gained!

A few things to clarify:
-Card position - The top card of a pile is card position #1, the next card is card position #2 and so on.
-Secretly record - Can be any means of recording a card and position. Paper and pen or a phone work best.
-Kingdom cards - These are the 10 random cards selected for each game. They do not include the standard Victory cards and standard Treasure cards. So for instance you cannot choose the Province pile for Blockade.
-Kingdom card piles must be different and card positions must be different. So if you choose say Market 4, you cannot then choose Smithy 4 as the 4th card position can only be chosen once.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811873#msg811873
Blockade -Landmark
At the start of the game, secretly record 3 different Kingdom card piles and positions (from the top of that pile). When another player gains a card/position you recorded, reveal it for +1VP equal to its position.
While I'm not sure I can identify the equilibrium strategy, "the first time" only adds one word to the card and is probably overall helpful with respect to the concerning possible disincentive to ever buy Province in an Ambassador game.

Yes, Ambassador makes it possible to gain the same card/position twice or more in a game. Is this bad? I'm not sure, but I kind of like the interaction. It will rarely come up and even so once a player has revealed their card/position for VP points, everyone will know not to gain that card. This could lead to blocking piles, but again I kind of like this niche strategy.

As for the Province comment I don't follow.
My thinking is you select Duchess 10, piledrive the Duchesses, and hand them out to your opponent one at a time.  Your opponent will not "know not to gain the card", they should gain the card to hold you to 50 points instead of 100.
If both players select Duchess 10 I have no idea what happens but I'm scared.

if multiple players select Duchess 10, only the players who didn't gain the 10th Duchess get the +10vp
This landmark will play very differently with junkers vs without (but not Looters/Ruins - who'd make that gamble, that card 10 in the Ruin deck was a Ruined Market?); Idk if I dig the duality with it or if you'd want to change it to "when another player buys the card at that position" to make it more straightforward than "oh how can I throw the 12th Silver at my opponent"

Are Ruins considered Kingdom cards? I know Silvers are not and thus cannot be used with Blockade.

@popsofctown: When all players choose the same card/position it's a blockade!!! Nobody then wants to gain that card, but nobody will ever for sure know why.

I had not thought of the Blockade/Ambassador combo as being so abusable. I kind of still think this is a feature and not a flaw, but boy this could get out of hand. Maybe I should put in a "first time" clause.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2019, 01:15:49 pm by Kudasai »
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 #3676 on: October 02, 2019, 01:27:39 pm »
0

ah i guess not - my brain just filled in "Supply" instead of Kingdom.
Logged

Kudasai

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
  • Respect: +289
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3677 on: October 02, 2019, 01:30:51 pm »
+1

ah i guess not - my brain just filled in "Supply" instead of Kingdom.

Confirmed. Ruins are Special Basic cards and not Kingdom cards. I get the glossing over the Kingdom card part. I guess the term "Kingdom card" has been cut from expansions because nobody knew what it was since it's a term rarely used.
Logged

mad4math

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
  • Shuffle iT Username: madd4math
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3678 on: October 02, 2019, 01:45:17 pm »
+2

Con Man
Action - Attack - Reaction $4
+$1
+1 Buy
Each other player gains a Copper.
-----
When any player gains a card, you may reveal this from your hand to return a copy of that card from your hand to the supply.

I know about revealing multiple times to one trigger. It is intentional that you can in fact reveal this any number of times to return any number of copies to the supply.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3679 on: October 02, 2019, 01:50:09 pm »
0

@both - "I have no idea what happens when both players pick Duchess 10" meant I don't know whether the Ambassador gamestate locks up or not, not that I don't understand what happens mechanically.

