Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 165 166 [167] 168 169 ... 171  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 136603 times)

1 Member and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

spineflu

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 264
  • +1 Post. At the start of your next turn +1 Respect
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4150 on: November 25, 2019, 09:06:20 am »
+1

Fan Creation
Type: ?
Cost: ?

Set up:
Choose a kingdom card from Weekly Design Contest Thread. This is that card until the game ends.

I like the recursive case for this, where Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation isFan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation isFan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is...

It's not often we get an infinite loop during setup.
Logged
sometime-maintainer of the Weekly Design Contest trello

herw

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 135
  • Shuffle iT Username: Dominion-online: herw (basic account) and Herwig (Gold)
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4151 on: November 26, 2019, 02:07:23 am »
0


I see that you have used my template. I am just refreshing it; is there still any interest here?
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
  • Respect: +521
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4152 on: November 26, 2019, 08:30:23 am »
+1

Gang
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may play an Initiate card from your hand.
Setup: Choose a different random Action Supply pile. Cards from that pile are Initiate cards.
A Smithy that can be a DoubleLab is too strong. I suggest: Discard a card. If it is an Initiate card, play it.
I've been thinking about this, and I don't think I agree, largely on the grounds that "You play a specific card from your hand" is much weaker than "+1 Action."  Sometimes you will get some spammable <$4 Action chosen, but a lot of time you're going to hit payloads, trashers, or even other draw which makes it significantly less effective.  +3 Cards is already a weak effect at $5, and so making the play of Gang weaker would likely render it functionally useless if it doesn't pick a stronger Initiate.  If I were to make a change, I would likely aim towards making the way it plays with Initiate different, either
1) Violent Gang: You may play an Initiate from your hand twice, and then trash it.  Which would allow it to utilize payload and draw more dramatically.
2) Rich Gang: Choose a different random Action Supply pile costing at least $5.  Which would simply ensure Gang and the card it plays are at competing a price point.
3) Exclusive Gang: Cards from it are Initiate cards and you can't buy them without Coppers in Play.  Which would make acquiring good initiate cards more difficult at the cost of making weaker Initiates even worse.
Ultimately though, I'm not sure any of these are worth the added complexity.  Looking at some random games, it looks like there will typically be 1 busted target for Gang, 2-3 decent targets, and the rest are middling (Remodel) to bad (Chapel).  Do its play patterns really become so consistently one-note when it gets paired with a Village Initiate?



Warlock
Types: Action, Attack, Doom
Cost: $5
+1 Card, +1 Action. Choose one: each other player receives one of the set aside face-up Hexes, then flip it face-down; or flip one of the set-aside face-down Hexes face up and +$1. (You may look at the face-down Hexes at any time)
Setup: place 3 Hexes face up, set aside.
You say you want to avoid Deluded every turn, but you put this on a cantrip.  Playing 2 Warlocks each turn to proc Delusion will be pretty easy.
If you want it to be non-terminal, consuming all the Hexes first and then flipping them automatically would go a long way to preventing a single abusive Hex from being played (though it would scale even more strangely than it already does).  I would say it would work better simply being terminal, though.

Sleepwalker
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Dream card. Discard the other revealed cards, then play the Dream card.
Setup: Choose 3 random non-Attack Action Supply piles other than Sleepwalker. Action cards from those piles are Dream cards.
The existing digging cards all have awkwardness to them in the form of other cards upon which they trip.  Sleepwalker will inevitably be much too strong by virtually always playing the targeted Action card (so long as you have a Dream that isn't in your hand or play area) because you have no obligation to add an undesirable Dream Action to your deck (as opposed to if it played the first Action it found, which would be more inhibiting).  It also risks making the game run very long, because players will consistently dig through their deck when there is a good Dream target.
It might be worth giving it the ability to trip on something else (even if it is a raw cap to the number revealed) to hold back the game length when it becomes relevant.

