Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices  (Read 1955 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

emtzalex

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #50 on: February 17, 2021, 05:01:02 pm »
0



I found a way to make Scout viable. In some sense.

An absolute nightmare with Wolf Den.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #51 on: February 17, 2021, 05:16:55 pm »
+2


New Entry


Quote
Muster $5 Action - Attack - Duration
At the beginning of each other player's turn, they choose an option: They take their -1 Card and -$1 Tokens; or you gain a Horse and a Spoils. (They may choose an option they can't do).

At the start of your next turn, +$2


Might not this be better:

Quote
Until your next turn, Aat the beginning of each other player's turn, they choose an option: They take their -1 Card and -$1 Tokens; or you gain a Horse and a Spoils. (They may choose an option they can't dothat can't be done).

At the start of your next turn, +$2

I know "that they can't do" comes from Torturer, but this clarifies that they can choose the second option even if the Spoils pile (maybe, if Bandit Camp is also in the Kingdom) is empty. Taking those isn't something they can't do, it's something you can't do.

"Until your next turn," is from Haunted Woods.
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 #52 on: February 17, 2021, 05:30:35 pm »
+2


I would word it to make it shorter, like this:
Name a card. Each other player gains a copy of it. If anyone gained a card costing $4 or more, +$2.
For the first change, see Ambassador and Messenger. For the second one, see Pirate Ship.


Here is how I would word it:
+2 Cards
Each other player may discard a Curse. If they don't, they gain a Curse.
Heirloom: Rook
See Mountebank
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

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 865
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +585
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #53 on: February 17, 2021, 05:30:46 pm »
0


New Entry


Quote
Muster • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the beginning of each other player's turn, they choose an option: They take their -1 Card and -$1 Tokens; or you gain a Horse and a Spoils. (They may choose an option they can't do).

At the start of your next turn, +$2


Might not this be better:

Quote
Until your next turn, Aat the beginning of each other player's turn, they choose an option: They take their -1 Card and -$1 Tokens; or you gain a Horse and a Spoils. (They may choose an option they can't dothat can't be done).

At the start of your next turn, +$2

I know "that they can't do" comes from Torturer, but this clarifies that they can choose the second option even if the Spoils pile (maybe, if Bandit Camp is also in the Kingdom) is empty. Taking those isn't something they can't do, it's something you can't do.

"Until your next turn," is from Haunted Woods.

the "that can't be done" is a better choice, thank you; I considered the "Until your next turn" and "Until then" (from gatekeeper, moving the bonus to the top) but i think it's better to specify when. Or maybe i'll rework it so the attack happens all at once, like, yknow... most regular attacks. Suppose there's really no need for this to be a duration. lemme chew on it.

Edit: kept it a duration for "strictly better" conversation reasons but here's the revised one:
« Last Edit: February 17, 2021, 05:53:43 pm by spineflu »
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 #54 on: February 17, 2021, 05:54:51 pm »
0

Here is how I would word it:
+2 Cards
Each other player may discard a Curse. If they don't, they gain a Curse.
Heirloom: Rook
See Mountebank

aye

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 #55 on: February 17, 2021, 05:59:39 pm »
+1



Redoubt should probably be $4; compare it to Young Witch. Rook's wording is ambiguous as it could be parsed "When you [trash this or discard it] during Clean-up"; I don't think most people would interpret it this way but still.
Logged

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Respect: +755
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #56 on: February 17, 2021, 06:16:11 pm »
+1



Redoubt should probably be $4; compare it to Young Witch. Rook's wording is ambiguous as it could be parsed "When you [trash this or discard it] during Clean-up"; I don't think most people would interpret it this way but still.

Speaking of issues with Rook, as worded, it still passes itself along even if you're discarding it from hand and doesn't have accountability in that case.
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.

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1653
  • Respect: +1327
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #57 on: February 17, 2021, 08:08:53 pm »
+4



Racketeer
Action/Duration/Attack - $5
Gain and set aside a card costing up to $4. Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a copy of that card, they gain a Curse. At the start of your next turn, put it into your hand.

