Print

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

[scolapasta]

Congregation is priced at $3 in order to enable double Congregation opens. Is this too strong? Should it be $4 instead?

Some cool stuff coming out of this thread! I wish I had more time on my hands to respond to it all, but for now I'll just comment on the new Congregation/Blessing cards.

I might be mistaken, but I believe a forced cantrip card trashers should be priced around $4.5. "+1 Card, +1 Action, Trash a card from your hand." Given that Congregation does not force you to trash a card, trashes at a time when your trashing window is potentially bigger, and it can set you up for an on-demand remodel, I think you're easily looking at a very good $5 cost. Trying it out at $6 might be a safe place to start, but it then in a way becomes stronger as you could "Bless" your Congregations into Provinces.

All in all I think this is a cool concept and it's a nice, clean remodel variant. The pure Reserve certainly seems to work too and adds a nice interaction with other trashers. Another reason I think this should cost $6 as reaching that price point needs to be carefully considered when trashing down.

Also, Congregation reads "+1 Action, +1 Card, ..." when it should be the other way around!

A lot of excellent points. I really wasn't sure what to price it at, but clearly 3 is too cheap.

Looking though some official cards for comparables, I see:

Junk Dealer - $5 - also gives $1
Upgrade - $5 - Cantrip TfB+1
Sauna - $4 - Cantrip - doesn't always trash, but often and can play Avanto for free
Hideout - $4 - gives an extra action, but also a curse if the card you trash is a victory card

I also already have Archbishop at $6*, and was trying to keep most Worshipper-giving cards lower. (though in this case it may still be OK since you're likely getting these for the TfB). And I agree, not sure if I want to enable the TfB to Provinces.

So I may lean towards 5 instead of 6.

Another option is to remove the +1 Card (or the +1 Action).

Is this more interesting as an expensive cantrip or as a cheaper +1 Action?

Also, when you say "adds a nice interaction with other trashers" are there any others besides Sewers? I can't think of what else can trash during Clean-up (and Sewers only because of Worshippers).

[scolapasta]

Okay, I've got time for another quick comment. This time on Archbishop/Chalice:

So I really like the addition of an Artifact, but I think taking it should have some kind of condition you need to meet or cost to it. All of the official Artifacts do. None of them simply give you the Artifact for playing a card. Given the theme of trashing it would be nice to see something along those lines.

Also, I'm curious what the no Copper in play clause is getting at? I get that it makes Archbishop harder to gain, but I'm just curious if there is a specific reason you choose this condition to meet.

Huh, it didn't occur to me that none of the official artifacts are non-conditional. Making this conditional fits more with the theme (Archbishops vying for who gets to be the "Pope" and have more power) anyway.

I'll noodle on what that condition could be - what do you think of my initial idea of "If you at least X Worshippers"? So you're forced to choose between spending your Worshippers or saving them to take the Chalice.

Alternatively, another option is the opposite, "if you have at most X worshippers" - making you have to think about getting new ones or spending them quickly.

(and what should X be? this and other cards only give 1 Worshipper at a time, except for Apse Chapel and Graveyard, on gain)

The main reason "no copper in play" was for theme: Archbishop is to Bishop as Grand Market is to Market, so it gets that clause. But it does allow it to cost a little lower( as I think this is overpowered for a regular $6).

It also means you possibly have already trashed a lot of your coppers by the time you get this, which means you'd use your Archbishop gained Worshippers for other cards (or if I do use the condition above, makes it easier to choose to save them).

If that clause weakens the design of the card, I'd consider removing it.

[scolapasta]

Convent seems pretty useless, to be honest. By the time you're greening, you don't really care if your deck has junk in it. The crucial time to trash is in the beginning, way before you're buying Victory cards. The main edge cases would be Mill or if you want to get rid of some Curses.

Thanks for the honest input!

I was unsure of this one for that very reason. But I liked the idea of having a project that was analogous to:
Academy = when you gain an Action card, +1 Villager
Guildhall = when you gain a Treasure card, +1 Coffer

and so Victory cards where the obvious remaining basic card.

I might keep it just for that reason, but who knows? I wonder if there's a way to make it better while still keeping the parallel quality alive.

[scolapasta]

OK, so while I think over all these recent (and excellent!) suggestions, anyone else got any cool ideas for Worshipper cards?

I have one more:

Occult Dealer



Pretty straightforward, now that we have 3 types of spendable tokens, why not a simple card that gives one of each?

Cost wise, I compared to:

• Forager - $3 - which gives +1 Action, +1 Buy, trashes a card and +$X ($1 per differently named treasure).
• Junk Dealer - $5 - +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, trash a card

Since Villagers are usually better than Actions, Worshippers usually better than trash, Coffers usually better than $, and despite the fact that Forager will eventually give more $, it feels stronger than Forager.

At the same time the +1 Card of Junk Dealer is especially valuable, so it feels weaker than Junk Dealer.

