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 #105: Attack with Choices  (Read 1954 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BBobb

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +82
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #25 on: February 16, 2021, 02:53:25 pm »
0


Here is how I would word it:

that's not adding anything that couldn't be covered in the rulebook FAQ other than a smaller font size, so i'm not going to take you up on that wording. There's something to be said for brevity.
If you don't want to follow my wording, that's fine. I'm just suggesting wordings to those who would like to change their cards to have the wordings that I think best follow official dominion cards (in this cards case, Torturer).
Torturer‘s second edition wording is not necessary it all. It is rather a rule reminder because some folks played Torturer wrongly. Plus, as spineflu already said, Coppers are not going to run out.

It really helps to understand why official cards are worded like they are instead of treating them as holy word or whatever.
As I said, if you don't want to go by my wording (and by official cards), that's fine. I'm just putting it out there in case you do.
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

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1117
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1499
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2021, 05:06:49 pm »
+3

Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 438
  • Respect: +685
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2021, 05:10:17 pm »
+2

Warlock
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+3 Cards.  Choose a card in the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing at most $3: Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a copy of it, or reveals they can't.  Each other player who didn't discard a copy of it gains a copy of it.
I'd appreciate help wording this to be clearer and more succinct, if it isn't sufficiently so already.
Code: [Select]
+3 Cards
Choose a card in the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing at most $3: Each other player discards a copy of it if they have 5 or more cards in hand, or reveals they can't and gains a copy of it.
changes the functionality a little in that you get to see hands with <5 cards, but is more succinct with the gain clause. should mostly only matter for patron (a benefit for the person revealing) and maybe masquerade (a benefit to see if it's worth it to masq)
Hm.  It is shorter, but I'm not feeling that it's clear a player with 4 cards gains a copy of it.  Adding additional clauses to it makes it even harder to read.

Here's how I would word it
Code: [Select]
+3 Cards
Choose a card from the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing up to $3. Each other player discards a copy of it (or reveals they can't). If they can't, they gain a copy of it.
"Costing up to $3" is fine change.  I don't like "or reveals they can't" being a parenthetical (even though it is on Bad Omens, Bureaucrat, and Cutpurse) because parenthetical phrases in game rules are typically reminders of rules rather than rules themselves.  Your wording lets Warlock discard a player's entire hand if they are all cards costing up to $3 where the original card can only discard from hands with 5 cards.

Would the following wording make it sufficiently clear that a player with 4 cards in hand reveals their hand and gains a copy of the chosen card?  Is allowing the player of Warlock to reveal a card from hand even worth the additional words just to enable hitting cards from empty piles?  (I originally had Warlock as "name a card," but that isn't really how the phrase works in Dominion.)
Code: [Select]
+3 Cards
Choose a card from the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing up to $3. Each other player discards a copy of it from a hand of at least 5 cards or reveals they can't. If they can't, they gain a copy of it.

Thank you for the assistance.

Warlock is a drawing Curser with extra abilities.  I've actually played with this thing before, and it tends to begin by hitting Coppers to try to hold down other players' decks before shifting to Cursing.
Really? That seems counterintuitive. Wouldn't you want to start handing out Curses right away? It's a much stronger attack, after all, and there are a limited number of Curses to hand out.
I was playing in games with little trashing per my recollection.  Early decks really need $5 turns, and you don't get them when you're discarding Coppers.  You have to respond to the game state, but it often seemed to perform better by choosing Copper for the first 1 or 2 plays.  Perhaps because a brainlessly Cursing Warlock in the latter portion of the game limits its own Cursing by players discarding Curses, which, as Villain shows us by discarding our Estates, is pretty awful.
I imagine it is similar to Catapult, where you want to trash an Estate (I want to give a Curse), but tracking other players to opportunistically trash a Copper can hold other players down more effectively than the trashing otherwise nets you.




