Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 179 180 [181] 182 183 ... 295  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 410934 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8861
  • Respect: +9644
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4500 on: January 17, 2020, 10:36:33 am »
0

Zimbabwe Money - $4 - Treasure
+$7
+1 Buy
Double the coin cost of all cards and events.

Combos with Monument.

How?
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

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +985
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4501 on: January 17, 2020, 10:37:48 am »
+1

Zimbabwe Money - $4 - Treasure
+$7
+1 Buy
Double the coin cost of all cards and events.

Combos with Monument.
You probably mean Bishop (as well as Apprentice and Raze). Also debt cost cards become incredibly cheap.
puppy: Is it "while this is in play" or "until end of turn"? The difference is in interaction with thrones and impostors like BOM

I think he meant that because you double the cost permanently (obviously unintentionally) after a few plays nobody will be able to afford any non-$0 cards so you just accumulate vp with Monument and the game never ends.
Logged

Saul Goodman

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
  • Respect: +45
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4502 on: January 17, 2020, 10:47:33 am »
+1


Quote
Provisioner
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may gain a Silver. For each card in your hand, the player to your left puts a card from your discard pile into your hand.
Doubles your hand from the worst cards in your discard pile (or all of them if you don't have that many).  It also lets you gain a Silver for the cases when you don't have a discard pile or want to slog your deck.

This seems like a card that should be purchased with some debt.  And more expensive maybe?  Maybe 3$ and $3debt?

Can't say why.  Just a feel that it is OP at $5.
Without villages and labs, it's worse than Envoy, and degrading quickly while greening. I would value it $4

You make a convincing case there.  I think you are right.  In one sense, a guaranteed 10 cards is better than.  But I would easily prefer 5 cards of cycling progression to five cards without it.

$4 is right.  But a pretty good card at that price if TFB cards and a village is present.

But not as good as Envoy.
Logged

scolapasta

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
  • Respect: +387
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4503 on: January 17, 2020, 02:59:41 pm »
+1

So I've decided to switch my entry away from Juggler (great image aside) and go with my original idea for doubling.

I think TRs for attacks have been tried before, BUT they're not too effective because:
a) attacks are often designed to not stack
b) there may not be other attacks in the Kingdom

Gauntlets attempts to solve a) by making the 2nd attack happen next turn. As for b) well, the setup clause guarantees other attacks!

Since you still have to have an attack on your hand with Gauntlets, it itself can be a straight curser (but to your opponent's hands, which should be a little weak).



So, another change - though generally the same idea.

Thematically, I think this concept works better as Siege Tower. So we have a name switch. And then I think the attack should be something other than a curse, So I've switched it to something also thematic; when under siege, supplies are cut off.



I'm open to other suggestion of what the attack could be; the main idea of the card is a delayed attack TR, which needs to also have an alternative attack option. Or if the alternative attack option should have some benefit to the player.

As currently written it can plan Vampire, Werewolf (though it would be +3 cards, and not the hex), Relic, etc. I don't see that as problematic, or should it only allow playing Action-Attack cards? (which would still include Werewolf). I've also considered non-duration, but don't know if it *needs* it.

(I also like that the classic defense of Moat is thematic too!)


« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 05:23:31 pm by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8861
  • Respect: +9644
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4504 on: January 17, 2020, 04:25:09 pm »
+1


Quote
Provisioner
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may gain a Silver. For each card in your hand, the player to your left puts a card from your discard pile into your hand.
Doubles your hand from the worst cards in your discard pile (or all of them if you don't have that many).  It also lets you gain a Silver for the cases when you don't have a discard pile or want to slog your deck.

This seems like a card that should be purchased with some debt.  And more expensive maybe?  Maybe 3$ and $3debt?

Can't say why.  Just a feel that it is OP at $5.
Without villages and labs, it's worse than Envoy, and degrading quickly while greening. I would value it $4

You make a convincing case there.  I think you are right.  In one sense, a guaranteed 10 cards is better than.  But I would easily prefer 5 cards of cycling progression to five cards without it.

