Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 312 313 [314] 315 316 ... 327  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contests #1 - #100  (Read 1546710 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

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 #7825 on: December 14, 2020, 11:42:11 am »
0



Quote
Salvage Yard • $5 • Event
Gain a Treasure costing up to $6. Each other player gains a copy of it and takes Over Encumbered if they don't have it already
Quote
Over Encumbered • State
At the start of your turn, you may return this for -1 Action; if you don't, take your -1 Card token.

I picked this for Adventures - it already has -1 Card and -$1 tokens, -1 Action seems like it should exist; I've implemented it as a state here. This was going to use Aquila's -1 Action card, "Exhausted", but i didn't like how it was immediately mandatory. This gives an option as to when you -1 Action, but at the cost of a card.

This is also a good fit for Adventures since it has Attack-events like Raid and potential attack-treasure cards to make other people gain like Treasure Trove.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 03:22:40 pm by spineflu »
Logged

Aquila

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 525
  • Respect: +764
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7826 on: December 14, 2020, 12:23:48 pm »
+3

For Empires:
Quote
Way of the Eagle - Way
If you haven't trashed a copy of this during this turn, trash this. If you do, +1VP per 2 copies of it in the Supply (round up).
Eagles were a symbol of victory to the Romans, and they thrive better with less competition. Oh, and they like rats. Most Empires strategies look for competing select piles; this adds strategies that run counter to this trend, to hopefully create interesting games. Maybe it prolongs the game too often by creating a starting VP phase, but most of the time building up should be optimal?

Edit: added once per different Action each turn, because Fortress.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 04:35:26 pm by Aquila »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7827 on: December 14, 2020, 12:32:22 pm »
0

You could put the first "+1 Action" right in front of the "+1 Buy".

Another thing I've literally done and then changed, believe it or not. I was torn between 'vanilla boni should be in a row!' and 'having the Action after returning to your action phase is more natural'.

Xen3k

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
  • Respect: +581
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7828 on: December 14, 2020, 12:32:45 pm »
+2



Quote
Way of the Vermin
Way
Trash this.
If there wasn't a copy of this in the Trash, gain a Spoils.
Each other player gains a Ruins.

A Way for Dark Ages. It is a self trashing conditional Spoils gainer that hands out Ruins, like a one-shot Marauder. I am not sure how good of an idea this is as it definitely can snow-ball, but seeing as it is a counter to itself it won't devolve into a slog straight away. Villages will be highly sought after as using the Way will eat up Actions. I think of this as more of a tactical Way as you want to be the first to trash a particular card to get the Spoils reward, but handing a Ruins to other players means they will get the Spoils from that card and send Ruins back your way. I would want to play test it to see if it is actually fun, but I like the idea. Feedback is more than welcome!

I love Ways and I think this is a nice idea.  It could allow for some interesting tactical decisions.  However, I think the part I would personally enjoy less is the extra layer of randomness that arises from it.  If you're unlucky, when someone plays this Way, you could gain a Ruins that is already in the trash whereas someone else could gain one that isn't.  Or you could be lucky and be the first to draw a Ruins that isn't in the trash.  The benefit isn't huge, but if it happens often enough in a game, that could have a significant impact on the outcome.

I agree completely, and this randomness has been a consistent issue when I have used Ruins in card designs. I really like Ruins, but I do understand their randomness is unwanted by some players. I am gonna stick with this design for now, but the critique that it has randomness is valid and appreciated. I welcome additional criticisms and appreciate the responses!

To mitigate the randomness, maybe add "if there is a copy of this in the trash, +1 action" so its a non terminal self trasher.

I have updated my submission and it can be seen here.

Quote


Quote
Way of the Vermin
Way
Trash this.
Each other player gains a Ruins.
If this is the first Action card played this turn, gain a Spoils.

