Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 268 269 [270] 271 272 ... 327  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contests #1 - #100  (Read 1547509 times)

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

anordinaryman

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
  • Respect: +502
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6725 on: August 18, 2020, 11:15:56 pm »
0

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this old RBCI card:

Attic
$2 Action
+1 Action
Draw any number of cards, then discard that many.

This  is strictly better than warehouse
Logged

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6726 on: August 18, 2020, 11:29:37 pm »
0

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this old RBCI card:

Attic
$2 Action
+1 Action
Draw any number of cards, then discard that many.

This  is strictly better than warehouse

It's way way better than warehouse, because it lets you swap out the cards in your hand with exactly what you want whenever it's played.
Logged

mail-mi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1298
  • Shuffle iT Username: mail-mi
  • Come play some Forum Mafia with us!
  • Respect: +1364
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6727 on: August 19, 2020, 01:09:49 am »
0

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this old RBCI card:

Attic
$2 Action
+1 Action
Draw any number of cards, then discard that many.

Lol, that's my RBCI. Wow, that was years ago.
Logged
I currently imagine mail-mi wearing a dark trenchcoat and a bowler hat, hunched over a bit, toothpick in his mouth, holding a gun in his pocket.  One bead of sweat trickling down his nose.

'And what is it that ye shall hope for? Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise." - Moroni 7:41, the Book of Mormon

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1424
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6728 on: August 19, 2020, 05:04:40 am »
0

I am so terribly sorry to post this so late, but I was still not satisfied with my entry, so I narrowed it to this:



Now, regardless if there still are some small hiccups with Wager V3, I'll leave it as is.
First of all, this is strictly better than Village.
Second, even at $4 it might be too strong. If you had to spend the Action to draw it would be OK.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 05:05:41 am by segura »
Logged

xyz123

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
  • Respect: +511
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6729 on: August 19, 2020, 07:05:02 am »
0

A quick idea of a Forge variant for a late entry.

Smelting Pot
Cost
Trash at least one card from your hand. You may gain any number of differently named cards whose total cost is not greater than the total cost of the cards trashed.
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1424
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6730 on: August 19, 2020, 08:38:31 am »
0

A quick idea of a Forge variant for a late entry.

Smelting Pot
Cost
Trash at least one card from your hand. You may gain any number of differently named cards whose total cost is not greater than the total cost of the cards trashed.
This is strictly better than Forge yet massively cheaper. Scripted opening.
Logged

X-tra

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +1113
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6731 on: August 19, 2020, 08:56:18 am »
0

First of all, this is strictly better than Village.
Second, even at $4 it might be too strong. If you had to spend the Action to draw it would be OK.

I don’t think it’s strictly better than Village. It’s more along the line of, it’s just different than Village. They’re kind of on 2 different scales. If we analyse Wager more thoroughly, we see that:
  • It’s a Village if played as is.
  • Then, it’s a Laboratory that makes you take (which is probably where you want to be more often than not with Wager).
If you keep drawing, it’s all downhill from there onward.
  • At 3 cards drawn, it’s a Smithy that gives you . Pretty shit deal.
  • Then, we have a Hunting Grounds that gives you AND that sucks one of your spare Actions out. Not even playing a Village before drawing 4 Cards with Wager will save you from it being terminal.
And it goes on. It’s just so different than Village in all the options you can do with it. I’ll concede that maybe the extra versatility of the whole affair is what should bump it to , but no way with these below average choices should it be upgraded to a . But it doesn’t matter anyway. We’re so far into this competition that further changing the card would be a disservice to Pubby. So it’ll have to stay as is.
Logged
Bottom text

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1424
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6732 on: August 19, 2020, 09:54:59 am »
+3

First of all, this is strictly better than Village.
Second, even at $4 it might be too strong. If you had to spend the Action to draw it would be OK.

