Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 298 299 [300] 301 302 ... 308  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 445335 times)

1 Member and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

anordinaryman

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 186
  • Respect: +170
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7475 on: November 09, 2020, 02:23:45 pm »
+2

Card Submission



Quote
Estuary - Victory - $4
2VictoryPoints
-
When you gain this, set aside the top 2 cards of your deck. At the start of your next turn, put them in your hand.

Estuary is a card you may gain to help your next hand. You can think of it as an Expedition that clogs your deck up. Though the card you are clogging your deck up is worth 2vp, so it's not horrible. I'll just say be careful buying too many of these too early.

Open to feedback, of course.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2020, 02:34:48 pm by anordinaryman »
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 186
  • Respect: +170
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7476 on: November 09, 2020, 02:32:23 pm »
+3

Submission (Rice Paddy):



Drawing works like with Way of the Squirrel.

Donald is moving away from on-buy to on-gain triggers, but I think over-paying when you gain is a little confusing. Are you allowed to play treasures on your action phase to over-pay, or do you only get to overpay if you have virtual coin? What about using coffers? What if you gain this card on not your turn (swindler, messenger, etc), can you over-pay then?

I recommend changing this to an on-buy trigger. It resolves all the confusion and plays much more similar to the over-pay mechanic defined in the rule book. The rule book specifically says overpaying happens when you buy not when you gain.

Feudal Grant (Victory, $)

1VP

---
When you gain this, +2
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1

So, if you trash this, it's like you paid $4 and used a trash action to get a net 1. That's pretty bad, so I think players are unlikely to ever trash it. If you upped the cost of this and gave out 3 when gaining, it could be a more interesting decision whether it is worth trashing or not.



Quote
Distant Island • • Victory

2
_____________________________________________________________

When you gain this, exile it. If you did, you may exile a card from your hand.



An instant Island, which does the Island trick in the moment you gain it.

Edited to change card name. Thinking about exile, "Distant Island" seems to be a better name.

This feels too strong to me. Because Exile is a mechanic where you can choose to gain the cards from discard, this card reduces down to
"gain 2 , exile a card from your hand", which is very strong for 5. Compared to other similar cards that give VP on gain without clouding your deck (conquest, salt the earth, wedding), it seems strong since it also gives the benefit of exiling a card from your deck.

To make it more interesting, you could add a clause "when you gain a Distant Island, discard all Distant Islands you have in exile" which then makes it a lot more interesting. Right now it's like a super strong event that psuedo-trashes a card and grants you 2vp.

Edit: upon reconsidering, it's not too strong in a game with trashers. But in a game with no-trashing and no-exiling, I think it might be a little powerful. But it's pretty fine, because 5s should be powerful. Though it does seem stronger than any other events that give VP which this basically is. So I'm a little conflicted. I still think the forced discarding of exiled Distant Islands makes the card more interesting, because then it plays a lot less like victory points and more with the exiled mechanic.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2020, 02:45:38 pm by anordinaryman »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4603
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +2250
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7477 on: November 09, 2020, 02:37:50 pm »
+1

Donald is moving away from on-buy to on-gain triggers, but I think over-paying when you gain is a little confusing. Are you allowed to play treasures on your action phase to over-pay, or do you only get to overpay if you have virtual coin? What about using coffers? What if you gain this card on not your turn (swindler, messenger, etc), can you over-pay then?

I recommend changing this to an on-buy trigger. It resolves all the confusion and plays much more similar to the over-pay mechanic defined in the rule book. The rule book specifically says overpaying happens when you buy not when you gain.

Oh ??? this was definitely not supposed to be an on-gain trigger. I think it happened because an earlier version I was thinking about had a different effect, and I forgot to fix it. Good catch! I'll update it right away.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8904
  • Respect: +9688
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7478 on: November 09, 2020, 02:50:40 pm »
0


Cargo (segura)

A limited Lost City variant that gives you a reasonable consolation prize if they run out on your turn. This feels like an attempt to turn Artifacts into cards. I like the strategic idea of having a smaller number of relatively powerful cards to fight over. This is a good entry. This is the kind of idea I’d like to see developed into other cards, as I feel it has a lot of merit.