As I posted in the Edit, the new version no longer has the issue of missing out and randomness in regards to the Spoils gain. This version may push Big Money more than the other, but you still need Actions to take advantage of the Way, so I think it breaks even. Additional feed back is more than Welcome!
Logged

gambit05

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
  • Respect: +495
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7829 on: December 14, 2020, 12:40:41 pm »
+1

No joke. I like it!
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7830 on: December 14, 2020, 01:23:07 pm »
0


maybe a stupid question, but are we supposed to design an event or card for any artifacts or states we make? ie, "here the way to get the artifact/state"

Yes, please. Otherwise I don’t know how it is used.

My apologies everyone. Clearly I did not make this contest very clear! In my head I considered this to be a clear and interesting contest—perhaps it is not so. In any case I very much look forward to seeing the creative submissions everyone comes up with.




For Dominion.  There is no "2nd player" without this, but this lets you gain the most vps even if you have 0% chance of winning.


To clarify, is a league point in the context of the online dominion league where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket (or wins if in the top bracket)?

No in the context of offline dominion leagues, like Waseda Tournament in 2014, where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket.

I still don't understand. There is no official tournament format for Dominion, so isn't the concept of a "league point" completely undefined except if specific tournaments choose to use it? Any given tournament may or may not have "points" or "brackets". It sounds like this card would only work for certain very specific tournaments.

On top of that, I don't understand how the Landmark would change any outcome. Again different tournaments may do things differently, but wouldn't most of them, if they have a need to award second or third places in a game, already do so based on VP? This landmark sounds like it's just solidifying that rule into a tournament.

Finally, wouldn't this completely imbalance any tournament where it was used in some games but not others? One game gives you 60 "league points", and then eventually your score gets compared to players in other games where they didn't have this landmark? I'm very confused.
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

anordinaryman

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 363
  • Respect: +502
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7831 on: December 14, 2020, 02:08:42 pm »
+1



Quote
Salvage Yard • $5 • Event
Gain a Treasure costing up to $6. Each other player gains a copy of it and takes Over Encumbered if they don't have it already
Quote
Over Encumbered • State
At the start of your turn, you may return this for -1 Action; if you don't, take your -1 Card token.

I picked this for Adventures - it already has -1 Card and -$1 tokens, -1 Action seems like it should exist. This was going to use Aquila's -1 Action card, "Exhausted", but i didn't like how it was immediately mandatory. This gives an option as to when you -1 Action, but at the cost of a card.

This is also a good fit for Adventures since it has Attack-events like Raid, potential attack-treasure cards to make other people gain like Treasure Trove, and an existing "counter" to Over Encumbered, Coin Of The Realm.

This is mainly a clarification question about how -1 Action works. Normally you start your turn with +1 Action. If you have Over-Encumbered, you may choose to return it to now have 0 Actions. However, if you played a Fishing Village last turn, you would then have 1 action at the start of your turn after resolving both of those?

If that is all true, Coin of the realm is not a counter, right? Because coin of the realm says "directly after playing an Action card," but you can't play an Action card if you have 0 actions, right? So that would mean you couldn't call Coin of the realm?
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 #7832 on: December 14, 2020, 03:21:49 pm »
0



Quote
Salvage Yard • $5 • Event
Gain a Treasure costing up to $6. Each other player gains a copy of it and takes Over Encumbered if they don't have it already
Quote
Over Encumbered • State
At the start of your turn, you may return this for -1 Action; if you don't, take your -1 Card token.

I picked this for Adventures - it already has -1 Card and -$1 tokens, -1 Action seems like it should exist. This was going to use Aquila's -1 Action card, "Exhausted", but i didn't like how it was immediately mandatory. This gives an option as to when you -1 Action, but at the cost of a card.

This is also a good fit for Adventures since it has Attack-events like Raid, potential attack-treasure cards to make other people gain like Treasure Trove, and an existing "counter" to Over Encumbered, Coin Of The Realm.

This is mainly a clarification question about how -1 Action works. Normally you start your turn with +1 Action. If you have Over-Encumbered, you may choose to return it to now have 0 Actions. However, if you played a Fishing Village last turn, you would then have 1 action at the start of your turn after resolving both of those?

