Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent  (Read 14541 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mahowrath

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2021, 12:16:56 pm »
+1

Thanks spineflu; updated.
Logged

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +137
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2021, 12:25:55 pm »
0

Updated for readability:

Is it just me, or should the 3 first vanilla bonuses be separated with a line for each of them?
Logged
Hand - King's Court, Ruined Village, Estate, Copper, Possession
Turn -
BBobb plays King's Court
… and plays a Ruined Village.
… … getting +1 Action
… and plays the Ruined Village again.
… … getting +1 Action
… and plays the Ruined village a third time.
… … getting +1 Action.
BBobb plays a Copper.
BBobb buys a Poor House.
(BBobb draws: 2 King's Courts and 3 Possessions)
BBobb=GOD

Chappy7

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 532
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chappy7
  • Respect: +627
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2021, 01:22:39 pm »
0



Does this qualify? It's pretty simple, it can be a plain +3 actions, a village, a lab, or a Smithy.  It will never be super strong, but it is super flexible.

How does the sequence of play work?  Does the player need to decide at once how many Actions they will spend, or can they spend an Action, draw a card, and then decide if they want to spend more Actions?

It would be all at once
Logged

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2021, 04:13:10 pm »
+1

Wanted to finally get back into this after getting busy a while back.



Edit: removed submission because it was uncomfortably similar to something submitted for a different contest before
« Last Edit: January 21, 2021, 06:54:03 pm by alion8me »
Logged

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 561
  • Respect: +715
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2021, 04:19:26 pm »
0

Wanted to finally get back into this after getting busy a while back.



I had a similar project idea (Recruitment Center: "At the end of your Action phase, you may spend an Action for +1 Villager."), but I decided it against it because it seemed too similar to Barracks. In the case of Town Hall, it's even potentially stronger (assuming there's a Village in the Kingdom) at half the cost.
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +628
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2021, 04:25:29 pm »
+1

It's quite similar to a submission segura made a short while ago for the Renaissance set expansion contest.
Logged

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 561
  • Respect: +715
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2021, 04:40:16 pm »
+4

This week: Spree, a pseudo buy token (for one turn at least):



Quote
Spree - Event - $0
Set aside a Copper. If you do, +1 Buy next turn.
(and discard the set aside Copper at the end of your next turn)

So the main idea was a way to save a buy from one turn to the next. Since we don't have buy tokens, tracking is an issue, so I use a set aside Copper for that. Which, I think, actually adds some interesting side effects to it:
• now maybe you don't want to trash all your coppers
• allows it to cost zero, but really it is effectively $1
• you may use it (if you have the buys) just to have your coppers skip a shuffle, but you can't do that every turn (at least not all your coppers)

Some considerations:
• thought of making a project, but was too close to Fair (in fact, as a Project I called it County Fair)
• thought about limiting once per turn, but since you need to spend a buy in it, I decided to go with version for the initial feedback
• considering setting aside any treasure (the better treasure, the less likely you want it to skip the shuffle; but then takes away the "charm" of giving extra meaning to your coppers)

Feedback?

(@Fragasnap, please tell me for some reason this doesn't qualify - conceptually, it's about saving a buy, even while mechanically you do this by spending your buy in the normal way.)
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +628
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2021, 04:53:12 pm »
+4

I like the idea of using a Copper to track a next-turn effect.  It's pretty clever.

I think I would still want to trash my Coppers unless this was the only source of +Buys.
Logged

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2021, 06:53:08 pm »
+4

It's quite similar to a submission segura made a short while ago for the Renaissance set expansion contest.

Wow that is remarkably similar to what I had.

I'll submit this instead then:



Quote
Goods v4

$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, all Events cost $1 more and when you buy an Event, +1 Buy.

$4 Treasure

Quote
Goods v3

$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, when you buy a Landscape, +1 Buy.

$4 Treasure

Quote
Goods v2

$1
+1 Buy

If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.

$4 Treasure

Quote
Goods v1

$1
+1 Buy

If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.

$2 Treasure

edit: Changed pricing after faust pointed out it was too good as a monolithic strategy.
edit2: Added additional effect after faust observed the interaction this has with the $0 cost events.
edit3: Changed effect to prevent Advance+Fortress+Goods interaction seen by Something_Smart.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2021, 11:44:53 pm by alion8me »
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3185
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4697
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2021, 01:12:48 am »
+2

It's quite similar to a submission segura made a short while ago for the Renaissance set expansion contest.

