Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back  (Read 12838 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Aquila

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 525
  • Respect: +764
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #50 on: February 28, 2021, 04:34:40 am »
+2

Quote
Magnate - Victory, $4 cost.
2VP
-
When you gain this, gain a non-Victory card costing up to $4. When you trash this during your turn, cards cost $2 less for the turn.
Logged

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 578
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #51 on: February 28, 2021, 10:33:37 pm »
+5

Current version (with its notes):





Original version:


I hope it's ok that I continue to enter recycled cards from previous contents, usually improved to a better version (at least I hope!):

For this contest, here's Retriever v0.5:



Quote
Retriever - Action-Reaction - $5
+2 Cards
-
When you would discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to trash it instead.

When you would trash one of your cards, you may set this aside to discard it instead.

If you do set this aside, then at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand.

I've tried my hand at a few "blue dogs", but this one was always my favorite. v0.4 only revealed the retriever instead of setting aside, allowing you to trash all the cards you might discard (or vice versa) in a turn. It was wisely pointed out that luck could play a huge factor if, for example, I drew my Retriever with Cellar, and you did not.

So, it's nerfed to set aside and only "retrieve" (or "bury") one card. Luck can still happen, but now it won't have as big an impact. And hopefully this card is still an interesting card to buy.

I do like that it works both as a reaction on attacks, but can also react to things you do on your turn. And it uses "would" so you can't abuse cards like Remodel.

One rules related question: does anyone remember where Donald ended up on Milita (and possibly other multiple card) discards, whether they happened one at a time or as a batch? That could clearly impact Retriever:

• if you discard one at a time, it, you could discard a copper, set this aside, and then be down to 3 cards, and get this back at the start of your turn)
• if you discard in batch, it gets confusing to me if it could still work that way or if you'd have to still discard the other card.

But I think it is the former.

Feedback always encouraged!
« Last Edit: March 01, 2021, 10:41:51 pm by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

mathdude

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +230
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #52 on: March 01, 2021, 12:46:26 am »
+4


Quote
Borrowed Land
Action
$3
When another player gains a victory card, you may trash this from your hand to gain a cheaper Victory card than the gained card.

So it's a 3-cost estate at face value.  But in a basic kingdom, it would turn into a Duchy when someone buys a Province, assuming you have it in hand when they do that.  In kingdoms with alt-VP cards, I don't think it gains too much more power (maybe something like Harem or Nobles, if someone else is still buying those mid/late game and you're ready to start gaining Duchies?  But if someone is buying Provinces, you will likely prefer Duchy over Harem or Nobles anyway since it would be late enough in the game for the extra +1VP to be worth it).

The only concern I currently have is when Colonies are in play.  Then this 3-cost could turn into a Province.  At that point, it's a must-buy, IMO (though it's a question of when you rush them... you want enough that you win the split, but not so many so early that you stunt your growth - timing the buys would be critical).

Now after typing all this reasoning, I'm wondering whether it should cost $4 instead of $3.  It's a minor difference, since it's not a card you buy with opening hands (so the $3/$4 difference of buying 1 or 2 to start the game is irrelevant), so it's probably still okay at $3?
Logged
he/him

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 578
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #53 on: March 01, 2021, 01:19:06 pm »
+1

I hope it's ok that I continue to enter recycled cards from previous contents, usually improved to a better version (at least I hope!):

For this contest, here's Retriever v0.5:



Quote
Retriever - Action-Reaction - $5
+2 Cards
-
When you would discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to trash it instead.

When you would trash one of your cards, you may set this aside to discard it instead.

If you do set this aside, then at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand.

I've tried my hand at a few "blue dogs", but this one was always my favorite. v0.4 only revealed the retriever instead of setting aside, allowing you to trash all the cards you might discard (or vice versa) in a turn. It was wisely pointed out that luck could play a huge factor if, for example, I drew my Retriever with Cellar, and you did not.

So, it's nerfed to set aside and only "retrieve" (or "bury") one card. Luck can still happen, but now it won't have as big an impact. And hopefully this card is still an interesting card to buy.

I do like that it works both as a reaction on attacks, but can also react to things you do on your turn. And it uses "would" so you can't abuse cards like Remodel.

