Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2]  All

Author Topic: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards  (Read 1061 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

silverspawn

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4552
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +2188
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #25 on: September 18, 2020, 11:56:56 am »
+1

V3 (unsurprisingly). Card advantage at the cost of card quality sounds more interesting than 'exchange second-best card for random card'.

I think Gatehouse V3 would be a little swingy, but you'll probably play it a lot of times, so it'll balance out. It's a bit like Advisor, but different enough to be interesting.
Logged

segura

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 844
  • Respect: +381
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #26 on: September 18, 2020, 12:08:24 pm »
+1

I also like the third Advisor like version. Probably balanced at $5.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1462
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +1160
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #27 on: September 18, 2020, 07:01:35 pm »
+1

...which one is the more interesting? Would yours have to cost $4?

Gatehouse v2
Quote
+2 Actions
You may reveal all but 1 card
from your hand. If you do, the
player to your left chooses one
card. Discard it, for +2 Cards.
Gatehouse v3
Quote
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Reveal your hand.
The player to your left chooses
one card. Discard it, for +2 Cards.
I like the version 2 better. Version 3 is too similar to Advisor for my taste, and version 2 fixes the problem with the original IMO.

gambit05

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Respect: +161
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2020, 03:28:56 pm »
+2

Thank you all for your feedback. I have now decided to go for version 3 of Gatehouse. Version 2 is closer to the original version, but the wording looks a bit odd, whereas version 3 is straight to the point. I have posted the improved versions of all 3 cards in my original post of this thread.
Logged

LittleFish

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 290
  • Respect: +108
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2020, 11:13:57 am »
+1


Hunter
$2 – Action
Quote
+2 Actions
 When you play the next Action card this   
turn, for each +$1 it produced, take
+1 Coffers instead.
I think that the wording could be clarified to be something like "The next action card you play generates Coffers not "
Logged

gambit05

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Respect: +161
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #30 on: September 23, 2020, 03:41:25 am »
0


Hunter
$2 – Action
Quote
+2 Actions
 When you play the next Action card this   
turn, for each +$1 it produced, take
+1 Coffers instead.
I think that the wording could be clarified to be something like "The next action card you play generates Coffers not "

Do you think the wording I used is unclear? Your suggestion is certainly an option, but what I like with my version is that "+1 Coffers" is given in the text and thus highlighted in bold.
Logged

LittleFish

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 290
  • Respect: +108
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #31 on: September 23, 2020, 11:17:56 am »
0


Hunter
$2 – Action
Quote
+2 Actions
 When you play the next Action card this   
turn, for each +$1 it produced, take
+1 Coffers instead.
I think that the wording could be clarified to be something like "The next action card you play generates Coffers not "

Do you think the wording I used is unclear? Your suggestion is certainly an option, but what I like with my version is that "+1 Coffers" is given in the text and thus highlighted in bold.
The "When you play the next action card this turn" seems a little extensive
Logged

gambit05

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Respect: +161
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #32 on: September 23, 2020, 11:36:21 am »
0


Hunter
$2 – Action
Quote
+2 Actions
 When you play the next Action card this   
turn, for each +$1 it produced, take
+1 Coffers instead.
I think that the wording could be clarified to be something like "The next action card you play generates Coffers not "

Do you think the wording I used is unclear? Your suggestion is certainly an option, but what I like with my version is that "+1 Coffers" is given in the text and thus highlighted in bold.
The "When you play the next action card this turn" seems a little extensive

It needs "this turn" and then the difference would be just one word (when) in this part of the sentence. It could be:
"The next Action card you play this turn produces Coffers instead of $.", but I am not sure I like the second part of the sentence.
Logged

LittleFish

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 290
  • Respect: +108
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2020, 11:48:23 am »
+1


Hunter
$2 – Action
Quote
+2 Actions
 When you play the next Action card this   
turn, for each +$1 it produced, take
+1 Coffers instead.
I think that the wording could be clarified to be something like "The next action card you play generates Coffers not "

Do you think the wording I used is unclear? Your suggestion is certainly an option, but what I like with my version is that "+1 Coffers" is given in the text and thus highlighted in bold.
The "When you play the next action card this turn" seems a little extensive

