Print

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

[silverspawn]

Exile all Actions you have in play. At the start of your next turn, gain a Ruins for +1 VP per Action you have in Exile.

I first read this as gain [a ruins for +1 VP] per Action you have in Exile, then I figured you probably mean gain [a ruins] for [+1 VP per Action you have in Exile]. Can you rephrase it to be unambiguous?

Edit: yup, now it's clear.

[mathdude]

my entry:

Monkey's Paw
$4 - Action - Victory
Choose one: Gain a Curse and if you do, gain a Wish; or +$2 and you may have the player to your left gain this on top of their deck.
-
Worth 1 VP if you gained this after your last turn of the game. Otherwise, worth -2 VP.

I think this card really hits this contest's theme well. But it does need some modification, in my opinion.

TLDR;
1 - make it cost $2 or cost $3 and gain card up to $6 instead of gain Wish.
2 - get rid of Victory type and VP on it, or make player to your left reveal their hand if you choose the option of giving it to them.
3 - assuming you keep Victory type, use existing Pass (to hand) mechanic instead of putting it on their deck, otherwise it should be Attack type as well.

It looks strictly worse than Leprechaun to me. Leprechaun gains a gold and (usually) receives a Hex (sometimes hurts a little, sometimes not). Monkey's Paw gains a card costing up to 6, but may not be in your deck until after an extra shuffle (if the Wish is drawn with terminal draw), and gains a Curse (junk in your deck and worth -1VP). Under the current design, I think it needs to cost $2, and even so may need to directly gain a card costing up to 6 instead of gaining a Wish (though that may allow it to be worth $3, comparable to Leprechaun).

Also, I think it needs to be an Attack type. I know Masquerade is not, but that gives you the option to Pass junk at the same time that you may receive junk. If the person on your left doesn't have a Cantrip in hand, and the game ends in the next round (but not on your current turn), then you just gave them -2VP. I think you can fix this (not have it be an Attack) by saying "you may Pass this to the player on your left" (i.e. gain to their hand). Then if you end the game this turn, they get +1VP. Otherwise, they at least have the option/choice to Pass it to the next person instead of keeping it for -2VP. This may mean playing it instead of another better terminal action. But like Masquerade, how bad that is depends on what you have in your hand.

There may also be a tracking/accountability issue, sort of. Generally, when the game ends, you would work through the last round of play to see how many Monkey's Paws each player recieved after their last turn and those are +1 whereas any others they have are -2VP

It gets really complicated though if you are going to end the game this turn (but people don't know it) and you have extra Actions and play a Masquerade after your Monkey's Paw (that you Pass to their hand under my change) and the player to your left has another Monkey's Paw in their hand already - they would obviously pass the one already worth -2VP, not the one currently worth 1VP, but when you end the game this turn and you all count points, they would have to prove that they kept the one worth 1VP (the next person would think they Passed it).

2 ways to fix it are to make the player to your left reveal their hand if you choose to Pass it to them, or get rid of the Victory type (and all VP on it) entirely, but I know you want to use this to raise the skill level required to use this card well (and it's pretty boring and too much like Leprechaun without the VP).

You may argue that this is a reason to put in on their deck instead of Pass it to their hand... but if you have a mega turn to end the game, we are right back to this problem if you play Monkey's Paw, Council Room, then Masquerade (could happen with Snowy Village, Champion, or just a well built engine with a lot of villages) - so it is a fringe case, but not that much of a fringe.

[Aquila]

Ancient Ruins - Action, $5 cost.
+1 Buy
Trash the top card of your deck for +2VP. Choose either +Cards or +$ equal to its cost in $.

It's either high skill or mundanely swingy.


@mathdude: the Sin mechanic can technically be achieved with VP tokens, in that you give them to your opponents rather than yourself. But if you can take Sin tokens off as with Messiah, it's more justified.

[segura]

It looks strictly worse than Leprechaun to me.

This is anything but strictly worse or better than anything because it is so different from existing cards.

Leprechaun gains a Gold and you gotta work hard to make it also gain a Wish. Monkey's Paw always gains a Wish which is miles better than a Gold (or directly a $6, the flexibility matters more than the risk of drawing a Wish dead).
Leprechaun has two main uses: Gold for early payload or late game gainer. Monkey's Paw is more of a conventional, early game gainer that need trashing/sifting. Apples and oranges.