One rules related question: does anyone remember where Donald ended up on Milita (and possibly other multiple card) discards, whether they happened one at a time or as a batch? That could clearly impact Retriever:

• if you discard one at a time, it, you could discard a copper, set this aside, and then be down to 3 cards, and get this back at the start of your turn)
• if you discard in batch, it gets confusing to me if it could still work that way or if you'd have to still discard the other card.

But I think it is the former.

Feedback always encouraged!

A few additional thoughts:

• If you have two Retrievers in hand where you could set one aside, then another, resulting in the original trashing / discarding result. It's not that problematic (though could combo with draw to X cards), but it still feels weird. So I am considering just changing those clauses to "put in the trash" and "put in your discard pile" (A variation on the wording from Fortress - "When you trash this, put it into your hand."
• I'm considering removing "would", even if it means allowing a strong combo


So the result of both these changes would be:
Quote
Retriever - Action-Reaction - $5
+2 Cards
-
When you discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to put it in the trash.

When you trash one of your cards, you may set this aside to put it on your discard pile.

If you do set this aside, then at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand.

I don't think I can make the first change, without the 2nd, because that also seems weird, as you would then neither discard or trash. Whereas the above wording does still discard or trash, it just changes the destination of that action.

This does now empower something like Remodel-Retriever, but I think the better, more understandable wording is worth it (plus you'd still have to get them in the same hand). But I'd love to hear some opinions on it.

Thoughts?
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #54 on: March 01, 2021, 01:49:43 pm »
+3

I hope it's ok that I continue to enter recycled cards from previous contents, usually improved to a better version (at least I hope!):

For this contest, here's Retriever v0.5:



Quote
Retriever - Action-Reaction - $5
+2 Cards
-
When you would discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to trash it instead.

When you would trash one of your cards, you may set this aside to discard it instead.

If you do set this aside, then at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand.

I've tried my hand at a few "blue dogs", but this one was always my favorite. v0.4 only revealed the retriever instead of setting aside, allowing you to trash all the cards you might discard (or vice versa) in a turn. It was wisely pointed out that luck could play a huge factor if, for example, I drew my Retriever with Cellar, and you did not.

So, it's nerfed to set aside and only "retrieve" (or "bury") one card. Luck can still happen, but now it won't have as big an impact. And hopefully this card is still an interesting card to buy.

I do like that it works both as a reaction on attacks, but can also react to things you do on your turn. And it uses "would" so you can't abuse cards like Remodel.

One rules related question: does anyone remember where Donald ended up on Milita (and possibly other multiple card) discards, whether they happened one at a time or as a batch? That could clearly impact Retriever:

• if you discard one at a time, it, you could discard a copper, set this aside, and then be down to 3 cards, and get this back at the start of your turn)
• if you discard in batch, it gets confusing to me if it could still work that way or if you'd have to still discard the other card.

But I think it is the former.

Feedback always encouraged!

A few additional thoughts:

• If you have two Retrievers in hand where you could set one aside, then another, resulting in the original trashing / discarding result. It's not that problematic (though could combo with draw to X cards), but it still feels weird. So I am considering just changing those clauses to "put in the trash" and "put in your discard pile" (A variation on the wording from Fortress - "When you trash this, put it into your hand."
• I'm considering removing "would", even if it means allowing a strong combo


So the result of both these changes would be:
Quote
Retriever - Action-Reaction - $5
+2 Cards
-
When you discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to put it in the trash.

When you trash one of your cards, you may set this aside to put it on your discard pile.

If you do set this aside, then at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand.

I don't think I can make the first change, without the 2nd, because that also seems weird, as you would then neither discard or trash. Whereas the above wording does still discard or trash, it just changes the destination of that action.

This does now empower something like Remodel-Retriever, but I think the better, more understandable wording is worth it (plus you'd still have to get them in the same hand). But I'd love to hear some opinions on it.

Thoughts?
Can I make a wording suggestion, because seven lines of text below the line is A Lot?
Quote
Retriever • Action - Reaction • $5
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during clean up, you may set this aside to put it in the trash or your discard pile.

If you do, at the start of your next turn return this to your hand

It gets that text size up a little bigger and also enables some weird stuff where things go to the place they're supposed to (that I haven't been able to think of a use for yet but I'm sure one exists - maybe for handsize attack dodging?)
« Last Edit: March 01, 2021, 03:25:08 pm by spineflu »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #55 on: March 01, 2021, 04:02:55 pm »
+5

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1795
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #56 on: March 01, 2021, 05:40:18 pm »
0

<Tavern>
The idea is good, but there's no way this needs to cost $6. It might even be balanced at $3 or $4 IMO.