It needs "this turn" and then the difference would be just one word (when) in this part of the sentence. It could be:
"The next Action card you play this turn produces Coffers instead of $.", but I am not sure I like the second part of the sentence.
I'm not one to judge, it's your card
Logged

gambit05

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Respect: +161
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2020, 11:55:29 am »
0

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate your feedback.
Logged

gambit05

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Respect: +161
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2020, 03:04:22 pm »
0


Part 2

Three more cards today: Suburb, Hatter and Wolf. While Suburb looks pretty trivial, Hatter and Wolf offer new ways for Emulators and Attacks, respectively.




Suburb
$2  Action
Quote
Choose one:
+2 Cards; or +2 Actions.
------------------------
When you gain this, look
through your discard pile.
          You may put one card from           
it on top of your deck.
Hatter
$4  Action - Command
Quote
Choose one: Exile an
Action card from the
Supply; or play a
           non-Command Action card           
on an Exile mat of your
choice, leaving it there.
Wolf
$4 Night – Attack
Quote
Draw up to 3 cards and then
trash that many cards from
your hand. Each other player
          with 5 or more cards in hand,           
discards that many cards,
and then draws one less.

Suburb. Two mediocre options, which can come in handy at times. However, the highlight of the card is
its on-gain ability; top decking of a card from the discard. This enables rapid access to a key card.

Hatter is an Emulator type card, like Band of Misfits, that looks for targets on Exile mats of any player.
It also allows Exiling any fancy Action cards from the Supply, which, however, can be targeted by the
opponents’ Hatters.

Wolf is a combined Sifter, Trasher and Attack card. The player first draws anything between 0 and 3 cards.
This in turn dictates the trashing and subsequently the attacking power of the card.
 
Logged

segura

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 844
  • Respect: +381
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #36 on: September 25, 2020, 02:32:02 pm »
+1

Not much to say about it, Suburb is a fine card.

Hatter probably does not work. Alice gains Hatter, Alice plays Hatter as Exiler, Bob buy Hatter, Alice and Bob play Hatter as emulator. Same effects for both, but Alice gets -1 Card and -1 Action.
Nobody has an incentive to start the Hatter game as everybody else can freeride. Note that this is different from Forager, whose Coins are more of a side-effect, and different from Lurker, which is tempo-sensitive.

Wolf looks even stronger than Chapel. That's not an issue, it just seems like a mandatory purchase in most Kingdoms.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4552
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +2188
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #37 on: September 25, 2020, 04:01:55 pm »
+1

Not only is Wolf far stronger than Chapel, it is also ridiculously swingy since drawing 3 means that 4 cards in your deck will miss the shuffle. This is already a problem with Warehouse and Smithy, but this card also trashes which makes it a much bigger problem.

Say you draw it on turn 3. You draw 3 cards and trash 3. Your remaining deck has 4 cards in it, and one of those may be a cantrip. They all miss the shuffle, which is amazing, and you can even draw Wolf again on turn 4 if you're lucky, at which point the game is probably over.

Hatter is so strong that I suspect it would be bought despite the first player disadvantage.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1462
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +1160
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #38 on: September 25, 2020, 04:20:43 pm »
+1

To cut the first player disadvantage on Hatter, you could say "While this is in the supply, during your buy phase you may pay half a card's cost (rounded up) in debt to put it on your Hatter mat from the supply if you don't have a copy there already," and remove the exile option from the on-play effect. (I also recommend using a separate mat instead of the exile mat for it.)

gambit05

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Respect: +161
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #39 on: September 26, 2020, 03:49:15 am »
+2

Thanks for all the feedback given so far. It will take me some time to think about it and to respond to it.

Right now I would like to point out just one brilliant quote:
Alice gains Hatter

Was that on purpose? If not, google it.
Logged

gambit05

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Respect: +161
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2020, 05:02:05 am »
0

I have thought about my cards a bit more after getting your feedback. Before I have posted the cards, I assumed that Wolf is the most controversial one and I have now spent most of my thoughts on that one. Just a brief note on Hatter:

I believe that the Hatter game works; it seems a must-buy card to me, because an unchallenged player has too much of a benefit from it. The cycle that segura mentioned is disrupted when Alice buys a copy of the Exiled card. That can even happen in the same turn, if the Exiled card is not too expensive. Then it is up to Bob to Exile a card and the Hatter game is reversed.