$4 is right.  But a pretty good card at that price if TFB cards and a village is present.

But not as good as Envoy.

If you play this from a new hand, you're getting 4 cards, not 5; for a total of 8, not 10.
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

Saul Goodman

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
  • Respect: +45
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4505 on: January 17, 2020, 05:20:49 pm »
+1

Great point.  Then Envoy is strictly better?  Maybe this is a $3 or a 4@?
Logged

segura

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 843
  • Respect: +378
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4506 on: January 17, 2020, 06:23:05 pm »
+2


DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.
Logged

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 677
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +401
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4507 on: January 17, 2020, 06:40:12 pm »
+1


DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.

That was like, a decade ago and also Seaside was part of the first "big batch" of five expansions. Maybe the concept has grown up now that Feast/Thief/Saboteur/Scout are retired; is it really that far off from Captain?

« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 07:16:00 pm by spineflu »
Logged

segura

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 843
  • Respect: +378
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4508 on: January 18, 2020, 03:37:33 am »
+1


DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.

That was like, a decade ago and also Seaside was part of the first "big batch" of five expansions. Maybe the concept has grown up now that Feast/Thief/Saboteur/Scout are retired; is it really that far off from Captain?
I fail to see in what way the 5 cards you mentioned are related to a now-and-later Throne Room. Captain is an emulator, what does this have to do with TR?
As a stupid example, if you use Captain to play two Pearl Divers it is like a delayed Lost City (now a cantrip, +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn). If you use a now and later Throne Room on Pearl Diver it is -1 Card on this turn and +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn. That's the same net effects as Ghost Town, with the big difference that you need two cards for it to work and that the handgaining of Ghost Town is absent.

I know that this comparison is not perfect or complete, I intentionally picked the weakest card to illustrate that Captain is pretty decent even when there are weak Action cards in the Kingdom whereas you cannot say the same about the now-and-later TR.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 411
  • Respect: +617
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4509 on: January 18, 2020, 09:05:05 am »
+3

Quote
Provisioner
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may gain a Silver. For each card in your hand, the player to your left puts a card from your discard pile into your hand.
Doubles your hand from the worst cards in your discard pile (or all of them if you don't have that many).  It also lets you gain a Silver for the cases when you don't have a discard pile or want to slog your deck.

This seems like a card that should be purchased with some debt.  And more expensive maybe?  Maybe 3$ and $3debt?

Can't say why.  Just a feel that it is OP at $5.
Without villages and labs, it's worse than Envoy, and degrading quickly while greening. I would value it $4

You make a convincing case there.  I think you are right.  In one sense, a guaranteed 10 cards is better than.  But I would easily prefer 5 cards of cycling progression to five cards without it.

$4 is right.  But a pretty good card at that price if TFB cards and a village is present.

But not as good as Envoy.
Provisioner's draw becomes big and decent if you have a source of +actions and a way to ensure you have a larger number of cards in hand than useless cards in your discard pile (especially trash Estates, gain mid-turn, and discard productively).  When this occurs, Provisioner's draw is often non-trivial, so the length of its resolution becomes an important consideration in its design.  The draw effect on its own is likely a $4 effect due to how much needs to appear to make it valuable, but I want Provisioner to be a $5 card to reduce the number of times it is gained and played in a game.  In order to make Provisioner's draw worthwhile, I put one of the things it needs onto it: A mid-turn gain.  The form of that mid-turn gain needs to be something that does not add significantly to its resolution speed (Workshop or The Sky's Gift would take too long), so it optionally gains a Silver.  With that gain, its plays become more like Explorer (can't gain Gold) or Sculptor (can't gain non-Silver, doesn't give Villagers), so $5 looks like a fair enough cost─though definitely in the weaker half of $5 cards.