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 578
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #57 on: March 01, 2021, 06:20:08 pm »
+1

Can I make a wording suggestion, because seven lines of text below the line is A Lot?
Quote
Retriever • Action - Reaction • $5
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during clean up, you may set this aside to put it in the trash or your discard pile.

If you do, at the start of your next turn return this to your hand

It gets that text size up a little bigger and also enables some weird stuff where things go to the place they're supposed to (that I haven't been able to think of a use for yet but I'm sure one exists - maybe for handsize attack dodging?)

I had considered that, but didn't like that weirdness. Plus it changes some interactions, namely with Lurker (hence the "one of your cards") and Improve.

BUT, your post made me reconsider (thanks!) and:
• I can live with the specific interactions as it buffs one, but nerfs the other (the Lurker interaction was more of a concern when all you had to do was reveal Retriever)
• by adding some parenthesis, I have a 6 line version that doesn't have the weirdness (I also had to change "return" to "put"



Quote
Retriever - Action - Reaction - $2
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to put it on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded). If you did, at the start of your next turn, put this to your hand.

« Last Edit: March 01, 2021, 07:39:04 pm by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Mahowrath

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
  • Respect: +192
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #58 on: March 01, 2021, 07:19:50 pm »
+1

<Tavern>
The idea is good, but there's no way this needs to cost $6. It might even be balanced at $3 or $4 IMO.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time evaluating it. My first reaction was that it's broken at $6 with 2 cards per green on gain; as when you're greening, this alternative to buying a Duchy frequently guarantees drawing deck next turn, for the mere cost of $1 more and 1VP less. That said, it's difficult to exploit: if you were to relying on this as your draw, you'd still need to build to the cash and buys in deck and have enough greens in hand ready for when you gain your first, and they could run out before you finish piling Provinces.

I'm sure it could exist at $3 or $4, but it would be game-warping.


Retriever • Action - Reaction • $5
I'm guessing this should be $2 as per the image; is it too late to edit the original message to save confusion going forwards?
Logged

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 578
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #59 on: March 01, 2021, 07:40:03 pm »
+2

Retriever • Action - Reaction • $5
I'm guessing this should be $2 as per the image; is it too late to edit the original message to save confusion going forwards?

Whoops! Done. (I'll also be updating my original post with the latest version later this evening)
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1795
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #60 on: March 01, 2021, 07:45:00 pm »
0

<Tavern>
The idea is good, but there's no way this needs to cost $6. It might even be balanced at $3 or $4 IMO.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time evaluating it. My first reaction was that it's broken at $6 with 2 cards per green on gain; as when you're greening, this alternative to buying a Duchy frequently guarantees drawing deck next turn, for the mere cost of $1 more and 1VP less. That said, it's difficult to exploit: if you were to relying on this as your draw, you'd still need to build to the cash and buys in deck and have enough greens in hand ready for when you gain your first, and they could run out before you finish piling Provinces.

I'm sure it could exist at $3 or $4, but it would be game-warping.
Expedition costs $3 and gives +2 cards for your next turn without any requirement for your hand contents and without putting a nearly-junk card in your deck. In order to get more than +2 Cards with Tavern, you'd have to have more than one victory card in your hand. I really don't think it'd be worth keeping your starting Estates just to make this draw more sometimes.

fika monster

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 463
  • 27 year old swedish guy. PFP by haps
  • Respect: +459
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #61 on: March 02, 2021, 03:52:11 am »
0

<Tavern>
The idea is good, but there's no way this needs to cost $6. It might even be balanced at $3 or $4 IMO.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time evaluating it. My first reaction was that it's broken at $6 with 2 cards per green on gain; as when you're greening, this alternative to buying a Duchy frequently guarantees drawing deck next turn, for the mere cost of $1 more and 1VP less. That said, it's difficult to exploit: if you were to relying on this as your draw, you'd still need to build to the cash and buys in deck and have enough greens in hand ready for when you gain your first, and they could run out before you finish piling Provinces.

