Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 300 301 [302] 303 304 ... 308  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 445372 times)

1 Member and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

segura

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 871
  • Respect: +415
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7525 on: November 16, 2020, 10:17:12 am »
+1

My Submission:



Atlantis
$4 – Action
Quote
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
The player to your right
gains this.
----------------------------
When you buy this and
when scoring, +1VP.

In case anyone is wondering, the shield icons in the top corners serve as visual aids and as a reminder that Atlantis in the players decks scores VP at the end of the game.
I love this design and think that the wording is fine.
I worry though that 1VP is not enough of an incentive to not play the card in the endgame. On the other hands, at 2VPs when scoring it would be strictly better than Duchy.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2020, 10:34:05 am by segura »
Logged

gambit05

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 311
  • Respect: +192
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7526 on: November 16, 2020, 02:29:54 pm »
0


I love this design and think that the wording is fine.
I worry though that 1VP is not enough of an incentive to not play the card in the endgame. On the other hands, at 2VPs when scoring it would be strictly better than Duchy.

Thanks for your thoughts. I am happy to learn that you like the general idea of the card!

As you have pointed out, 2VP is out of question, even if the card would be more expensive and not strictly better than Duchy. I am confident that the current version would be frequently bought and played, while I doubt that that is the case with a 2VP version.

In the endgame, I assume that there are enough situations that favor not playing 1VP-Atlantis (and potentially even several copies of it), depending on the gap of VPs between the players, who is leading, what is expected to be drawn with it, etc.

Finally, in terms of design, I prefer having an Atlantis version that gives less incentive to stop playing it in the endgame (unless this would always happen) to a version where players stop playing it too early in a game.


Logged

gambit05

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 311
  • Respect: +192
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7527 on: November 16, 2020, 02:37:54 pm »
0



Does not overrule ways.

I have no idea whether this is balanced, but I love the idea.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 186
  • Respect: +170
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7528 on: November 16, 2020, 04:39:44 pm »
+1

Contest #95: The player to your (left/right) SUBMISSION
This is an outdated submission



Quote
Developer | Action - Command | $4
Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names a cheaper and a more expensive non-Command Action card in the Supply. Play both in either oder, leaving them in the Supply.

A developer develops ... sort of. "Non-Command" phrase means your opponent can't force you to trash additional cards in your hand. This Trash for Benefit is probably best at trashing 3s and 4s. In most cases, trashing a 5 is often strictly worse than trashing a 3. Although, trashing a 5 could be your key to playing a Kings Court.

Rules Clarification: your opponent names the cards before you play either of them, which should make the decision a little quicker.

Games where this is the only "Village" should be very wacky.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2020, 12:12:33 pm by anordinaryman »
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 186
  • Respect: +170
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7529 on: November 16, 2020, 04:56:55 pm »
+2



Quote
Extortionist - $5
Action - Attack

The player to your left chooses one of the following for you:
+3 cards, and each other player takes @1; or +$3, and each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card.
Bringing this concept back since fixing it made it ineligible for the last contest I used it in.

Also, why is the font different?  I don't see any option to change the font on the card generator.

This is slightly political. In turn order A-B-C-D let's say A played a militia, B finishes turn and draws 5, then C plays Extortionist. D has a decision to choose discard a card which does NOT hurt B, but does hurt A, or 1@ which hurts both B and A. It is also political -- one player's deck might have a far greater ability to handle extra debt, and one player may have a far greater ability to handle 3 cards in hand. There's also the problem of this giving out unbounded debt to other players, which Donald X has avoided.
Whether those are problems depends on how much you care about cards being political. To address it, you could have each player make their own decision on how to be attacked and what benefit to give you, but it's incredibly awkward to phrase it. Here's my stab, but it makes it not strictly fit this context:
"The players who have the next three turns that are not yours each makes this decision: they take @1 and you get +1 card; or "discard" and you get +1$" It also doesn't work because it attacks one player stronger than the other...
To deal with this you could have one of the options being "take their -1 token" and then it doesn't attack one player more strongly than the other, if they choose so.