Quote
Summer House - Action Shelter, $1
You may play a non-Duration, non-Shelter Action card from your hand twice. If you do, trash this.
Quote
Taverna - Night Shelter, $1
Choose a card you have in play that you've gained a copy of this turn. If you do, trash this to gain another copy of it.
Quote
Asylum - Action Shelter, $1
Discard 2 Shelters. If you do, +1 Card per card in your hand.
Edit: reworked Summer House so it can't be trashed in the opening. Replaced Wagon with the cleaner Taverna, which also can't be trashed in the opening.
You can still trash Taverna in the opening by turning it into a Copper.  Not sure if that's good or not, but I would just ask to "choose an Action you have in play..." to avoid the issue altogether.
Asylum looks super weak.  I get that the idea is that you have to hold onto Taverna and Summer House so you can get a powerful draw, but fact is that if you can manage to draw all 3 junk Shelters in any kind of consistent way, the not-even-doubling your hand (your hand is reduced by 3 before you get to draw anything) will be a paltry benefit that only clinches a deck that was already going to draw itself anyway.  I cannot imagine a deck that could stomach 3 extra dead-weight cards that it could otherwise trash just for the hope of this benefit.

Quote
Harlequin
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may play a card from your hand three times. If you did, trash it.
Note that it specifies card, not just action, meaning it can be used on any playable card.
This is strictly better than Moneylender (as in, using it on a copper is the same as Moneylender, and this adds additional functionality) and should probably cost more as a result
Seconded.  I'd say it would still be strong at $5 but unhealthy at $6 (as swinging into a strong tempo-trasher on turn 3\4 is typically too luck-based).
I'm also not sure that the rules inherently imply that you can't "play" a Curse or Victory card, it just doesn't have any generic function to do so nor a definition of what would happen if you did.  I think this does need to specify Action or Treasure.  It also should either trash the card when it is discarded or else follow Procession's lead by excluding Duration cards to avoid tracking issues.

Quote
Vista $5 Action - Victory - Duration
Set a Victory card aside under this, face up.
(This stays in play)
If the card set aside in this way cost $5 or more, cards cost <1> more during your turn.
-
This is worth VP equal to the set-aside card.

This is a riff on an old card from the Throne Room contest, spiralstaircase's Eyre, with the difference being this always works (and sometimes hurts you after the fact) instead of having to try to time it.
Needs to be optional for when it gets played with no Victory cards in your hand.
I was playing around with a similar idea, but the problem is that its power budget gets completely eaten up by setting aside Provinces and then it ends up feeling so similar to a less interesting Island anyway.  The really meaningful difference here is that it makes cards more expensive, but that only occurs so close to the end of the game (other than the fact that it drags out the game's ending more because adding another whole ~36VP to the game is pretty silly) and doing virtually anything else with it seems like such a waste of a one-shot $5 card.

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.
...
Yeah. This is just a more-expensive Throne Room that has a stronger effect than Throne Room. I dunno if it's weak at or not, but it seemed weird to use the term "dead" when that generally refers to something like Stables in a hand with no treasure; or when people make fan cards that do almost nothing unless there's an attack available, etc. Even if the card were just literally Throne Room but costing , I wouldn't think to use the term "dead".

Would this work better as a $5? I wasn't sure initially if it should cost $5 or $6; eventually I erred on the side of caution.

I think $6 is an appropriate cost. I'd generally advise against using busted cards like King's Court as a benchmark to balance other cards and comparing this to the $5 Throne variants it seems clearly much stronger than those to me.
A King's Court once that becomes a Throne Room is much stronger than a Throne Room that never misses (Royal Carriage)?  Crown and Scepter are definitely a very marginal benefit on top of Throne Room, but having a one-time upgrade is also not much of one.  I would not vote a $5 price as overwhelming, merely that the way it plays is dully familiar.
I'd personally prefer its playing be limited in some other way and it generate Villagers in some circumstance.  It would make it feel more different than Throne Room and the other Villager cards.