I'm sure it could exist at $3 or $4, but it would be game-warping.
Expedition costs $3 and gives +2 cards for your next turn without any requirement for your hand contents and without putting a nearly-junk card in your deck. In order to get more than +2 Cards with Tavern, you'd have to have more than one victory card in your hand. I really don't think it'd be worth keeping your starting Estates just to make this draw more sometimes.
What if it costs less per empty pile? so its base cost is 6, but when 1 pile is empty, its 4, when its 2 it costs 2
Logged
Swedish guy, Furry hipster otter

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #62 on: March 02, 2021, 04:15:10 am »
+4

<Tavern>
The idea is good, but there's no way this needs to cost $6. It might even be balanced at $3 or $4 IMO.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time evaluating it. My first reaction was that it's broken at $6 with 2 cards per green on gain; as when you're greening, this alternative to buying a Duchy frequently guarantees drawing deck next turn, for the mere cost of $1 more and 1VP less. That said, it's difficult to exploit: if you were to relying on this as your draw, you'd still need to build to the cash and buys in deck and have enough greens in hand ready for when you gain your first, and they could run out before you finish piling Provinces.

I'm sure it could exist at $3 or $4, but it would be game-warping.
Expedition costs $3 and gives +2 cards for your next turn without any requirement for your hand contents and without putting a nearly-junk card in your deck. In order to get more than +2 Cards with Tavern, you'd have to have more than one victory card in your hand. I really don't think it'd be worth keeping your starting Estates just to make this draw more sometimes.
Expedition serves another purpose. The card is way too strong at $3 or $4 because of its late-game power. Once you've bought 1-2 Provinces, Tavern makes sure that your engine continues firing. This extreme consistency boost would make it an automatic pickup in the late-game at $3 or $4.

What if it costs less per empty pile? so its base cost is 6, but when 1 pile is empty, its 4, when its 2 it costs 2
This is backwards. Tavern is at its most powerful in the late game, so making it cheaper there doesn't really address any issues. Plus it would be 2 dividing lines and too much text.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

fika monster

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 463
  • 27 year old swedish guy. PFP by haps
  • Respect: +459
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #63 on: March 02, 2021, 05:45:27 am »
0



What if it costs less per empty pile? so its base cost is 6, but when 1 pile is empty, its 4, when its 2 it costs 2
This is backwards. Tavern is at its most powerful in the late game, so making it cheaper there doesn't really address any issues. Plus it would be 2 dividing lines and too much text.

what if it gave +1 card instead and cost 3-4?
Logged
Swedish guy, Furry hipster otter

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #64 on: March 02, 2021, 05:48:32 am »
0

what if it gave +1 card instead and cost 3-4?
This could work I suppose, but I figure it would be less interesting. Tavern already puts junk in your deck, so it has an effective -1 card; with your proposal you'd need at least 2 green cards make it do anything productive. I honestly don't think any "fix" is needed here.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #65 on: March 02, 2021, 08:26:07 am »
+2

what if it gave +1 card instead and cost 3-4?

The card started as exactly that, but like faust, I thought that the powerful-but-expensive version was more exciting, so I made it +2 Cards and cost 6$.

anordinaryman

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
  • Respect: +502
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #66 on: March 02, 2021, 10:39:02 am »
+2

Can I make a wording suggestion, because seven lines of text below the line is A Lot?
[. . .]

I had considered that, but didn't like that weirdness. Plus it changes some interactions, namely with Lurker (hence the "one of your cards") and Improve.

BUT, your post made me reconsider (thanks!) and:
• I can live with the specific interactions as it buffs one, but nerfs the other (the Lurker interaction was more of a concern when all you had to do was reveal Retriever)
• by adding some parenthesis, I have a 6 line version that doesn't have the weirdness (I also had to change "return" to "put"



Quote
Retriever - Action - Reaction - $2
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to put it on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded). If you did, at the start of your next turn, put this to your hand.

To me it's a ton of text, and the the trash-to-discard and discard-to-trash are the most interesting parts. The "If you did, at the start of your next turn, put this to your hand" seems unnecessary and kind of superfluous. You could make it more elegant by either discarding the card or have it play itself, which would change the cost.

I'm proposing something like these two options:

Quote
Retriever - Action - Reaction - $2
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may discard this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Quote
Retriever - Action - Reaction - $4?? (maybe $3)
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may play this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Other Changes:
* I have also used "this" vs "that" to make it less ambiguous.
* I was worried about infinitely looping but I realize in the proposal 1 it doesn't break the game, it just means that if you discard a Retriever you get to trigger it's bottom ability without having to discard another card. It does let you infinite loop, but it's the same infinite loop that a player may reveal a moat infinite times to a Witch -- it does nothing but waste time.