Crusade
Types: Victory
Cost: $4
Worth 1VP per 3 Attack cards you have.
Setup: Choose three additional non-Attack Action piles to add to the Kingdom; one costing $2, one costing $3 and one costing $4. Cards from these piles gain the Attack type and the following additional text at the end of the card: 'Each other player discards down to 4 cards unless they can reveal a copy of this card. If any player does, trash both copies of the card.'
I like the idea of turning other cards into marginal Attacks that can be blocked to justify a Victory card for Attacks.  I have a few problems:
1) This adds 3 Actions to the Supply. That is a massive number of cards. I'd rather it just target a card or two in the fashion of Obelisk.
2) It trashes the cards when used to block.  Because the Attack is so small, the function of this is to deny players the ability to even play those Attack cards, which undercuts the idea of a Victory card giving points for Attacks when you are no longer allowed to field them.
3) The Victory point Ratio is bad without adding said ridiculous number of cards.  With only 1 guaranteed Attack a ratio of 1VP/2 cards would probably do fine.  Even if that proved too much, another relevant $5-cost Victory card might be more fun to have than another seldom-used $4-cost.

Treasure Cove
Types: Treasure, Victory
Cost: $?
+$1 per differently named Treasure in play.
Worth 1VP for every differently named Victory card in your deck.
This costs $1 per differently named Treasure / Victory card in the Supply.
It will cost $7 providing up to $4 and 4VP typically, which sounds pretty bonkers and gets even stronger if any other Victory cards show up.  Even if you were able to reel it back in some reasonable fashion, I think back to those rare games where Harem is relevant in which crossing your fingers for good draws in Harem-infested decks is frustrating.  I can't imaging Treasure Cove would end up playing a whole lot differently, merely more commonly dominating the game due to the strength of its Victory points.

Travelling Players
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Refer to the noted results. For each time you rolled a... 1, +1 Card;  2, +1 Action;  3, +$1;  4, +1 Buy;  5, +1 VP;  6, You may trash a card from your hand.
Setup: Roll three six-sided dice and note the results.
You get Laboratory every 3/216 (1.39%) games.
77/216 (35.65%) are too strong, especially any combination with +2VP or more. 29/216 (13.43%) would still be strong if it cost $5.
53/216 (24.54%) are very weak, as in less than $3 weak.
86/216 (39.81%) are largely uninteresting, but balanced.  You could possibly normalize its power in a variety of ways (I'd start with making it necessarily non-terminal), but I'm not sure it saves the concept.  It reminds me of 504.  It is interesting in theory, but in practice is just bland.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

spineflu

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 264
  • +1 Post. At the start of your next turn +1 Respect
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4153 on: November 26, 2019, 08:51:23 am »
+1

Warlock
Types: Action, Attack, Doom
Cost: $5
+1 Card, +1 Action. Choose one: each other player receives one of the set aside face-up Hexes, then flip it face-down; or flip one of the set-aside face-down Hexes face up and +$1. (You may look at the face-down Hexes at any time)
Setup: place 3 Hexes face up, set aside.
You say you want to avoid Deluded every turn, but you put this on a cantrip.  Playing 2 Warlocks each turn to proc Delusion will be pretty easy.
If you want it to be non-terminal, consuming all the Hexes first and then flipping them automatically would go a long way to preventing a single abusive Hex from being played (though it would scale even more strangely than it already does).  I would say it would work better simply being terminal, though.

That's a good point. I think changing the bonus to +$2 rather than cantrip would probably be better (and people can have it be non-terminal in their Capitalism games, if they want, since this is already capitalism-susceptible).
« Last Edit: November 26, 2019, 01:50:03 pm by spineflu »
Logged
sometime-maintainer of the Weekly Design Contest trello

grrgrrgrr

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
  • Respect: +67
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4154 on: November 26, 2019, 12:39:32 pm »
+1

Final 24 hours start now!!
Logged

mandioca15

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
  • Respect: +23
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4155 on: November 26, 2019, 01:39:28 pm »
+1

Thanks for the feedback, Fragasnap. I will change my entry to the following.