For these cards with player decisions, especially if the receiver is making the decision, it is worth noting
  • Resolution time of the card balloons with the number of players.  Even Militia pauses the game, and longer in 3-player than 2-player.
  • Stacking effects are more troublesome in multiplayer games because it is much more likely to occur with 3 and 4 players than with 2, and occurs less predictably.  When the only other player plays a terminal Torturer, you typically know its whole effect, but when another player is going next, you often can't be sure if another Torturer is coming or not.
  • Further, if the stacking of an effect changes the decisions of the player of a card, it becomes inherently political.  LastFootnote mentioned at one point a "discard any number of cards to make other players discard" effect that died on the vine due to scaling issues: Discarding will hurt the player to my right who has 5 cards in hand, but the player to my left already has 3 cards.
Brazier • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they choose: they gain a Copper, or each player that isn't them gets +1 Coffers.

During your next turn, +1 Buy and Copper makes $1 more.
I messed around a bit with a card that can give other players Coffers, and it is bad news in multiplayer.  The coins get out of control.  By contrast, Bargain's Horses are not simply harmless until used, making its scaling issues less notable, on top of occurring less frequently than an Attack that gives benefits to all other players.  If giving out Coffers is the right move, a 3-player game has Coffers fly 2/1/1 for merely one player using one Brazier, let alone more Braziers and let alone games with more players; that's even more than the cards I've used that directly give Coffers to other players.

Boggart - $5
Action - Attack - Fate - Doom
+1 Card. Reveal the top 2 Hexes and 2 Boons. Pair each Hex with a Boon. Each other player chooses and receives one of the Hexes. Then, receive each Boon paired with a chosen Hex. Discard all revealed Hexes and Boons.
This card has poor scaling (you're much more likely to get the 1 Boon you want if there are multiple players choosing the Hexes, and it creates a weird weight on the second player to choose the same Hex to avoid improving the Boon selection) and absolutely monstrous resolution time.  +Cards are an especially bothersome benefit on Fate/Doom cards: The only Fates/Dooms that aren't stop cards only give Boons/Hexes once because the resolution speed of Boons/Hexes themselves are already slow enough.

Sacked Town
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. Choose one: Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card; or each other player draw until they have 5 cards in hand, gaining a Curse per card drawn.
Being able to combine it with something like Militia could work out (possibly more for the fun of the theme than actual balance), but it is probably worthwhile to make Sacked Town on its own give out 1 Curse at most.  3 Sacked Towns giving 2 Curses sounds tough.
Ultimately, I don't think this should be a choice to avoid politics in 3-player games.

Dowry
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $3
$1, +1 Buy. Each other player discards a card or pays 1VP to you, their choice. (They may pick an option they can't do.)
Setup: Each player gains 3VP.
...utterly insane 4-6 player...
Slightly harsh but I agree that you need to be slightly insane if you play Dominion with more than 4 players.
Frankly, you have to be a little soft in the head to play in 4-player.  The game is at least functional in 4-player, so I agree with BBobb that a card not working at that count is a major problem.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

Xen3k

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
  • Respect: +110
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2021, 05:38:20 pm »
+1

Boggart - $5
Action - Attack - Fate - Doom
+1 Card. Reveal the top 2 Hexes and 2 Boons. Pair each Hex with a Boon. Each other player chooses and receives one of the Hexes. Then, receive each Boon paired with a chosen Hex. Discard all revealed Hexes and Boons.
This card has poor scaling (you're much more likely to get the 1 Boon you want if there are multiple players choosing the Hexes, and it creates a weird weight on the second player to choose the same Hex to avoid improving the Boon selection) and absolutely monstrous resolution time.  +Cards are an especially bothersome benefit on Fate/Doom cards: The only Fates/Dooms that aren't stop cards only give Boons/Hexes once because the resolution speed of Boons/Hexes themselves are already slow enough.

Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately to achieve what I want with this design the resulting card will indeed be a slow to resolve one. Not really sure how to prevent that. I do have an alternate version that just provides a $2 instead of +1 Card, so I will swap this version out for that. Thanks again.
Logged

BBobb

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +82
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2021, 06:04:37 pm »
+1

Your wording lets Warlock discard a player's entire hand if they are all cards costing up to $3 where the original card can only discard from hands with 5 cards.
Oops. I meant to put that in, but must have forgotten. Thanks.
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

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Respect: +755
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2021, 06:07:58 pm »
0



Quote
Boggart - $5
Action - Attack - Fate - Doom
+1 Card
Reveal the top 2 Hexes and 2 Boons. Pair each Hex with a Boon. Each other player chooses and receives one of the Hexes. Then, receive each Boon paired with a chosen Hex. Discard all revealed Hexes and Boons.

This is a card that tries to create interesting choices for every player. Tried to make it scale properly, but I am not confident with the wording. I also am not sure if the +1 Card base is the right choice, but it felt pretty weak at only giving you a Boon and each other player a Hex of their choice. Suggestions on wording and top part changes would be appreciated.

Edit: Changed the +1 Card to +$2 to try and speed up resolution time. Thanks to Fragasnap for the feedback.

Quote
Old Version

I think potentially being able to receive two Boons along with inflicting your opponents with Hexes makes this compare way too favorably to Bard for just costing more than it.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

Xen3k

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
  • Respect: +110
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2021, 06:20:32 pm »
0



Quote
Boggart - $5
Action - Attack - Fate - Doom
+1 Card
Reveal the top 2 Hexes and 2 Boons. Pair each Hex with a Boon. Each other player chooses and receives one of the Hexes. Then, receive each Boon paired with a chosen Hex. Discard all revealed Hexes and Boons.

This is a card that tries to create interesting choices for every player. Tried to make it scale properly, but I am not confident with the wording. I also am not sure if the +1 Card base is the right choice, but it felt pretty weak at only giving you a Boon and each other player a Hex of their choice. Suggestions on wording and top part changes would be appreciated.

Edit: Changed the +1 Card to +$2 to try and speed up resolution time. Thanks to Fragasnap for the feedback.

Quote
Old Version

I think potentially being able to receive two Boons along with inflicting your opponents with Hexes makes this compare way too favorably to Bard for just costing more than it.

That is true, but it really depends how people choose. I guess I could make it so you can only receive one of the Boons paired with a chosen Hex. That would limit the benefits gained and still allow your opponents to eliminate one of the Boons by not choosing the paired Hex. Alternatively I could just drop the vanilla ability to +$1, but it feels pretty weak at $5.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2021, 06:33:16 pm »
+1

Warlock
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+3 Cards.  Choose a card in the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing at most $3: Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a copy of it, or reveals they can't.  Each other player who didn't discard a copy of it gains a copy of it.
I'd appreciate help wording this to be clearer and more succinct, if it isn't sufficiently so already.
Code: [Select]
+3 Cards
Choose a card in the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing at most $3: Each other player discards a copy of it if they have 5 or more cards in hand, or reveals they can't and gains a copy of it.
changes the functionality a little in that you get to see hands with <5 cards, but is more succinct with the gain clause. should mostly only matter for patron (a benefit for the person revealing) and maybe masquerade (a benefit to see if it's worth it to masq)
Hm.  It is shorter, but I'm not feeling that it's clear a player with 4 cards gains a copy of it.  Adding additional clauses to it makes it even harder to read.

Here's how I would word it
Code: [Select]
+3 Cards
Choose a card from the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing up to $3. Each other player discards a copy of it (or reveals they can't). If they can't, they gain a copy of it.
"Costing up to $3" is fine change.  I don't like "or reveals they can't" being a parenthetical (even though it is on Bad Omens, Bureaucrat, and Cutpurse) because parenthetical phrases in game rules are typically reminders of rules rather than rules themselves.  Your wording lets Warlock discard a player's entire hand if they are all cards costing up to $3 where the original card can only discard from hands with 5 cards.

Would the following wording make it sufficiently clear that a player with 4 cards in hand reveals their hand and gains a copy of the chosen card?  Is allowing the player of Warlock to reveal a card from hand even worth the additional words just to enable hitting cards from empty piles?  (I originally had Warlock as "name a card," but that isn't really how the phrase works in Dominion.)
Code: [Select]
+3 Cards
Choose a card from the Supply or reveal a card from your hand costing up to $3. Each other player discards a copy of it from a hand of at least 5 cards or reveals they can't. If they can't, they gain a copy of it.