I'm pretty sure whoever defects from the strategy of trying to pile out Ambassador, Duchess/Woodcutter, and Estate loses if no villages are available.  But the Estates will not actually empty out and end the game unless one player starts foolishly buying excess Silvers and Merchant Ships, before such a time players will not buy Estate and risk missing Ambassador/Duchess collisions, and if there's no 2-4$ cantrip for them to buy instead of Silver there's no 3rd pile. 
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 #3680 on: October 02, 2019, 02:19:13 pm »
+1

@pops
can you elaborate/elucidate a little bit on what scenario you've concocted? I'm having trouble following it as-written.
Logged

ConMan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1400
  • Respect: +1705
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3681 on: October 02, 2019, 07:12:15 pm »
+2

Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3682 on: October 02, 2019, 10:41:16 pm »
+2

@pops
can you elaborate/elucidate a little bit on what scenario you've concocted? I'm having trouble following it as-written.
Both plays choose Ambassador 10 and Woodcutter 10.

Both players pile out the Ambassadors and the Woodcutters.

Both players gain 10 points every time they return an Ambassador or a Woodcutter.

First player to buy something like Silver slowly starts to get less efficient at connecting Ambassadors and Woodcutters.  The opposing player notices this and piles out the estate while they're about ~3 woodcutter gifts ahead, which would require 5 province purchases with those Silvers for it to be offset.

I'm not 100% sure I'm right on this.
Logged

naitchman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +260
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3683 on: October 04, 2019, 12:41:15 pm »
+2

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.


1) This orginally did not have +1 action. The problem was how to price it. It seemed worse than duplicate, since you had less control and it was more likely to miss reshuffle (since it must stay on your tavern mat for at least 1 turn). It also seemed better than smugglers since it was more versatile since you could hold onto it (ever get smugglers on a turn your opponent didn't buy anything good?) and it could work on any opponent (not strictly better since you get the card later and eavesdropper is more likely to miss the reshuffle). If figured a good solution was to give +1 action and make it $4.

2) I added the "on their turn" clause so it you wouldn't have players using their eavesdroppers on other players eavesdroppers (you'd start having reactions on reactions and it would get confusing who gets to react first). Also, at that point it would start to feel more like a duplicate. This usually won't make too much of a difference since cards gained on other players turns are usually cards you don't like (ruins, curses, etc.)

UPDATE: Took away +1 action, lowered price to $3, and now only can gain 1 copy per copy your opponent gains.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2019, 10:56:35 pm by naitchman »
Logged

pst

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
  • Respect: +906
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3684 on: October 04, 2019, 01:58:26 pm »
+1

Challenge #46 - But It Wasn’t Even Your Turn, my submission.



Quote
Royal Pardon, Action - Reserve - Reaction, $4

After testing it in play I've changed it so that it doesn't care about costs of cards to trash. It is actually a feature that it can put a couple of Provinces in the trash that then can be brought back, so that shouldn't be avoided.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2019, 03:57:57 pm by pst »
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 #3685 on: October 04, 2019, 02:01:14 pm »
0

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.


1) This orginally did not have +1 action. The problem was how to price it. It seemed worse than duplicate, since you had less control and it was more likely to miss reshuffle (since it must stay on your tavern mat for at least 1 turn). It also seemed better than smugglers since it was more versatile since you could hold onto it (ever get smugglers on a turn your opponent didn't buy anything good?) and it could work on any opponent (not strictly better since you get the card later and eavesdropper is more likely to miss the reshuffle). If figured a good solution was to give +1 action and make it $4.

2) I added the "on their turn" clause so it you wouldn't have players using their eavesdroppers on other players eavesdroppers (you'd start having reactions on reactions and it would get confusing who gets to react first). Also, at that point it would start to feel more like a duplicate. This usually won't make too much of a difference since cards gained on other players turns are usually cards you don't like (ruins, curses, etc.)

really like this. Probably more of an FAQ/errata question but: what happens when... say.. three player game, Players B + C have Eavesdropper on their mat, player A plays two Highways and buys the penultimate Province - whose Eavesdropper happens first? whoever's next in turn order?
Logged

Doom_Shark

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 434
  • Shuffle iT Username: Doom_Shark
  • Respect: +409
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3686 on: October 04, 2019, 02:45:22 pm »
+1

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.