Crusade (Victory, $4)

Worth 1VP per 2 Attack cards you have.

Setup: Choose two additional non-Attack Action piles (each costing at most $4) to add to the Kingdom. Cards from these piles gain the Attack type and the following additional text at the end of the card: 'Each other player may reveal a copy of this card. If they don't, they discard down to 4 cards in hand.'
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 99
  • Respect: +76
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4156 on: November 26, 2019, 03:02:30 pm »
+2

This was edited. The original submission did not have a discard. It's totally possible the original submission (identical minus the discard part) is being the one that was judged since I'm editing at the last minute

Quote
King - Action - costs 5
Choose one: discard a card to play a card from the Arms pile twice and trash it; or you may play an Action card from your hand twice.
-
Setup: Create an Arms pile by adding an extra Kingdom Action card pile to the game. These cards are not in the supply.

Here's a throne room that can throne room a unique card each game. Sometimes this will be very powerful depending on what the Arms pile is. However, it's limited, you only get 10 usages of King'ing the Arms pile before it's gone. Or sometimes less (Rats, Magpie) or more (Port, Victory-Action cards w/ more than 2 players).  Of course there's some funkiness, if Catapault/Rocks is the supply pile, then you can play a treasure in your action phase! Well, throning a Rocks for $2 and gaining a silver when you trash it is not so powerful.

I'd say this is a little on the powerful side, depending on what the Arms pile is. You're pretty unhappy if Treasure Map is the arms. On the other side, having a cheap Altar is pretty strong, even if it self-trashes. Don't forget that the pile runs out quickly and everyone has access to it. There's some interesting strategy here -- maybe you have a card in your hand you want to double, but you'd rather take away your opponent's access to the last Arms card.

I do appreciate feedback, but well, I only came around to an idea I liked this morning, so there's limited time.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2019, 11:36:01 am by anordinaryman »
Logged

segura

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 375
  • Respect: +144
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4157 on: November 27, 2019, 10:55:49 am »
+1


Quote
King - Action - costs 5
Choose one: play a card from the Arms pile twice and trash it; or you may play an Action card from your hand twice.
-
Setup: Create an Arms pile by adding an extra Kingdom Action card pile to the game. These cards are not in the supply.

Here's a throne room that can throne room a unique card each game. Sometimes this will be very powerful depending on what the Arms pile is. However, it's limited, you only get 10 usages of King'ing the Arms pile before it's gone.
This is playable with the better option as often as (straightforward) junkers. So it is safe to say that it is a bit too good: we know from Crown that you don't mind paying $5 for a TR and even if the Arms pile is something weak like Pearl Diver this is a Lost City.
But it looks very fun!
Logged

segura

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 375
  • Respect: +144
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4158 on: November 27, 2019, 11:00:36 am »
+1

Treasure Cove
Types: Treasure, Victory
Cost: $?
+$1 per differently named Treasure in play.
Worth 1VP for every differently named Victory card in your deck.
This costs $1 per differently named Treasure / Victory card in the Supply.
It will cost $7 providing up to $4 and 4VP typically, which sounds pretty bonkers and gets even stronger if any other Victory cards show up.  Even if you were able to reel it back in some reasonable fashion, I think back to those rare games where Harem is relevant in which crossing your fingers for good draws in Harem-infested decks is frustrating.  I can't imaging Treasure Cove would end up playing a whole lot differently, merely more commonly dominating the game due to the strength of its Victory points.
Seems pretty tricky to draw Copper (or a Kingdom Treasure), Silver, Gold and Treasure Cove to me. In an engine you don't want that many Treasures. But of course you are right that the card could be too good in a money-Smithy situation.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 99
  • Respect: +76
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4159 on: November 27, 2019, 11:34:31 am »
0

If there's time I'm slightly modifying my submission.


Quote
King - Action - $5
Choose one: discard a card to play a card from the Arms pile twice and trash it; or you may play an Action card from your hand twice.
-
Setup: Create an Arms pile by adding an extra Kingdom Action card pile to the game. These cards are not in the supply.