And even if the first option of Monkey's Paw is on average weaker than Leprachaun (not that anybody could really tell except after numerous games), Monkey's Paw features a second, hot potatoe option which you ironically deemed to be too strong.

[gambit05]

My Submission:

Musketeer $5 – Action Choose one: +1 Card and +1 Action and +$1; or take         all Coin tokens from one of the          sections of the Musketeer mat. Either way, add a Coin token to a section of the Musketeer mat of your choice.

Musketeer mat Setup (before a game starts): Add 1 token to each section. When tokens are taken from the mat during the game: Horse section (left): Exchange for a Horse. Coffers section (top right): Move to your Coffers mat. Villager section (bottom right): Move to your Villagers mat. Edit: The Musketeer mat is shared by all players.

All for one and one for all. - Alexandre Dumas

[Timinou]

It's a really neat idea to have "horse tokens"!  When you exchange the tokens, are the Horses going into your discard pile as normal or into your hand?

[faust]

All for one and one for all. - Alexandre Dumas

I'm not sure this will work out as you intend.

It is rather penalising to take the tokens as you don't get the Peddler effect - so you want to do it as little as possible. The tokens that benefit most from being stockpiled are Coffers. So in the large majority of cases, I think it will be best to stockpile Coffers and cash in once at the end.

Used this way, Musketeer is like a super-Baker; you get the cash now AND the Coffers. That is a bit too strong for the price point, and also kind of boring. If you want the other tokens to be more usable, then I think it needs to be easier to retrieve them.

[segura]

I'd nerf the Peddler effect somehow and buff the token taking effect via allowing the player to take the tokens from all sections. This (partly) fixes the "Coffers only" issue that faust mentioned.

[mathdude]

It looks strictly worse than Leprechaun to me.

This is anything but strictly worse or better than anything because it is so different from existing cards.

Leprechaun gains a Gold and you gotta work hard to make it also gain a Wish. Monkey's Paw always gains a Wish which is miles better than a Gold (or directly a $6, the flexibility matters more than the risk of drawing a Wish dead).
Leprechaun has two main uses: Gold for early payload or late game gainer. Monkey's Paw is more of a conventional, early game gainer that need trashing/sifting. Apples and oranges.

And even if the first option of Monkey's Paw is on average weaker than Leprachaun (not that anybody could really tell except after numerous games), Monkey's Paw features a second, hot potatoe option which you ironically deemed to be too strong.

I take back my comment about a direct comparison to Leprechaun. You're right. Between the flexibility of any card up to $6, and the choice mechanic, it's not worse than Leprechaun. But I think it is still not worth 4, all other things considered.

I still stand by my comments about possibly being an Attack card, maybe needing to use the Pass mechanic (so it's not an Attack), and forcing the player to the left to reveal their hand, to fix tracking and accountability.

[Gubump]

"you may Pass this to the player on your left" (i.e. gain to their hand). Then if you end the game this turn, they get +1VP. Otherwise, they at least have the option/choice to Pass it to the next person instead of keeping it for -2VP.

Passing is not gaining; you cannot Watchtower the card you get passed via Masquerade, for example. With your suggested wording, passing Monkey's Paw would result in it always being worth -2 for your opponent, because they did not gain it at all and therefore did not "gain it after their last turn of the game."

I do agree with you that it's really hard/impossible to track the value of the Monkey's Paws, though. As currently worded, at least, each individual copy can be worth varying amounts of , which is impossible to track in an irl game.

[mathdude]

"you may Pass this to the player on your left" (i.e. gain to their hand). Then if you end the game this turn, they get +1VP. Otherwise, they at least have the option/choice to Pass it to the next person instead of keeping it for -2VP.

Passing is not gaining; you cannot Watchtower the card you get passed via Masquerade, for example. With your suggested wording, passing Monkey's Paw would result in it always being worth -2 for your opponent, because they did not gain it at all and therefore did not "gain it after their last turn of the game."

I do agree with you that it's really hard/impossible to track the value of the Monkey's Paws, though. As currently worded, at least, each individual copy can be worth varying amounts of , which is impossible to track in an irl game.