A few days late to notice this, but hey, I won!
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

spheremonk

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
  • Respect: +48
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7479 on: November 09, 2020, 02:56:16 pm »
+1

Magical Lands
It seems very weak to me. The 2 potion cost is prohibitively expensive, and I don't see the points scaling fast enough considering cards like Duke and Vineyards exist. But the bigger issue is that it's disadvantageous to be the player trashing potions. Just let your opponent do that and buy Magical Lands without trashing.

I like the idea though. Perhaps you can make it set-aside potions instead of trashing them, or something of that nature. And make it scale faster.
Thanks! These are very helpful, constructive ideas. When I settled on the posted version of the card, I was thinking about a similar dynamic existing with Forager, where everyone is helped by any player trashing, but I think you are correct that it overwhelms the entire concept here. I will think about alternatives (originally, I didn’t want to use Exile because of the Potions potentially going in and out, but ultimately, I don’t think that matters very much), and I may adjust the ratio of VP to Potions. I appreciate the help.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2020, 09:40:07 pm by spheremonk »
Logged

Carline

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243
  • Respect: +206
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7480 on: November 09, 2020, 07:42:52 pm »
0



Quote
Distant Island • • Victory

2
_____________________________________________________________

When you gain this, exile it. If you did, you may exile a card from your hand.



An instant Island, which does the Island trick in the moment you gain it.

Edited to change card name. Thinking about exile, "Distant Island" seems to be a better name.

This feels too strong to me. Because Exile is a mechanic where you can choose to gain the cards from discard, this card reduces down to
"gain 2 , exile a card from your hand", which is very strong for 5. Compared to other similar cards that give VP on gain without clouding your deck (conquest, salt the earth, wedding), it seems strong since it also gives the benefit of exiling a card from your deck.

To make it more interesting, you could add a clause "when you gain a Distant Island, discard all Distant Islands you have in exile" which then makes it a lot more interesting. Right now it's like a super strong event that psuedo-trashes a card and grants you 2vp.

Edit: upon reconsidering, it's not too strong in a game with trashers. But in a game with no-trashing and no-exiling, I think it might be a little powerful. But it's pretty fine, because 5s should be powerful. Though it does seem stronger than any other events that give VP which this basically is. So I'm a little conflicted. I still think the forced discarding of exiled Distant Islands makes the card more interesting, because then it plays a lot less like victory points and more with the exiled mechanic.

Thank you very much for feedbacks!

I think Distant Island is not exactly equal to an event that says “Gain 2 VP, exile a card from your hand”.

First, there are the differences of behaviors related to cards and events (Mission turns, gainers, cost reducers, etc.). As you may release them from exile when gain others, Distant Islands could be cards in your deck like any others (be trashed with a TFB, etc.).

Also, exile another card is optional, so sometimes, if you don’t have a card in hand you want to exile, it would be only “gain 2 VP”. Even so, there would be situations you would want to buy it only for these 2 VP.

I think the most relevant comparison is with Island itself, as the final result of gain Distant Island and exile a card is almost identical of the final result of gain an Island and play it in a future turn.

When I thought about which cost would be good for it, I did the following comparison, which I know is quite imperfect and uses a removed card, but helped to give me a north:

With Feast:
- Cost A: You spend S4 and a buy to get it
- Cost B: You play it in a future turn, spending an action to do so
- Final result: you gain something that you would pay $5 to get

With Island:
- Cost A: You spend S4 and a buy to get it
- Cost B: You play it in a future turn, spending an action to do so
- Result: 2 VP and you get rid of a card without losing it.

Both Feast and Island leave your deck when played. As the costs A and B are exactly the same in the two cases, it seems to me that what you get with gaining and playing Island has a value comparable to “something you would pay $5 to get”. And gain a Distant Island is the same to gain and play an island.

Distant Island is to Island what a $5 card is to Feast: something that is so better that justify go from $4 to $5, which we know is the biggest gap in terms of improve cards quality when we increase their cost by $1.

Other comparison which helped me is with Duchy. Many times near endgame, you buy a Duchy with an extra buy or because you didn’t reach $8 to buy a Province. In most of these situations, maybe would be better to buy a Distant Island instead of a Duchy (specially if you can exile a Province from your hand), but it’s not an obvious decision. There would be always a tension between gain 3 VP or gain 2 VP liberating one or two slots in future hands (and it's dinamic, changing with game situations). I think it's ok to a kingdom alternative VP card to be a better option than Duchy in many cases but not all of them.