Hence, $4. How'd I do?

[scolapasta]

Convent seems pretty useless, to be honest. By the time you're greening, you don't really care if your deck has junk in it. The crucial time to trash is in the beginning, way before you're buying Victory cards. The main edge cases would be Mill or if you want to get rid of some Curses.

Thanks for the honest input!

I was unsure of this one for that very reason. But I liked the idea of having a project that was analogous to:
Academy = when you gain an Action card, +1 Villager
Guildhall = when you gain a Treasure card, +1 Coffer

and so Victory cards where the obvious remaining basic card.

I might keep it just for that reason, but who knows? I wonder if there's a way to make it better while still keeping the parallel quality alive.

So I'll probably make these improvements:
• lower cost
• work when trashing

Convent - Project - $3
When you gain or trash a Victory card, +1 Worshipper

Still may not be worth it, but at least adds more use cases - and if it's the only trashing, you can gain cheap Victory cards, trash them and still have a Worshipper for trashing other cards.

I also considered adding Curse, Ruins, and / or Shelters, but I think that might add too much (it would effectively invalidate cursing attacks, e.g. you'd take the curse with Torturer, then end net +1 Worshipper after your turn)

I've also realized that Road Network could be considered as analogous to Academy and Guildhall, just that it triggers on opponent's gains.

[GendoIkari]

Pretty straightforward, now that we have 3 types of spendable tokens, why not a simple card that gives one of each?

Cost wise, I compared to:

• Forager - $3 - which gives +1 Action, +1 Buy, trashes a card and +$X ($1 per differently named treasure).
• Junk Dealer - $5 - +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, trash a card

Since Villagers are usually better than Actions, Worshippers usually better than trash, Coffers usually better than $, and despite the fact that Forager will eventually give more $, it feels stronger than Forager.

At the same time the +1 Card of Junk Dealer is especially valuable, so it feels weaker than Junk Dealer.

Hence, $4. How'd I do?

Hard to say, but there's a good chance that this is as strong or stronger than Junk Dealer. Junk Dealer is weakened by the fact that the trashing is mandatory. Playing a Junk Dealer isn't really a full cantrip, because it still reduces your hand size after the trashing. So playing an Occult Dealer and playing a Junk Dealer both leave you with 1 card fewer in hand.

[scolapasta]

Pretty straightforward, now that we have 3 types of spendable tokens, why not a simple card that gives one of each?

Cost wise, I compared to:

• Forager - $3 - which gives +1 Action, +1 Buy, trashes a card and +$X ($1 per differently named treasure).
• Junk Dealer - $5 - +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, trash a card

Since Villagers are usually better than Actions, Worshippers usually better than trash, Coffers usually better than $, and despite the fact that Forager will eventually give more $, it feels stronger than Forager.

At the same time the +1 Card of Junk Dealer is especially valuable, so it feels weaker than Junk Dealer.

Hence, $4. How'd I do?

Hard to say, but there's a good chance that this is as strong or stronger than Junk Dealer. Junk Dealer is weakened by the fact that the trashing is mandatory. Playing a Junk Dealer isn't really a full cantrip, because it still reduces your hand size after the trashing. So playing an Occult Dealer and playing a Junk Dealer both leave you with 1 card fewer in hand.

Great point. (and a good way of thinking about the +1 Card of Junk Dealer).

For example, say I have a hand of 1) Junk Dealer and a Copper vs 2) Occult Dealer and a Copper.

Case 1: play Junk Dealer, trash the Copper. I now have 1 Action, 1 (new) card, and $2
Case 2: play Occult Dealer. I now have 1 Villager, 1 Copper, $1 + 1 coffer, and a worshipper.

So if the new card is a copper, then Occult Dealer is stronger, because you can spend the Coffer and use the Worshipper on the copper and are "strictly better" because you have a villager over the action. Additionally you can choose not to spend either the coffer or the worshipper.

Of course, the new card you draw could be better than a copper, so it's not definite that Occult Dealer will always be stronger.

I'll probably try it at 5, then.

[scolapasta]

So, related to my last post, I'd appreciate if people could suggest any other good comparable cards for each of these with which to play test and check cost balance.

So far I've got:

Occult Dealer vs. Junk Dealer
Chapel vs. Apse Chapel (which I've tried before) possibly also vs Cloister (or maybe throw in Monastery here)
Graveyard vs Cemetery.
Archbishop vs Bishop and maybe Grand Market (to see if Archbishop would be worth buying in that case)
Congregation / Blessing vs Remodel

I'm hoping to try some soon and see how it goes.

[Gazbag]

Sorry this post is a bit scatterbrained and not very well structured but I hope you can glean some value from my ramblings.

Congregation is priced at $3 in order to enable double Congregation opens. Is this too strong? Should it be $4 instead?