I missed the fact that Passing is not gaining. Thanks. I haven't played with many "when you gain a card" cards before, and if this is intended to interact with those, it adds more confusion. If you keep "Pass", then you have to use and then define something like "Receive". My main reaction for this recommended change to Pass is so you can't give it to someone onto their deck, they have a hand with no actions and buy Duchy, then they draw it into their next hand now worth -2VP and the following player ends the game before they can get rid of it. In the absence of "when you gain a card" reactions, it's a political (target 1 person) attack near the end of the game. In their hand, they can at least give it to the next player once it switches from +1VP to -2VP.
I guess it could just say "the player to your left gains it to their hand".

[mathdude]

(Apologies if double-posting is forbidden - please merge posts if that's the case.  I just kept them separate since last post was about Monkey's Paw and this one is updating my Prophet/Messiah cards)

Welcome to the forum! You certainly sound like someone who loves the game and will add energy to the community.

Regarding Prophet, introducing a concept like what discarded Treasures "would have produced" that doesn’t otherwise exist (and isn't defined) in Dominion, is problematic, particularly for the Treasures that produce variable $.

The current digital version of Bank probably "would have produced" $0 no matter what order you discard it in, since the other discarded Treasures aren’t "in play," but it might be understood to be worth more if Black Market or Storyteller played Treasures earlier in the turn. The physical version of Bank says "When you play this," so it seems to be worth $0 when discarded, since it wasn’t played (and now the recent change that Donald X made removing that language from Treasures, which wasn’t intended to be substantive, is potentially meaningful).

Philosopher's Stone and Diadem still say "When you play this" in all versions, so they’re worth $0, maybe? I don’t know.

The strangest effect is arguably to Fool’s Gold, particularly if you discard one copy. "If this is the first time you played Fool’s Gold this turn +$1, otherwise +$4." You didn’t play Fool’s Gold, so this isn’t the first time you played Fool’s Gold this turn, so I guess it’s worth $4? 

My point is not that any of the specific interpretations above are the correct readings, just that without more definition, there isn't a clear way to construe any of it. And these are only a few examples. Even if you change the language to something like, "would have produced if you played them," it doesn’t work on its own absent more definition.

[Minor bits: (1) "treasures" should be capitalized; (2) you need something like "(rounded down)" after, "For each $2"; and (3) these days, "+1 Card" is preferred to "draw a card."]

Thanks for the feedback and "minor bits".  I did intend the draw to be less useful with Kingdom Treasures (compared to Base Treasures), specifically variable-value ones, and in general it seems to be the case (often, as you pointed out, making them worth 0).  But the Fool's Gold does seem to be an issue, since I believe you would be correct to say it's valued at $4 in this case (as currently worded).  I like the "would have produced if you played them", but you're right that it already is still not entirely clear with existing cards in the game, let alone the potential for future cards.  I would consider making Prophet actually play the Treasures (like Black Market and Storyteller), then you may spend $2 to draw a card (as many times as you want), but I think I'll take a slightly different approach.

The discard for draw is not intended to be the main purpose of the card (and realistically, not intended to be useful until you get at least one Messiah card into your deck) though.  But that's the hard part of balancing the card (and the Messiah card, and their interaction), both in games with other cards that give +Sins and on their own in a Kingdom... and also with Prophet alone early- or mid-game, before Messiah cards have been purchased (i.e. giving any incentive to actually buy the Prophet card in the first place).

For the choice between "+1 Card" and "draw a card", I was going off Cellar.  Or would that card also be changed under more recent card-wording decisions?

Anyway, updating the Prophet card as follows:

Prophet
Type: Action
Cost: $2
+$2
+1 Sin
You may discard any number of Treasure cards, revealed, then draw that many.  You may play a Messiah card from your hand.

Now it's helpful to discard coppers at the chance of drawing something better (before buying Messiah), and also gives you the option to discard silvers, golds, or other treasures each for only +1 Card after you have bought Messiah.
I'm still not sure if I'm happy about the vanilla bonus for Prophet though.
Messiah will stay the same for now:

Messiah
Type: Action
Cost: $5
If you have a Prophet in play, you may trash it and this to remove all your Sins.  Otherwise, +$3
---
While this is in play, you may not buy Messiah

[fika monster]

My submission for this weeks contest, for now



Chessmaster
5$   Action-Command
Reveal any 3 cards from your deck. Discard the Commands and Non-Actions, and play the rest in any order. If you didn't play any cards, +1 Action.