Siege Tower
Types: Action, Attack, Duration
Cost: $4
You may play an Attack card from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, play it again. Otherwise, each other player puts their -1 Card token on their deck.
Setup: Add 2 extra Attack Kingdom card piles to the Supply.
I've played with "Play a non-Duration Action from your hand. If it is still in play, at the start of your next turn: Play it again." Even with no limiters it is such a weak effect that it is often best ignored at a cost of $2, because the costs of aligning it with a worthwhile Action and that inherent -1 Card on the first turn is not nearly compensated by the strength of start-of-turn draw.  Siege Tower however is significantly more limited than that.  It should probably Throne Room the Attack now and play it again next turn.
Playing an Attack Duration in an Attack Duration sounds like a tracking headache, and it seems doubly frustrating that Siege Tower is so bad in Siege Tower.  I'd much rather its Attack be something that can stack.  Maybe "+$1 and each other player with at least 4 cards in hand puts a card from their hand on top of their deck"?
I continue to dislike the idea of anything that throws more piles into the Supply simply because that is a design path that doesn't seem to have any meaningful end: We're just going to keep getting bigger and bigger Kingdoms.  That is completely to taste, though, so don't mind me.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 677
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +401
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4510 on: January 18, 2020, 04:29:21 pm »
+2


DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.

That was like, a decade ago and also Seaside was part of the first "big batch" of five expansions. Maybe the concept has grown up now that Feast/Thief/Saboteur/Scout are retired; is it really that far off from Captain?
I fail to see in what way the 5 cards you mentioned are related to a now-and-later Throne Room. Captain is an emulator, what does this have to do with TR?
As a stupid example, if you use Captain to play two Pearl Divers it is like a delayed Lost City (now a cantrip, +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn). If you use a now and later Throne Room on Pearl Diver it is -1 Card on this turn and +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn. That's the same net effects as Ghost Town, with the big difference that you need two cards for it to work and that the handgaining of Ghost Town is absent.

I know that this comparison is not perfect or complete, I intentionally picked the weakest card to illustrate that Captain is pretty decent even when there are weak Action cards in the Kingdom whereas you cannot say the same about the now-and-later TR.

Re; my examples - I mean the now-and-later throne was probably tested against some cards that weren't worth testing against - garbage in, garbage out.

A throne room in general requires a collision; the next turn effect really just boosts the efficacy of attacks that require consistent application - by your metric, Ghost ship is a Superlab on the next turn, even if everyone else has a Moat - Discard and topdeck attacks in general will be more effective with this - I think this is a great enabler for Pirate Ship, up there with Prince.

You could make your exact same case that Band of Misfits is better than Throne Room because it doesn't require collision, but at the end of the day, they're both useful in different contexts. When I brought up Captain, I was comparing this cards now-and-later-ness to an existing now-and-later card and they can be of varying degrees of utility - there's oceans in that $2 price gap between $4 and $6.

This still at least hits something when it misses the collision, which is more than can be said about other thrones.



Quote
Vista $5 Action - Victory - Duration
Set a Victory card aside under this, face up.
(This stays in play)
If the card set aside in this way cost $5 or more, cards cost <1> more during your turn.
-
This is worth VP equal to the set-aside card.

This is a riff on an old card from the Throne Room contest, spiralstaircase's Eyre, with the difference being this always works (and sometimes hurts you after the fact) instead of having to try to time it.
Needs to be optional for when it gets played with no Victory cards in your hand.
I could fix this but it's fine if it does a blue dog miss - there's no required player accountability with it beyond what's stated, like the original Moneylender or Throne.

I was playing around with a similar idea, but the problem is that its power budget gets completely eaten up by setting aside Provinces and then it ends up feeling so similar to a less interesting Island anyway.  The really meaningful difference here is that it makes cards more expensive, but that only occurs so close to the end of the game (other than the fact that it drags out the game's ending more because adding another whole ~36VP to the game is pretty silly) and doing virtually anything else with it seems like such a waste of a one-shot $5 card.

What about if it, rather than going from hand for its target card, was like Rebuild, where it seeked (sook?) out the next Victory card in your deck and set it aside? It'd still be terminal. Maybe get rid of the penalty with that since it's going to be more randomized. Feel like that'd be less centralizing than Rebuild. Could be maybe a little swingy in slogs (player A sets aside an Overgrown Estate, player B sets aside a Colony - bad news bears for A) but it wouldn't slow the game down nearly as hard as trying to line up a collision which causes a price increase.