Some cool stuff coming out of this thread! I wish I had more time on my hands to respond to it all, but for now I'll just comment on the new Congregation/Blessing cards.

I might be mistaken, but I believe a forced cantrip card trashers should be priced around $4.5. "+1 Card, +1 Action, Trash a card from your hand." Given that Congregation does not force you to trash a card, trashes at a time when your trashing window is potentially bigger, and it can set you up for an on-demand remodel, I think you're easily looking at a very good $5 cost. Trying it out at $6 might be a safe place to start, but it then in a way becomes stronger as you could "Bless" your Congregations into Provinces.

All in all I think this is a cool concept and it's a nice, clean remodel variant. The pure Reserve certainly seems to work too and adds a nice interaction with other trashers. Another reason I think this should cost $6 as reaching that price point needs to be carefully considered when trashing down.

Also, Congregation reads "+1 Action, +1 Card, ..." when it should be the other way around!

A lot of excellent points. I really wasn't sure what to price it at, but clearly 3 is too weak.

Looking though some official cards for comparables, I see:

Junk Dealer - $5 - also gives $1
Upgrade - $5 - Cantrip TfB+1
Sauna - $4 - Cantrip - doesn't always trash, but often and can play Avanto for free
Hideout - $4 - gives an extra action, but also a curse if the card you trash is a victory card

I also already have Archbishop at $6*, and was trying to keep most Worshipper-giving cards lower. (though in this case it may still be OK since you're likely getting these for the TfB). And I agree, not sure if I want to enable the TfB to Provinces.

So I may lean towards 5 instead of 6.

Another option is to remove the +1 Card (or the +1 Action).

Is this more interesting as an expensive cantrip or cheaper +1 Action?

I think it's much stronger at $6 than $5, Remodels can be weird like that. I really like this idea now but I think it would be way cooler if Blessing worked on any trash, currently it just seems like it's stopping me from having fun. I think being a cantrip might be a little dangerous for this effect though thinking about it, once you have a Worshipper and a Gold each play basically becomes a Province gain and that's not really much setup for that effect (costing $6 would mean you don't need the Gold hence why I think it'd be stronger). So just being +1 Action might end up working out better, but you need testing for this kind of thing really.

About cards that only work with Worshippers. I think one of the best things about Dominion is that you're free to play the game however you want, whether that's fully randomised or meticulously planned kingdoms or something in between. So to me having cards that you can't play when fully randomising is against the spirit of the game and just a bit lame. But they're your cards so you're free to do things how you want.

I was thinking more on Graveyard and I think perhaps this version isn't the best. It's kind of wonky with openings making a 4/3 much better than a 3/4, which isn't a terrible thing, tons of things do stuff like that but it feels off to me somehow. I had the idea of making it overpay for Worshippers and cost $3, overpay for tokens is something we never got so that'd be cool and it seems fairly balanced to me. Weaker at lower costs but you can build up one big trash and also use it as a simple $3 cost victory late in the game.

I'm still not a fan of Cloister, it doesn't really have a reason to be a Night card anymore. Werewolf does because it's terminal draw and the original Cloister did because it let you play it after a trasher but this new one could just be a "choose one" Action. It also just feels a bit bland to me, it's another card that "just trashes" and I think Apse Chapel does that better.

So, related to my last post, I'd appreciate if people could suggest any other good comparable cards for each of these with which to play test and check cost balance.

So far I've got:

Occult Dealer vs. Junk Dealer
Chapel vs. Apse Chapel (which I've tried before) possibly also vs Cloister (or maybe throw in Monastery here)
Graveyard vs Cemetery.
Archbishop vs Bishop and maybe Grand Market (to see if Archbishop would be worth buying in that case)
Congregation / Blessing vs Remodel

I'm hoping to try some soon and see how it goes.

I wouldn't get too carried away with this kind of comparison, and some of them don't really make sense. Archbishop vs Grand Market for example, sure they have the same cost, but they do completely different things. It'd be like comparing Count to Market or something like that.

[Kudasai]

Okay, I've got time for another quick comment. This time on Archbishop/Chalice:

So I really like the addition of an Artifact, but I think taking it should have some kind of condition you need to meet or cost to it. All of the official Artifacts do. None of them simply give you the Artifact for playing a card. Given the theme of trashing it would be nice to see something along those lines.

Also, I'm curious what the no Copper in play clause is getting at? I get that it makes Archbishop harder to gain, but I'm just curious if there is a specific reason you choose this condition to meet.

Huh, it didn't occur to me that none of the official artifacts are non-conditional. Making this conditional fits more with the theme (Archbishops vying for who gets to be the "Pope" and have more power) anyway.

I'll noodle on what that condition could be - what do you think of my initial idea of "If you at least X Worshippers"? So you're forced to choose between spending your Worshippers or saving them to take the Chalice.

Alternatively, another option is the opposite, "if you have at most X worshippers" - making you have to think about getting new ones or spending them quickly.