If that is all true, Coin of the realm is not a counter, right? Because coin of the realm says "directly after playing an Action card," but you can't play an Action card if you have 0 actions, right? So that would mean you couldn't call Coin of the realm?

You're correct in all of this, and i was incorrect in my recollection of how CotR works; I'll edit that and stew on whether i want this to still be my entry with no counter existing.
Logged

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7833 on: December 14, 2020, 03:44:56 pm »
0

For Empires:
Quote
Way of the Eagle - Way
Trash this. If you do, +1VP per 2 copies of it in the Supply (round up).
Eagles were a symbol of victory to the Romans, and they thrive better with less competition. Oh, and they like rats. Most Empires strategies look for competing select piles; this adds strategies that run counter to this trend, to hopefully create interesting games. Maybe it prolongs the game too often by creating a starting VP phase, but most of the time building up should be optimal?

I know you designed this for Empires, but wouldn't this be a bit broken with Fortress? 

Also, if you happen to have Tomb as a Landmark, I feel like that this could favor a strategy of buying up Action cards to trash and this turns into a completely different game.

I think this would work better in 3- or 4-player games since the Supply piles will run out faster and trashing cards perhaps becomes more of a tactical decision, but I worry about how this would play out with 2 players. 
Logged

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7834 on: December 14, 2020, 03:47:09 pm »
+1

Quote


Quote
Way of the Vermin
Way
Trash this.
Each other player gains a Ruins.
If this is the first Action card played this turn, gain a Spoils.

As I posted in the Edit, the new version no longer has the issue of missing out and randomness in regards to the Spoils gain. This version may push Big Money more than the other, but you still need Actions to take advantage of the Way, so I think it breaks even. Additional feed back is more than Welcome!

I like this better than the original version.  It's pretty neat!
Logged

Aquila

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 525
  • Respect: +764
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7835 on: December 14, 2020, 04:32:57 pm »
0

For Empires:
Quote
Way of the Eagle - Way
Trash this. If you do, +1VP per 2 copies of it in the Supply (round up).
Eagles were a symbol of victory to the Romans, and they thrive better with less competition. Oh, and they like rats. Most Empires strategies look for competing select piles; this adds strategies that run counter to this trend, to hopefully create interesting games. Maybe it prolongs the game too often by creating a starting VP phase, but most of the time building up should be optimal?

I know you designed this for Empires, but wouldn't this be a bit broken with Fortress? 

Also, if you happen to have Tomb as a Landmark, I feel like that this could favor a strategy of buying up Action cards to trash and this turns into a completely different game.

I think this would work better in 3- or 4-player games since the Supply piles will run out faster and trashing cards perhaps becomes more of a tactical decision, but I worry about how this would play out with 2 players.
Right, so Champion + Fortress = infinite VP. Bother. How to fix this...?
A cold, inelegant '...if it's in the trash, +VP' would be the only way to fully stop this, if the little window when Fortress visits the trash wouldn't make it still count. It probably would.
'Once per turn: ...' limits things to 'spend an Action each turn for some VP' if the players don't decide to empty the Fortresses out, but is that nice for everything else? You couldn't blow up your deck on the last turn/near game end.
'If you haven't trashed a copy of this during this turn, trash this...' could work, it would prevent hoarding one pile (putting your +Action token on it) then trashing them all at once, which isn't too smart anyway.
I'll go with this latter option (at bottom).

With Tomb, the potential existing problem (if players see it as such) in creating a starting VP phase would be exaggerated. I hope it wouldn't go on all game and come down to a boring ritual decided by shuffle luck. I could reduce the VP to 1 per 3 cards round up if it is like this. Testing is needed here.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Revised entry:
Quote
Way of the Eagle - Way
If you haven't trashed a copy of this during this turn, trash this. If you do, +1VP per 2 copies of it in the Supply (round up).
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7836 on: December 15, 2020, 12:25:11 am »
+1

For Empires:
Quote
Way of the Eagle - Way
Trash this. If you do, +1VP per 2 copies of it in the Supply (round up).
Eagles were a symbol of victory to the Romans, and they thrive better with less competition. Oh, and they like rats. Most Empires strategies look for competing select piles; this adds strategies that run counter to this trend, to hopefully create interesting games. Maybe it prolongs the game too often by creating a starting VP phase, but most of the time building up should be optimal?