Now you have to discard to play the Arms card. I didn't realize that without discarding it's sort of like a throne room with +1 card which I didn't want. This weakens it slightly in the Arms choice, in a good and logical way. It's like you turned a card into the arms card.

This addresses Segura's feedback. If the Arms is a pearl diver, it's a pretty weak target. You end up with the exact same number of cards in your hand as before you played the pearl diver, only one action stronger. It is still nice and strong sometimes, but the Arms card will run out. You probably only get to use it's power 4-6 times in a 2 player game.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2019, 11:40:27 am by anordinaryman »
Logged

pubby

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 343
  • Respect: +541
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4160 on: November 27, 2019, 11:48:32 am »
+1

Master - Action-Command - $2
Play a non-Command Action underneath a Master from the supply, leaving it there.
Setup: Place one Master on top of each Kingdom supply pile.
Logged

Something_Smart

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +41
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4161 on: November 27, 2019, 12:01:08 pm »
0

Master - Action-Command - $2
Play a non-Command Action underneath a Master from the supply, leaving it there.
Setup: Place one Master on top of each Kingdom supply pile.
Sucks to get a 5/2 opening!
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8130
  • Respect: +8899
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4162 on: November 27, 2019, 12:23:01 pm »
+1

I've seen a lot of fan cards that deal with putting a card on top of a supply pile; generally as a way of blocking that pile until the card is bought.

Do official Dominion rules support this notion as-is; or are these fan cards assuming the creation of a new rule to support it? I mean, we have Knights and Castles which give us rules saying that only the top card of those piles can be bought or gained. But that feels different to me, because the top card of the Knights pile is always a Knight (or more specifically; a card that belongs to that Kingdom pile); same with Castles. Can we say within Dominion rules that putting any random card on top of a pile suddenly makes that top card buyable and gainable? I feel like the rules for buying basically assume that there's only 1 buyable copy of a card at the same time. For example, if you have Talisman in play and buy a Master, do you also gain another Master, from any other pile you choose?
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

spineflu

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 264
  • +1 Post. At the start of your next turn +1 Respect
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4163 on: November 27, 2019, 12:25:51 pm »
0

Master - Action-Command - $2
Play a non-Command Action underneath a Master from the supply, leaving it there.
Setup: Place one Master on top of each Kingdom supply pile.
Do you use this as an "eleventh" supply pile when you play with it? or does the game start down a pile from the get-go?
Logged
sometime-maintainer of the Weekly Design Contest trello

grrgrrgrr

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
  • Respect: +67
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4164 on: November 27, 2019, 12:41:13 pm »
+2

Time's up! Judging starts now.
Logged

Something_Smart

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +41
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4165 on: November 27, 2019, 12:47:59 pm »
0

For example, if you have Talisman in play and buy a Master, do you also gain another Master, from any other pile you choose?
I would assume so; when you're told to gain something that you could gain from multiple piles, such as Tragic Hero's "gain a Treasure," you can pick any pile that has a Treasure on top and gain that Treasure. I wouldn't call gaining a specific card fundamentally different from that; when told to gain a Master, you pick a pile that has a Master on top and gain that Master.
Logged

grrgrrgrr

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
  • Respect: +67
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4166 on: November 27, 2019, 04:26:58 pm »
+2

Metropolis by [TP] Inferno
This is an improved Market or Bazaar, so $6 would be its value ($1 lower than its price with only Copper/Silver/Gold). On top of that, many kingdom treasures don't really antisynergize with engines: Bank likes draw, Loan trashes, Relic wants to be played every turn, etc.  And this card is also good in treasure heavy decks as it can also act as a Market Square. Long story short: the price concept is neat, but the execution is flawed.

Owl by majiponi
The choice of the vanilla effect is sound, as Hexes are typically weaker than Ghost Ship and Witch, but those cards lack the ability to choose between 3 attacks. Biggest strike against this is that several Hexes are not balanced around of being used each turn (possibly multiple times). Delusion is the prime example, but Envy can be really bad as well, and Greed would need some errata as well. Nontheless, this is a novel attempt at making an Evil Druid.