Old entry (changed due to being too wordy)

Moral Panic
Action/Duration/Attack/Command - $5
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card, instead of following its instructions, they play a cheaper, non-Command, Action or Treasure from the supply (leaving it there).
At the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $4 to your hand.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2021, 03:00:30 am by NoMoreFun »
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 #58 on: February 18, 2021, 12:01:09 am »
+4

I'm withdrawing my previous entry. I've come up with something more interesting:




You now have your own junk pile, with junk that only you can hand out! But when should you give it?

In the beginning, it will hobble them right away.
In the mid-game, they'll have to waste precious terminal space to play it.
Or you can give it out at the very end when they have no chance to get rid of it.

Disaster itself can also give your opponent a choice of playing it vs. playing something that will be more immediately helpful.

Rules Clarification: Each player has their own Disaster pile, which does not count as part of their deck (so any Disaster cards they didn't hand out do not count against their score.) There are 4 Disasters in each pile in a 2-player game, 6 Disasters in each pile in a 3-player game, and so on (I tried to make it so that it scaled well for different player sizes.)
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 #59 on: February 18, 2021, 12:06:07 am »
0



I'm not really sure on the balance, but this card looks insanely cool and strategic. Really good job.
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

Timinou

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 194
  • Respect: +171
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #60 on: February 18, 2021, 12:52:06 am »
+1

I'm withdrawing my previous entry. I've come up with something more interesting:




You now have your own junk pile, with junk that only you can hand out! But when should you give it?

In the beginning, it will hobble them right away.
In the mid-game, they'll have to waste precious terminal space to play it.
Or you can give it out at the very end when they have no chance to get rid of it.

Disaster itself can also give your opponent a choice of playing it vs. playing something that will be more immediately helpful.

Rules Clarification: Each player has their own Disaster pile, which does not count as part of their deck (so any Disaster cards they didn't hand out do not count against their score.) There are 4 Disasters in each pile in a 2-player game, 6 Disasters in each pile in a 3-player game, and so on (I tried to make it so that it scaled well for different player sizes.)

In some situations, you could end up giving one opponent more than 2 Disasters, right?

For example, in a 3-player game, Alice plays King's Court on Sorcerer: Bob gets a Disaster, but Charlie successfully blocks it with Moat; then Bob gets another Disaster, Charlie blocks again; Bob gets a third Disaster, and Charlie blocks again. 

I like the general concept, but it seems like it could be quite swingy.   
Logged

fika monster

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +73
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #61 on: February 18, 2021, 03:23:12 am »
+2

I'm withdrawing my previous entry. I've come up with something more interesting:




You now have your own junk pile, with junk that only you can hand out! But when should you give it?

In the beginning, it will hobble them right away.
In the mid-game, they'll have to waste precious terminal space to play it.
Or you can give it out at the very end when they have no chance to get rid of it.

Disaster itself can also give your opponent a choice of playing it vs. playing something that will be more immediately helpful.

Rules Clarification: Each player has their own Disaster pile, which does not count as part of their deck (so any Disaster cards they didn't hand out do not count against their score.) There are 4 Disasters in each pile in a 2-player game, 6 Disasters in each pile in a 3-player game, and so on (I tried to make it so that it scaled well for different player sizes.)

I like the idea of temporary curses
Logged

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1063
  • Respect: +586
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2021, 03:52:19 am »
0



Redoubt should probably be $4; compare it to Young Witch. Rook's wording is ambiguous as it could be parsed "When you [trash this or discard it] during Clean-up"; I don't think most people would interpret it this way but still.
I fear that this is even too good at $4. Sure, Young Witch is fairly weak so it is not the best benchmark but this looks far stronger.
Logged

mathdude

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 25
  • Respect: +24
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2021, 08:08:47 am »
+4

Wording now updated and image added:

Quote
Dark Woods
Type: Action-Attack-Reaction
Cost: $5
Gain a card costing up to $5 other than Dark Woods.
Each other player gains a curse and a card of their choice costing less than the card you gained.
-
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand, to put it into your hand.