I know you designed this for Empires, but wouldn't this be a bit broken with Fortress? 

Also, if you happen to have Tomb as a Landmark, I feel like that this could favor a strategy of buying up Action cards to trash and this turns into a completely different game.

I think this would work better in 3- or 4-player games since the Supply piles will run out faster and trashing cards perhaps becomes more of a tactical decision, but I worry about how this would play out with 2 players.
Right, so Champion + Fortress = infinite VP. Bother. How to fix this...?
A cold, inelegant '...if it's in the trash, +VP' would be the only way to fully stop this, if the little window when Fortress visits the trash wouldn't make it still count. It probably would.
'Once per turn: ...' limits things to 'spend an Action each turn for some VP' if the players don't decide to empty the Fortresses out, but is that nice for everything else? You couldn't blow up your deck on the last turn/near game end.
'If you haven't trashed a copy of this during this turn, trash this...' could work, it would prevent hoarding one pile (putting your +Action token on it) then trashing them all at once, which isn't too smart anyway.
I'll go with this latter option (at bottom).

With Tomb, the potential existing problem (if players see it as such) in creating a starting VP phase would be exaggerated. I hope it wouldn't go on all game and come down to a boring ritual decided by shuffle luck. I could reduce the VP to 1 per 3 cards round up if it is like this. Testing is needed here.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Revised entry:
Quote
Way of the Eagle - Way
If you haven't trashed a copy of this during this turn, trash this. If you do, +1VP per 2 copies of it in the Supply (round up).

There's a much simpler solution that already exists in the wording of actual Ways... return it to the pile instead of trashing it, like Way of the Horse and Way of the Butterfly do. Of course since you are counting the number of copies in the pile, that will mess with the balance of it somewhat, but it's not like it would prevent piles from draining; people  in either version people are going to probably buy cards from full piles in order to use Eagle.

I'm guessing it's too strong; you'll buy bad cards that are being otherwise unbought in order to get more VP. It also has the downside of being better when used with worse cards (because weak cards will have more copies in the supply than strong cards in general). All of the official ways either act the same no matter what action you use it on; or they are better when you use them with better actions. You could argue that Horse and Butterfly are better when used on weak cards, because with strong cards you want to keep them in your deck. Eagle takes that a step further by giving more VP on average when the card is bad.

What if the VP were based on card cost rather than number left in the supply? The more you put into it the more you get out of it.

Way of the Bishop's Eagle - Way
You may return this to its pile, for +1 per it costs (round down).
« Last Edit: December 15, 2020, 12:26:56 am by GendoIkari »
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

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
  • Respect: +206
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7837 on: December 15, 2020, 03:19:00 am »
+1

For intrigue



segura posted this a while back (which seems conceptually similar with slightly different math):



Simple Alt-VP support card that lifts all boats and thus makes all non-Province green slightly more attractive.

An alternative version would be: "When you gain a Victory card, +1."

I remember because it resulted in me not posting this (which started out rewarding all Victory cards, but didn't playtest particularly well in that version):




« Last Edit: December 15, 2020, 03:39:52 am by spheremonk »
Logged

majiponi

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 823
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7838 on: December 15, 2020, 11:14:24 am »
0


maybe a stupid question, but are we supposed to design an event or card for any artifacts or states we make? ie, "here the way to get the artifact/state"

Yes, please. Otherwise I don’t know how it is used.

My apologies everyone. Clearly I did not make this contest very clear! In my head I considered this to be a clear and interesting contest—perhaps it is not so. In any case I very much look forward to seeing the creative submissions everyone comes up with.




For Dominion.  There is no "2nd player" without this, but this lets you gain the most vps even if you have 0% chance of winning.