----

Shoutout to S_Smarths for wording input on this, this was a pretty messy card before that.

Edit: Timou suggested a new wording, so i wrote his wording instead.


Edit 2:
People dont seem fond of the chessmaster card, so im changing my submission if thats allowed.


A throne room/ procession variant, that gives you a high amount of control, but trashes both card involved.

Edit 3:


Edit4:
RTT found a infinite loop with BoM/overlord, so i added command type to this. Carline pointed out that "other than this" was vague, so specified sthat you can't gain Ravaged Throne Room from the trash.

[Timinou]

Chessmaster
5$   Action-Command
Reveal any 3 cards from your deck. Discard the Commands and Non-Actions, and play the rest in any order. If you didn't play any cards, +1 Action.

----

Shoutout to S_Smarths for wording input on this, this was a pretty messy card before that.

So you look through your deck and reveal any 3 cards that you want?  Should there be some clarification about leaving the non-revealed cards in their original order?  I feel like this could be quite messy to play with IRL.

[Gubump]

So you look through your deck

Not as worded. As worded, you only see the 3 revealed cards. And I'm pretty sure that's the intention.

[gambit05]

It's a really neat idea to have "horse tokens"!  When you exchange the tokens, are the Horses going into your discard pile as normal or into your hand?

Thanks! As is, it is intended to discard the Horses. Without other changes of the card, gaining them to hand is probably too strong.

All for one and one for all. - Alexandre Dumas

I'm not sure this will work out as you intend.

It is rather penalising to take the tokens as you don't get the Peddler effect - so you want to do it as little as possible. The tokens that benefit most from being stockpiled are Coffers. So in the large majority of cases, I think it will be best to stockpile Coffers and cash in once at the end.

Used this way, Musketeer is like a super-Baker; you get the cash now AND the Coffers. That is a bit too strong for the price point, and also kind of boring. If you want the other tokens to be more usable, then I think it needs to be easier to retrieve them.

I honestly disagree.
First of all, there are Kingdoms with a scarce source of Actions in which Villagers become more  valuable than Coffers. Then there are some Kingdoms that have enough of other $-payload sources, but no good drawing cards and Horses may become more valuable.

Secondly, don’t forget that players don’t start with a perfect deck with which they can chain their Musketeers from the beginning on just like they want. They first have to build such decks. Also keep in mind while building such decks, other, maybe stronger $5 cost cards are around and for sure compete. Anyway, when a player plays their first Musketeer, it is usually not worth to use the token taking option. So they add something to the mat, and usually they will leave something there that is less valuable for the opponents. But hey, after a while, maybe it is worth to take 3 Villagers, especially when a player has a couple of terminal Action cards in hand, but no Actions left (e.g. one Action is lost by playing the Musketeer this way, but 3 Actions are gained). Maybe, the Musketeer is the last Action card in hand, and the player has just enough $ for the next purchase, either by playing it as a Peddler (and then adding a token to the mat), or already before playing it and then they take some Horses or whatever is on the mat.

Thirdly,

It is rather penalising to take the tokens as you don't get the Peddler effect - so you want to do it as little as possible.

That was my intention. It avoids too much craziness with every single Musketeer play, but in my opinion has still enough potential left for gaining a couple of precious tokens.

Used this way, Musketeer is like a super-Baker; you get the cash now AND the Coffers.

Maybe, I miscalculated something, but here is an example: A player plays 3 Bakers. They get 3 Coffers, +$0 and have +1 Action. A player plays 3 Musketeers, the first two add a Coffers to the mat, the last one collects. They get 2 Coffers, +$2, no Action left. Is that a super Baker? Edit: And to come to that point, Musketeer likely runs before as a $5 cost Peddler.

Finally, I am not saying that this is the best version possible. There is for sure enough potential to improve the mechanic. By the way, thanks for calling this concept boring.

I'd nerf the Peddler effect somehow and buff the token taking effect via allowing the player to take the tokens from all sections. This (partly) fixes the "Coffers only" issue that faust mentioned.

What do you mean with taking tokens from all sections?

[Timinou]

So you look through your deck

Not as worded. As worded, you only see the 3 revealed cards. And I'm pretty sure that's the intention.