Of course I am happy to further discuss Hatter and get more feedback on this one.

But now about Wolf. My idea was to have a novel type of card combining drawing and trashing (and less important, attacking). I thought that the risk of drawing valuable cards dead in the Night phase or even that the player has to trash them compensates enough for its strength. While this might be true later in a game, it seems unfortunately not to be a problem in the first few turns after the opening. The limit of trashing 3 cards (instead of Chapel's 4) is not really a limit, as in the opening turns the composition of the deck is too well defined. When playing Wolf in the Night phase in early turns, the player knows exactly where the other valuable card(s) are; and even if not, without risking too much they can always ensure to have enough junk in their hand; or alternatively trash a Copper less in one turn, which (due to the fast sifting) will be trashed very soon anyway.

So, to summarise my thoughts above, I think silverspawn is right: Wolf in its current version is too powerful.

Then I thought about ways to make the card less powerful. Just “Draw up to 2 cards” and otherwise identical text (though with different consequences) is the simplest change (version A). Another possibility is to slow Wolf down by making it a Duration card. To avoid having too much text and too much going on, I removed the Attack part. The question was, what will it produce on the next turn. More +Cards seems too strong, +Buy artificial, +Action is an option, but also somehow unrelated to the rest of the card and not really helpful for a strong opening card. Thus, +$, which makes the card still powerful (and maybe controversial) as it compensates the Copper trashing and bypasses a Silver buy. Now, with +$3 it should cost $5 (version B) (or +$2 for a cost of $4 is another possibility). Thereafter, I thought about connecting the two parts of the card (version C):

Wolf - Version A
$4 Night – Attack
Quote

Draw up to 2 cards and then
 trash that many cards from
 your hand. Each other player
 with 5 or more cards in hand,
 discards that many cards,
and then draws one less.
Wolf - Version B
$5 Night - Duration
Quote

Draw up to 3 cards and
 then trash that many cards
 from your hand.
At the start of your next
 turn: +$3.
Wolf - Version C
$5 Night - Duration
Quote

Draw up to 3 cards and then
 trash that many cards from
 your hand.
At the start of your next turn:
 +$1 per card you have trashed
 with this in your last turn.


What do you think about those versions of Wolf?

Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1462
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +1160
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #41 on: September 27, 2020, 07:04:47 am »
+1

If it costs $5, it's not such a great early game trasher anymore, and I kind of like it as an attack even though it's a weak attack. So version A is my favorite.

My second choice would be version B2i-fjk (version B with +$1 instead of +$3 and costing $3 or $4). I say +$1 and not +$2 because it's probably still too strong for $4 with a non-terminal +$2 plus good trashing.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 07:05:58 am by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4552
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +2188
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2020, 08:49:08 am »
+1

Going from 3 cards to 2 doesn't always solve the missing-the-shuffle problem since 2 cards is enough if your other buy also draws. Say you draw Poacher, Wolf in turn 3 and play both; now you still drew 3 cards in total, and half of your bad cards (4 of the remaining 8) could miss the shuffle.

Making it a duration does address this since (if you draw 3 and it stays out one turn) it means Wolf itself will always miss the shuffle, both if draw non turn 3 and if drawn on turn 4. On the other hand, making it 5 introduces another asymmetry, but it'll happen less often and other cards do it, too. Given that it always stays out, at least you can't draw Wolf on Turns 3 and 4. It's probably not much worse than Sentry.

I like version C the best. But I'd probably make it cost 6$. Doesn't seem like it's weaker than Altar once you have it.
Logged

Jonatan Djurachkovitch

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jonis20004
  • Respect: +73
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #43 on: September 29, 2020, 03:20:41 am »
+1

I think that Wolf maybe would be more balanced if the trashed cards have to be different, like with Temple. That makes it harder to use. Also, as worded right now you could lock out the other players if you play five of these in one turn.
Logged

gambit05

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Respect: +161
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #44 on: September 30, 2020, 05:05:02 am »
+2

If it costs $5, it's not such a great early game trasher anymore, and I kind of like it as an attack even though it's a weak attack. So version A is my favorite.