1) This orginally did not have +1 action. The problem was how to price it. It seemed worse than duplicate, since you had less control and it was more likely to miss reshuffle (since it must stay on your tavern mat for at least 1 turn). It also seemed better than smugglers since it was more versatile since you could hold onto it (ever get smugglers on a turn your opponent didn't buy anything good?) and it could work on any opponent (not strictly better since you get the card later and eavesdropper is more likely to miss the reshuffle). If figured a good solution was to give +1 action and make it $4.

2) I added the "on their turn" clause so it you wouldn't have players using their eavesdroppers on other players eavesdroppers (you'd start having reactions on reactions and it would get confusing who gets to react first). Also, at that point it would start to feel more like a duplicate. This usually won't make too much of a difference since cards gained on other players turns are usually cards you don't like (ruins, curses, etc.)

really like this. Probably more of an FAQ/errata question but: what happens when... say.. three player game, Players B + C have Eavesdropper on their mat, player A plays two Highways and buys the penultimate Province - whose Eavesdropper happens first? whoever's next in turn order?

Next in turn order makes the most sense to me. The only card I can think of that might have a good precedent ruling would be Fool's Gold, but I don't know if that ruling exists or not just because I doubt anyone's ever really considered a nearly empty gold pile with that card in the kingdom.
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

naitchman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +260
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3687 on: October 04, 2019, 04:10:21 pm »
+1

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.


1) This orginally did not have +1 action. The problem was how to price it. It seemed worse than duplicate, since you had less control and it was more likely to miss reshuffle (since it must stay on your tavern mat for at least 1 turn). It also seemed better than smugglers since it was more versatile since you could hold onto it (ever get smugglers on a turn your opponent didn't buy anything good?) and it could work on any opponent (not strictly better since you get the card later and eavesdropper is more likely to miss the reshuffle). If figured a good solution was to give +1 action and make it $4.

2) I added the "on their turn" clause so it you wouldn't have players using their eavesdroppers on other players eavesdroppers (you'd start having reactions on reactions and it would get confusing who gets to react first). Also, at that point it would start to feel more like a duplicate. This usually won't make too much of a difference since cards gained on other players turns are usually cards you don't like (ruins, curses, etc.)

really like this. Probably more of an FAQ/errata question but: what happens when... say.. three player game, Players B + C have Eavesdropper on their mat, player A plays two Highways and buys the penultimate Province - whose Eavesdropper happens first? whoever's next in turn order?

Yep. As far as I know, that's the general rule (when things happen to multiple players at the same time, they happen in turn order)
Logged

hhelibebcnofnena

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 529
  • she/her
  • Respect: +409
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3688 on: October 04, 2019, 04:10:51 pm »
+1

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.


1) This orginally did not have +1 action. The problem was how to price it. It seemed worse than duplicate, since you had less control and it was more likely to miss reshuffle (since it must stay on your tavern mat for at least 1 turn). It also seemed better than smugglers since it was more versatile since you could hold onto it (ever get smugglers on a turn your opponent didn't buy anything good?) and it could work on any opponent (not strictly better since you get the card later and eavesdropper is more likely to miss the reshuffle). If figured a good solution was to give +1 action and make it $4.

2) I added the "on their turn" clause so it you wouldn't have players using their eavesdroppers on other players eavesdroppers (you'd start having reactions on reactions and it would get confusing who gets to react first). Also, at that point it would start to feel more like a duplicate. This usually won't make too much of a difference since cards gained on other players turns are usually cards you don't like (ruins, curses, etc.)

really like this. Probably more of an FAQ/errata question but: what happens when... say.. three player game, Players B + C have Eavesdropper on their mat, player A plays two Highways and buys the penultimate Province - whose Eavesdropper happens first? whoever's next in turn order?

Next in turn order makes the most sense to me. The only card I can think of that might have a good precedent ruling would be Fool's Gold, but I don't know if that ruling exists or not just because I doubt anyone's ever really considered a nearly empty gold pile with that card in the kingdom.