(and what should X be? this and other cards only give 1 Worshipper at a time, except for Apse Chapel and Graveyard, on gain)

The main reason "no copper in play" was for theme: Archbishop is to Bishop as Grand Market is to Market, so it gets that clause. But it does allow it to cost a little lower( as I think this is overpowered for a regular $6).

It also means you possibly have already trashed a lot of your coppers by the time you get this, which means you'd use your Archbishop gained Worshippers for other cards (or if I do use the condition above, makes it easier to choose to save them).

If that clause weakens the design of the card, I'd consider removing it.

As a Chalice taking condition I like "if you have at most X worshipers", but if the idea is to make people trash cards, the Worshiper mat needs to be reworded so that if you remove a token you have to trash a card. Otherwise, you can just remove Worshiper tokens to satisfy the Chalice condition without any real consequence. Furthermore, it might be good to also have a minimum token amount needed. So you could have a range of say 2-4 or just make it an exact number like 3. (These are just arbitrary values I choose by the way!)

The Copper gaining clause might be needed, but I get the sense that it isn't. Ignoring the Chalice part, this is a Monument that gives a Worshiper. I think it's fair to price that at about a $5 cost. If the plan is to make Chalice somewhat hard to get I think this is a safe $6 cost without any in-play Copper restrictions. If you really like the Copper thing, maybe you can make it part of the Chalice taking mechanic!

Beyond that I'm likely of no help with what condition to choose and what values it should have. Artifacts are a bit new to me! I'd just be cautious with such a powerful, VP gaining Artifact like this. If one player manages to lock it down for the last 2-3 turns, it's probably game over for the other players.

[scolapasta]

Hi all, I had a very busy week so haven't been able to respond to any of the recent feedback. That said, thank you very much, it continues to be invaluable!

It'll take a while to get to the specific points, so I'll probably write up several small posts (plus at some point, post last week's challenge cards for discussion).

Since I had already made some tweaks of the cards last week, I'm going to first post those (and the reasoning) plus some thoughts I've had since then (related to the feedback):





Occult Dealer and Convent get the changes I had mentioned in previous posts (based on feedback from GendoIkari and Commodore Chuckles, respectively). Occult Dealer gets a price bump to $5, and Convent both gets a discount and now works when trashing Victory cards, in order to help with starting estates. 

For Congregation / Blessing, I had a couple of routes, either make weaker or more expensive (which was tricky, because of the side effect of making it stronger). I decided to try weaker, by removing the +1 Card.

Additionally, I changed Blessing to be a more standard Action - Reserve. The idea behind being a pure Reserve was that it would always be gained to your Tavern mat and returned to its pile. Now that it's an Action - Reserve it can be gained to your hand, which causes you to spend the Action from Congregation to put it on the Tavern mat.

Secondly, now that they are also Actions, I may consider going back to the original idea of trashing them (I had liked the idea of limited Blessings). My concern with them in the trash was for future proofing against something that made you gain from the trash and having you gain a completely useless card.

I was pretty happy with this until I read Gazbag's comment:

... once you have a Worshipper and a Gold each play basically becomes a Province gain and that's not really much setup for that effect ...

Wow! It never even occurred to me that you could use one Worshipper to trash a card (in this case a Gold) and then call multiple Blessings, effectively on the same trashed card. That is clearly quite strong. My original intent was "trash one card, bless one card".

SO I'm trying to decide if's OK to keep like this or try to find a way for it to be the original intent. (I'm toying, for example, with the idea of it costing you an extra worshipper to call the Blessing. But now I risk making this too weak!

More thoughts on Archbishop, Cloister, and Graveyard, and other responses to feedback, coming soon!

[scolapasta]

Sorry this post is a bit scatterbrained and not very well structured but I hope you can glean some value from my ramblings.

I love (and need) any feedback, so no worries. As you saw from my last post, I am definitely gleaning lots of value.

I think it's much stronger at $6 than $5, Remodels can be weird like that. I really like this idea now but I think it would be way cooler if Blessing worked on any trash, currently it just seems like it's stopping me from having fun. I think being a cantrip might be a little dangerous for this effect though thinking about it, once you have a Worshipper and a Gold each play basically becomes a Province gain and that's not really much setup for that effect (costing $6 would mean you don't need the Gold hence why I think it'd be stronger). So just being +1 Action might end up working out better, but you need testing for this kind of thing really.

Feel free to let me know what you think of the latest. I feel like I'm struggling with the right balance on this one.

It's either too strong as it is currently (at least it feels too strong with the fact that you can just stockpile blessings and then trash just one Gold).

Or my ideas to weaken it go too far. For example, my idea if having it cost you an extra worshipper to call the Blessing, means that you'd have to play Congregation three times in order to remodel once. (I guess I could remove the one shot aspect). Any thoughts are welcome.