Thank you for the assistance.


I think I know the answer from your response to BBobb, but does the $3 limit apply to both cards in your hand and in the supply?

If that's correct, do you have a strong reason for requiring the non-Supply card to be in hand? Thinking about it, that would make it harder to target Horses, Imps, and Heirlooms, and completely protects Prizes. It doesn't ensure that the card will be able to be gained (see Heirlooms). I would suggest "Name a card costing up to $3." If the card isn't available in the game, all the attack does is make your opponents reveal their hand. The attempt to gain a copy would fail, since there isn't one available.

Speaking of which, the default rule is that cards can only be gained from the Supply. It's not entirely clear to me that this mechanic is worded explicitly enough to overcome that rule, but I am not certain of that. So if you named (or revealed) Horse, I'm not sure people without it would gain it (which might be what you want).


One last clarification: from your comments, I think that a player gains the card if either (1) they reveal a 5-card (or more) hand without it; or (2) have fewer than 5 cards in hand. If so, it's a bit confusing. What does it mean to tell a players with 4 cards in hand to "discard[] a copy of [the chosen or reveled card] from a hand of at least 5 cards or reveal[] they can't"? If you have four or fewer cards, it's not really possible to "reveal [that you] can't" discard from a 5+ card hand, because the fact that you can't is shown by the publicly available number of cards in your hand, not what the cards are, but to reveal means to show something not public.

Also, by "If they can't, they gain a copy of it." I'm 99% sure you mean 'if they can't [discard[] a copy of [the chosen or reveled card] from a hand of at least 5 cards], they gain a copy of it.' But the literal reading of that sentence is "If they can't [discard[] a copy of [the chosen or reveled card] from a hand of at least 5 cards or reveal[] they can't], they gain a copy of it." If a player can reveal that they can't discard the card, they don't trigger the last conditional statement. If we then apply the logic of the last paragraph, only players with 4 or fewer cards in their hand cannot discard from a hand of 5 or more cards and cannot reveal that they cannot do so, so they would be the only ones to gain. I don't think that's what you want.

That analysis is probably overly academic/hypothetical, and you'd have a good argument that's not how it would be interpreted. What I really don't like is that the "can't" that your reveal your hand to prove (the absence of the card in a five+ card hand) is not the same as the "can't" in the following sentence (the absence of the card in a five+ card hand OR having fewer than 5 cards). The two being so close together and meaning something slightly different makes it more difficult to understand (imo).

You might say:

Quote
Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a copy of it or reveals they can't; any player except you that did not discard a copy of it gains a copy of it.
Logged

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Respect: +755
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #33 on: February 16, 2021, 07:24:00 pm »
+2

That is true, but it really depends how people choose. I guess I could make it so you can only receive one of the Boons paired with a chosen Hex. That would limit the benefits gained and still allow your opponents to eliminate one of the Boons by not choosing the paired Hex. Alternatively I could just drop the vanilla ability to +$1, but it feels pretty weak at $5.

I think it would be reasonable if it only allowed you to receive one Boon. You could accomplish this by saying "then, receive a Boon paired with a chosen Hex" instead of "each."
« Last Edit: February 16, 2021, 07:26:42 pm by Gubump »
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

BBobb

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +82
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #34 on: February 17, 2021, 01:07:47 am »
+1


Here is how I would word it:

For the first change (the "onto" one), see Mandarin, Count, etc. For the second change (the "if your hand has 0 cards in it" to "if you have no cards in hand"), see Shanty Town.
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

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1063
  • Respect: +586
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #35 on: February 17, 2021, 01:11:36 am »
+3


This is incredibly weak. Of course you can manage to run a Treasure-less deck. But then there is good trashing in the Kingdom and the junking is weak.
In all other cases, you don’t really want a Mandarin style self Ghost Ship effect.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2845
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +3972
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #36 on: February 17, 2021, 02:32:17 am »
+3