Atlantis
$4 – Action
Quote
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
The player to your right
gains this.
----------------------------
When you buy this and
when scoring, +1VP.

In case anyone is wondering, the shield icons in the top corners serve as visual aids and as a reminder that Atlantis in the players decks scores VP at the end of the game.

This card would be much more straightforward as an action/victory worth 1 VP.

That actually was my initial idea, i.e. if you meant:
Quote
Action text
-----------------
1
w/o an on-buy effect.

The obvious idea of both versions is to combine a strong ability with the incentive not to play the card at a certain point later in the game because of the . After starting with the Action – Victory version shown above, I thought that the player who buys Atlantis needs a bonus since otherwise the other players would get the strong card without the need to buy it. This in turn could lead to a stalemate were nobody buys it. This can be avoided when the buying player gets a bonus; therefore the on-buy +1.

Now, if the card would just be
Quote
Action text
-----------------
On-buy +1
 
Atlantis cards would be played and “passed” till the end of the game without any consequences, which doesn’t look interesting to me. Therefore, I gave the card 1 when scoring, which means that at a certain point during the game, players have to make the decision whether to play it and lose the , or whether it is better not to play it in order to keep the . (By the way, it is passed to the right because that player has a lower chance to end the game at that point.)

In summary, the way I see it:
The players need an incentive to buy Atlantis (i.e. an on-buy effect).
The players need an incentive to play (and “pass”) the card (i.e. a strong ability).
The players need an incentive not to play the card near the end of the game (i.e. scoring).

 

I think the reason they're avoiding that is because then it would need two horizontal lines:

Quote
Action effect

When you Buy this, +1.

1

Exactly. This would be the alternative with the same effect, which however doesn't look better.


Are they supposed to gain an Atlantis, or gain the one that was in play? It may be better to have "return this to the supply, the player to your right gains an Atlantis" and possibly make it an attack.

I think the wording is simple and unambiguous, i.e. "this" means exactly this very card that has been played.
Why do you think this should be an Attack?

Well, thank you all for your comments. If anyone can convince me that a simpler version, e.g. like that one chronostrike suggested, is better, please feel free to make any further suggestions. I think the critical points of what I want to deliver with this card are summarized above (highlighted in blue).

I do not believe "gains this" makes any sense. Gaining only comes from designated piles. Masquerade sets the precdent for acquiring cards not from a pile. I think you should use "pass this card to the player to your right's discard pile."

As for your goals. 2VP swing is not much compared to playing a City. I think that if you removed the VP incentive it would play almost identically. I am unsure you properly incentivize not playing it. It also is political. In a three player game, I can pass the card as a Kingmaker. Yikes. Perhaps you could incentivize it a little stronger by attaching it to a Landmark, which would obfuscate the points and make it a little less political.
A landmark like "4VP at the end of the game if you have the most number of Atlantists in your deck." Something like that.
No idea what the right number is, I don't know if it's 4VP.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2020, 05:14:49 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 #7530 on: November 16, 2020, 05:55:51 pm »
0

I have no idea whether this is balanced, but I love the idea.

Thanks :) The powerlevel has a hard ceiling of +3 Cards, +2 Actions for 4$ once per turn, since that's what you get if your opponent names Fanatic on the first play. So it can't be so strong that it breaks the game. It could be too weak, but I think it should at least be playable most of the time, if there are a bunch of different viable action cards.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 186
  • Respect: +170
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7531 on: November 16, 2020, 09:28:35 pm »
+2



Does not overrule ways.

I have no idea whether this is balanced, but I love the idea.

I think it's priced correctly. It's worth noting that this is great for Big Money. Fanatic Big Money is strictly better than Smithy Big Money for the same cost. It even enables Fanatic + Terminal Draw Big Money strategies. I don't think that means it should cost 5 though. Engines like non-terminal draw even more than Big Money, but Engines can be ground to a stop with this card as your opponent can turn your payload into a terminal copper. So, I'm less likely to buy this card if I'm going for an engine. It's fun, the same way that Contraband is fun. And thankfully, it's a little stronger than Contraband, so it may get some use.
Logged

Carline

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243
  • Respect: +206
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7532 on: November 17, 2020, 12:07:03 am »
+2



Quote
Repossess
Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Coffers.
The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one. During that turn, whenever that player gains a card, you may gain a copy of it.