FYI, the possible wording I'm considering if I do have it cost another Worshipper is:
"When you trash a card not from the Supply, you may call this to remove a Worshipper token from its mat. If you do, gain a card costing $2 more than the trashed card and trash this."

So in this case, it can be called after any trashing, which does help some. (note that similar to above thoughts, without requiring the use of the extra Worshipper, my concern was allowing, for example, remodel of a Gold for a province, then call Blessings for more provinces)

I'm still not a fan of Cloister, it doesn't really have a reason to be a Night card anymore. Werewolf does because it's terminal draw and the original Cloister did because it let you play it after a trasher but this new one could just be a "choose one" Action. It also just feels a bit bland to me, it's another card that "just trashes" and I think Apse Chapel does that better.

The reason I have it as Night is so that it can't be drawn dead. (otherwise, like you said it is just a choice)

When you mention Werewolf's reason to be Action-Night is so it doesn't draw *itself* dead? Should it matter much (as far as reasoning goes) if the card itself does the drawing or something else does?

The point about just another card that just trashes is valid. It's true, but I do think the choice makes it more interesting. But it probably does need something else.

I have come up with another idea for Worshippers. I'm debating whether it's for a new card or maybe for Cloister.

[scolapasta]

I was thinking more on Graveyard and I think perhaps this version isn't the best. It's kind of wonky with openings making a 4/3 much better than a 3/4, which isn't a terrible thing, tons of things do stuff like that but it feels off to me somehow. I had the idea of making it overpay for Worshippers and cost $3, overpay for tokens is something we never got so that'd be cool and it seems fairly balanced to me. Weaker at lower costs but you can build up one big trash and also use it as a simple $3 cost victory late in the game.

Overpay for tokens is definitely interesting and different, if I can figure it out.

Can you help me understand why 4/3 would be so much better than 3/4? Is it that after two turns you'd trash 2 estates, while 3/4 would only trash the 1? I'm trying to make sure overpay wouldn't create the same issues, so I think maybe it wouldn't give any worshippers at cost:

Graveyard - Victory - $3
2 VP
-
You may overpay for this. For each $1 you overpaid, +1 Worshipper.

Alternatively, I'm considering in making it a Victory - Night, as that feels thematic for Graveyard. Maybe take the Night clause from Cloister, if I change that one more dramatically:

Graveyard - Victory - Night - $3
+1 Worshipper
-
2 VP

I think I like overpay better. Now I want to make some overpay cards for Villagers and Coffers.

[scolapasta]

OK, I mocked up the overpay Graveyard and at the same time came up with an overpay for Villagers and one for Coffers.

My guiding principle was to continue the synergies between: Victory cards - Worshippers, Action cards - Villagers, Treasure card - Coffers.

Here are the initial drafts:

Graveyard, overpay for Worshippers
Developing Village, overpay for Developing Village
Endowment, overpay for Coffers




Comments / Questions:

To be honest, I'm not yet sure what I think of these. Do they have any potential?

Outside of Graveyard, which is just a flat 2VP, I tried to be at least little creative.

The main thing (as always) I'm unsure of are the specific numbers: their costs and in this case, the fact that they are all +$1 per token on the overpay. (at different times, I tried different numbers)

So general possible tweak:
• change the number of tokens gained per overpay (and consequently, its cost)

In the case of Graveyard, I keep comparing to Cemetery. While 1 Worshipper is significantly less than 4 cards, part of the challenge with cemetery is even having 4 cards in your hand when you buy it (though it does combo with gainers). The Worshipper will always be useful, and you can get more with higher overpaying.

Possible tweaks:
• always give 1 Worshipper on gain
• change from plain 2VP to something more creative (could be similar to Endowment, that you have to have at least one Worshipper; but I'd prefer it to be different, or to change Endowment then)

Developing Village, as the name states, has some DNA from both Develop and Village. By overpaying it can be a village for at least some turns. And it will get you the equivalent +1 card; usually, you can just gain the same card if it's what you want, or you can "trade" for something that would be more useful. But you don't have to trash, e.g. in case you reveal a valuable Prize, or it's a Province and you don't want to decrease the Province pile by one.

Possible tweaks:
• changing the gained card to "up to the same cost", or "up to $1 more than the the cost"
• add either : "If you do, +1 Action" or  "if you don't, +1 Card." or both. With probable cost increase.
• alternatively, allow you to discard the card (in the examples above, you'd likely keep the prize on top, but discard the province). Either this or the previous option would allow you to string together several of these.

Endowment basically says, as long as you keep some Coffers around, it's a cheap silver. I think it could be an interesting decision if you have 6 whether you buy a gold that is always $3 or buy this and get 4 (1 of which you may never ant spend) coffers. But I am worried that may be too strong.

Possible tweaks:
• only require one Coffers total rather than per Endowment in play
• remove this requirement altogether

[Gazbag]

Sorry this post is a bit scatterbrained and not very well structured but I hope you can glean some value from my ramblings.