I don’t think it’s strictly better than Village.
Dude, it is a Village with an extra, non-mandatory option.
That is most definitely strictly better, so it has to cost at least $4.
Logged

X-tra

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +1113
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6733 on: August 19, 2020, 10:01:31 am »
0

Dude, it is a Village with an extra, non-mandatory option.
That is most definitely strictly better, so it has to cost at least $4.
But the options morph Wager into something that really isn't "Village + something", like I listed. In fact, all of the options you can have with it are weaker than their other existing card counter part (except, maybe, when you decide to draw only one card with Wager). Like, a Smithy that gives ? Hardly justifiable at .

But regardless, you might have omitted to read this here quote:

I’ll concede that maybe the extra versatility of the whole affair is what should bump it to , […]
It addresses the concern you’re raising. ;)
Logged
Bottom text

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1424
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6734 on: August 19, 2020, 10:34:26 am »
+4

This is like saying that Mining Village would be fine at $3 because, duh, what kind of idiot blow ups his village.
Contrary to your claim, the card is Village plus something. The first part is village, then you can either skip the second part or, if you want to, use the extra part.

It does not matter what the extra option is or that it involves converting one resource into another or whatever. The extra option is valuable and thus has to be priced in.

This is nothing controversial but Dominion 101: all villages with a cherry on top cost more than $3.
Logged

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 578
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6735 on: August 19, 2020, 10:35:53 am »
+1

Dude, it is a Village with an extra, non-mandatory option.
That is most definitely strictly better, so it has to cost at least $4.
But the options morph Wager into something that really isn't "Village + something", like I listed. In fact, all of the options you can have with it are weaker than their other existing card counter part (except, maybe, when you decide to draw only one card with Wager). Like, a Smithy that gives ? Hardly justifiable at .

But regardless, you might have omitted to read this here quote:

I’ll concede that maybe the extra versatility of the whole affair is what should bump it to , […]
It addresses the concern you’re raising. ;)

I think you're evaluatiing "strictly better" to mean that on play it is stronger than "+1 Card, +2 Actions". And you make good, reasoned arguments for the different play options.

But (and you do consider this with the versatility comment) the point segura is making is that if this is on the board, you would always buy this instead of village. Because it's always can be a village, and in a circumstance where you need it to something different, you can.

Aside from that, a couple of logistical questions:
• Can you draw more cards, than you have actions? As written it looks like it can. You still get the debt of course, but you can't lose a non existing action, and if you have villagers, you can spend them after.
• do you have to decide how many to draw before you draw the first card? Or can you draw 1, then decide if you want to draw another, then another,... As written, I would assume the latter. (otherwise you could just say "draw any number of cards. For each card you drew, ...."
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Rhodos

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
  • Shuffle iT Username: Card Master
  • Respect: +86
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6736 on: August 19, 2020, 11:37:45 am »
0





This looks like fun :)

As a baseline, I would compare it to the on-play effect of market square. But of course there are a lot of things that make Consigner different, and some make it weaker and some stronger, also depending on the situation and the kingdom.
With that in mind, I would drop the price to $3. That seems to fit it's power level better. The other option, and that is the one I would love to see, is to give it +1 Action, making the baseline comparison being Worker's Village. And I really like games, where you have to get your basics like extra actions through non-standard ways (e.g. with Summon)!
(and it would also make playing Consigner with no Actions in Exile less of a pain)
Logged

X-tra

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +1113
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6737 on: August 19, 2020, 12:48:30 pm »
0

This is like saying that Mining Village would be fine at $3 because, duh, what kind of idiot blow ups his village.
Contrary to your claim, the card is Village plus something. The first part is village, then you can either skip the second part or, if you want to, use the extra part.

It does not matter what the extra option is or that it involves converting one resource into another or whatever. The extra option is valuable and thus has to be priced in.

This is nothing controversial but Dominion 101: all villages with a cherry on top cost more than $3.
Counterargument: Hamlet. It does more (and less at the same time, yes) than a Village, but it ain't costing your precious . Village doesn't give the Buy, but Hamlet can! What! Poorly designed official card if you ask me.

Okay. Now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. In truth I don't really think what I said about Hamlet, I'm just being petty. Still, why do you refuse to read the part where I agree'd that it should be a ? I'm just saying that I believe it should be so, not because it's a Village that gives something more, but because it's a Village that has the option of probably be shittier than a normal Village (again, always barring the case where its user turns it into a Laboratory).