Another precedent might be Messenger. It's probably more common.
Logged
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3689 on: October 04, 2019, 04:54:44 pm »
+2

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.

I think this amplies the problematic scenarios of Smugglers where it can cause a stalemate (ideal for both players not to gain anything). Unlike with Smugglers, you'll always know exactly how much benefit your opponent gets from you gaining a card. I'd imagine that in a lot of situations where this is the only way to gain cards, the game breaks down.

I also disagree that this is worse than Duplicate without the +1 Action; Duplicate only allows you to gain two cards of a kind at a time, whereas this is more flexible, and you can get the benefit even when you wouldn't have been able to afford the thing you want to gain.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2019, 05:01:14 pm by faust »
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

NoMoreFun

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2006
  • Respect: +2110
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3690 on: October 05, 2019, 02:19:59 am »
+1

The previous 24 hour warning was premature - judging will be much later (about 3 days from now) - there'll be a new warning 24 hours before I'll actually be ready to judge
Logged

King Leon

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 478
  • Respect: +406
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3691 on: October 05, 2019, 06:09:07 am »
+3

Abbey by King Leon http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811112#msg811112
I definitely like the idea of trasher with +1 Card. A trasher is something you want at the beginning, which is also when you’re least likely to draw a dead Action card. The card itself is absolutely going to be a powerhouse in the beginning. You get the same trashing as Steward, plus additional cycling, and you’re almost guaranteed to have $3 left over, which can at least get a Silver. Unfortunately, I feel for that reason that the card will play kind of boringly. It will be used to trash and that’s it. The Reaction seems like an odd add-on. It’s a nice way to clear your hand of the card when you’re done trashing, but connecting it to Attacks doesn’t make much sense to me, though it will explicitly help against junkers.

The actual reason for the Reaction was, that it mitigates Chapel’s weakness against hand-size reducers like Militia or Torturer.



Anyway. Here is my submission. Merely a Swamp Witch variant, but let’s see!




Brothel
Type: Action
Cost: $4

+ $2
+1 Buy
Trash a card from the supply. Each other player who has not Lust takes Lust.



Lust
Type: State

During your turns, cards cost $1 more. When you gain a Victory card, return this and each other player gains +1 VP.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2019, 06:20:05 am by King Leon »
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1971
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3692 on: October 05, 2019, 07:15:02 pm »
0

I'm tweaking my entry.



Now it's an awkward Village that only gives you +VP if you gain it in response to your opponent gaining a Victory card. I feel this makes the choice more stark and interesting. You can try to make an engine with it, in which case all the +Actions will help but the discarding probably won't, or you can wait until the end to get it, in which case the discarding won't hurt as much, but the +Actions will be less useful and you'll also give your opponent the opportunity to leech points off of you. I wasn't sure whether to make this $2 or $3. I settled on $3 because that mirrors Vanillage and all the +Actions do seem very useful, but I can see the case for it only being $2.

Abbey by King Leon http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811112#msg811112
I definitely like the idea of trasher with +1 Card. A trasher is something you want at the beginning, which is also when you’re least likely to draw a dead Action card. The card itself is absolutely going to be a powerhouse in the beginning. You get the same trashing as Steward, plus additional cycling, and you’re almost guaranteed to have $3 left over, which can at least get a Silver. Unfortunately, I feel for that reason that the card will play kind of boringly. It will be used to trash and that’s it. The Reaction seems like an odd add-on. It’s a nice way to clear your hand of the card when you’re done trashing, but connecting it to Attacks doesn’t make much sense to me, though it will explicitly help against junkers.

The actual reason for the Reaction was, that it mitigates Chapel’s weakness against hand-size reducers like Militia or Torturer.