I love (and need) any feedback, so no worries. As you saw from my last post, I am definitely gleaning lots of value.

I think it's much stronger at $6 than $5, Remodels can be weird like that. I really like this idea now but I think it would be way cooler if Blessing worked on any trash, currently it just seems like it's stopping me from having fun. I think being a cantrip might be a little dangerous for this effect though thinking about it, once you have a Worshipper and a Gold each play basically becomes a Province gain and that's not really much setup for that effect (costing $6 would mean you don't need the Gold hence why I think it'd be stronger). So just being +1 Action might end up working out better, but you need testing for this kind of thing really.

Feel free to let me know what you think of the latest. I feel like I'm struggling with the right balance on this one.

It's either too strong as it is currently (at least it feels too strong with the fact that you can just stockpile blessings and then trash just one Gold).

Or my ideas to weaken it go too far. For example, my idea if having it cost you an extra worshipper to call the Blessing, means that you'd have to play Congregation three times in order to remodel once. (I guess I could remove the one shot aspect). Any thoughts are welcome.

FYI, the possible wording I'm considering if I do have it cost another Worshipper is:
"When you trash a card not from the Supply, you may call this to remove a Worshipper token from its mat. If you do, gain a card costing $2 more than the trashed card and trash this."

So in this case, it can be called after any trashing, which does help some. (note that similar to above thoughts, without requiring the use of the extra Worshipper, my concern was allowing, for example, remodel of a Gold for a province, then call Blessings for more provinces)

I'm still not a fan of Cloister, it doesn't really have a reason to be a Night card anymore. Werewolf does because it's terminal draw and the original Cloister did because it let you play it after a trasher but this new one could just be a "choose one" Action. It also just feels a bit bland to me, it's another card that "just trashes" and I think Apse Chapel does that better.

The reason I have it as Night is so that it can't be drawn dead. (otherwise, like you said it is just a choice)

When you mention Werewolf's reason to be Action-Night is so it doesn't draw *itself* dead? Should it matter much (as far as reasoning goes) if the card itself does the drawing or something else does?

The point about just another card that just trashes is valid. It's true, but I do think the choice makes it more interesting. But it probably does need something else.

I have come up with another idea for Worshippers. I'm debating whether it's for a new card or maybe for Cloister.

If Blessings with $6-costs does prove to be too much a possible solution would be to reduce Blessing to gain something costing $1 more. Although I imagine making the Blessings terminal has weakened them quite a lot already.

Werewolf being Night affects how it interacts with other copies of itself, with Cloister it affects how it interacts with other cards. Personally I think that making a card as simple as it can be should take priority over how it interacts with other cards in one specific situation.

Can you help me understand why 4/3 would be so much better than 3/4? Is it that after two turns you'd trash 2 estates, while 3/4 would only trash the 1? I'm trying to make sure overpay wouldn't create the same issues, so I think maybe it wouldn't give any worshippers at cost:

Yeah that's right, on 3/4 you only trash 1 Estate and add the Graveyard to your deck so you're not net-trashing any victories from your deck before you shuffle. 

I believe overpay for Coffers was testing for Guilds and was deemed crazy, so I doubt that's going to work. I think Villagers should work though, although I don't think the top half of Developing Village is a viable card. Having a $2 cantrip that gains a card every time you play it is just going to burn through piles really fast. I think following Lackey's and Silk Merchant's lead and making the card terminal might be a good idea, perhaps a non-drawing terminal to differentiate it from those a bit? I like the idea of attaching it to a crappy terminal that you might not want to waste a Villager playing, even just a terminal Silver for $2 sounds alright to me.

[scolapasta]

If Blessings with $6-costs does prove to be too much a possible solution would be to reduce Blessing to gain something costing $1 more. Although I imagine making the Blessings terminal has weakened them quite a lot already.

Sure, I'll should probably just playtest as is, before I change it any more. Need to gather the troops.

How do others playtest? Solo or with friends? (I have several friends who enjoy Dominion, but don't play that frequently; not sure if I should subject them to my custom cards!)

Werewolf being Night affects how it interacts with other copies of itself, with Cloister it affects how it interacts with other cards. Personally I think that making a card as simple as it can be should take priority over how it interacts with other cards in one specific situation.

I agree with erring on the simple vs overcomplicating for specific situations. That said, I don't think of "not drawing dead" as too specific a situation, nor making the choice be Action vs Night vs Action vs Action as overcomplicated.

Yeah that's right, on 3/4 you only trash 1 Estate and add the Graveyard to your deck so you're not net-trashing any victories from your deck before you shuffle. 

I believe overpay for Coffers was testing for Guilds and was deemed crazy, so I doubt that's going to work. I think Villagers should work though, although I don't think the top half of Developing Village is a viable card. Having a $2 cantrip that gains a card every time you play it is just going to burn through piles really fast. I think following Lackey's and Silk Merchant's lead and making the card terminal might be a good idea, perhaps a non-drawing terminal to differentiate it from those a bit? I like the idea of attaching it to a crappy terminal that you might not want to waste a Villager playing, even just a terminal Silver for $2 sounds alright to me.