I think there are often many good things that the player to your left could do in this extra turn, besides gain cards: she can attack you, trash cards, exile cards, buy events, buy projects, play Coffers gainers, Villagers gainers or VPs gainers or do more specific things like gain a Madman, gain VP from Baths, play a Tactician, Play Barge or Village Green for next turn or play an Outpost and have a miniturn without gain restrictions.

If she gains the last card of a pile, you also gain nothing. Or she could gain cards that are good for her strategy but not for yours. She could even choose do nothing and in this case all you have is an expensive source of Coffers.

For all of this, I think Repossess tends to be better to the player to your left than to you.

Logged

segura

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 871
  • Respect: +415
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7533 on: November 17, 2020, 02:08:56 am »
0

For all of this, I think Repossess tends to be better to the player to your left than to you.
That's why it is like a $3 cost card.
Logged

gambit05

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 311
  • Respect: +192
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7534 on: November 17, 2020, 02:56:23 am »
0


Quote
Atlantis
$4 – Action
Quote
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
The player to your right
gains this.
----------------------------
When you buy this and
when scoring, +1VP.

I do not believe "gains this" makes any sense. Gaining only comes from designated piles. Masquerade sets the precdent for acquiring cards not from a pile. I think you should use "pass this card to the player to your right's discard pile."

As for your goals. 2VP swing is not much compared to playing a City. I think that if you removed the VP incentive it would play almost identically. I am unsure you properly incentivize not playing it. It also is political. In a three player game, I can pass the card as a Kingmaker. Yikes. Perhaps you could incentivize it a little stronger by attaching it to a Landmark, which would obfuscate the points and make it a little less political.
A landmark like "4VP at the end of the game if you have the most number of Atlantists in your deck." Something like that.
No idea what the right number is, I don't know if it's 4VP.

Thank you for all the suggestions, very much appreciated!

Quote from: anordinaryman
I do not believe "gains this" makes any sense. Gaining only comes from designated piles. Masquerade sets the precdent for acquiring cards not from a pile. I think you should use "pass this card to the player to your right's discard pile."

Is that a written rule? Do you consider the trash as a designated pile? I do not. I think Masquerade is different mainly because multiple cards are involved in the process and any interruption of the “card transfer” e.g. through reaction cards would complicate things. This shouldn’t be a problem with a single card. Did you look up the description of “pass a card”?
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Pass
It would be ridiculous to do that for Atlantis.

Quote from: anordinaryman
As for your goals. 2VP swing is not much compared to playing a City. I think that if you removed the VP incentive it would play almost identically.

I don’t understand the comparison with City. The player buying Atlantis (without a benefit) has a clear disadvantage since they have to spend $ and a buy, whereas the other players would get that card for free. So, without an incentive to buy Atlantis, why would anyone buy it?

Quote from: anordinaryman
I am unsure you properly incentivize not playing it.

This might be a critical point of the concept of the card. Among the options I considered, the “+1VP when scoring” seems to be the best solution. It doesn’t scare people to buy and to play the card, it can keep the cost of the card low, it largely reduces potential problems of King-making (see below). If the +1VP is too rarely a reason to stop playing the card, it would be still better this way than the other way around, i.e. players stop playing the card too early. It also seem to contradict your suggestion to remove the VP (see above) and the potential problem of King-making (see below).

Quote from: anordinaryman
It also is political. In a three player game, I can pass the card as a Kingmaker. Yikes.

I think it is less political than many official cards; Swindler, Pillage, Masquerade and Jester come to my mind. Since the card (with +1VP when scoring) causes a swing of only 2VP between the player and the neighbor to the right, the player to the left has enough options to counteract that VP transfer as they are now in the driving seat. In addition, doesn’t your criticism about the card being political contradict your statement about the 2VP swing in relation to City (which I honestly haven’t understood)?