Final test: Price me this hypothetical card: "+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard a card for +1 Buy". Hamlet, Worker's Village and Village all say good luck.

I think you're evaluatiing "strictly better" to mean that on play it is stronger than "+1 Card, +2 Actions". And you make good, reasoned arguments for the different play options.

But (and you do consider this with the versatility comment) the point segura is making is that if this is on the board, you would always buy this instead of village. Because it's always can be a village, and in a circumstance where you need it to something different, you can.
A sound argument. I did realise that after making the card. My focus was on the fact that, if you chose to overdraw with Wager, it'd be weaker and overpriced compare to stuff like the Smithy case I mentioned before. However it is true that just giving the user the option to do so, whereas Village do not, is worth bumping up the price by , even if said choices are below mediocre. Choices that will probably put you in a more miserable position than nuking your Mining Villages for cash, dare I add. ;)


Edit: Okay. Removed the unnecessary mean undertones of this post. I'm not that kind of guy, sorry.  :-[
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 01:10:27 pm by X-tra »
Logged
Bottom text

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6738 on: August 19, 2020, 01:14:27 pm »
+2

This is like saying that Mining Village would be fine at $3 because, duh, what kind of idiot blow ups his village.
Contrary to your claim, the card is Village plus something. The first part is village, then you can either skip the second part or, if you want to, use the extra part.

It does not matter what the extra option is or that it involves converting one resource into another or whatever. The extra option is valuable and thus has to be priced in.

This is nothing controversial but Dominion 101: all villages with a cherry on top cost more than $3.
Counterargument: Hamlet. It does more (and less at the same time, yes) than a Village, but it ain't costing your precious . Village doesn't give the Buy, but Hamlet can! What! Poorly designed official card if you ask me.

Okay. Now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. In truth I don't really think what I said about Hamlet, I'm just being petty. Still, why do you refuse to read the part where I agree'd that it should be a ? I'm just saying that I believe it should be so, not because it's a Village that gives something more, but because it's a Village that has the option of probably be shittier than a normal Village (again, always barring the case where its user turns it into a Laboratory).

Final test: Price me this hypothetical card: "+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard a card for +1 Buy". Hamlet, Worker's Village and Village all say good luck.

I think you're evaluatiing "strictly better" to mean that on play it is stronger than "+1 Card, +2 Actions". And you make good, reasoned arguments for the different play options.

But (and you do consider this with the versatility comment) the point segura is making is that if this is on the board, you would always buy this instead of village. Because it's always can be a village, and in a circumstance where you need it to something different, you can.
A sound argument. I did realise that after making the card. My focus was on the fact that, if you chose to overdraw with Wager, it'd be weaker and overpriced compare to stuff like the Smithy case I mentioned before. However it is true that just giving the user the option to do so, whereas Village do not, is worth bumping up the price by , even if said choices are below mediocre. Choices that will probably put you in a more miserable position than nuking your Mining Villages for cash, dare I add. ;)


Edit: Okay. Removed the unnecessary mean undertones of this post. I'm not that kind of guy, sorry.  :-[

You're missing a key idea about how strictly better works. Imagine this card:

Quote
Other Village - Action -
Choose One:
+1 Card, +2 Actions
OR
Gain a Curse

Almost every time you play this card, it's exactly Village. If you choose the other option, it's way worse than Village. But the card is still strictly better than Village, because every single thing that Village can do for you when you play it, this card can also do for you when you play it.

Hamlet, on the other hand, cannot do every thing for you that Village can do, no matter what choices you make with it. There are 4 total outcomes you can get from playing Village, and none of them have the net effect of +1 action while keeping your handsize the same, which is what Village does.

Other Village, on the other hand, can do what Village does for you (giving +1 action while keeping your handsize the same), but it can also do something else as well. That makes it strictly better.
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

X-tra

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +1113
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6739 on: August 19, 2020, 01:30:30 pm »
0

You're missing a key idea about how strictly better works. Imagine this card:

Quote
Other Village - Action -
Choose One:
+1 Card, +2 Actions
OR
Gain a Curse

Almost every time you play this card, it's exactly Village. If you choose the other option, it's way worse than Village. But the card is still strictly better than Village, because every single thing that Village can do for you when you play it, this card can also do for you when you play it.