Do you know any more about what was so crazy about overpay for Coffers in their testing? The biggest issue I see is that you could get a huge hand of 20 coins and only 1 buy, and so buy this so it doesn't go to waste. But I'm sure I can think of a clever way to make this work!

You may be right that Developing Village is not the right card for overpay for actions (though I'm not completely sure). I do think the card otherwise has potential. It will burn through piles fast - I just think that would make games with it a different beast and you'd have to alter your strategy to account for it. Similar to when someone goes Workshop / Gardens.

I actually am trying to avoid being too similar to Lackeys, Silk Merchant, and Spices, as I just see those as forced overpay:

• Spices is just a silver with a forced overpay of 2 for 2 tokens.
• Lackeys is a $0 Action with a forced overpay of 2 for 2 tokens.
• Silk Merchant is $2 Action with a forced overpay of 2 for 2 tokens (and on trash benefit).

[scolapasta]

I think Villagers should work though, although I don't think the top half of Developing Village is a viable card. Having a $2 cantrip that gains a card every time you play it is just going to burn through piles really fast.

You may be right that Developing Village is not the right card for overpay for actions (though I'm not completely sure). I do think the card otherwise has potential. It will burn through piles fast - I just think that would make games with it a different beast and you'd have to alter your strategy to account for it. Similar to when someone goes Workshop / Gardens.

Actually, how about these tweaks to Developing Village:



I added the " If you do, +1 Action; if you don't, +1 Card." tweaks. But more importantly, two simple words: differently named, so you can't trash for the same card.

So it's a cantrip that can become a village if:
• you do trade for a different card
• overpay to get villagers

Or you could still save those villagers for something else.

[scolapasta]

A couple of minor tweaks while I continue to figure out Archbishop / Chalice, Blessing, and Cloister. (I've made some changes that I'm letting simmer, while also pondering a much more radical change).

Worshippers mat: wording changed to a) be more like the other mats and also now requires you to trash if you "spend" the Worshipper. Will only matter if I add a negative aspect to Worshippers, like "at most X Worshippers" for Archbishop, but I like it better anyway.

Convent: dropped cost even more to $2. Still may not be very useful, until I get rid of it completely might as well price it at a cost that makes it more attractive.

[mail-mi]

I wonder if Convent would be a lot better if it gave a worshipper on buy. As it is now, if there is no other trashing, I have to buy an Estate or something to start trashing my estates.

[scolapasta]

Hi all,

I recently noticed that I was approaching 100 posts, so decided I'd save it for a quick thank you to everyone on this forum.

It's been fun being more active and trying to come up with good custom cards. I've even branched out recently and starting opining on other cards! (which feels intimidating, because I'm not nearly as experienced a player as most of you, and often don't see the connections you guys immediately do).

All the feedback has been great, and I think my cards are all in definitely better states than their 0.1 version. (interestingly enough, my one card that did best and finished runner up one week is still at its 0.1 version!)

Anyway, I do plan on adding a new update for some of the Worshipper cards, plus revisiting the recent Challenge cards, as I'd like to finalize* Cabal and Coven, soon, plus I have some new ideas for my first custom card, Student.

So stay tuned!

* will any of these cards ever actually be final?

Bonus: a picture of some of my sleeved custom cards and the Worshipper mats, ready for playtesting:

[scolapasta]

OK, it's been too long since I've posted anything on this thread (outside of my 100th post), so here is the latest update on Worshippers. It's simple, for now, but I'll at least mention some of the other ideas I've had.


The latest Archbishop and Chalice:



I went back and forth for a while trying to determine what the condition for taking the Chalice should be. In the end, I decided to go with this thematic way: the more Worshippers you have, the more powerful your Archbishops are. And hopefully this is countered by the fact that other players get more Worshippers and that chalice is now only once per turn, so while a nice benefit, you can't pull off a massive turn of trashing many cards for many VPs.

(I also went ahead and removed the no Coppers clause)


Convent:

I wonder if Convent would be a lot better if it gave a worshipper on buy. As it is now, if there is no other trashing, I have to buy an Estate or something to start trashing my estates.

Good suggestion to make it stronger. However, I think I like the idea that sometimes (boards without trashing) you'll have to first gain an Victory to start the trashing.

At least I want to play test it some like that and see if it's at all useful.


I think I'm finally convinced there's no need for the Action - Night card, at least as currently written. What that would do is free up the name "Cloister". And since I never really loved "Apse Chapel" as a name, I will probably change the original Worshippers card to be called Cloister.