Cozener by pst
I really like how this card is its own thing, instead of being a shameless Black Market rip-off. The discard mechanic is a clever way of making sure hitting Donate isn't an autowin as other players can follow suit. It can be quite annoying when someone hits stuff like pathfinding, because then players are forced to hit a high amount of $$ in a rapid fashion. However, this can't be as bad as someone acquiring an Outpost through BM. This is in the top 4

Polymorph by forkofnature
What cards can be added to the kingdom? All unused dominion cards? That's a buttload of options and also makes future expansions render older setups obsolete. Is it a subset of the unused cards? Specify it in a setup section!
That out of the way, I'm not really sold by this. As far as the "remove" part goes, it is a stronger version of Tax and Embargo, two cards that usually harm the user about as much as the opponent. The "unlock a new pile" part can be cool once in a blue moon, but most of the time, the games are too symmetric to make it benefit the user more than the opponent.
(I also see you made an event version but you didn't specify it'd replace this submission).

Tall Tale Teller by NoMoreFun 
This one is really neat, with a funny image. Making a card produce less is a surefire way of reducing its value, and $3 sounds like an appropriate price for this (especially considering it degrades Bazaar into Village). Very curious to make an engine with a piece that gives debt on each play. Only suggestion I'd give is not allowing Attack cards here.  This is in the top 4

Splice by Gazbag 
I'd love to see a working version of this, but your version looks rather... unfinished to say it at least. The "best version" you described reads +4 Cards, +3 Actions, which is beyond ridiculous. In fact, any nonterminal can make this quite strong; Moat+Pearl Diver already makes it a better version of The Forbidden Card. With two terminals, however, this card will almost certainly become rather bland.

Travelling Shop by Gubumb 
Novel concept for sure. And I actually do agree with the restriction to cards between $3 and $5, as hitting $6 with this is just too annoying (and I don't wanna see Familiar being locked behind this thing). It needs playtesting to see how it works in practice, but I definitely value the idea of cards that are locked to a later section of the game (or just a fraction of your turns). And playing with more than 10 kingdom cards can be cool as well. This is in the top 4

Boss by Aquilla
This attack can be really oppressive, as it is a little too reliable at hitting specific targets. Especially the $5 costing version sounds scary, as it produces $3, and is able to force me to discard my Plazas. It compares rather favorable to Raider, which costs $6, forces the user not to play any filler tech to be good, and hits once per 2 turns. The idea is nice, but it doesn't sound like a recipe for fun.

Sleepwalker by Something_Smart
If the pool of Dream cards has exactly one useful card, then this is a Sage+, as it has no chance of stumbling upon a Silver or a Province, and being forces to ply it immediately is irrelevant. If the pool of dream cards has multiple useful cards, then this card is still really good if it isn't too important which one you play, and packs some Golem-esque swingyness otherwise. For these reasons, I am afraid this card isn't going to play that well.

Crusade by mandioca15
Sounds like an alright source of VP, but the guaratueed presence of 3 attack piles can make it somewhat automatic. The Attack is weak enough to ensure the prices of the cards don't have to be lifted. I am afraid that the attacks are a little too easy to forget though.

Warlock by spineflu
I't good that you try to circumvent the Delusion problem, but it does make the card somewhat wordy. Ultimately, the attempt is futile, as Delusion can still be summoned consistently by two Warlocks, which is still too good. (I mis the Setup part in the card's text).

Gang by Fragasnap
Being a Smithy variant makes it rather easy to find the Initiate card, and when that card is nonterminal, we can easily gain a Sauna/Avanto situation on steroids. Especially considering there are 10 of these, while there are only 5 avantos. For this reason, it may be wise to limit the pool of possibilities to terminal cards, although that'd make the card rather wordy (as "terminal" is not official terminology).