Hamlet, on the other hand, cannot do every thing for you that Village can do, no matter what choices you make with it. There are 4 total outcomes you can get from playing Village, and none of them have the net effect of +1 action while keeping your handsize the same, which is what Village does.

Other Village, on the other hand, can do what Village does for you (giving +1 action while keeping your handsize the same), but it can also do something else as well. That makes it strictly better.
So is Other Village worth or in the example you’ve shown? You priced it at , is it because you believe that it is worth this cost? If so, then you did the illegal move of pricing a strictly better Village under .

Anyway, Segura said :

It does not matter what the extra option is or that it involves converting one resource into another or whatever.

So technically, the loss of the 2 cards to Hamlet does not matter, since “converting one resource into another” doesn’t matter. That’s what irked me a lil’. But I get it, I understand. Hamlet can never be, at minimum, the same as Village. Like I said, I did not have faith in this argument, sorry I even brought this up. But yeah, to go back on my example in my previous post, a card that says “+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard a card for +1 Buy” should be a , correct? Strictly better than Village cards must always be at least . But now, it’s strictly worse than Worker’s Village. What happens then?

Anyway, sorry for derailing this thread. The conclusion is that, yes, Wager is a card worth . I just had other reasons to believe that it was worth this cost.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 01:37:51 pm by X-tra »
Logged
Bottom text

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 578
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6740 on: August 19, 2020, 01:38:32 pm »
+1

But yeah, to go back on my example in my previous post, a card that says “+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard for +1 Buy” should be a , correct? Strictly better than Village cards must always be at least . But now, it’s strictly worse than Worker’s Village. What happens then?

What happens then is you scrap (or tweak) that design, because such a card can't work.

(or do an alternative cost like )
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6741 on: August 19, 2020, 01:40:25 pm »
+1

You're missing a key idea about how strictly better works. Imagine this card:

Quote
Other Village - Action -
Choose One:
+1 Card, +2 Actions
OR
Gain a Curse

Almost every time you play this card, it's exactly Village. If you choose the other option, it's way worse than Village. But the card is still strictly better than Village, because every single thing that Village can do for you when you play it, this card can also do for you when you play it.

Hamlet, on the other hand, cannot do every thing for you that Village can do, no matter what choices you make with it. There are 4 total outcomes you can get from playing Village, and none of them have the net effect of +1 action while keeping your handsize the same, which is what Village does.

Other Village, on the other hand, can do what Village does for you (giving +1 action while keeping your handsize the same), but it can also do something else as well. That makes it strictly better.
So is Other Village worth or in the example you’ve shown? You priced it at , is it because you believe that it is worth this cost? If so, then you did the illegal move of pricing a strictly better Village under .

Yeah I listed it at to be an example of what shouldn't be done. At the card would be fine (well it would be a bad card, but it wouldn't break the strictly better principle).

Quote
Anyway, Segura said :

It does not matter what the extra option is or that it involves converting one resource into another or whatever.

So technically, the loss of the 2 cards to Hamlet does not matter, since “converting one resource into another” doesn’t matter. That’s what irked me a lil’. But I get it, I understand. Hamlet can never be, at minimum, the same as Village.

Right, it's fine to think of discarding cards as part of converting resources, but the important thing is that Hamlet doesn't do everything Village does and also allow you to discard cards for more abilities. If you choose not to do any resource conversion with Hamlet, you get +1 card +1 action, not +1 card +2 actions.

Quote
But yeah, to go back on my example in my previous post, a card that says “+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard for +1 Buy” should be a , correct? Strictly better than Village cards must always be at least . But now, it’s strictly worse than Worker’s Village. What happens then?