My second choice would be version B2i-fjk (version B with +$1 instead of +$3 and costing $3 or $4). I say +$1 and not +$2 because it's probably still too strong for $4 with a non-terminal +$2 plus good trashing.

That would look like this one then:

Wolf Version B2i-fjk
$3 Night - Duration
Quote
Draw up to 3 cards and
then trash that many cards
from your hand.
At the start of your next
turn: +$1.


Going from 3 cards to 2 doesn't always solve the missing-the-shuffle problem since 2 cards is enough if your other buy also draws. Say you draw Poacher, Wolf in turn 3 and play both; now you still drew 3 cards in total, and half of your bad cards (4 of the remaining 8) could miss the shuffle.

Making it a duration does address this since (if you draw 3 and it stays out one turn) it means Wolf itself will always miss the shuffle, both if draw non turn 3 and if drawn on turn 4. On the other hand, making it 5 introduces another asymmetry, but it'll happen less often and other cards do it, too. Given that it always stays out, at least you can't draw Wolf on Turns 3 and 4. It's probably not much worse than Sentry.

I like version C the best. But I'd probably make it cost 6$. Doesn't seem like it's weaker than Altar once you have it.

Hmm, you compare version B with a guaranteed +$3 with Sentry, but you think that version C (maximum of +$3) should cost $6. Version C would definitely get weaker after some trashing.

I think that Wolf maybe would be more balanced if the trashed cards have to be different, like with Temple. That makes it harder to use. Also, as worded right now you could lock out the other players if you play five of these in one turn.

Trashing differently named cards is an interesting idea, especially for the original version of Wolf. However, I think it cannot easily implemented here, as drawing is before trashing and drawing defines the number of cards to be trashed. In that context, this would make the text quite complicated and long, e.g.:

Wolf - Version D
$4 Night – Attack
Quote
Draw up to 3 cards and then
trash that many differently
named cards from your hand
(or reveal you can’t)*. Each
other player with 5 or more
cards in hand, discards that
many cards, and then draws
one less.
* What happens then?

I don’t think that any player can be locked out. As soon as they have less than 5 cards, they are not affected anymore.


Thanks to everyone! That was quite helpful and gives me a lot to think more about this card. The versions A and C of Wolf have both their merits and I will likely go for one of them. I postpone the decision and will wait until I get a better picture about how the other cards of my set will look like with respect to their costs and how many Attacks there are.

Before I continue this thread with part 3, I will likely start a new thread before, where I present some of my cards with additional mechanics.

Logged

Jonatan Djurachkovitch

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jonis20004
  • Respect: +73
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2020, 03:47:46 pm »
+1

* What happens then?

You could fix this by adding "excactly" before "that many".

I don’t think that any player can be locked out. As soon as they have less than 5 cards, they are not affected anymore.
I missed the "with 5 or more cards in hand" clause. Ignore what I said!
Logged

gambit05

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Respect: +161
    • View Profile
Re: Tales & Stories: Some "simple" cards
« Reply #46 on: October 01, 2020, 07:15:41 am »
+1

* What happens then?

You could fix this by adding "excactly" before "that many".

That is certainly a possibility. Also, the player could be penalised when overdrawing. Then the card could look like this:

Wolf - Version D2
$4 Night – Attack
Quote

Draw up to 3 cards and then trash
exactly that many cards with
different names from your hand.
If you didn’t, gain a Curse. Each
other player with 5 or more cards
in hand, discards that many cards,
and then draws one less.


This would have 7 lines with slightly smaller Font size in the card image generator, which is acceptable.

Alternatively, one could remove the Attack part completely and make it cheaper.

One problem still exists, Shelters. They don't care about the restriction. On the other hand, with the growing number of official expansions and with Fan cards on top, they are less and less frequently included in games.

I will keep these options in my mind. Thanks.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All
 

Page created in 0.09 seconds with 21 queries.