Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GendoIkari]

As worded, if you remove more tokens than you have cards in hand; you will be allowed to choose to trash from an empty hand and not give your opponents . Is this your intent?

I know this costs less than Cathedral, but instead of doesn't seem like enough of a difference for such a huge difference in power level.

[segura]

As worded, if you remove more tokens than you have cards in hand; you will be allowed to choose to trash from an empty hand and not give your opponents . Is this your intent?

That's not how it works, you gotta pick a do-able option. For each token that you remove, you either have to trash a card from your hand or gift a VP. If your hand is empty, you gotta gift the VP.

I know this costs less than Cathedral, but instead of doesn't seem like enough of a difference for such a huge difference in power level.

It is not meant to be a powerful trasher like Cathedral or Chapel which you can, from a pragmatic point of view, savely pick without actullay thinking about whether that choice is good as it is very often the right choice.

So yeah, as it does not strive to be as centralizing as Cathedral the price is fine. It is just the old chapel vs. weaker trasher that costs more discussion but with landscape cards.

[GendoIkari]

As worded, if you remove more tokens than you have cards in hand; you will be allowed to choose to trash from an empty hand and not give your opponents . Is this your intent?

That's not how it works, you gotta pick a do-able option. For each token that you remove, you either have to trash a card from your hand or gift a VP. If your hand is empty, you gotta gift the VP.

From the Torturer official FAQ:

A player can choose to gain a Curse even with no Curses left (and thus not gain one), or to discard 2 cards even with one or zero cards in hand (discarding their only card if they have one).

This applies to everything in Dominion. Any time you are given a choice; you are allowed to pick either one, even if one of them is impossible.

If you want to force the player to always do one, you can say "You may trash a card from your hand. If you don't, each other player gets +1".

But it probably doesn't really matter in this case; you normally start your turn with 5 cards; so you would need 6 tokens built up on the pile, as well as being willing to trash your entire hand, before it's an issue. And spending more than 6 turns doing nothing just to trash your entire hand at the start of a later turn doesn't sound too strong that you need to also give a VP penalty.

[segura]

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh? 

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense. And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

[curtis]

well that escalated quickly.

[GendoIkari]

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh? 

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense. And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

Allowing a player to trash their entire 5 card hand by removing 6-7 tokens without a VP penalty doesn't harm the balance of this Project.

A FAQ can't / doesn't override normal card wording rules. If a card says "+3 cards", it can't mean something other than "draw 3 cards" just because a FAQ comes along and says that "on this card, +3 cards actually means discard 3 cards".

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly

This part is especially ironic, since you yourself interpreted the card wrongly.

[segura]

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh? 

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense. And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

A FAQ can't / doesn't override normal card wording rules. If a card says "+3 cards", it can't mean something other than "draw 3 cards" just because a FAQ comes along and says that "on this card, +3 cards actually means discard 3 cards".

The problem of people like you is that you think too algorithmically and fail to use common sense.

Torturer is a card which was frequently misplayed precisely because it is counterintutitive. From your perspective, the extra line in the 2nd edition that told people that their intution is wrong would be totally unncessary. From the perspective of the large majority of players, i.e. ordinary folks who have a good understanding of the games they play but don't know trivial details, it was absolutely necessary (I also palyed Torturer wrongly and it is not like I am not oewning a lot of games, reading a lot of game rulebooks and explaining rules often). Common sense, designing stuff in an intuitive way, matters.

Ironically my card is the inverse, it would be played intuitively correctly by nearly everybody although it is indeed worded not correctly. Because formatting issues also matter. Try yourself, mock up a card. Rule consistency is one among many factors that matter for this game. Pretending that it is the only one is utterly myopic.

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly

This part is especially ironic, since you yourself interpreted the card wrongly.

Hardly possible as I designed the card. In your rules myopia you were just not caring at all about how the card is meant to work.

[scolapasta]

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh? 

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense. And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

Allowing a player to trash their entire 5 card hand by removing 6-7 tokens without a VP penalty doesn't harm the balance of this Project.