Bait by greg
I'm a little confused by how the card operates. What do you mean with "the turn"? The turn you play this card? The next turn? Both?
I think this card can be decently fun and balanced, though it is hard to tell from face value. Gaining $5 costs is pretty dope for a $4 costs, though the conditions in doing so are probably tight enough. For the bait, I'd limit to $2-$3 costs to fit flavor and add some consistency, and use a similar setup as Young Witch.

Good or Evil by Abel_K
This card can be a strictly superior DoubleLab, a major red flag. The balance issues most definitely don't there, though. You can always choose between two "benefits", which in combination with above are very powerful relative to its cost. If one of the cards is a Sea Hag, the card becomes a Sea Hag with a half-pawn that can be something else, while still costing $4.
 The card is also a pain to figure out, as it has a variable price and has lots of choice. The phrase "attack or benefit" is not official dominion terminology and will most definitely cause confusion. You definitely overdid it on the "differs per game" part.

Treasure Cove by segura
Treasure Cove obviously needs a different name (Treasure Trove exists) and the formulation is also rather unclean. That said, it's quite a solid nomination. I think it is alright power wise, as it needs to be drawn together with the other treasures in order to produce a decent amount of money (it is a greatly-inforior Bank if we foget the VP), and the VP-to-price ratio isn't too crazy either. Obviously, playtesting would give a more accurate result. It compares favorably to Harem, but that is fine, as Harem is horrible. This is in the top 4

Travelling Players by nemrym
If we forbid any 5s to be rolled, we'd obtain a configuration that either already exists at a better price point, or that is just plain dreadful. The 5s are the main issue though. Cards that give VP need to be designed with great care, as they may not cause endless games. Monument produces 2$, is terminal and doesn't draw, and therefore builds towards the end. This cannot be said about the vast majority of the configurations with 5s (especially when there are two...).

King by anordinaryman
Limiting the pool to $3 costing cards would be a start (you don't want Sea Hag there...). Although that wouldn't save the card from having balance issues... The optimal strategy of playing King seems trying to deplete the Arms pile as fast as possible, to ensure opposing kings can use them as little as possible. If Arms is Pearl Diver, this means that King is temporary a Lost City, which is pretty stellar in situations where Throne Room would be a dead card. And with stronger Arms cards, this situation only gets worse. I'm not sold, sorry.

Master by pubby
This one doesn't qualify for this contest. And I'm not a fan of it either sorry. It's too centralizing, messes too much with the overall flow of the game, and makes turn order too much of a factor. First you have to get masters to get actual cards, but then the masters become completely useless. Without trashers, this sounds quite like a degenerate situation.

This brings us to the following top 4:
4) Treasure Cove by segura
3) Travelling Shop by Gubumb
2) Tall Tale Teller by NoMoreFun
1) Cozener by pst

Congratulations, pst, you win this weak's challenge and will host challenge 53!!
« Last Edit: November 28, 2019, 03:34:59 am by grrgrrgrr »
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 694
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +900
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4167 on: November 27, 2019, 05:32:48 pm »
+1

Splice by Gazbag 
I'd love to see a working version of this, but your version looks rather... unfinished to say it at least.

No it was definitely finished, it was just a terrible design!

Congrats pst!
Logged

pst

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
  • Respect: +869
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4168 on: November 27, 2019, 05:38:23 pm »
+2

This brings us to the following top 4:
4) Treasure Cove by segura
3) Travelling Shop by Gubumb
2) Tall Tale Teller by NoMoreFun
1) Cozener by pst

Congratulations, Cozener, you win this weak's challenge and will host challenge 53!!

Whee, thanks! Here is the next one:

Challenge #53: Three is company


Make a card(-shaped object) that would be suitable for an expansion meant specifically for 3- and 4-player games!

Their randomizers wouldn't be used at all in 2-player games. Of course there are already over 400 card(-shaped object)s that are good for these games, but here is the opportunity to use ideas that just wouldn't work or wouldn't work well enough in 2-player games. I will judge if I think I'd like to play with the entries and if I think they are exploring areas that would be harder to do for other card(-shaped objects) (instead of just having a random limitation).