Quote from: anordinaryman
Perhaps you could incentivize it a little stronger by attaching it to a Landmark, which would obfuscate the points and make it a little less political.
A landmark like "4VP at the end of the game if you have the most number of Atlantists in your deck."

I think that would make it more complicated, and much more swingy and political (an all or nothing effect of getting the VP).

Anyway, thanks again.



Logged

Doom_Shark

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
  • Shuffle iT Username: Doom_Shark
  • Respect: +371
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7535 on: November 17, 2020, 09:29:11 am »
0



Quote
Repossess
Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Coffers.
The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one. During that turn, whenever that player gains a card, you may gain a copy of it.

I think there are often many good things that the player to your left could do in this extra turn, besides gain cards: she can attack you, trash cards, exile cards, buy events, buy projects, play Coffers gainers, Villagers gainers or VPs gainers or do more specific things like gain a Madman, gain VP from Baths, play a Tactician, Play Barge or Village Green for next turn or play an Outpost and have a miniturn without gain restrictions.

If she gains the last card of a pile, you also gain nothing. Or she could gain cards that are good for her strategy but not for yours. She could even choose do nothing and in this case all you have is an expensive source of Coffers.

For all of this, I think Repossess tends to be better to the player to your left than to you.

Yeah, I hear you. I had trouble wording my original idea and so gave up and went for domething easier to template, which in retrospect completely screwed the design. I plan on re-doing it sometime this evening
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

X-tra

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 187
  • Respect: +208
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7536 on: November 17, 2020, 02:03:39 pm »
+2

Haven't posted in a competition for a while now. And for all I know, this could be horribly broken:



Still, I wanted to try something fun like this. Best case scenario for the player to your left is playing a card that gives them +2 Cards or more (such as an Observer itself), a "at the start of your next turn" Duration card (Observer again), or a nasty Attack card (especially if they have a current terminal-collision hand).

(Didn't know if it needed to say "[...] play an Action card from their hand. But I think playing a card is implied to be from your hand.)
« Last Edit: November 18, 2020, 11:24:05 am by X-tra »
Logged

D782802859

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 228
  • Respect: +251
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7537 on: November 17, 2020, 03:09:53 pm »
+5

« Last Edit: November 17, 2020, 06:48:51 pm by D782802859 »
Logged

Gubump

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 801
  • Respect: +540
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7538 on: November 17, 2020, 05:19:26 pm »
+2

(Didn't know if it needed to say "[...] play an Action card from their hand. But I think playing a card is implied to be from your hand.)

Only discarding is implied to be from hand. It needs to say from their hand.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

Gubump

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 801
  • Respect: +540
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7539 on: November 17, 2020, 05:20:06 pm »
+2



I think this should clarify "the player to your left chooses one for you to receive:"
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

Xen3k

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7540 on: November 17, 2020, 05:33:53 pm »
+1

>Outdated Submission<



Quote
Fruitcake - $5
Action
+$2
Each other player gets +1 Coffers.
Place this in the discard pile of the player to your left.
--------
When you buy this, +2VP and place this in the discard pile of the player to your left.

Not sure how balance or even fun this is, but thought it would be a humorous non-attack card that feels like an attack. At $5 it is not a reasonable early buy as it will actually accelerate you opponent, and late game the VP it gives you is worse than Duchy even though it does not junk your deck.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2020, 07:56:09 pm by Xen3k »
Logged

D782802859

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 228
  • Respect: +251
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7541 on: November 17, 2020, 06:48:34 pm »
0



I think this should clarify "the player to your left chooses one for you to receive:"
Yup, totally should. I'll correct it.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 186
  • Respect: +170
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7542 on: November 17, 2020, 10:36:34 pm »
+1



Quote
Fruitcake - $5
Action
+$2
Each other player gets +1 Coffers.
Place this in the discard pile of the player to your left.
--------
When you buy this, +2VP and place this in the discard pile of the player to your left.