It would have a significant effect on the desired design, though. Because for each turn you add a token, you're getting into riskier territory. I don't trash 1 card, I will have to trash at least 2 (or give at least 1 VP). At some point if you get more than 5 tokens, then there's no reason not to wait until you have the right hand to trash since discarding 10 tokens is the same as discarding 5. But if you had to give the VP, if you can't trash, it's a 5 VP difference.

A FAQ can't / doesn't override normal card wording rules. If a card says "+3 cards", it can't mean something other than "draw 3 cards" just because a FAQ comes along and says that "on this card, +3 cards actually means discard 3 cards".

This ^^^. Choosing an option you cannot do is an established rule. Having to look up an FAQ for each card where this could make a difference to see which alternative it followed is not scalable.

Note the suggesting isn't you can't make this card work the way you want, just that the wording should be different.

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly

This part is especially ironic, since you yourself interpreted the card wrongly.

This made me laugh.

[segura]

Note the suggesting isn't you can't make this card work the way you want, just that the wording should be different.

I don't do dubious cards with a giant wall of text without thinking about the wording. This card needs to be more word-compact, and so far I failed at that. Making it even more wordy is totally out of the question, then it would be even more ripe for the bin than it already is due to its wordiness.
To people like GendoIkari there is only one criterium. But the real world is full of trade-offs. One of them during card design is clarity / rule consistency vs. wordiness / unreadability / lack of memorizability

[Gubump]

Note the suggesting isn't you can't make this card work the way you want, just that the wording should be different.

I don't do dubious cards with a giant wall of text without thinking about the wording. This card needs to be more word-compact, and so far I failed at that. Making it even more wordy is totally out of the question, then it would be even more ripe for the bin than it already is due to its wordiness.
To people like GendoIkari there is only one criterium. But the real world is full of trade-offs. One of them during card design is clarity / rule consistency vs. wordiness / unreadability / lack of memorizability

"For each token removed: You may trash a card from your hand; if you didn't, each other player gets +1" only increases the total word count from 51 to 55, while making it much more consistent with other cards, and functioning the way you want it to. And would actually make it more memorizable than just remembering that it functions differently from literally every other card in existence that gives you choices.

[curtis]

Note the suggesting isn't you can't make this card work the way you want, just that the wording should be different.

I don't do dubious cards with a giant wall of text without thinking about the wording. This card needs to be more word-compact, and so far I failed at that. Making it even more wordy is totally out of the question, then it would be even more ripe for the bin than it already is due to its wordiness.
To people like GendoIkari there is only one criterium. But the real world is full of trade-offs. One of them during card design is clarity / rule consistency vs. wordiness / unreadability / lack of memorizability

What do you think about this, Segura?

At the start of your turn, choose one: place a token here; or you may trash one card per token, remove one token per card trashed, and remove the remaining tokens, giving each other player +1(VP) per remaining token removed. Your tokens left here are worth +1(VP) for each other player.

This also lets you consider making it "remove one token per card trashed this turn" to enable potential interactions with sewers-like effects.

[Optimal_Inefficiency]

Choose one: gain 2 Horses;
or add 2 Debt Tokens to a Supply pile;
or remove 2 Debt Tokens from a Supply pile.
-
(When a player buys a card, they take the Debt Tokens from its pile.)

I am a big fan of Steward and Squire, so I definitely wanted to create a card that gives options in the same manner. Gain 2 Horses is a desirable choice, similar to Sleigh. The last two options could be thought of as an amalgamation of Embargo and Tax. Embargo tokens are such fun, it is a real shame there is only one card that uses them. The same could be said of Tax, but as an Event that gives neither +Buy nor a direct benefit to me, I find myself not often taking advantage of this Embargo-esque Event.

The choices boil down to:
+2 Cards (at some point in the future), or
Give someone their -$1 token twice or make them discard 2 Coppers (if you know what they want), or
+$2 (essentially) if you use it to clear some debt tokens.

The beauty in the last two options is even if you do not plan on trying to strap your opponents with debt, you still need to have a plan for if they try to do it to you. The assault and the counter are the same card.

Explanation of the theme, if case you missed it:
- Stealing horses gets you horses (gain 2 Horses).
- Stealing horses puts you at an advantage (remove 2 Debt Tokens).
- Stealing horses puts your opponent at a disadvantage (add 2 Debt Tokens).

[spheremonk]

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh? 