(On mobile now - will update later to check wording against official cards and add card pic)

Quote
Dark Woods
Type: Action-Attack-Reaction
Cost: $5
Gain a card costing up to $5 other than Dark Woods.
Each other player gains a card costing less than the card you gained and a curse.
--
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand to gain that card to your hand.
Choices:
Do you gain a 2-3 cost card to double-junk opponents?
If you have 2 in hand (and played village), do you play it twice or gain first good card to hand to play it instead?
If attacked with it, do you save it to attack on your turn, or gain possible 4-cost to hand that synergizes well with it (or gain curse to hand if you have trasher)?
Do you still play it if curses are empty?

Looking for advice mostly on power level, but also on wording, balance, interaction, etc.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2021, 01:01:41 am by mathdude »
Logged

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Respect: +755
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2021, 11:47:26 am »
0



Redoubt should probably be $4; compare it to Young Witch. Rook's wording is ambiguous as it could be parsed "When you [trash this or discard it] during Clean-up"; I don't think most people would interpret it this way but still.
I fear that this is even too good at $4. Sure, Young Witch is fairly weak so it is not the best benchmark but this looks far stronger.

I agree, but that means that Aquila should either nerf it to make it reasonable at or buff it to make it strong enough to cost . It's strictly worse than Witch, especially since your opponents getting to discard Rook helps them.
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 #65 on: February 18, 2021, 12:14:58 pm »
+1

2 Coins instead of 2 Cards would be a simple way to nerf it.
Logged

Xen3k

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
  • Respect: +110
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2021, 12:41:37 pm »
+1

(On mobile now - will update later to check wording against official cards and add card pic)

Quote
Dark Woods
Type: Action-Attack-Reaction
Cost: $5
Gain a card costing up to $5 other than Dark Woods.
Each other player gains a card costing less than the card you gained and a curse.
--
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand to gain that card to your hand.
Choices:
Do you gain a 2-3 cost card to double-junk opponents?
If you have 2 in hand (and played village), do you play it twice or gain first good card to hand to play it instead?
If attacked with it, do you save it to attack on your turn, or gain possible 4-cost to hand that synergizes well with it (or gain curse to hand if you have trasher)?
Do you still play it if curses are empty?

Looking for advice mostly on power level, but also on wording, balance, interaction, etc.

The only thing I can think of wording-wise is maybe specify who chooses what is gained that costs less.

"Each other player gains a card of their choice costing less than the card you gained and a curse."
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 #67 on: February 18, 2021, 12:50:38 pm »
0

2 Coins instead of 2 Cards would be a simple way to nerf it.
The only problem is that this change will make it very similar to Mountebank.
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

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2845
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +3972
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #68 on: February 18, 2021, 01:02:36 pm »
+1

(On mobile now - will update later to check wording against official cards and add card pic)

Quote
Dark Woods
Type: Action-Attack-Reaction
Cost: $5
Gain a card costing up to $5 other than Dark Woods.
Each other player gains a card costing less than the card you gained and a curse.
--
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand to gain that card to your hand.
Choices:
Do you gain a 2-3 cost card to double-junk opponents?
If you have 2 in hand (and played village), do you play it twice or gain first good card to hand to play it instead?
If attacked with it, do you save it to attack on your turn, or gain possible 4-cost to hand that synergizes well with it (or gain curse to hand if you have trasher)?
Do you still play it if curses are empty?

Looking for advice mostly on power level, but also on wording, balance, interaction, etc.
This seems quite oppressive. Dealing out 2 junk cards is super strong. At the baseline, this is something like "Gain a Silver, each other player gains a Copper and a Curse". While this is arguably weaker than Mountebank, it makes for extremely boring games. It might be more interesting due to the greater range of options, but I imagine that most of the times, giving your opponents more junk will be optimal.

I also think the when-gain effect doesn't really add enough to be worth the extra complexity.
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.