So, I think Distant Island is a strong and helpful $5 card, but not overpowered. If it would be, maybe Island, which does the same indirectly, would be considered a much stronger card, but it’s only #82 in a rank of 95 $4 cost cards.

Your idea of forced discard from exile would make all but one Distant Island gained go to deck, which is not the spirit of the card. In this case, you would occupy the slot in your deck you gained exiling a card from your hand with the Distant Island discarded from exile, so your final gain, in all times after the first, would be only 2 VP. I think as it is it's according to exile mechanic: you may discard or not cards from exile when you gain other copy, if you want.

Of course, any more feedbacks will be very welcome!
Logged

pubby

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 455
  • Respect: +780
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7481 on: November 09, 2020, 09:29:04 pm »
+2

I think Distant Island is a reasonable power level, albeit strong, but cards like Cemetary exist so it's certainly not OP. The one concern I foresee is that on boards with weak thinning, Distance Island looks a lot like a Laboratory worth 2 VP. That's very, very good.

I like the card. If I had one suggestion, it's that I wish it was more different than regular Island.
Logged

spheremonk

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
  • Respect: +48
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7482 on: November 09, 2020, 09:37:48 pm »
+4

This is an updated version of Magical Lands that counts Potions in Exile (rather than in the trash), and gives 3VP for every 2 Potions there. This should make it a more viable strategy all around.



« Last Edit: November 09, 2020, 09:41:03 pm by spheremonk »
Logged

Carline

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243
  • Respect: +206
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7483 on: November 09, 2020, 10:50:26 pm »
0

I think Distant Island is a reasonable power level, albeit strong, but cards like Cemetary exist so it's certainly not OP. The one concern I foresee is that on boards with weak thinning, Distance Island looks a lot like a Laboratory worth 2 VP. That's very, very good.

I like the card. If I had one suggestion, it's that I wish it was more different than regular Island.

Thank you!

Distant Island is intended to connect with Island by theme and funcionality, in the same way Gran Market is connected to Market and the various Witches are connected to each other. Like in these examples, I think the new member of the card family (Distant Island) brings its own new game possibilities.

(note: in this case, the connection is not perfect, because one uses Island Mat and the other Exile Mat, but, for the Island purpose to set aside a card for the rest of the game, both mats are similar enough to allow theme connection).
Logged

Rhodos

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Shuffle iT Username: Card Master
  • Respect: +72
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7484 on: November 10, 2020, 07:11:24 am »
+2



I want to be the first one to play "Big Potion" with this on the board :D
Logged

Rhodos

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Shuffle iT Username: Card Master
  • Respect: +72
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7485 on: November 10, 2020, 12:43:58 pm »
+2


Quote
Waterfall - $4 - Victory
2 VP
When you trash this, gain a Waterfall and Exile this.

Some kind of a Victory Card Fortress. Of course Fortress is better as a TfB feeder than Waterfall, in fact it is often centralizing with Apprentice, Upgrade and their like. The idea with Waterfall is that it is more narrow, you have to evaluate whether it is good enough for your TfB and you cannot use it forever.

It also has some different characterics: You kind of get 1VP, when you "trash" it (which is limited by the pile) and you can empty a pile with it quite quickly, if that is what you want to do. There may be games where you gain it for that purpose only. And well, you can give your opponent an "untrashable" card with Swindler.

I guess there are more games I won't touch this than games where I do, but nevertheless I think this could make for interesting decisions.

EDIT: It now gives 2 VP instead of 1.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2020, 12:06:56 pm by Rhodos »
Logged

grrgrrgrr

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • Respect: +186
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7486 on: November 10, 2020, 04:29:27 pm »
+3


Quote
Waterfall - $4 - Victory
1 VP
When you trash this, gain a Waterfall and Exile this.

Some kind of a Victory Card Fortress. Of course Fortress is better as a TfB feeder than Waterfall, in fact it is often centralizing with Apprentice, Upgrade and their like. The idea with Waterfall is that it is more narrow, you have to evaluate whether it is good enough for your TfB and you cannot use it forever.