To clarify, is a league point in the context of the online dominion league where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket (or wins if in the top bracket)?

No in the context of offline dominion leagues, like Waseda Tournament in 2014, where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket.

I still don't understand. There is no official tournament format for Dominion, so isn't the concept of a "league point" completely undefined except if specific tournaments choose to use it? Any given tournament may or may not have "points" or "brackets". It sounds like this card would only work for certain very specific tournaments.

On top of that, I don't understand how the Landmark would change any outcome. Again different tournaments may do things differently, but wouldn't most of them, if they have a need to award second or third places in a game, already do so based on VP? This landmark sounds like it's just solidifying that rule into a tournament.

Finally, wouldn't this completely imbalance any tournament where it was used in some games but not others? One game gives you 60 "league points", and then eventually your score gets compared to players in other games where they didn't have this landmark? I'm very confused.

Every game in that tournament uses this Landmark, or a kind of thing.  This Landmark is a declaration that "This game rewards 2nd place or 3rd place".  (Remember that the original Dominion game rewards ONLY 1st place player.)  The definition of LP is up to the host of the championship.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2020, 11:15:32 am by majiponi »
Logged

LittleFish

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
  • Respect: +188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7839 on: December 15, 2020, 11:24:25 am »
0


I know this isn't your submission, but wouldn't having more land mean it's worth less because of supply and demand?
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7840 on: December 15, 2020, 12:40:12 pm »
+1


maybe a stupid question, but are we supposed to design an event or card for any artifacts or states we make? ie, "here the way to get the artifact/state"

Yes, please. Otherwise I don’t know how it is used.

My apologies everyone. Clearly I did not make this contest very clear! In my head I considered this to be a clear and interesting contest—perhaps it is not so. In any case I very much look forward to seeing the creative submissions everyone comes up with.




For Dominion.  There is no "2nd player" without this, but this lets you gain the most vps even if you have 0% chance of winning.


To clarify, is a league point in the context of the online dominion league where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket (or wins if in the top bracket)?

No in the context of offline dominion leagues, like Waseda Tournament in 2014, where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket.

I still don't understand. There is no official tournament format for Dominion, so isn't the concept of a "league point" completely undefined except if specific tournaments choose to use it? Any given tournament may or may not have "points" or "brackets". It sounds like this card would only work for certain very specific tournaments.

On top of that, I don't understand how the Landmark would change any outcome. Again different tournaments may do things differently, but wouldn't most of them, if they have a need to award second or third places in a game, already do so based on VP? This landmark sounds like it's just solidifying that rule into a tournament.

Finally, wouldn't this completely imbalance any tournament where it was used in some games but not others? One game gives you 60 "league points", and then eventually your score gets compared to players in other games where they didn't have this landmark? I'm very confused.

Every game in that tournament uses this Landmark, or a kind of thing.  This Landmark is a declaration that "This game rewards 2nd place or 3rd place".  (Remember that the original Dominion game rewards ONLY 1st place player.)  The definition of LP is up to the host of the championship.

Ok I understand the idea now. I'm just not sure that it really fits as a Dominion card / card-shaped thing. It's just a rule that tournaments can choose to use; why would you need to include that as part of the game setup? As a Landmark, it would take up a slot in the "2 landscapes per game" recommendation; so you couldn't have both this and 2 events without ignoring that recommendation. If it is intended to be used in every game in a tournament, then that goes against the "random kingdom design" principle of Dominion in general. You have to purposefully exclude this card from your home games because you aren't running a tournament?

And even within a tournament, I'm unclear on what is gained by having this rule printed on a Landmark... tournaments can choose whether they want to award second place or not; and any tournament-related rule that will get used in every game of a tournament doesn't need to be on a Landmark; the point of a Landmark is so that different games will play differently.
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

Carline

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
  • Respect: +391
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7841 on: December 15, 2020, 04:49:38 pm »
+1


maybe a stupid question, but are we supposed to design an event or card for any artifacts or states we make? ie, "here the way to get the artifact/state"

Yes, please. Otherwise I don’t know how it is used.