Abbey only trashes 2 cards, though, so those will only weaken it in that you won't be able to buy the Silver after trashing. And Torturer really isn't a good example of something that hurts Chapel...
« Last Edit: October 05, 2019, 09:34:08 pm by Commodore Chuckles »
Logged

naitchman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +260
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3693 on: October 05, 2019, 10:53:53 pm »
+1

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.

I think this amplies the problematic scenarios of Smugglers where it can cause a stalemate (ideal for both players not to gain anything). Unlike with Smugglers, you'll always know exactly how much benefit your opponent gets from you gaining a card. I'd imagine that in a lot of situations where this is the only way to gain cards, the game breaks down.

I also disagree that this is worse than Duplicate without the +1 Action; Duplicate only allows you to gain two cards of a kind at a time, whereas this is more flexible, and you can get the benefit even when you wouldn't have been able to afford the thing you want to gain.

Thanks for the critique. The more I think about it, the more I'm certain you're right. I'm imagining where 2 players each have 5 eavesdroppers on their mats and have reliable engines that could play all their eavesdroppers every turn. Every card I buy is 5 copies for my opponent: Stalemate.

I was also bothered by another problem. This might work ok in a 2 player game but it gives an advantage to the next player in a 3 or 4 player game. Say player B and C each have 5 eavesdroppers on their mat and there's 6 grand markets left. Player A buys a grand market -> Player B gains 5 grand markets (C doesn't get any).

So I've made a small change that allows only one copy per card gained (that way it's 1 to 1). I feel this solves both problems. In addition, I felt I had to decrease the cost because of this and I thought I'd take off the +1 action to balance it (it was bothering me anyway. it felt like it wasn't in the duplicate and smugglers family if it's non terminal.)


Now it cost the same as smugglers but they each have their strength and weaknesses. Eavesdropper is more flexible, but you can't use multiple on the same card, and unlike smugglers you can't use the card you gained on the turn you play it. In addition, because eavesdropper is a reserve, it (and the card it gains) are more likely to miss the reshuffle.
Logged

naitchman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +260
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3694 on: October 05, 2019, 11:07:45 pm »
0

Abbey by King Leon http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811112#msg811112
I definitely like the idea of trasher with +1 Card. A trasher is something you want at the beginning, which is also when you’re least likely to draw a dead Action card. The card itself is absolutely going to be a powerhouse in the beginning. You get the same trashing as Steward, plus additional cycling, and you’re almost guaranteed to have $3 left over, which can at least get a Silver. Unfortunately, I feel for that reason that the card will play kind of boringly. It will be used to trash and that’s it. The Reaction seems like an odd add-on. It’s a nice way to clear your hand of the card when you’re done trashing, but connecting it to Attacks doesn’t make much sense to me, though it will explicitly help against junkers.

The actual reason for the Reaction was, that it mitigates Chapel’s weakness against hand-size reducers like Militia or Torturer.



Anyway. Here is my submission. Merely a Swamp Witch variant, but let’s see!




Brothel
Type: Action
Cost: $4

+ $2
+1 Buy
Trash a card from the supply. Each other player who has not Lust takes Lust.



Lust
Type: State

During your turns, cards cost $1 more. When you gain a Victory card, return this and each other player gains +1 VP.

This feels a bit too punishing. I'm comparing this to troll bridge. It gives a somewhat similar benefit and a much stronger attack. Troll bridge gives -$1 once. This gives -$1 per card you buy (in addition to hurting cards like workshop) plus an eventual +1vp. More importantly, it doesn't simply go away after one turn. With troll bridge you have to play it every turn to get the attack, with this it continues until they buy a victory card.