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Respect: +755
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #69 on: February 18, 2021, 04:54:07 pm »
+2

Since two-thirds of the entries so far are junkers (many of which are more interesting than mine), I decided to switch out my previous entry for something completely different and more interesting:

I've updated my OP as well.
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.

Aquila

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +465
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2021, 05:22:12 pm »
0

Lots of feedback, thanks everyone! I'll reply to everything at once, here's the latest version:


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.

With Rook I was just being dumb in not putting 'when you discard...from play' when I meant to. The attack makes you discard and keep it.

I'm not averse to giving Redoubt +$ if spamming them for draw would be a valid strategy. The +$ can help compensate for discarded Rooks to the attack. The Mountebank similarity is a bit annoying, but with Rooks and no Coppers to get in the way of Curses in hand it should be different enough.
If it can cost $3, that would be desirable so one could keep a Rook in hand on a $4 opening turn and improve their odds of attacking successfully. There's an added opportunity cost in not passing the Rook on and thinning your deck.
I could change the wording to '... If they don't...' sometime later.

Just seen how losing a $1 Treasure can discourage you from defending with a Rook and taking the Curse, like say if it lets you hit $5... maybe Redoubt is $4 cost.



Since two-thirds of the entries so far are junkers (many of which are more interesting than mine), I decided to switch out my previous entry for something completely different and more interesting:

I've updated my OP as well.
I remember seeing a similar card to this, but it wasn't a Duration. You could use the +Buy to first scout opposing hands before choosing your second buy. Here you have to cycle 2 of them to achieve the same thing, which is weaker. $3 weak though? Maybe. It can encourage mirror play too, which can be undesirable.
Logged

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Respect: +755
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2021, 05:54:25 pm »
0

Since two-thirds of the entries so far are junkers (many of which are more interesting than mine), I decided to switch out my previous entry for something completely different and more interesting:

I've updated my OP as well.
It can encourage mirror play too, which can be undesirable.

You're right. Retracting back to my original entry, at least for now.
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.

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 135
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +159
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #72 on: February 18, 2021, 06:39:58 pm »
+2


Quote
Haunted Shed

+1 Card
+$1
Choose one: +1 Action, or each other player gains a Curse.

Action - Attack
$5
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 #73 on: February 18, 2021, 09:33:33 pm »
+1

In some situations, you could end up giving one opponent more than 2 Disasters, right?

In most situations, you'll give all opponents more than 2 Disasters. Each player has their own Disaster pile, and in a 3-player game, each pile has 6 Disasters, so on average you'll give each opponent 3 Disasters.
Logged

scolapasta

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 460
  • Respect: +501
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #74 on: February 18, 2021, 10:24:11 pm »
+2

Current version (with its notes):





Original version:

I'm not sure this will qualify, as it's a landscape card, but it does involve choice and attacking, so it seems to me like it should:



Quote
Bewitch - Event - $5
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. (Once per turn, when you play a card from that pile, that card is also an Attack and each other player first gains a Curse.)

(some of you may recognize it from a past contest, though it used to be called Coven, before there was an official Coven; that said, I like this name thematically better)

Notes:
It's once per turn because otherwise it would be way too powerful.
That does lead to a scenario where two cards of the same name would be "different" during your turn. While there's no official precedent for this, I don't immediately see any issues.
I have considered limiting it to piles of $3 (or $4) or more, but not sure if it's necessary. It would mitigate for starting hands of 5/2, though, so may be worth another consideration.
when I had originally posted, I had played around with all sorts of variants, e.g. whether the card cursed others when you played; or cursed others when they played; or whether the curse was given on play or on gain from the pile. This is the version I ended up liking best, which is good, because the others wouldn't be attacks / fit this contest.
I have playtested it and it did seem balanced enough. And while it was the only cursing in the game, so became a must buy; it still enabled different strategies based on which pile you "bewitched"

Any feedback / thoughts?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2021, 10:37:24 am by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  All
 

Page created in 0.101 seconds with 22 queries.