My apologies everyone. Clearly I did not make this contest very clear! In my head I considered this to be a clear and interesting contest—perhaps it is not so. In any case I very much look forward to seeing the creative submissions everyone comes up with.




For Dominion.  There is no "2nd player" without this, but this lets you gain the most vps even if you have 0% chance of winning.


To clarify, is a league point in the context of the online dominion league where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket (or wins if in the top bracket)?

No in the context of offline dominion leagues, like Waseda Tournament in 2014, where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket.

I still don't understand. There is no official tournament format for Dominion, so isn't the concept of a "league point" completely undefined except if specific tournaments choose to use it? Any given tournament may or may not have "points" or "brackets". It sounds like this card would only work for certain very specific tournaments.

On top of that, I don't understand how the Landmark would change any outcome. Again different tournaments may do things differently, but wouldn't most of them, if they have a need to award second or third places in a game, already do so based on VP? This landmark sounds like it's just solidifying that rule into a tournament.

Finally, wouldn't this completely imbalance any tournament where it was used in some games but not others? One game gives you 60 "league points", and then eventually your score gets compared to players in other games where they didn't have this landmark? I'm very confused.

Every game in that tournament uses this Landmark, or a kind of thing.  This Landmark is a declaration that "This game rewards 2nd place or 3rd place".  (Remember that the original Dominion game rewards ONLY 1st place player.)  The definition of LP is up to the host of the championship.

Ok I understand the idea now. I'm just not sure that it really fits as a Dominion card / card-shaped thing. It's just a rule that tournaments can choose to use; why would you need to include that as part of the game setup? As a Landmark, it would take up a slot in the "2 landscapes per game" recommendation; so you couldn't have both this and 2 events without ignoring that recommendation. If it is intended to be used in every game in a tournament, then that goes against the "random kingdom design" principle of Dominion in general. You have to purposefully exclude this card from your home games because you aren't running a tournament?

And even within a tournament, I'm unclear on what is gained by having this rule printed on a Landmark... tournaments can choose whether they want to award second place or not; and any tournament-related rule that will get used in every game of a tournament doesn't need to be on a Landmark; the point of a Landmark is so that different games will play differently.


When I play IRL with my friends, we often play this kind of tournament as a house rule. It rewards the best player on the long run, but changes some things in each match:

- players can't resign
- sometimes, who's winning doesn't want to end the match to gain more points
- sometimes, who is behind wants to end the match to lose by less points

It's fun, anyway.

That said, I also don't think a card is needed to determine it. I think it's better if each card would be always meaningful, even if you play only one match.

Another point about League in present contest is that it doesn't seem to be more related  to an specific expansion set than to others.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2020, 04:56:30 pm by Carline »
Logged

Carline

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
  • Respect: +391
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7842 on: December 15, 2020, 05:16:38 pm »
0


I know this isn't your submission, but wouldn't having more land mean it's worth less because of supply and demand?

I think the setup clause is needed to the Landmark works. Otherwise, you have to count on a lucky randomize to have a Kingdom Victory pile.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7843 on: December 15, 2020, 05:31:17 pm »
0

I think the version that gives VP for all victory cards is more elegant. Alt VP tends to be quite strong anyway. I still like the Setup clause, though. I think my favorite version would be '2 VP per victory card, add an extra victory pile'.

Although, I am just realizing that it's very close to Battlefield.

LittleFish

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
  • Respect: +188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7844 on: December 15, 2020, 06:24:39 pm »
0


I know this isn't your submission, but wouldn't having more land mean it's worth less because of supply and demand?

I think the setup clause is needed to the Landmark works. Otherwise, you have to count on a lucky randomize to have a Kingdom Victory pile.
I understand the mechanical requirement for it, I'm just saying that thematically, more land would mean less value.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7845 on: December 15, 2020, 08:18:59 pm »
+1


I know this isn't your submission, but wouldn't having more land mean it's worth less because of supply and demand?