Wow that is remarkably similar to what I had.

I'll submit this instead then:



Quote
Goods

$1
+1 Buy

If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.

$2 Treasure
This is unfortunately way too strong. If you open Goods/Goods, then it's not too hard to get 6 Goods by the end of shuffle 2. That means that, if you use spare buys on Coppers during shuffle 3, you'll end up with 12 Coffers. That's enough to consistently buy Provinces for the next 3 turns while probably amassing even more Coffers.

(Even worse, since this strategy uses 6 Goods, it will only be available to the first player.)
« Last Edit: January 22, 2021, 01:16:11 am by faust »
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2021, 02:53:26 am »
+2

It's quite similar to a submission segura made a short while ago for the Renaissance set expansion contest.

Wow that is remarkably similar to what I had.

I'll submit this instead then:



Quote
Goods

$1
+1 Buy

If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.

$2 Treasure
This is unfortunately way too strong. If you open Goods/Goods, then it's not too hard to get 6 Goods by the end of shuffle 2. That means that, if you use spare buys on Coppers during shuffle 3, you'll end up with 12 Coffers. That's enough to consistently buy Provinces for the next 3 turns while probably amassing even more Coffers.

(Even worse, since this strategy uses 6 Goods, it will only be available to the first player.)

Thank you for pointing this out.

I was curious to see how strong this strategy actually was so I added my card to the Geronimoo sim and tried it out. The $2-cost version is crazy fast. Playing around with it it seems like costing $4 makes the monolithic strategy comparable with some of the basic "big money + x" strategies - which seems to prevent that problem. I'm also pretty sure that the card is still buyable in the non-monolithic case, too - the only reason it cost so little in the first place was because I thought I could get away with it but that clearly isn't true.

The update is reflected in my original post.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3185
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4697
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2021, 03:23:32 am »
+1

Thank you for pointing this out.

I was curious to see how strong this strategy actually was so I added my card to the Geronimoo sim and tried it out. The $2-cost version is crazy fast. Playing around with it it seems like costing $4 makes the monolithic strategy comparable with some of the basic "big money + x" strategies - which seems to prevent that problem. I'm also pretty sure that the card is still buyable in the non-monolithic case, too - the only reason it cost so little in the first place was because I thought I could get away with it but that clearly isn't true.

The update is reflected in my original post.
That's an improvement for sure. It still has very powerful combos, say with Watchtower. That is probably fine, as Watchtower is all about enabling such combos. But it also works super well with any $0 Event, and whereas the Watchtower thing feels like a cool combo, this feels more like an exploit.

Not sure how to fix that though. It would be good if it forced you to spend the Buys on cards, but there is no elegant way to do this. A radical modification might be "+1$. You may gain a Copper for +2 Coffers", but that disqualifies it and also makes it less interesting.
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

mutated

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
  • Respect: +29
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #37 on: January 22, 2021, 01:30:18 pm »
0

Yes! There have definitely been times where I have ended up with lots of Buys and little money and wished there was some card/landscape/mechanism that would let me convert one to the other. (This probably says more about my ability than about the game's design, but still...)

Originally it was just an event (called Buying Power) that cost $0 and gave +$1, but I think that is too good a trade (or rather, it makes some cards like Market Square too good). This is how I tried to make a Buy worth approximately $0.5.

Here is the Event:



And the two-sided State it comes with:





BUYING POWER
Event
$0
If you do not already have it, take the State called Bull Market or Bear Market; whether or not you took it, flip it over.

BEAR MARKET
State (side 1)
Setup: In games using Buying Power, place one copy of this on the table with this side up.

BULL MARKET
State (side 2)
When you flip this over to this side, +$1.

Wording suggestion for Buying Power, using Misery ("If this is your first Misery this game, take Miserable. Otherwise, flip it over to Twice Miserable.") as a template:

If this is your first Buying Power this game, take Bear Market. Otherwise, flip your Market state over.

There may be a way to make the names make more sense, or make the "Market state" term more clear, but that reads better to me.