I think "Reveal three cards from anywhere in your deck" would be clearer.  I think the word "any" is throwing me off in the current wording.  Like, if I know I have three Labs somewhere in my deck, can I reveal them?

[Gubump]

I'd nerf the Peddler effect somehow and buff the token taking effect via allowing the player to take the tokens from all sections. This (partly) fixes the "Coffers only" issue that faust mentioned.

What do you mean with taking tokens from all sections?

Well, the current Musketeer only takes your tokens from one section of the mat. Segura's suggestion is to take the tokens from all of them instead.

[gambit05]

I'd nerf the Peddler effect somehow and buff the token taking effect via allowing the player to take the tokens from all sections. This (partly) fixes the "Coffers only" issue that faust mentioned.

What do you mean with taking tokens from all sections?

Well, the current Musketeer only takes your tokens from one section of the mat. Segura's suggestion is to take the tokens from all of them instead.

Yes, I understand that. But what are the intended consequences?

[Timinou]

Gambit, you may want to clarify in the OP that there is only one communal Musketeer Mat for all players, as that wasn't immediately obvious (to me at least).

[gambit05]

Gambit, you may want to clarify in the OP that there is only one communal Musketeer Mat for all players, as that wasn't immediately obvious (to me at least).

Thanks! Haven't thought about that. Though, I guess the criticism is unrelated to that.

[Gubump]

I'd nerf the Peddler effect somehow and buff the token taking effect via allowing the player to take the tokens from all sections. This (partly) fixes the "Coffers only" issue that faust mentioned.

What do you mean with taking tokens from all sections?

Well, the current Musketeer only takes your tokens from one section of the mat. Segura's suggestion is to take the tokens from all of them instead.

Yes, I understand that. But what are the intended consequences?

Only allowing you to take tokens from one section of the mat at a time in a way punishes you for varying which section of the mat you add tokens to. Segura believes that this will result in players just stockpiling all their Musketeer tokens on the Coffers section and neglecting the other sections, and that allowing you to take tokens from every section would fix that. I agree with him there.

[fika monster]

So you look through your deck

Not as worded. As worded, you only see the 3 revealed cards. And I'm pretty sure that's the intention.

I think "Reveal three cards from anywhere in your deck" would be clearer.  I think the word "any" is throwing me off in the current wording.  Like, if I know I have three Labs somewhere in my deck, can I reveal them?

Updated wording as per your suggestion.

[spineflu]

updated price per Holger's analysis - keeping it at $4 because I think opening double and having them hit at t3, t4 (respectively) would probably be too much of an advantage.

[gambit05]

I'd nerf the Peddler effect somehow and buff the token taking effect via allowing the player to take the tokens from all sections. This (partly) fixes the "Coffers only" issue that faust mentioned.

What do you mean with taking tokens from all sections?

Well, the current Musketeer only takes your tokens from one section of the mat. Segura's suggestion is to take the tokens from all of them instead.

Yes, I understand that. But what are the intended consequences?

Only allowing you to take tokens from one section of the mat at a time in a way punishes you for varying which section of the mat you add tokens to. Segura believes that this will result in players just stockpiling all their Musketeer tokens on the Coffers section and neglecting the other sections, and that allowing you to take tokens from every section would fix that. I agree with him there.

Is it really like that?
Imagine the following scenario: Early phase of a game with 3 players and each player already gained one Musketeer. On each section of the Musketeer mat is 1 token (starting condition).

Now player A plays their Musketeer. More often then not they will choose the Peddler option (i.e. they do not take any of the single tokens from the mat). Player A then adds a token to the mat. If Coffers are clearly more valuable than Villagers or Horses, they will add it to one of the latter sections, say Horses. Then player B plays their Musketeer. Again, it will be often better to use the Peddler option. Where does player B add the token? Villager section I would say. Now player C plays their Musketeer. It could be worth now to take the 2 Villagers (maybe they already had enough $ collected for their purchase). However, if player C doesn’t take any tokens from the mat, where do they add their token now?

In summary, if a certain type of token is clearly more valuable than the others (all of you think it is Coffers) then players will add tokens to the other sections of the mat. At a certain point, several Villagers or Horses should become more valuable than a single Coffers most of the time.