Revising it to
Quote
Vista $5 Action - Duration - Victory
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card. Set the revealed Victory card aside, face up, under this. If this sets aside a Province or Colony, all other players get +1 Card.
(This stays in play).
-
This is worth % equal to its set-aside card(s).
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 05:14:30 pm by spineflu »
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +985
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4511 on: January 18, 2020, 08:04:54 pm »
+2


Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.
...
Yeah. This is just a more-expensive Throne Room that has a stronger effect than Throne Room. I dunno if it's weak at or not, but it seemed weird to use the term "dead" when that generally refers to something like Stables in a hand with no treasure; or when people make fan cards that do almost nothing unless there's an attack available, etc. Even if the card were just literally Throne Room but costing , I wouldn't think to use the term "dead".

Would this work better as a $5? I wasn't sure initially if it should cost $5 or $6; eventually I erred on the side of caution.

I think $6 is an appropriate cost. I'd generally advise against using busted cards like King's Court as a benchmark to balance other cards and comparing this to the $5 Throne variants it seems clearly much stronger than those to me.
A King's Court once that becomes a Throne Room is much stronger than a Throne Room that never misses (Royal Carriage)?  Crown and Scepter are definitely a very marginal benefit on top of Throne Room, but having a one-time upgrade is also not much of one.  I would not vote a $5 price as overwhelming, merely that the way it plays is dully familiar.
I'd personally prefer its playing be limited in some other way and it generate Villagers in some circumstance.  It would make it feel more different than Throne Room and the other Villager cards.

Yes? King's Court is insane. This is also a Throne with an on-gain Villager which I think would be very strong at $5 anyway.
Logged

Gubump

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 783
  • Respect: +525
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4512 on: January 19, 2020, 02:56:05 am »
+1


Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.
...
Yeah. This is just a more-expensive Throne Room that has a stronger effect than Throne Room. I dunno if it's weak at or not, but it seemed weird to use the term "dead" when that generally refers to something like Stables in a hand with no treasure; or when people make fan cards that do almost nothing unless there's an attack available, etc. Even if the card were just literally Throne Room but costing , I wouldn't think to use the term "dead".

Would this work better as a $5? I wasn't sure initially if it should cost $5 or $6; eventually I erred on the side of caution.

I think $6 is an appropriate cost. I'd generally advise against using busted cards like King's Court as a benchmark to balance other cards and comparing this to the $5 Throne variants it seems clearly much stronger than those to me.
A King's Court once that becomes a Throne Room is much stronger than a Throne Room that never misses (Royal Carriage)?  Crown and Scepter are definitely a very marginal benefit on top of Throne Room, but having a one-time upgrade is also not much of one.  I would not vote a $5 price as overwhelming, merely that the way it plays is dully familiar.
I'd personally prefer its playing be limited in some other way and it generate Villagers in some circumstance.  It would make it feel more different than Throne Room and the other Villager cards.

Yes? King's Court is insane. This is also a Throne with an on-gain Villager which I think would be very strong at $5 anyway.

A big part of why King's Court is insane is because you can KC-KC. Promenade-Promenade, on the other hand, is more akin to KC-Throne Room, which is nowhere near as powerful. KC gets better the more you have, whereas Promenade doesn't.

That said, my main issue with Promenade isn't its power level, but that it's too Kingdom dependent. If the Kingdom has no other sources of Villagers, it's too weak IMO, but if the Kingdom has a way of getting large amounts of Villagers, such as Recruiter or Academy, then Promenade becomes practically just a cheap King's Court. It's always going to be broken in one direction or the other, IMO.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 03:04:57 am by Gubump »
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

segura

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 843
  • Respect: +378
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4513 on: January 19, 2020, 03:12:50 am »
+1


DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.