EDIT: I didn't realize that there is only one copy of Bear Market/Bull Market. In that case, may I suggest:

If you don't have Bear Market or Bull Market, take it. Otherwise, flip it over.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2021, 01:31:36 pm by mutated »
Logged

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1136
  • Respect: +1001
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #38 on: January 22, 2021, 01:41:04 pm »
0

Yes! There have definitely been times where I have ended up with lots of Buys and little money and wished there was some card/landscape/mechanism that would let me convert one to the other. (This probably says more about my ability than about the game's design, but still...)

Originally it was just an event (called Buying Power) that cost $0 and gave +$1, but I think that is too good a trade (or rather, it makes some cards like Market Square too good). This is how I tried to make a Buy worth approximately $0.5.

Here is the Event:



And the two-sided State it comes with:





BUYING POWER
Event
$0
If you do not already have it, take the State called Bull Market or Bear Market; whether or not you took it, flip it over.

BEAR MARKET
State (side 1)
Setup: In games using Buying Power, place one copy of this on the table with this side up.

BULL MARKET
State (side 2)
When you flip this over to this side, +$1.
Except for the first time this is bought, it is „convert 2 Buys into 1 Coins“. Unless the opponents have no extra Buys in their decks, you will never ever buy this only once in your turn and thus help your opponents.

The problem of this concept is that it is either too good or too weak. All the four (did I forget one?) cantrips that yield Buys become significantly better whereas it matters little for all other cards. I also think that it is too automatic. If I did play my 5 Grand Markets and only need 2 Buys, I will automatically buy the Event four times. It has little impact on my strategy, those 5 GMs are good independent of whether they produce 10 Coins or 12 Coins.
Logged

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #39 on: January 22, 2021, 03:13:58 pm »
0

Thank you for pointing this out.

I was curious to see how strong this strategy actually was so I added my card to the Geronimoo sim and tried it out. The $2-cost version is crazy fast. Playing around with it it seems like costing $4 makes the monolithic strategy comparable with some of the basic "big money + x" strategies - which seems to prevent that problem. I'm also pretty sure that the card is still buyable in the non-monolithic case, too - the only reason it cost so little in the first place was because I thought I could get away with it but that clearly isn't true.

The update is reflected in my original post.
That's an improvement for sure. It still has very powerful combos, say with Watchtower. That is probably fine, as Watchtower is all about enabling such combos. But it also works super well with any $0 Event, and whereas the Watchtower thing feels like a cool combo, this feels more like an exploit.

Not sure how to fix that though. It would be good if it forced you to spend the Buys on cards, but there is no elegant way to do this. A radical modification might be "+1$. You may gain a Copper for +2 Coffers", but that disqualifies it and also makes it less interesting.

Yeah, this also seems like a problem to me.

After some consideration I decided that adding "In games using this, when you buy a Landscape, +1 Buy." to the card is probably the best way to go. I think it produces interesting effects sometimes while never leading to super monolithic strategies, and hopefully isn't too complex.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
  • Respect: +1097
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #40 on: January 22, 2021, 04:38:57 pm »
0

EDIT: I didn't realize that there is only one copy of Bear Market/Bull Market. In that case, may I suggest:

If you don't have Bear Market or Bull Market, take it. Otherwise, flip it over.

This wouldn't work (or rather, this changes what the Event does), as the State is meant to be flipped every time. Who has the State when it's not being flipped does not matter, and taking it shouldn't cost an extra buy. I originally wanted it to just sit next to the Event, but the rules (as I read them) don't permit this.

I looked at Misery when I was doing the wording. My only concern with the way you have it is that it might be a bit confusing. It is not entirely clear that "Bull Market" and "Bear Market" are a single, two-sided State. Thus, it is not self-evident from the text what the "it" in "take it" or "flip it over" is. A player might go looking for the other Market, or think they have a choice.


Except for the first time this is bought, it is „convert 2 Buys into 1 Coins“.

That is the basic idea. It converts a Buy into $0.5 an unlimited number of times. There is a free half-buy for the first player to use this. While that introduces a little bit of swinginess, I don't think $1 is enough to force players to rush out and try to get it.


Unless the opponents have no extra Buys in their decks, you will never ever buy this only once in your turn and thus help your opponents.

Never EVER? Certainly not if you're dueling Market Squares, but there may be a lot of cases where you would consider it.