(I have another effect that I was trying on Cloister but I think it will fit better on a differently named card)

[scolapasta]

So, one thing I'd like to do on this thread is repost older challenge cards in case anyone wants to help improve them.
My idea is to do it once a month so as to post multiple (4) cards at once, while also updating the first two posts of this thread (post 1: listing of all the cards; post 2: Secret History of all the cards).

I've gotten a little delayed, so let me post the 4 most recent ones now and I'll probably do the next post in a couple of weeks, so I can get on that schedule.

Anyway, here they are (followed by some comments):





Collector:

Collector is similar to Improve. The main differences are:
• it allows you to "improve" any played card (so can be used to trash coppers)
• you have to decide as you play the cards, by setting possibly candidates aside
• setting aside can make you skip a shuffle which could be either bad or good (this was a last change in order to have the setting aside mean something; besides just helping Magic Lamp)

The main issue with Collector, as pointed out by faust, is that it would be possible to have a board (with no draw) and it being impossible to activate Magic Lamp. (Secret Cave is a cantrip, so even without draw, you could play, Secret Cave, Action #2, Copper, Silver, Gold, Magic Lamp, and activate).

So while Collector does help with the setting aside, it's not enough and, in its current state, is a bad design. Hopefully it'll be as easy as just making it a cantrip. See v0.4 below.

My biggest question is: is it worth keeping this card or keep trying to improve it? Or is having it exist with setting aside mostly just for Magic Lamp not interesting enough and I should drop efforts on it?


Stockpile:

This one was a misunderstanding on my part of the challenge, but still got a decent review. I think play testing will help determine if 2 uses each time is enough or if it needs to be a little stronger. Overall, I think the concept of a "reloadable" Gold has merit.

Cabal:

Some people thought this card was not very valuable, because you might have a board with no or only one other Night cards, but I think that a) even in the presence of one other Night card it does have value, and b) even without any other, it still could be worth buying since it can't be drawn dead.

It was compared to Royal Carriage and not as useful as it and I do understand that. I think my main objection is that most boards won't have Royal Carriage. And if the argument is well, the board might have RC, I think the counterargument is, the board might have Night cards (which are more likely).

Coven:

The main concern for this one is how it would compare to other cursers. It was suggested to make it stronger or cheaper. I'm opting for cheaper and see how that looks. (I did also remove the non Attack clause, so now you can, for example, supercharge your Witches to gives 2 Curses - once per turn, of course)


So here are the updated versions for Collector and Coven:






I'm hopeful that by posting 4 at once, there'll be some more feedback for some of these cards. And honestly, even if the feedback is: "this design is just not worth iterating on" that would be helpful.

[Gazbag]

Not sure if someone mentioned this before but Collector lets you keep one shot cards due to lose track rule, it fortunately doesn't work with Magic Lamp but still something to think about. Playing multiple Collectors is also a bit weird. I don't think the effect is distinct enough from Improve to be worth all the weirdness to be honest.

[scolapasta]

Not sure if someone mentioned this before but Collector lets you keep one shot cards due to lose track rule, it fortunately doesn't work with Magic Lamp but still something to think about. Playing multiple Collectors is also a bit weird. I don't think the effect is distinct enough from Improve to be worth all the weirdness to be honest.

No one else had mentioned it, but I had seen that. I could probably change the setting aside to "directly after playing a card".

I do see what you mean about multiple Collectors since I guess you could choose to trash a card you had set aside that you had trashed with an earlier Collector. Why would you do? I don't know, but you could with current wording.

I think you're right about probably not worth it - I think maybe I just had a dud for this challenge. I may still try to play with the idea of setting aside cards to help activate for Magic Lamp, but differently than Improve. Or reuse the idea of "Collector" but in a vastly different way.

[Kudasai]

OK, it's been too long since I've posted anything on this thread (outside of my 100th post), so here is the latest update on Worshippers. It's simple, for now, but I'll at least mention some of the other ideas I've had.


The latest Archbishop and Chalice:



I went back and forth for a while trying to determine what the condition for taking the Chalice should be. In the end, I decided to go with this thematic way: the more Worshippers you have, the more powerful your Archbishops are. And hopefully this is countered by the fact that other players get more Worshippers and that chalice is now only once per turn, so while a nice benefit, you can't pull off a massive turn of trashing many cards for many VPs.

(I also went ahead and removed the no Coppers clause)

At first glance it seems like there is a nice separation of how a player should go about trashing with Arch Bishop. Use the Worshippers for early trashing and deck acceleration or pile them up for late game, trashing with VP gaining. On the surface I really like this!

Cabal - A Throne Room that cannot dud is always nice. I wonder if the top decking during your Night phase is good enough to validate the $5 cost. I only mention this because the instances where you'd be able to play another Night card twice are few and far between. If it's rarely used it may just be taking up room. It may also help players track what's going on if the Action text is on top and the Night stuff on bottom.

Cool cards though! Have you played any games yet with any of your cards? If so, how'd they go?