Other Ideas:
* Keep the play version but tweak the on-play benefit. +2$, a sifter, draw-to-x, or a trasher all would work.

Logged

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 578
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #67 on: March 02, 2021, 06:32:43 pm »
+1


To me it's a ton of text, and the the trash-to-discard and discard-to-trash are the most interesting parts. The "If you did, at the start of your next turn, put this to your hand" seems unnecessary and kind of superfluous. You could make it more elegant by either discarding the card or have it play itself, which would change the cost.

I'm proposing something like these two options:

Quote
Retriever - Action - Reaction - $2
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may discard this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Quote
Retriever - Action - Reaction - $4?? (maybe $3)
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may play this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Other Changes:
* I have also used "this" vs "that" to make it less ambiguous.
* I was worried about infinitely looping but I realize in the proposal 1 it doesn't break the game, it just means that if you discard a Retriever you get to trigger it's bottom ability without having to discard another card. It does let you infinite loop, but it's the same infinite loop that a player may reveal a moat infinite times to a Witch -- it does nothing but waste time.

Other Ideas:
* Keep the play version but tweak the on-play benefit. +2$, a sifter, draw-to-x, or a trasher all would work.

I hear you and your versions do reduce the text to what should be an ideal max. So I'm debating the "discard" version:

I had considered it before, but I was worried that might make it too weak. Do you think it would be worth a buy vs, for example, Moat?

Additionally, I liked the idea that retriever would go and "retrieve" or "bury" a card for you, then come back to you. Felt more thematic. I'm realizing now that that's already covered by Faithful Hound anyway, so yeah, maybe it doesn't need it.

I'm guessing the real test would be playtesting these different versions, but still I'd like this polished as best we can for the contest.

Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

anordinaryman

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
  • Respect: +502
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #68 on: March 02, 2021, 07:51:30 pm »
0


To me it's a ton of text, and the the trash-to-discard and discard-to-trash are the most interesting parts. The "If you did, at the start of your next turn, put this to your hand" seems unnecessary and kind of superfluous. You could make it more elegant by either discarding the card or have it play itself, which would change the cost.

I'm proposing something like these two options:

Quote
Retriever - Action - Reaction - $2
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may discard this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Quote
Retriever - Action - Reaction - $4?? (maybe $3)
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may play this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Other Changes:
* I have also used "this" vs "that" to make it less ambiguous.
* I was worried about infinitely looping but I realize in the proposal 1 it doesn't break the game, it just means that if you discard a Retriever you get to trigger it's bottom ability without having to discard another card. It does let you infinite loop, but it's the same infinite loop that a player may reveal a moat infinite times to a Witch -- it does nothing but waste time.

Other Ideas:
* Keep the play version but tweak the on-play benefit. +2$, a sifter, draw-to-x, or a trasher all would work.

I hear you and your versions do reduce the text to what should be an ideal max. So I'm debating the "discard" version:

I had considered it before, but I was worried that might make it too weak. Do you think it would be worth a buy vs, for example, Moat?

Additionally, I liked the idea that retriever would go and "retrieve" or "bury" a card for you, then come back to you. Felt more thematic. I'm realizing now that that's already covered by Faithful Hound anyway, so yeah, maybe it doesn't need it.

I'm guessing the real test would be playtesting these different versions, but still I'd like this polished as best we can for the contest.

Well, the discard-version of Retriever doesn't do anything special unless there's discard and weak-trashing, or there's trash for benefit. Many kingdoms don't have those, so, yeah, it could be identical (or in the case of attacks) strictly-worse than moat. The ones that do have those -- that benefit isn't always worth discarding a card from your hand for. There's also the fact that Retriever can only-fire once per turn no matter. Then there's the fact that moat doesn't get lost from your hand. So, for those reasons, it can be potentially weak. Upon closer analysis it seems like strengthening it is best, so I recommend the play version; however, this makes it VERY strong in the Kingdoms where it is good. That's okay, because chapel is also VERY strong in the Kingdoms where it is good (pretty much all Kingdoms) -- it just means you can't price it at $5. Should be accessible at $3 and $4 for those reasons. It doesn't have to be +2 Cards, it could be a gainer even (keeps the theme of Retrieving cards, and also self-synergizes with trash for benefits that like Retriever)