That was like, a decade ago and also Seaside was part of the first "big batch" of five expansions. Maybe the concept has grown up now that Feast/Thief/Saboteur/Scout are retired; is it really that far off from Captain?
I fail to see in what way the 5 cards you mentioned are related to a now-and-later Throne Room. Captain is an emulator, what does this have to do with TR?
As a stupid example, if you use Captain to play two Pearl Divers it is like a delayed Lost City (now a cantrip, +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn). If you use a now and later Throne Room on Pearl Diver it is -1 Card on this turn and +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn. That's the same net effects as Ghost Town, with the big difference that you need two cards for it to work and that the handgaining of Ghost Town is absent.

I know that this comparison is not perfect or complete, I intentionally picked the weakest card to illustrate that Captain is pretty decent even when there are weak Action cards in the Kingdom whereas you cannot say the same about the now-and-later TR.

Re; my examples - I mean the now-and-later throne was probably tested against some cards that weren't worth testing against - garbage in, garbage out.
There is no power creep in Dominion (with Attacks it is actually the other way around, DXV doesn't do crazy attacks like Mountebank or Torturer anymore.)
But even if there was, DXV likely tested Seaside cards with not just Base and Intrigue but also cards that ended up in other expansions.

So yeah, pretty dubious to claim that DXV's clear playtesting result has not stood the test of time.

Quote
A throne room in general requires a collision; the next turn effect really just boosts the efficacy of attacks that require consistent application - by your metric, Ghost ship is a Superlab on the next turn, even if everyone else has a Moat
Discard and topdeck attacks in general will be more effective with this - I think this is a great enabler for Pirate Ship, up there with Prince.
That's a good point. Discard attacks and similar stuff like Ghost Ship do actually benefit from a delayed Throne Room.

Quote
You could make your exact same case that Band of Misfits is better than Throne Room because it doesn't require collision, but at the end of the day, they're both useful in different contexts. When I brought up Captain, I was comparing this cards now-and-later-ness to an existing now-and-later card and they can be of varying degrees of utility - there's oceans in that $2 price gap between $4 and $6.
You have to count net effects. Being dead this turn is a big thing for a delayed TR and keeping stuff out of your deck significantly reduces the power of your engine. TR-Duration only keeps the TR out of your deck, the Duration would be out anyway. But DurationTR-Action keeps two cards out of your deck which otherwise would not. So you need far more engine pieces.

Hey, there could be Kingdoms in which this works. Lots of gaining, Hermit gaining cheap stuff, whatever. But hey, why go down this road and do a card which is more restrictive/borderline/bad than a card that the game designer tested and considers to be bad?

Quote
This still at least hits something when it misses the collision, which is more than can be said about other thrones.
A terminal that spreads the -1 Card token is Bureacrat level style weak.
Logged

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 677
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +401
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4514 on: January 19, 2020, 08:12:15 am »
+1


DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.

That was like, a decade ago and also Seaside was part of the first "big batch" of five expansions. Maybe the concept has grown up now that Feast/Thief/Saboteur/Scout are retired; is it really that far off from Captain?
I fail to see in what way the 5 cards you mentioned are related to a now-and-later Throne Room. Captain is an emulator, what does this have to do with TR?
As a stupid example, if you use Captain to play two Pearl Divers it is like a delayed Lost City (now a cantrip, +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn). If you use a now and later Throne Room on Pearl Diver it is -1 Card on this turn and +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn. That's the same net effects as Ghost Town, with the big difference that you need two cards for it to work and that the handgaining of Ghost Town is absent.

I know that this comparison is not perfect or complete, I intentionally picked the weakest card to illustrate that Captain is pretty decent even when there are weak Action cards in the Kingdom whereas you cannot say the same about the now-and-later TR.

Re; my examples - I mean the now-and-later throne was probably tested against some cards that weren't worth testing against - garbage in, garbage out.
There is no power creep in Dominion (with Attacks it is actually the other way around, DXV doesn't do crazy attacks like Mountebank or Torturer anymore.)
But even if there was, DXV likely tested Seaside cards with not just Base and Intrigue but also cards that ended up in other expansions.