It also has some different characterics: You kind of get 1VP, when you "trash" it (which is limited by the pile) and you can empty a pile with it quite quickly, if that is what you want to do. There may be games where you gain it for that purpose only. And well, you can give your opponent an "untrashable" card with Swindler.

I guess there are more games I won't touch this than games where I do, but nevertheless I think this could make for interesting decisions.

Looks cool, but I think it should be worth 2 VP.
Logged

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1070
  • Respect: +2073
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7487 on: November 10, 2020, 06:32:23 pm »
+5

Quote
Name: Countryside
Cost: $4
Types: Victory
Worth 2 VP per differently named victory card you have more copies of than Countryside.
Logged

Rhodos

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Shuffle iT Username: Card Master
  • Respect: +72
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7488 on: November 11, 2020, 12:08:23 pm »
0


Quote
Waterfall - $4 - Victory
1 VP
When you trash this, gain a Waterfall and Exile this.

Looks cool, but I think it should be worth 2 VP.

Thanks for you comment, I thought the same some time after posting it, so here it is now with 2 VP.
Logged

segura

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 871
  • Respect: +415
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7489 on: November 14, 2020, 06:33:19 am »
+5

Contest #94: Pure Victory card (with no other types)

No posts in three day, so I dare to judge without any 24h warnings.
There were so many submissions and great ideas this weak, lots of great stuff!
Which doesn't make the judging any easier.
Please correct me if I got anything about your card wrong.


green by majiponi
This is simple and sound. Obviously it is stronger in 2P than multiplayer games, where you are more likely to get a larger part of the pile.
What I like most about this is the option of not immediately putting the token on a pile respectively later switching it. That could lead to bluffing and also helps you to get out of a deadlock.
The price is off though, this has to cost at least $5. Even in 3P games, you will want a cantrip that you can get 3-4 copies of.


Rice Paddy by silverspawn
I read this as an endgame-only Expedition variant. Very neat when you hit less than $8, don't want to settle for a mere Duchy and aim for a Province instead.
Which already indicates a problem, why not do this as an Event instead?
In the endgame, an extra card or not matters little (compared to an opening/middlegame card like Cemetery) and I doubt that the pile will often empty, so I don't see why a landscape would not be simpler.


Cantref by mandioca15
This seems to be slightly better than Ritual and I like that unlike Ritual, this is independent from the Curse pile (Ritual is basically dead in Kingdoms with Cursers).
So yeah, on the one hand a nice Ritual fix but on the other hand too similar to it.


Feudal Grant by LittleFish
I don't get this, in the absence of trashing Attacks it is strictly superior to Duchy.


Swamp by Library Adventurer
Normally you play most of your Treasures and Actions. Say, I keep two Coppers. Then this is 2VP for basically $5.
Say, I drew 2 Actions dead. Then it is 2VPs for $3. Like Tunnel.
I probably miss something but I don't see how this is good enough


Bog by spineflu
Not much to say here, I read it as an IGG fix. Hey, does IGG need a fix?
Well, it is totally subjective, I loate IGG rushes and this looks like a less crazy version of it.
I also love putting the extra Buy to a Victory card.


Distant Island by Carline
I don't want to be too critical of it, Insta-Island is good idea. I just think that it is too good compared to Duchy and too automatic.
Distand Lands makes you think about how quick you cycle through your deck and anticipate the end of the game. That's the beauty of games in general and good
Dominion cards in particular, tricky decisions.
But I don't want to sound to harsh, the idea is sound and cool.


Native Lands by pubby
So this is somewhere between 0 and 8 VPs. I somehow don't feel at ease with it but have to admit that this is a three-pile monster. Great design!
RUNNER-UP


City State by Fragasnap
Vineyard is most viable when there are lots of cantrips/terminals. They all yields Actions.
So what does this differently or better than Vineyard? I am afraid, not that much.


Rural Estate by D782802859
Cool idea, gain good stuff that comes with junk. I have a similar issue as with silverspawn's Rice Paddy though.
We are no longer Caching our Masterpieces, this would be more naturally implemented as an Event.