What if your opponent has only one +Buy in their deck. What if it's Skulk (and they have really good trashing)? Are they going to give up trashing their Skulk (or are they going to play one of the worst terminal actions, if they have other choices) just to steal $0.5? Are they going to eat an Estate from Baron for it? I would posit that 9 times out of 10 they will not. Similarly, if they would have otherwise used that spare Buy, it probably will not be worth trading for the coin (depending on the numbers).

Conversely, even if your opponent has no +Buys, if they draw an all-green hand they still have one buy that they can use to trash your half coin. That strategic choice--put the $0.5 out there where it might be stolen or let it go to waste--is the reason I settled on a single State, instead of one for each player (or the terrible ideas I had before that, like using the cubes from Projects or the Journey token).


The problem of this concept is that it is either too good or too weak. All the four (did I forget one?) cantrips that yield Buys become significantly better whereas it matters little for all other cards.

I count five (Market, Grand Marker, Market Square, Worker's Village [unless you consider this a village and not a cantrip], and Sanctuary), plus four marginal cases: Hamlet (you need to discard for the +Buy), Pawn (have to give up either the card or the action if you want the buy) Snowy Village (no more +Action potentially limits total plays) and City (only once 2+ supply piles are empty). With the exception of Market Square and Worker's Village, I don't see any of those cards being significantly improved by the presence of this card, or becoming must-buys.

Having Market or Grand Market go from +$1 to +$1.5 or +$2 to +2.5 is a pretty marginal change. Sanctuary's power is in the ability to Exile cards efficiently, gaining some extra coins does not change that significantly. Plus, buying a Sanctuary or two to at least mess with your opponent's residual 1/2 buy at the margins is not that likely to severely mess up strategies that would not otherwise be going for it, as the deck improvement they get from Exiling their VP cards would likely make up for it.

The marginal cases would similarly see little improvement, for the reasons outlined (especially not Pawn, which will generally allow you to trade the Buy for $1, twice as much).

I do recognize that this makes Market Square and Worker's Village quite a bit better. This is especially true if you want to buy a bunch of Market Squares in hopes of having one or two around for a trashing. I have certainly done that, only to find myself with a bunch of extra buys. But I would argue that that is what a lot of landscapes do. Way of the Chameleon completely transforms Poor House from a questionable afterthought to by far the most powerful terminal draw card in the game (for its price). Advance can turn a Horse or an Experiment from an cheap one-shot into Nobles or a Grand Market. Capitalism can significantly improve any number of terminal +$ cards (including Poor House again).

As for it being too weak, I think that is another common occurrence with landscapes. As powerful as Capitalism can be in some games, if the only +$ is Bard, it's an easy pass. Completely ballparking it, I would say that an Event in a game goes completely unused 40% of the time, if not more. And for some events, that happens a lot more often. Banish, Mission, Pilgrimage, Ritual...those are almost always ignored. I don't think every card needs to completely transform the game every time to have value.


I also think that it is too automatic. If I did play my 5 Grand Markets and only need 2 Buys, I will automatically buy the Event four times. It has little impact on my strategy, those 5 GMs are good independent of whether they produce 10 Coins or 12 Coins.

That's the idea. It converts extra buys into coins. The impact it has on strategy is to make buying those cards with +Buy a better proposition. As I said before, it would have little impact on the already-powerful Grand Market, but a much bigger impact on some other cards. Also, with the single copy of the State there is a little strategy in deciding whether to spend that last spare Buy and risk having that $0.5 stolen.
Logged
he/him/his

Thanks to Shard of Honor for his Extended Version of the Dominion Card Image Generator, which I use to mock up my fan cards, and to Violet CLM, who made the original.

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1136
  • Respect: +1001
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #41 on: January 22, 2021, 04:46:03 pm »
0

There are no half Coins. First Buy (during your turn) of the Event wastes a Buy, second one converts it into 1 Coin and so on.
Problem is that all those cantrip are totally fine so I fail to see why they should be buffed. Because this is what your Event basically does, you will rarely go for it if there only Woodcutter variants in the Kingdom.
Logged

fika monster

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
  • Respect: +297
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2021, 05:55:00 am »
+2

This is my submission for the week



A card idea that i had for a long time.

[/quote]
Dilemma, action $5
You may spend all actions but one, to get +Cards instead.
If you don't, +4 Actions.
[/quote]
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3185
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4697
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2021, 06:48:22 am »
0

This is my submission for the week



A card idea that i had for a long time.