Quote
Shaman - $3
Action/Attack

+$2
Each other player with Bewitched gains a Curse.
Each player without Bewitched takes it or discards a card from their hand, their choice.
Here is how I would word it:
Quote
Shaman - $3
Action/Attack

+$2
Each other player who has Bewitched gains a Curse.
Each player (including you) who doesn't have Bewitched either takes it or discards a card from their hand, their choice. (They may pick an option they can't do.)
I think it was pointed out before that your version is significantly longer. While it's true that the wording is closer to existing cards, it is also true the Donald X.'s design philosophy has shifted more towards "don't have small text" over "have things be consistent with prior wordings".

Regarding the individual changes you suggest:
- (including you) - I thought about this, but I thought that having "each other player" and "each player" appear on the same card makes the distinction sufficiently clear. No official card does this, so there is no precedent either way.
- who does[n't] have -  not sure I see any benefit in this over with/without other than consistency (which I don't value that highly). If there is some other reason for this change, feel free to point it out.
- either - this one is probably reasonable to include for readability.
- (They may pick an option they can't do.) - I think this is on Torturer because (a) there is space for it (b) it comes up all the time when Curses are out. I don't think it will happen all too often that you discard your entire hand to Shaman, which is the only time this would be relevant. Side note: If I were to include this, I would definitely also strike the "without Bewitched" clause in that sentence, because then you could always take the Bewitched you already have.

Another note: I appreciate the effort that went into creating mock-ups with alternate text, but I don't think they benefit the readability of this thread. Having so many significantly increases loading time, they're annoying to quote, and for discussing passages it is more helpful if you can quote the card text.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

fika monster

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +73
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #37 on: February 17, 2021, 05:06:11 am »
+1


This is incredibly weak. Of course you can manage to run a Treasure-less deck. But then there is good trashing in the Kingdom and the junking is weak.
In all other cases, you don’t really want a Mandarin style self Ghost Ship effect.

I wonder if this should go even harder on the mandarin effect: adding the ability to topdeck any number of cards in play. yes thats nuts
Logged

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1063
  • Respect: +586
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #38 on: February 17, 2021, 05:37:10 am »
+6



I first tried this Ironworks-style Attack the natural way, i.e. Action card - Villagers - Ruins and so on. But it was too good with what you want to discard, Victory cards, and what you want to junk, Curses. Hence the unnatural, Transmute style shift such that what you most dislike to discard, Actions, provide the best benefits / the harshest junking.

I also first tried this with 2 Coffers and so on but this felt too good at $4 and too weak at $5. But I could be wrong; due to the larger size of the junking pool it could now be too centralizing and the 2 token/Horses version might be weakish at $5 but better.
Logged

fika monster

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +73
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #39 on: February 17, 2021, 08:00:57 am »
+1

Im a bit of a mess this week, but here is my current submission: a pillage variant with a choice for the victims



This is probably broken in some way. but ill fix it later

Edit 2:
I simplified the card, as it was too wordy. this should contain the essence of it, and still have choice. now its always a "pillage away their best card, but increase their handsize by one"


Edit 3:
Wording change to buff it a bit.


Edit 4: added art, cleaned the wording a bit per BBobs suggestion, and buffed it to +3 cards.


Im wondering if anyone has any further feedback or questions about it.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1550
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +1271
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #40 on: February 17, 2021, 08:19:39 am »
+6

I'm (probably) not submitting a card this week partly because I don't have any ideas at the moment and partly because I have enough fan made attack cards to test for a while. Anyway, I wanted to pop in to say it seems like the general quality of fan cards has gone up significantly in the time we've been doing these contests. Even in cards submitted by people new to the forums. That's good obviously, but it's making it a harder choice to decide which ones to print and play with.  :P
« Last Edit: February 17, 2021, 08:21:08 am by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1063
  • Respect: +586
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #41 on: February 17, 2021, 09:46:28 am »
0

Im a bit of a mess this week, but here is my current submission: a pillage variant with a choice for the victims



This is probably broken in some way. but ill fix it later

Edit 2:
I simplified the card, as it was too wordy. this should contain the essence of it, and still have choice. now its always a "pillage away their best card, but increase their handsize by one"


Edit 3:
Wording change to buff it a bit.