Logged

spineflu

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 264
  • +1 Post. At the start of your next turn +1 Respect
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4169 on: November 27, 2019, 07:00:38 pm »
0

Cool! I made a sorta musical chairs variant of hypercube's Cursed Skull artifact.





Each has a reasonably-good-but-not-gamebreaking effect.
Quote
Swap $4@1 Event
+1 Buy. You may exchange your Pendant for another player's Pendant.
-
Setup: Deal out one Pendant Artifact at random to each player.
Quote
Sapphire Pendant Artifact
If you have $2 or more when you draw a new hand at the end of your turn, +1 Card, then put a card from your hand on top of your deck.
Quote
Jade Pendant Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy
Quote
Amethyst Pendant Artifact
If you have the most Curses at the end of the game, this is worth 4%
Quote
Ruby Pendant Artifact
At the start of your turn, if you have any @, +$2.
1%
Quote
Emerald Pendant Artifact
2%
Quote
Pearl Pendant Artifact
At the start of your turn, you may discard a non-Victory card for +$1
Quote
Crystal Pendant Artifact
Play with the top card of your deck face-up.


FAQ/errata:
  • Cards revealed by Crystal Pendant count as constantly revealed (so revealed once, no infinite Patron coffers).
  • Amethyst Pendant isn't worth anything if you don't have the most curses
  • There's seven of them so there's always at least one left over/not used in a game
  • "exchange" as used on Swap means you give them your pendant and take theirs simultaneously - I'm open to a different word since this is a keyword but couldn't think of one at the moment.
  • These may need a "grouping" card(like thing) type (kinda like Knights or Castles or what have you) to be able to "exchange your Pendant" but the template generator doesn't provide enough room for that so please use your imagination
  • I'll probably make some art for these at some point this weekend.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2019, 08:10:59 pm by spineflu »
Logged
sometime-maintainer of the Weekly Design Contest trello

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 691
  • Respect: +396
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4170 on: November 27, 2019, 07:36:32 pm »
+1

I think Pearl Pendant gives too much of an advantage to whoever happens to get it since they can guarantee a in one of their opening hands.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

spineflu

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 264
  • +1 Post. At the start of your next turn +1 Respect
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4171 on: November 27, 2019, 08:10:06 pm »
0

I think Pearl Pendant gives too much of an advantage to whoever happens to get it since they can guarantee a in one of their opening hands.
makes sense. Ima change it to "discard a non-Victory card". That way it only happens that way with Shelters and even then doesn't always happen.
Logged
sometime-maintainer of the Weekly Design Contest trello

[TP] Inferno

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • I have no +Buys :(
  • Respect: +42
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4172 on: November 27, 2019, 09:19:10 pm »
+1

Hmm...

Clown
Action-Attack
+2 Cards
Each other player with at least 4 cards in hand discards a card. If it was a Victory card, they put it onto their deck; otherwise they gain a copy of that card or you do, your choice.

Heavily inspired by Jester, which is known to scale dramatically in multiplayer games.
Logged
Counting House is the best card in the game. Change my mind.

Kudasai

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 446
  • Respect: +242
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4173 on: November 27, 2019, 11:40:21 pm »
0

Splice by Gazbag 
I'd love to see a working version of this, but your version looks rather... unfinished to say it at least.

No it was definitely finished, it was just a terrible design!

Congrats pst!

My Bannermen card does the same thing,  but with more words to cover edge cases. Might be worth checking out.
Logged

majiponi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
  • Respect: +434
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4174 on: November 28, 2019, 12:57:57 am »
0

Friends
cost $3 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player except your friend discards down to 4 cards in hand.
You may pass a card from your hand to your friend.
---
When games using this, the player on the opposite side of the table is your friend. When scoring, add your friend's vp to your vp.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 165 166 [167] 168 169 ... 171  All
 

Page created in 0.122 seconds with 22 queries.