Not sure how balance or even fun this is, but thought it would be a humorous non-attack card that feels like an attack. At $5 it is not a reasonable early buy as it will actually accelerate you opponent, and late game the VP it gives you is worse than Duchy even though it does not junk your deck.

Fun idea!

Actually, even in mid-early game giving out a terminal silver will not accelerate your opponent much (depending on how easy terminal space is to come by). On the other hand wasting a $5 buy on this hurts you a lot, considering that it doesn't even help that much since your opponent only plays it once before passing it back to you (or n-1 opponents in a n-player game). So, I feel like it would never be bought (other than for VP points at end game, and even then Duchy is usually better). But what if you made the attack stronger? What if on-play it did not move? Once you gained the card, it stayed there (unless you trash it, exile it, ambassador, masquerade, etc). Now I feel a lot more willing to spend a $5 buy on that card to put that card in my opponents deck, so I get those coffers.
Logged

Xen3k

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7543 on: November 17, 2020, 11:11:21 pm »
0



Quote
Fruitcake - $5
Action
+$2
Each other player gets +1 Coffers.
Place this in the discard pile of the player to your left.
--------
When you buy this, +2VP and place this in the discard pile of the player to your left.

Not sure how balance or even fun this is, but thought it would be a humorous non-attack card that feels like an attack. At $5 it is not a reasonable early buy as it will actually accelerate you opponent, and late game the VP it gives you is worse than Duchy even though it does not junk your deck.

Fun idea!

Actually, even in mid-early game giving out a terminal silver will not accelerate your opponent much (depending on how easy terminal space is to come by). On the other hand wasting a $5 buy on this hurts you a lot, considering that it doesn't even help that much since your opponent only plays it once before passing it back to you (or n-1 opponents in a n-player game). So, I feel like it would never be bought (other than for VP points at end game, and even then Duchy is usually better). But what if you made the attack stronger? What if on-play it did not move? Once you gained the card, it stayed there (unless you trash it, exile it, ambassador, masquerade, etc). Now I feel a lot more willing to spend a $5 buy on that card to put that card in my opponents deck, so I get those coffers.

That would be quite a bit better. I personally don't like the idea of just punishing the person to the left as I usually play in  multiplayer games of Dominion with at least 4 players. I was also concerned about decreasing the cost as cheap attacks can be degenerative. An alternate way to improve this without decreasing the cost would be to make the player gain a Copper to pass it to the next player so it junks better. Thanks for the feedback. I'll take this into account and maybe adjust the design.
Logged

Carline

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243
  • Respect: +206
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7544 on: November 18, 2020, 01:52:59 am »
+2



Quote

Buffoon • • Action – Attack - Command


The player to your left chooses and reveals a card from their hand. You choose one:
That player gains two copies of it;
That player exchanges it for a Copper;
You gain a copy of it; or
You play it, leaving it there.


Updated to :



Quote

Buffoon • • Action – Attack - Command


The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.
Choose one:
Gain a copy of it; or
play it twice, leaving it there; or
each other player gains a copy of it and a Copper.


A mix of Jester/Overlord/Throne Room/Mountebank.

She chooses, then you choose: high interaction and many possible outcomes.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2020, 03:53:10 pm by Carline »
Logged

gambit05

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 311
  • Respect: +192
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7545 on: November 18, 2020, 01:53:29 am »
0



Quote

Buffoon • • Action – Attack - Command


The player to your left chooses and reveals a card from their hand. You choose one:
That player gains two copies of it;
That player exchanges it for a Copper;
You gain a copy of it; or
You play it, leaving it there.


A mix of Jester/Saboteur/Overlord.

They choose, then you choose: high interaction and many possible outcomes.

Nice idea, but for me it looks like the first two options are way too harsh. In most cases I would choose one of them and that would hurt that specific player a lot. Aside of that you could give the "Attack" options to all other players.
Logged

Carline

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243
  • Respect: +206
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7546 on: November 18, 2020, 02:58:16 am »
+1


Nice idea, but for me it looks like the first two options are way too harsh. In most cases I would choose one of them and that would hurt that specific player a lot. Aside of that you could give the "Attack" options to all other players.