Franklin by Aquila
At first this seems like a pure virtual Coins card but I think it is important to note than e.g. buying a Franklin with 2 Golds is fine.
One could argue that the Kingdom dictates the viability of virtual Coins but I think that would be too simple. Even a Conspirator engine might have a Silver flying around or have a Gold on top to spike and this makes player sweat much more about their deck composition.
That is why I like about it, that it makes you sweat about your deck composition more than normal!


Barren Reigion/Bountiful Region by Something Smart
OK, so if you are able to buy two in a row they are better than two Duchies.
Hey, you might even get rid of some of those lategame Curses from those Coven Witches. Or get a Gold somebody Remodeled. Or not.
I don't see the appeal of such narrow use cards.


Plot of Land/Temp Worker by Xen3k
This is very hard to judge without a lot of playtesting. So just a few idle, theoretical notes.
First, even with the draw of Temp Worker there is the problem of matching the pair. Not a huge problem, there is probably other stuff you want to Remodel.
Second, what do you want to remodel Plot of Land into? Another Plot of Land? Sounds OKish, you got a 2VP minigame running. A Gold for future Temp Workers? Well, but then you need more Plots of Lands for more Temp Workers.
Another $5? Nah, that probably makes no sense at all. Well, perhaps it does if it is the endgame and you only want a Duchy.

I cannot judge the power level of this in the least degree. My hunch is that it is too weak but that could be totally wrong.
What I like about the design is that it makes you think. Hard. And a lot. Or I am just too stupid. :D


Senator by grep
Finally, a set collection card!
I don't like the Debt cost, it makes it less accessible (except for the last turn) as it becomes ungainable by Workshop variants.
I also think that 1VP is far too little payoff. Even if you manage to get 2 sets, you get the same VPs as Tunnel for basically the same price.
One has to be incentivized much more to go for that set.


Compost by NoMoreFun
This is a beautiful idea. It is basically a race, you are forced to go for Compost at the very moment the opponent does so.
Gee, it could be even viable as an opener!
And there is the rub, it empties two piles and is likely too centralizing.


Estuary by anordinaryman
This is similar to LFN's Floodgate. I like it, there is a nice balance between the VPs and the draw (i.e. neither is dominating in general / on average).
The card is simple and good.


Magical Lands by spheremonk
I am prejudiced about Double potion costs. Many people seriously underestimate the opportunity costs of Potion.
If you add the matching risk of two Potions to that, that is a huge bulk or risk / wasted gain/buy-Power / semi-dead cards in your deck.

But Magical Lands comes with a trick, if you make them match, they disappear!
Now as a card-carrying Double Potion cost inquisitor, I have to admit that this could be at thing.
There is a Kingdom with gainers, trashers and extra Buys and you could be all set up for the land of unicorns.

This is daring and innovative! Although the general principles dogmatist in me wants to see such designs land in the digital trashbin instantaneously, the creative dude in me likes it.
RUNNER-UP


Waterfall by Rhodos
Not much to say about this. It is viable without trashing and can shine with trashing, not just TfB.
Of course you would love to Forge your two Waterfalls into a Province, but if that Lookout spots a Waterfall that isn't so bad either. That's a crucial point, it is not just Fortress put on a green card, it is more than that.
Lovely design!
RUNNER-UP


Countryside by scott-pilgrim
Another stab at set collection!
This is basically a flexible and stronger version of "X VPs per set of Estate-Duchy-Province".
It is a conventional Province game with some Duchies coming in at the end? Hey, don't forget to make some Countrysides in your Ironworks (how does that work?)!
It is a Shepherd game? Sure, you want all green anyway, but now those Countrysides care about Estates and Provinces.

Also, my hunch the price is correct. You gotta work some to push this into 4VP territory and you gotta handle all that green.

This is absolutely brilliant!


RUNNER-UPS: We have pubby's Native Lands aka the three-piler monster., spheremonk's wild and creative Double Potion Magical Lands, Rhodos' Fortress-like Waterfall and scott-pilgrim's set-collection-ish Countryside.
WINNER: Countryside by scott-pilgrim. Basically, Silk Road done right.
Logged

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1070
  • Respect: +2073
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7490 on: November 14, 2020, 10:14:08 am »
+3

Thanks for the win, glad people liked it!