Edit 4: added art, cleaned the wording a bit per BBobs suggestion, and buffed it to +3 cards.


Im wondering if anyone has any further feedback or questions about it.
I think this can be brutal with a normal down to X handsize Attack. In the absence of other handsize Attacks it could be too weak. Sure, the opponents have to discard their best card but they nonetheless net draw one. But then again it could be too harsh in an engine, you simply first discard their splitters and then their non-terminals.

This is incredibly difficult to judge without having played with the card (we simply don't have enough experience with Pillage style handsize attacks, Pillage alone as one shot illustrates their harshness but that's about it) and my hunch that this could quickly switch from weak to harsh could be totally wrong. Definitely test it against money as a simple benchmark and as money decks don't rely on crucial cards like villages.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2021, 09:48:16 am by segura »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4858
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +2490
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #42 on: February 17, 2021, 09:47:48 am »
+1

Im wondering if anyone has any further feedback or questions about it.

it's good.

It is brutal with handsize reduction, but only slightly more brutal than Council Room or Governor. Any card that has the drawback of increasing opponents' handsize is going to have that problem.
Logged

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 865
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +585
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things

silverspawn

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4858
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +2490
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #44 on: February 17, 2021, 01:10:34 pm »
+1



Updated:



I found a way to make Scout viable. In some sense.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2021, 05:55:49 pm by silverspawn »
Logged

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1063
  • Respect: +586
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #45 on: February 17, 2021, 01:13:39 pm »
0



I found a way to make Scout viable. In some sense.
I like this but I am not sure whether it coul be too pile-y if it includes Green. If you play two of those in one turn, you can empty half the Province pile in one turn.
Logged

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Respect: +755
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #46 on: February 17, 2021, 02:06:59 pm »
0



I found a way to make Scout viable. In some sense.
I like this but I am not sure whether it coul be too pile-y if it includes Green. If you play two of those in one turn, you can empty half the Province pile in one turn.

This is technically true, but why would you want to give your opponent free Provinces?
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1063
  • Respect: +586
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #47 on: February 17, 2021, 02:13:08 pm »
0

I misread and though this includes the active player. My bad.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1117
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1499
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #48 on: February 17, 2021, 04:45:50 pm »
0


This is incredibly weak. Of course you can manage to run a Treasure-less deck. But then there is good trashing in the Kingdom and the junking is weak.
In all other cases, you don’t really want a Mandarin style self Ghost Ship effect.

Yes, I was worried that it was weak. I wanted a Curser where you had to think hard about whether you wanted to Curse or not. I have some ideas for making it stronger. I'm not sure what the best one is, though...
Logged

Aquila

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +465
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #49 on: February 17, 2021, 04:56:34 pm »
+3


Quote
Redoubt - Action Attack, $3 cost.
+ $2
Each other player may discard a Curse. Those who don't gain a Curse.
Heirloom: Rook
Quote
Rook - Treasure Curse Heirloom, $3 cost.
$1
-1VP

-
When you trash this or discard it from play, put it in the player to your left's discard pile.
I hope this is self-intuitive. A Curse Heirloom should be fine rules-wise apart from whether 'Curse' means the card name or the type, and the Heirloom should point towards type? It wouldn't be too hard to say 'Rook or Curse' but this seems the most elegant way.
The decision is if and when you hold on to Rooks, if you bunch them up and try to offload them all on your left opponent near the end whilst having protection from early junk crows, besides other factors. I guess the player interaction is more the appeal here for me.

Edit: changed Redoubt's bonus to + $2, and Rook is passed when discarded 'from play'.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2021, 05:24:56 pm by Aquila »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6  All
 

Page created in 0.11 seconds with 21 queries.