If you want to keep the discard version, then I strongly believe the stuff above the line should be able to trigger the stuff below the line. That way the power doesn't vary so wildly in Kingdoms. If the top half is "+2 cards, you may discard two cards for +1$" or "Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put one in your hand and trash or discard the other," then every kingdom can make use of its bottom half.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2021, 12:33:35 am by anordinaryman »
Logged

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #69 on: March 03, 2021, 12:54:48 am »
0

Here is my second attempt at a card:


It's a smithy, except it gets you one extra card this turn and one fewer card next turn. Playing multiple of them per turn is probably the best way to go (only 1 -1 card token)
Hey, could someone pls give me feedback on my card?
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #70 on: March 03, 2021, 02:20:05 am »
+1

Here is my second attempt at a card:


It's a smithy, except it gets you one extra card this turn and one fewer card next turn. Playing multiple of them per turn is probably the best way to go (only 1 -1 card token)
Hey, could someone pls give me feedback on my card?
I feel like it's too powerful compared to other $5 Smithy variants, especially since you only get the debuff once and all other plays are Hunting Grounds. But I might be mistaken; the fact that this always reduces your starting handsize is a significant problem for consistency. I'd need to see how this plays.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

gambit05

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
  • Respect: +495
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #71 on: March 03, 2021, 02:38:44 am »
+2

Here is my second attempt at a card:


It's a smithy, except it gets you one extra card this turn and one fewer card next turn. Playing multiple of them per turn is probably the best way to go (only 1 -1 card token)
Hey, could someone pls give me feedback on my card?

I think the cost of $5 is okay. For an efficient engine, I would rather buy Hunting Grounds for $6 than this card.

Token shouldn't be capitalized.
From an aesthetic point of view, I would introduce spaces above and below the line.

A suggestion for a name: Trapper.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2021, 02:41:02 am by gambit05 »
Logged

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #72 on: March 03, 2021, 12:16:22 pm »
0

Here is my second attempt at a card:


It's a smithy, except it gets you one extra card this turn and one fewer card next turn. Playing multiple of them per turn is probably the best way to go (only 1 -1 card token)
Hey, could someone pls give me feedback on my card?
I feel like it's too powerful compared to other $5 Smithy variants, especially since you only get the debuff once and all other plays are Hunting Grounds. But I might be mistaken; the fact that this always reduces your starting handsize is a significant problem for consistency. I'd need to see how this plays.

I'm leaning on the too powerful side, although I agree with you that one would have to see how it plays IRL.  While the -1 Card token can hinder consistency in some engines, it's less of an issue if you have Draw-to-X cards in your deck. 
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1450
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #73 on: March 03, 2021, 01:03:47 pm »
+1

Here is my second attempt at a card:


It's a smithy, except it gets you one extra card this turn and one fewer card next turn. Playing multiple of them per turn is probably the best way to go (only 1 -1 card token)
Hey, could someone pls give me feedback on my card?

What I find most interesting about this card is it's potential as an alternative defense to handsize attacks like Militia. Since this draws dead (absent a village), the -1 Card token is frequently going to come off the deck during Clean-up, meaning you will have a 4 card hand. If you then have to discard down to a number, you are already one card in that direction, and the reduced hand size is mitigate by having a powerful drawing card.
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.

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
« Reply #74 on: March 03, 2021, 09:56:53 pm »
+4

Here is my second attempt at a card:


It's a smithy, except it gets you one extra card this turn and one fewer card next turn. Playing multiple of them per turn is probably the best way to go (only 1 -1 card token)
Hey, could someone pls give me feedback on my card?
I feel like it's too powerful compared to other $5 Smithy variants, especially since you only get the debuff once and all other plays are Hunting Grounds. But I might be mistaken; the fact that this always reduces your starting handsize is a significant problem for consistency. I'd need to see how this plays.

I'm leaning on the too powerful side, although I agree with you that one would have to see how it plays IRL.  While the -1 Card token can hinder consistency in some engines, it's less of an issue if you have Draw-to-X cards in your deck. 

Some simulations comparing the card to smithy and hunting grounds.





Of course, there are ways to play around the downside this card gives compared to vanilla smithy. But this simulation indicates that the card is probably actually on the weaker end of $5 terminal draw.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All
 

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 22 queries.