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense. And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

It is common sense to think that a card would work like every other card in Dominion. Torturer, Native Village, Charm, Lurker, Pawn, Steward, Courtier, Nobles, Squire, Count, Amulet, Miser, Wild Hunt, Treasurer and Governor all work one way. Yours works the opposite way.

[segura]

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh? 

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense. And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

It is common sense to think that a card would work like every other card in Dominion. Torturer, Native Village, Charm, Lurker, Pawn, Steward, Courtier, Nobles, Squire, Count, Amulet, Miser, Wild Hunt, Treasurer and Governor all work one way. Yours works the opposite way.

Not really, it works totally fine. If you want it to. If you are direly and myopically set on finding rule issues, well, then naturally it does not.

Torturer might be official but it is extremely counterintuitive. As I already said, my playing group would immediately get that the VPs are a punishment which you is not avoidable. They would also play Torturer wrong or at least ask (I own the first version).

I totally agree that my wording is officially wrong. But it is far mor intuitive than Torturer and as I don’t play with robots that kinda matters.

[segura]

Choose one: gain 2 Horses;
or add 2 Debt Tokens to a Supply pile;
or remove 2 Debt Tokens from a Supply pile.
-
(When a player buys a card, they take the Debt Tokens from its pile.)

I am a big fan of Steward and Squire, so I definitely wanted to create a card that gives options in the same manner. Gain 2 Horses is a desirable choice, similar to Sleigh. The last two options could be thought of as an amalgamation of Embargo and Tax. Embargo tokens are such fun, it is a real shame there is only one card that uses them. The same could be said of Tax, but as an Event that gives neither +Buy nor a direct benefit to me, I find myself not often taking advantage of this Embargo-esque Event.

The choices boil down to:
+2 Cards (at some point in the future), or
Give someone their -$1 token twice or make them discard 2 Coppers (if you know what they want), or
+$2 (essentially) if you use it to clear some debt tokens.

The beauty in the last two options is even if you do not plan on trying to strap your opponents with debt, you still need to have a plan for if they try to do it to you. The assault and the counter are the same card.

Explanation of the theme, if case you missed it:
- Stealing horses gets you horses (gain 2 Horses).
- Stealing horses puts you at an advantage (remove 2 Debt Tokens).
- Stealing horses puts your opponent at a disadvantage (add 2 Debt Tokens).

I am fairly certain that the first option will be used more often, but if you need to get a card, you will remove Debt and if there is a bottleneck card that the opponents need (e.g. the only trasher or junker in the Kingdom), the Tax attack sounds good.
I like it, simple stuff that immediately works.

[spheremonk]

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh? 

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense. And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

It is common sense to think that a card would work like every other card in Dominion. Torturer, Native Village, Charm, Lurker, Pawn, Steward, Courtier, Nobles, Squire, Count, Amulet, Miser, Wild Hunt, Treasurer and Governor all work one way. Yours works the opposite way.

Not really, it works totally fine. If you want it to. If you are direly and myopically set on finding rule issues, well, then naturally it does not.

Torturer might be official but it is extremely counterintuitive. As I already said, my playing group would immediately get that the VPs are a punishment which you is not avoidable. They would also play Torturer wrong or at least ask (I own the first version).

I totally agree that my wording is officially wrong. But it is far mor intuitive than Torturer and as I don’t play with robots that kinda matters.

Wow. I guess you’ve won me over. I have two new entries for this week’s contest.

     
 
FAQ:

Ville: You get plus two Actions, including the one you used to play this.

Smith: Draw three cards, counting this (i.e., leave this card in your play area, not in your hand, and draw two cards off the top of your deck).

[Gubump]

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh? 

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense. And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

It is common sense to think that a card would work like every other card in Dominion. Torturer, Native Village, Charm, Lurker, Pawn, Steward, Courtier, Nobles, Squire, Count, Amulet, Miser, Wild Hunt, Treasurer and Governor all work one way. Yours works the opposite way.

Not really, it works totally fine. If you want it to. If you are direly and myopically set on finding rule issues, well, then naturally it does not.

Torturer might be official but it is extremely counterintuitive. As I already said, my playing group would immediately get that the VPs are a punishment which you is not avoidable. They would also play Torturer wrong or at least ask (I own the first version).