This is a problem that Donald has actually discussed a few times, just recently in fact in the Interview Thread. Basically the existence of some cards makes other cards impossible. The card you suggest cannot exist unless it uses something like a Debt cost.
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

gambit05

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
  • Respect: +495
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6742 on: August 19, 2020, 01:56:27 pm »
0

But yeah, to go back on my example in my previous post, a card that says “+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard a card for +1 Buy” should be a , correct? Strictly better than Village cards must always be at least . But now, it’s strictly worse than Worker’s Village. What happens then?
This card cannot cost $3, because it is always a Village+. To have it with a cost of $4 is difficult, because of the already existing cards (Workers Village), which is in most cases better, but not strictly better. If you would be really forced to make and price this specific card, give it a Debt cost as scolapasta pointed out, which looks awful, or another idea, as part of a split-pile, where the second card is a draw to X card, and then all of the sudden you want this card and not Workers Village. This is just an example to demonstrate that, if one card is not strictly better, but only better in most cases, there is a chance for the seemingly weaker card.
Logged

X-tra

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +1113
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6743 on: August 19, 2020, 02:01:22 pm »
0

Interesting. Thank you guys for taking the time to have this lil’ chat with me, albeit a little off topic one (Sorry 'bout that)! And uh, thank you for doing so without making me feel like I’m a complete idiot who doesn’t know his “Dominion 101”, unlike uhh… *cough*

So I was looking at all Wager could be and considered all of these options and their appropriated cost as if they were cards on their own. “Oh so it can be Village, so that’s a .” “Then it can be a Lab that gives you ”, that oughta be a .” “Okay, now a Smithy that gives you lotsa Debt, that’s a , maybe even a ?.” “Okay, overall, all these choices seem to average around , so that’s what it should cost.”

But Wager is more than the sum of its parts. The mere fact that the option to morph it into this or that card – with Village as its base – is definitely and unarguably setting the cost threshold of it at . I guess I didn’t look at the “Village plus something” that Segura said with the same pair of eyes. ‘Cause in my head, it was all like, “Well, it’s almost Village minus something, actually.” Which is uhh balderdash. But again, no time to change the cost now.

Anyway uhhh sorry Pubby, have fun judging through all these cool walls of text. :D
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 02:02:27 pm by X-tra »
Logged
Bottom text

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1532
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1677
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6744 on: August 19, 2020, 03:14:00 pm »
+1

“Okay, overall, all these choices seem to average around , so that’s what it should cost.”

Ironmonger also shows that this averaging-the-effects method doesn't necessarily make you arrive at a correct price. Depending on what it reveals, Ironmonger is either a Village+ (), a Peddler+ (), or a Lab+ (), which averages out to , which is higher than its cost (this is because you don't have full control over the effect, and the strongest effect is also the rarest).

When you just get to directly choose which effect your card has, then it has to cost at least as much as the maximum "effect-cost." In the case of Wager, you could just choose to always use the Lab- () effect, so it has to cost at least , even without the strictly-better-than-Village comparison. I'd even argue that Wager should actually cost , since Lab with is probably worth , and Wager is strictly better than that, enough so to probably cost .
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1424
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6745 on: August 19, 2020, 05:03:59 pm »
0

“Okay, overall, all these choices seem to average around , so that’s what it should cost.”

Ironmonger also shows that this averaging-the-effects method doesn't necessarily make you arrive at a correct price. Depending on what it reveals, Ironmonger is either a Village+ (), a Peddler+ (), or a Lab+ (), which averages out to , which is higher than its cost (this is because you don't have full control over the effect, and the strongest effect is also the rarest).

When you just get to directly choose which effect your card has, then it has to cost at least as much as the maximum "effect-cost." In the case of Wager, you could just choose to always use the Lab- () effect, so it has to cost at least , even without the strictly-better-than-Village comparison. I'd even argue that Wager should actually cost , since Lab with is probably worth , and Wager is strictly better than that, enough so to probably cost .
That is a quite brilliant point about Ironmonger.

About Wager, I find it very hard to evaluate. Asper had a Lab that comes with 1D for $3. I don’t know if it was balanced but the choice between the effect of two $3s doesn’t smell like a $5. Hard to say.
On the other hand, there is the third option use this as dead-terminal draw. In the absence of Villagers, only something for money decks and in Platinum Kingdoms it might be a real thing.