I think the setup clause is needed to the Landmark works. Otherwise, you have to count on a lucky randomize to have a Kingdom Victory pile.
I understand the mechanical requirement for it, I'm just saying that thematically, more land would mean less value.

I think the theme is that a real estate boom has occurred; and thus people who owned more land are rewarded more than people who owned less land. "Having more land" means that one person owns more land; it's not like more land was just created.
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

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7846 on: December 15, 2020, 09:28:25 pm »
+1

EDIT:  Updated with a new submission:


Quote from: Previous Submission


The Exile mat is one of my favorite things about Menagerie.   This is my attempt to retrofit Dark Ages with it.  This could probably work with most expansions, but I chose Dark Ages because of the heavy emphasis on trashing.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2020, 02:41:23 pm by Timinou »
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 363
  • Respect: +502
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7847 on: December 15, 2020, 11:00:38 pm »
+1



The Exile mat is one of my favorite things about Menagerie.   This is my attempt to retrofit Dark Ages with it.  This could probably work with most expansions, but I chose Dark Ages because of the heavy emphasis on trashing.

For the contest rules, the only thing that gets retroactively added to all expansions is all the side-wise card-shaped things. Other mechanics like Horses, Boons, etc are not involved in this. The exile mechanic is specific to Menagerie, and so I would evaluate this card for fitting in Menagerie, not Dark Ages, since Dark Ages does not have Exiling.

This may seem arbitrary to you. The point of the contest is to apply a very small subset of mechanics (Event, Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way) that are not currently in a set to the theme/mechanics of that set. In the case of Dark Ages you have mechanics/themes like on-trash, self-trash, the trash in general, ruins, spoils, non-supply cards, 1-cost cards, upgrading, and more. In menagerie you have Exile, Ways, now-or-later, durations, caring about supply pile emptiness, weird costs, reactions, and more.

If you want this to fit in Dark ages you'd have to get rid of the Exiling. If you want this to fit in with Menagerie, you could incorporate one of the theme/mechanics of menagerie
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7848 on: December 16, 2020, 01:55:32 am »
+1



The Exile mat is one of my favorite things about Menagerie.   This is my attempt to retrofit Dark Ages with it.  This could probably work with most expansions, but I chose Dark Ages because of the heavy emphasis on trashing.
I had a similar idea some time ago but this is broken with TfB, especially cards like Forge and Salvager.
Logged

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #7849 on: December 16, 2020, 08:05:42 am »
0

For the contest rules, the only thing that gets retroactively added to all expansions is all the side-wise card-shaped things. Other mechanics like Horses, Boons, etc are not involved in this. The exile mechanic is specific to Menagerie, and so I would evaluate this card for fitting in Menagerie, not Dark Ages, since Dark Ages does not have Exiling.

This may seem arbitrary to you. The point of the contest is to apply a very small subset of mechanics (Event, Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way) that are not currently in a set to the theme/mechanics of that set. In the case of Dark Ages you have mechanics/themes like on-trash, self-trash, the trash in general, ruins, spoils, non-supply cards, 1-cost cards, upgrading, and more. In menagerie you have Exile, Ways, now-or-later, durations, caring about supply pile emptiness, weird costs, reactions, and more.

If you want this to fit in Dark ages you'd have to get rid of the Exiling. If you want this to fit in with Menagerie, you could incorporate one of the theme/mechanics of menagerie

I don't know why I assumed borrowing other sideways things from other expansions was allowed, so thanks for clarifying the rules.  I'll try to come up with something else.

I had a similar idea some time ago but this is broken with TfB, especially cards like Forge and Salvager.

Thanks for the feedback!  You're right.  You could use Forge or Salvager to essentially duplicate Provinces or Colonies with this.  I'll think about how to address this if I ever recycle this for a different contest.  Perhaps restricting Amnesty's ability to non-Victory cards would be better.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 312 313 [314] 315 316 ... 327  All
 

Page created in 0.122 seconds with 21 queries.