So yeah, pretty dubious to claim that DXV's clear playtesting result has not stood the test of time.
is it? Adventurer passed his early playtesting, that card is awful. He's gotten way better and he's had a decade of experience with it. This is what I mean, garbage in garbage out - you get married to the idea of Adventurer as a terminal, you test it against its intermediary/nonterminal cards, when Adv. is bad, you blame the intermediary. It's human.

Quote
This still at least hits something when it misses the collision, which is more than can be said about other thrones.
A terminal that spreads the -1 Card token is Bureacrat level style weak.

oh absolutely. it's swingy based on whether its alone or not.

Aquila

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 320
  • Respect: +370
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4515 on: January 19, 2020, 08:45:32 am »
+2

Quote
Summer House - Action Shelter, $1
You may play a non-Duration, non-Shelter Action card from your hand twice. If you do, trash this.
Quote
Taverna - Night Shelter, $1
Choose a card you have in play that you've gained a copy of this turn. If you do, trash this to gain another copy of it.
Quote
Asylum - Action Shelter, $1
Discard 2 Shelters. If you do, +1 Card per card in your hand.
Edit: reworked Summer House so it can't be trashed in the opening. Replaced Wagon with the cleaner Taverna, which also can't be trashed in the opening.
You can still trash Taverna in the opening by turning it into a Copper.  Not sure if that's good or not, but I would just ask to "choose an Action you have in play..." to avoid the issue altogether.
Asylum looks super weak.  I get that the idea is that you have to hold onto Taverna and Summer House so you can get a powerful draw, but fact is that if you can manage to draw all 3 junk Shelters in any kind of consistent way, the not-even-doubling your hand (your hand is reduced by 3 before you get to draw anything) will be a paltry benefit that only clinches a deck that was already going to draw itself anyway.  I cannot imagine a deck that could stomach 3 extra dead-weight cards that it could otherwise trash just for the hope of this benefit.
Yes, and in the case of a thick Village-Smithy-ish deck it's just chance that they line up, isn't it? Or use a sifter, which is going to be just a few games. So:



Something more rewarding to build around. Fortune spread across 4 cards I'm hoping is safe on a Shelter? The Victory need is there to stop a $5/$2 opening becoming $5/$4. I could make it need an Action in play if 4 cards is too many.

Thanks for your feedback.
Logged

scolapasta

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
  • Respect: +387
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4516 on: January 19, 2020, 04:30:20 pm »
+1

My entry for the weekly challenge is v2a below:



DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.

That was like, a decade ago and also Seaside was part of the first "big batch" of five expansions. Maybe the concept has grown up now that Feast/Thief/Saboteur/Scout are retired; is it really that far off from Captain?
I fail to see in what way the 5 cards you mentioned are related to a now-and-later Throne Room. Captain is an emulator, what does this have to do with TR?
As a stupid example, if you use Captain to play two Pearl Divers it is like a delayed Lost City (now a cantrip, +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn). If you use a now and later Throne Room on Pearl Diver it is -1 Card on this turn and +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn. That's the same net effects as Ghost Town, with the big difference that you need two cards for it to work and that the handgaining of Ghost Town is absent.

I know that this comparison is not perfect or complete, I intentionally picked the weakest card to illustrate that Captain is pretty decent even when there are weak Action cards in the Kingdom whereas you cannot say the same about the now-and-later TR.

Re; my examples - I mean the now-and-later throne was probably tested against some cards that weren't worth testing against - garbage in, garbage out.
There is no power creep in Dominion (with Attacks it is actually the other way around, DXV doesn't do crazy attacks like Mountebank or Torturer anymore.)
But even if there was, DXV likely tested Seaside cards with not just Base and Intrigue but also cards that ended up in other expansions.

So yeah, pretty dubious to claim that DXV's clear playtesting result has not stood the test of time.
is it? Adventurer passed his early playtesting, that card is awful. He's gotten way better and he's had a decade of experience with it. This is what I mean, garbage in garbage out - you get married to the idea of Adventurer as a terminal, you test it against its intermediary/nonterminal cards, when Adv. is bad, you blame the intermediary. It's human.