Contest #95: The player to your (left/right)

Design a card that (meaningfully) contains the string "the player to your".
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 186
  • Respect: +170
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7491 on: November 14, 2020, 12:23:46 pm »
+2

Congrats scott-pilgrim! I thought countryside was really really great! I love the potential interaction of someone ambassador'ing you a country-side at the end of the game to lose you points (let's say you had 3 country sides and 4 duchies, 4 provinces. Gaining a country side would lose you 12 points!). I like this next challenge, too.
Logged

mandioca15

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 97
  • Respect: +94
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7492 on: November 14, 2020, 02:35:52 pm »
0

Wrangler (Action, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy

Gain a Horse per card the player to your right bought on their last turn.
Logged

Aquila

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 335
  • Respect: +390
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7493 on: November 14, 2020, 03:53:28 pm »
+3

Quote
Councillor - Action, $4 cost.
Reveal your hand; the player to your right chooses one of the cards. You may discard it for + $3 and +1VP.
+ $3 and a VP minus your best card in hand at the time you play it. Is $4 enough of a bonus? And it's player to right so knowledge of what's in the hand is less likely to impact the opponents' turns.

Edit: clearer wording, and the discard is optional.
Edit 2: changed the bonus from $4 to $3 and +1VP. Throning this no longer means 'discard your hand. Gain a Province'.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2020, 04:39:38 am by Aquila »
Logged

LittleFish

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +121
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7494 on: November 14, 2020, 04:22:50 pm »
0

Investor - Action
+1 Buy
+
The player to your left names a cost greater than
and less than . Gain a card that costs equal or less than the named cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the amount of  in the cost they named.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 07:06:22 pm by LittleFish »
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1476
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +1173
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7495 on: November 14, 2020, 04:35:05 pm »
+1

Investor - Action
+1 Buy
Name a cost less than . Gain a card with that cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to the amount of in the cost you named.
This is really weak. It might be near-balanced if it were "The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the $ in the cost you named," though it might be too weak even then. It's also weird in multiplayer. If you're the only person using it, the player to your left has a significant advantage over the player to your right.

Quote
Councillor - Action, $4 cost.
Reveal your hand; the player to your right chooses a card for you to discard. If you discard a card, + $4.
+ $4 minus your best card in hand at the time you play it. Is $4 enough of a bonus?
I think $4 is good bonus, but the "if you discard" could make people think the discard is optional. You might want to make it clearer.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 04:38:01 pm by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

LittleFish

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +121
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7496 on: November 14, 2020, 04:44:25 pm »
0

Investor - Action
+1 Buy
Name a cost less than . Gain a card with that cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to the amount of in the cost you named.
This is really weak. It might be near-balanced if it were "The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the $ in the cost you named," though it might be too weak even then. It's also weird in multiplayer. If you're the only person using it, the player to your left has a significant advantage over the player to your right.
I added + and made it half. Maybe the cost should change?
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1476
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +1173
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7497 on: November 14, 2020, 04:51:54 pm »
0

Investor - Action
+1 Buy
Name a cost less than . Gain a card with that cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to the amount of in the cost you named.
This is really weak. It might be near-balanced if it were "The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the $ in the cost you named," though it might be too weak even then. It's also weird in multiplayer. If you're the only person using it, the player to your left has a significant advantage over the player to your right.
I added + and made it half. Maybe the cost should change?

Now it seems to me, it would almost always be in the best interest of the player to the left to say $4 or $2 (in which case it's a self-junker with no decent $2 cost cards on the board) and there's still the multiplayer problem.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 05:02:04 pm by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

Gubump

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 801
  • Respect: +540
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7498 on: November 14, 2020, 05:23:39 pm »
0

Investor - Action
+1 Buy
+
The player to your left names a cost greater than
. Gain a card that costs equal or less than the named cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the amount of  in the cost you named.

I assume that that last part should be "in the cost they named," since YOU didn't name a cost, the player to your left did?
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1070
  • Respect: +2073
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7499 on: November 14, 2020, 05:46:39 pm »
+4

Investor - Action
+1 Buy
+
The player to your left names a cost greater than
. Gain a card that costs equal or less than the named cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the amount of  in the cost they named.

With no upper bound, couldn't they name Graham's number? Sure you'd get a province, but they'd have unlimited money for the rest of the game.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 298 299 [300] 301 302 ... 308  All
 

Page created in 0.135 seconds with 22 queries.