Quote
Dilemma, action $5
You may spend all actions but one, to get +Cards instead.
If you don't, +4 Actions.
I don't understand how this works. Can you "spend all actions but one" if you have no actions left? And if so, do you end up with 0 or 1 action?

The "+ cards instead" is weirdly phrased. Instead of what? You haven't gotten anything else at that point.

Here is a wording solution that I think comes closest to what you want:

Quote
If you have more than one Action, you may spend all Actions for +4 Cards, +1 Action.
If you didn't, +4 Actions.

That would be fairly balanced I think. Two of them can function like two Labs, but also allow you to play a terminal in between.
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5117
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +2881
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2021, 07:09:39 am »
+3

How about:

Quote
Choose one:
- set your number of unused Actions to 1. +1 Card per Action lost this way.
- +4 Actions.

This is exactly like the intended card with the one exception that, in the case where you have 1 Action before playing, you can choose the first option to get +1 Action. But this is obviously strictly worse than the second option.
Logged

mutated

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
  • Respect: +29
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2021, 05:05:30 pm »
0

EDIT: I didn't realize that there is only one copy of Bear Market/Bull Market. In that case, may I suggest:

If you don't have Bear Market or Bull Market, take it. Otherwise, flip it over.

This wouldn't work (or rather, this changes what the Event does), as the State is meant to be flipped every time. Who has the State when it's not being flipped does not matter, and taking it shouldn't cost an extra buy. I originally wanted it to just sit next to the Event, but the rules (as I read them) don't permit this.

I looked at Misery when I was doing the wording. My only concern with the way you have it is that it might be a bit confusing. It is not entirely clear that "Bull Market" and "Bear Market" are a single, two-sided State. Thus, it is not self-evident from the text what the "it" in "take it" or "flip it over" is. A player might go looking for the other Market, or think they have a choice.


It is not entirely clear that Bull Market and Bear Market are a single, two-sided State when posted here on the forums, but I think it would be obvious to someone taking the physical cards out of the box, similar to Fool/Lost in the Woods, or the Artifact cards.

If the state is to be flipped every time, I think you can word it as simply "If you don't have Bear Market or Bull Market, take it. Flip it over."

Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.  :)
Logged

fika monster

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
  • Respect: +297
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2021, 02:36:01 am »
+2

This is my submission for the week



A card idea that i had for a long time.

Thank you Faust and silverspawn for pointing out the weird wording. I decided to go with Fausts suggestion.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 03:30:36 am by fika monster »
Logged

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +628
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #47 on: January 24, 2021, 12:07:49 pm »
+6

Hey, look!  Woodcutter's back!

EDIT: Revised set

EDIT2: Revised card text for Secluded Village to say: “+2 Actions. Reveal your hand. If you have no Action cards in hand, +2 Buys” instead of "+2 Actions. If you have no Action cards in hand, +1 Buy."



There would be 10 copies each of Secluded Village, Enchanted Forest, and Magic Axe.

Quote from: Original Set


The idea is for Buys to function as a different currency (you can skip buying Woodsman entirely).  I thought about allowing Woodsman to gain Spirits with unused Buys, but it's more fun to create my own cards.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2021, 10:01:44 am by Timinou »
Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 683
  • Respect: +390
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #48 on: January 24, 2021, 12:34:00 pm »
0

This is my submission for the week



A card idea that i had for a long time.

Thank you Faust and silverspawn for pointing out the weird wording. I decided to go with Fausts suggestion.


That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)

Your original version doesn't have this problem  (and also seems more elegant than this version to me, if you can find a reasonable wording).
« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 12:38:02 pm by Holger »
Logged

Something_Smart

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
  • Shuffle iT Username: S_Smart
  • Respect: +185
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #49 on: January 24, 2021, 12:43:49 pm »
+3

Hey, look!  Woodcutter's back!

Woodcutter's back and now he costs $0? The way I'm reading this card, you can spend a Buy and $0 during your Buy phase to gain a Woodsman, which means it basically costs $0. Was that what you intended? I don't think that can exist alongside Woodcutter, even though Woodcutter is removed.

That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)
I mean... Hunting Grounds does the same thing. Dilemma's top option isn't really nonterminal since it always leaves you with fewer actions than you started with.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6  All
 

Page created in 0.1 seconds with 22 queries.