Thank you for your feedbacks!

Maybe this updated version is more well balanced between options:

- Changed the first attack to each other player, but keep it two-junker (changing the second copy gained for a Copper). Otherwise, it could be a weak attack.

- Nerfed the second attack to original Saboteur (plus a discarding which results from exchanging). This way I think it's not so harsh, so it's ok to keep it only to that player, even because the others didn't revealed a card.

This way I think it will lead to tricky decisions from both players.

More feedbacks are always very welcome!



Quote

Buffoon • • Action – Attack - Command


The player to your left chooses and reveals a card from their hand.
You choose one:
Each other player gain a copy of it and a Copper;
That player exchanges it for a card costing at most $2 less than it;
You gain a copy of it; or
You play it, leaving it there.


« Last Edit: November 18, 2020, 03:53:50 pm by Carline »
Logged

gambit05

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 311
  • Respect: +192
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7547 on: November 18, 2020, 03:40:04 am »
+1


Nice idea, but for me it looks like the first two options are way too harsh. In most cases I would choose one of them and that would hurt that specific player a lot. Aside of that you could give the "Attack" options to all other players.

Thank you for your feedbacks!

Maybe this updated version is more well balanced between options:

- Changed the first attack to each other player, but keep it two-junker (changing the second copy gained for a Copper). Otherwise, it could be a weak attack.

- Nerfed the second attack to original Saboteur (plus a discarding which results from exchanging). This way I think it's not so harsh, so it's ok to keep it only to that player, even because the others didn't revealed a card.

This way I think it will lead to tricky decisions from both players.

More feedbacks are always very welcome!



Quote

Buffoon • • Action – Attack - Command


The player to your left chooses and reveals a card from their hand.
You choose one:
Each other player gain a copy of it and a Copper;
That player exchanges it for a card costing at most $2 less than it;
You gain a copy of it; or
You play it, leaving it there.


This looks much better (though I think it is still too harsh).
May I suggest some things on the wording?

1) I think you do not need the first "choose".
2) When a player has one choice out of several, all choices are separated by "or" see for example Steward.
3) Option 1:...gains...

[4) I know it is also not defined on Saboteur for some reason, but is it clear for option 2 who decides to which card it is exchanged for?]
[5) Lower case for "that" and "you" (sorry for this nit picking).]
Edit 2: [6) "Choose one" instead of "You choose one".]

Edit: Just saw that you edited while I was writing. Yes, much better!
« Last Edit: November 18, 2020, 03:45:58 am by gambit05 »
Logged

Carline

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243
  • Respect: +206
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7548 on: November 18, 2020, 03:45:18 am »
+4

Updated again. On second thought, I think it doesn't need the Saboteur part.

This way it's simpler, but keeps the tricky decisions of both players.




Quote

Buffoon • • Action – Attack - Command


The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.
Choose one:
Gain a copy of it; or
play it twice, leaving it there; or
each other player gains a copy of it and a Copper.


Edited to add wording suggestions from gambit05. Thanks for that!

Edited 2: Changed play option to throne.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2020, 10:02:21 am by Carline »
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1476
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +1173
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7549 on: November 18, 2020, 07:41:09 am »
0

Quote
Gangster
$5 - Action - Attack
+3 Cards.
The player to your left reveals the top card of their deck. You may discard a copy of the revealed card for +1 Coffers.
Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a copy of the revealed card. If they discarded an Action or Treasure costing at least $5, they get +1 Coffers.

hmmm, I already think it seems too strong, I think I'll switch to the +2 Card version:
...and cutting a piece and switching back to reduce wordiness...

My (EDITed) final entry:

Quote
Gangster
$5 - Action - Attack
+3 Cards.
The player to your left reveals the top card of their deck. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a copy of the revealed card (or reveals they can't). If they discarded an Action or Treasure costing at least $3, they get +1 Coffers.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2020, 07:34:48 pm by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 300 301 [302] 303 304 ... 308  All
 

Page created in 0.108 seconds with 22 queries.