In the end game it might not be too bad, since I'm buying victory cards anyway (though that +1 vp still can tip this to be better than troll bridge), but in the beginning this could be devastating (and I could open with it). My opponent (who went first) plays brothel turn 3. I have $5 (which is essentially $4). Next turn I'll have the same problem. I could buy an estate, but not only am I junking myself, there's an opportunity cost. And of course, my opponent will just play brothel again soon.
Logged

grrgrrgrr

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 324
  • Respect: +415
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3695 on: October 06, 2019, 08:08:43 am »
0



Quote
+1 Card
+1 Action
If this is the first time you played a Landlord this turn, you may discard a card from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, +2 Cards
-
While this is in play, when another player buys a card, gain an Estate.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
  • Respect: +502
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3696 on: October 06, 2019, 06:56:38 pm »
+1


Quote
Stowaway $5
Action - Reserve
+1 Card  +1 Action
+$1 per card on your Tavern Mat.
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
-
When another player gains a card, you may call this to gain one card per empty Supply pile that each costs less than the card the other player gained.

I had trouble with this contest. I wanted to make something that really applied mainly in the endgame so it is mainly used for victory points. I decided to track the endgame state via empty supply piles -- it turns out that works well. If someone is in the middle of a pileout, they will have three empty piles and you'll be able to call each of your stowaways for three estates. Or, if someone gains the last province, you can call each of your stowaways for a duchy. You might be able to cause a pile out that your opponent didn't want. In a game with single gains, and your opponent empties a second pile, you can potentially clear out another pile on their turn. This seems to be a strong card.

The +$ gives you money to buy higher cost cards (that other players can then gain cards costing less than it), and also provides a tension between whether to call the stowaways or not.


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 #3697 on: October 06, 2019, 10:53:29 pm »
+2


Quote
Stowaway $5
Action - Reserve
+1 Card  +1 Action
+$1 per card on your Tavern Mat.
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
-
When another player gains a card, you may call this to gain one card per empty Supply pile that each costs less than the card the other player gained.

I had trouble with this contest. I wanted to make something that really applied mainly in the endgame so it is mainly used for victory points. I decided to track the endgame state via empty supply piles -- it turns out that works well. If someone is in the middle of a pileout, they will have three empty piles and you'll be able to call each of your stowaways for three estates. Or, if someone gains the last province, you can call each of your stowaways for a duchy. You might be able to cause a pile out that your opponent didn't want. In a game with single gains, and your opponent empties a second pile, you can potentially clear out another pile on their turn. This seems to be a strong card.

The +$ gives you money to buy higher cost cards (that other players can then gain cards costing less than it), and also provides a tension between whether to call the stowaways or not.

it took me like four tries to read this and figure out the "costs less than the card the opponent gained" applied to the card you were gaining and not the empty supply pile; I'm not sure how I'd fix that though.
Logged

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 578
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3698 on: October 07, 2019, 01:39:43 am »
+2


Quote
Stowaway $5
Action - Reserve
+1 Card  +1 Action
+$1 per card on your Tavern Mat.
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
-
When another player gains a card, you may call this to gain one card per empty Supply pile that each costs less than the card the other player gained.

I had trouble with this contest. I wanted to make something that really applied mainly in the endgame so it is mainly used for victory points. I decided to track the endgame state via empty supply piles -- it turns out that works well. If someone is in the middle of a pileout, they will have three empty piles and you'll be able to call each of your stowaways for three estates. Or, if someone gains the last province, you can call each of your stowaways for a duchy. You might be able to cause a pile out that your opponent didn't want. In a game with single gains, and your opponent empties a second pile, you can potentially clear out another pile on their turn. This seems to be a strong card.

The +$ gives you money to buy higher cost cards (that other players can then gain cards costing less than it), and also provides a tension between whether to call the stowaways or not.

it took me like four tries to read this and figure out the "costs less than the card the opponent gained" applied to the card you were gaining and not the empty supply pile; I'm not sure how I'd fix that though.

I think just switching the order of the clauses would read clearer:

When another player gains a card, you may call this to gain one card that costs less than the card the other player gained per each empty Supply pile.
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

NoMoreFun

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2006
  • Respect: +2110
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3699 on: October 07, 2019, 03:13:30 am »
+3

Get your entries in - this is the definitive 24 hour warning.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 146 147 [148] 149 150 ... 327  All
 

Page created in 0.175 seconds with 21 queries.