I totally agree that my wording is officially wrong. But it is far mor intuitive than Torturer and as I don’t play with robots that kinda matters.

Sure, YOUR playgroup may find Torturer counter-intuitive and assume correctly that your card functions the opposite way of every other card just because you said so, but literally nobody on this forum agrees with you or your playgroup. Contrary to what you seem to believe, the world doesn't revolve around you and your playgroup.

I'm beginning to wonder why you even bother posting your cards here when you absolutely refuse to ever take any feedback and seem adamantly dead-set on setting every card you make in stone.

[pubby]

Yeah okay, this argument about intuitiveness has served its course and the quality of discourse is dropping. As the god-king-judge of this week's contest I'm going to start disqualifying people who don't tone it down.

[Rhodos]

So you can chain Rabbits like you can chain Cultists. I like the idea that you get rewarded for having multiple copies of the same card, without the card being terrible if you don't draw them together.

I thought it is quite strong for $2, so I wanted to give the other players a little bonus, when you gain a Rabbit. Since drawing a card like with Lost City is too much, I decided for a little cycle. Which also, should not be underrated. The "non-empty" deck clause is there to prevent it from triggering a shuffle. Especially triggering the first shuffle, when the oppenent has 3/4 or 2/5 is way to annoying and it is not meant be an attack.

Changelog:
Changed the on-gain effect from giving your opponents a cycle (draw one, discard one) to giving your opponents a Coffer.
That makes the card way easier to understand, in the sense that the advantage for your opponent is clearer to see. Also your opponent does not have to react on your turn and it is less wordy, both of which is always good.
And I think it is more balanced now. You get a strong card, they get a strong effect (hey, your playing a Baker for them!). Sounds fair.

I changed my card to make it more balanced and easier.

[segura]

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh? 

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense. And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

It is common sense to think that a card would work like every other card in Dominion. Torturer, Native Village, Charm, Lurker, Pawn, Steward, Courtier, Nobles, Squire, Count, Amulet, Miser, Wild Hunt, Treasurer and Governor all work one way. Yours works the opposite way.

Not really, it works totally fine. If you want it to. If you are direly and myopically set on finding rule issues, well, then naturally it does not.

Torturer might be official but it is extremely counterintuitive. As I already said, my playing group would immediately get that the VPs are a punishment which you is not avoidable. They would also play Torturer wrong or at least ask (I own the first version).

I totally agree that my wording is officially wrong. But it is far mor intuitive than Torturer and as I don’t play with robots that kinda matters.

Sure, YOUR playgroup may find Torturer counter-intuitive and assume correctly that your card functions the opposite way of every other card just because you said so, but literally nobody on this forum agrees with you or your playgroup. Contrary to what you seem to believe, the world doesn't revolve around you and your playgroup.

True that, my gaming group consists of hardcore gamers and is thus haedly representative. The average Dominion player will be less familiar with the rules than my gaming group and rely more on common sense.
You can of course pretend that the average Joe always played Torturer correctly or That the 2nd Edition wording of Torturer does not exist. It had nothing to do with reality though.

[GendoIkari]

Yeah okay, this argument about intuitiveness has served its course and the quality of discourse is dropping. As the god-king-judge of this week's contest I'm going to start disqualifying people who don't tone it down.

Joke's on you, I don't have a card to submit to the contest, do your worst! 

[Gubump]

Slower at getting rid of your cards than Chapel, but is useful much later in the game since it can get rid of your Victory cards without losing any of their VP.

[Freddy10]

The idea is give you some shifting if you can play the cards in a certain way. The original idea of rope didn't had the discard effect, (and no draw on Climber), but it felt to strong for a $2 card.
Edit 1: fixed typos
Edit 2: removing rope at the end of the turn

[Gubump]

1. You left out the "m" in Climber.
2. "Take" and "Rope" should both be capitalized.
Typos aside, this is my favorite entry so far.

[spineflu]

Changing my entry in light of the $2 Project info.

Oyster Farmer • $2 • Action
+1 Action.
Reveal the top and bottom cards of your deck. You may play a Treasure revealed this way. Discard the cards that were revealed but not played.