Quote
This still at least hits something when it misses the collision, which is more than can be said about other thrones.
A terminal that spreads the -1 Card token is Bureacrat level style weak.

oh absolutely. it's swingy based on whether its alone or not.

Wow, great discussion on my entry - thank you!

I do see what you mean that it can be weak - my thought was that straight delayed TR would be, but if I focused on attacks, since many would prefer to be delayed, and gave the alternative so it can't outright miss, it could work. But, yeah it needs... something. And the tracking could be weird with Duration (though by I adding non Duration it can't play itself, so needs to do a little more).

So here are a couple of variants I've come up with to handle this. Do these help mitigate the issues? If so, is one better than the other? Are they, at least, in the right direction?



The first one gives a card, so it makes this closer to just playing the other attack this turn (the difference being, of course, if the card you draw is something you would've played before this). And if you don't have an attack card in hand, it itself is the duration attack for both turns.

The second is simpler, if you don't play an attack, it is a cantrip that still attack this turn.

I still have other variants floating about, but wanted to get these two out now.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2020, 09:41:05 am by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 677
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +401
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4517 on: January 19, 2020, 04:41:19 pm »
0

second one is probably sufficiently strong with +1 Card next turn - compare to Caravan's next turn ability.

scolapasta

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
  • Respect: +387
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4518 on: January 19, 2020, 04:49:55 pm »
+1

second one is probably sufficiently strong with +1 Card next turn - compare to Caravan's next turn ability.

It's not +1 next turn (or at least not meant to be. the "if you don't"  is meant to be the opposite of the "if you do" which refers to playing a non duration attack this turn.
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 677
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +401
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4519 on: January 19, 2020, 05:16:03 pm »
0

ohh my b. misread. yeah that works then.

scolapasta

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
  • Respect: +387
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4520 on: January 19, 2020, 05:37:47 pm »
0

ohh my b. misread. yeah that works then.

Any thoughts on which is better / more interesting?
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Gubump

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 783
  • Respect: +525
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #58: Double Double
« Reply #4521 on: January 19, 2020, 05:38:26 pm »
+3



A Procession variant whose upgrading portion is optional instead of mandatory.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed cost limit to "up to" instead of "exactly" and changed wording to work with Duration tracking.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 05:58:40 pm by Gubump »
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1632
  • Respect: +1288
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4522 on: January 19, 2020, 05:46:30 pm »
+2

Duration Throne Room is weak but with +1 Card it's a decent cantrip. Compare to Scheme; probably right for $4, trading flexibility and stackability (if it says "non Duration") for +1 Card and Action next turn (if it connects). It will miss reshuffles which I think keeps it below $5.
Logged

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 677
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +401
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4523 on: January 19, 2020, 05:52:49 pm »
+1

ohh my b. misread. yeah that works then.

Any thoughts on which is better / more interesting?

well, the first one is going to hit more because of the +1 card, but its also going to slow down the game more with everyone working out of a 4 card hand; its an ok defense against itself tho (similar patterns exist w Ghost Ship, Bandit, Margrave, and Haunted Woods) since you can get rid of the penalty token with a Siege Tower.

The second maybe reword to a choice wording? "Choose one: +1 Card, +1 Action; or Play an Attack from your hand, then play it again at the start of your next turn". Its weaker than #1 but also its a $4 card so it shouldn't be crazy strong.

I think i like #1 better

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1632
  • Respect: +1288
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #58: Double Double
« Reply #4524 on: January 19, 2020, 05:54:02 pm »
+1



A Procession variant whose upgrading portion is optional instead of mandatory.

Procession was changed to exclude Durations due to new rules around tracking.

Another option would be to adopt similar wording to Improve (ie you do the upgrading when you discard the card from play),  which wpuld allow it to be played with Durations. I also don't think the card would be too strong if you could turn Actions into non Actions, or if the trashing was "up to".
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 179 180 [181] 182 183 ... 295  All
 

Page created in 0.221 seconds with 21 queries.