I think that this very third option, albeit perhaps only sometimes useful, is what might push this into $5 territory.
On a meta-level, the card should obviously get rid of the village part and focus on debt->money, that is interesting enough in itself without further complications.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 05:09:09 pm by segura »
Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6746 on: August 19, 2020, 09:52:43 pm »
0


Quote
Rectory • $4 • Action
+2 Cards
Trash any number of cards from the top of your deck. For each card trashed this way, +$1.
Untested/off the cuff and getting it in right under the wire.
FAQ: you cannot trigger a reshuffle to trash more cards w this by declaring a large number (you can reshuffle if the +2 cards causes you to reshuffle). You do not look at the cards as you go and decide when to stop - you declare how many you're trashing, then do it, then for each card you trashed, +$1.

Priced at $4 for the same-ish reason chapel is priced at $2.
also sorry if this is the same as a card someone has entered already, i didn't have time to give the thread my usual perusal (school starting up).
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 09:53:46 pm by spineflu »
Logged

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6747 on: August 19, 2020, 09:58:59 pm »
0


Quote
Rectory • $4 • Action
+2 Cards
Trash any number of cards from the top of your deck. For each card trashed this way, +$1.
Untested/off the cuff and getting it in right under the wire.
FAQ: you cannot trigger a reshuffle to trash more cards w this by declaring a large number (you can reshuffle if the +2 cards causes you to reshuffle). You do not look at the cards as you go and decide when to stop - you declare how many you're trashing, then do it, then for each card you trashed, +$1.

Priced at $4 for the same-ish reason chapel is priced at $2.
also sorry if this is the same as a card someone has entered already, i didn't have time to give the thread my usual perusal (school starting up).

Fortress turns this into an infinite $ generator.


Ignore this - I didn't read the faq well at all.

It sounds interesting, although I think you probably don't want to use this often after the first shuffle.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 10:01:49 pm by alion8me »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6748 on: August 19, 2020, 11:17:49 pm »
+2


Quote
Rectory • $4 • Action
+2 Cards
Trash any number of cards from the top of your deck. For each card trashed this way, +$1.
Untested/off the cuff and getting it in right under the wire.
FAQ: you cannot trigger a reshuffle to trash more cards w this by declaring a large number (you can reshuffle if the +2 cards causes you to reshuffle). You do not look at the cards as you go and decide when to stop - you declare how many you're trashing, then do it, then for each card you trashed, +$1.

Priced at $4 for the same-ish reason chapel is priced at $2.
also sorry if this is the same as a card someone has entered already, i didn't have time to give the thread my usual perusal (school starting up).

I'm not sure how the FAQ fits within the general rules of Dominion... from the main second edition rulebook:

Quote
If you have to do anything with your deck - for example draw, look at, reveal, set aside, discard, or trash cards - and you need more cards than are left in your deck, first shuffle your discard pile and put it under your deck, then do the thing.

It even calls out "trash" specifically as a thing you might need to do with your deck... so "trash the top 5 cards of your deck" would definitely trigger a reshuffle if there are fewer than 5 cards remaining in your draw pile. I think you need different card wording, not just a FAQ entry, if you want to actually change the rules.

Pretty much the only cards that care about thinking of the discard pile as anything other than a natural extension of your draw pile are things that let you search your discard pile, and Fisherman (as well of course as anything that gains cards).
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

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +703
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6749 on: August 20, 2020, 08:44:06 am »
+2


Quote
Vintner
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card. Discard any number of cards. +1 Villager per card discarded.
Discard for Villagers.  A lot of existing Villager sources are limited: Acting Troupe pops; Lackeys, Patron, and Spice Merchant don't solve a desire for +Actions; Recruiter tends to eat most of its own Villagers to trash Coppers non-terminally; and Sculptor has to gain stop-cards.  It's only Academy where we regularly get to see how powerful huge numbers of +Villagers are.
Ideally you want to use Vintner as all your Villages at once each shuffle, but that might be kind of awkward, so maybe stock up a bit.  Skip a turn for +5 Villagers?
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)
Pages: 1 ... 268 269 [270] 271 272 ... 327  All
 

Page created in 0.144 seconds with 21 queries.