Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show  (Read 6130 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mathdude

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #50 on: April 21, 2021, 02:29:05 pm »
0

My submission is a split pile (with the bottom card being the attack):

(updated versions explained here and here)
 

(older version)


(original versions)
 

Quote from: Clutter
$2 - Treasure
$1
+1 Buy
-
While this is in play, when you gain a card costing $3 or less, you may gain a copy of it.
Quote from: Cleaning
$5 - Night-Attack
Each other player reveals the top 3 cards of their deck and trashes a card costing up to $3 that you choose.  Choose one: gain a card costing up to $3 per Clutter you have in play; or gain a card from the trash.

Clutter can make a mess of your deck if you take too much advantage of its "while in play" effect.  However, there are many Village variants that it helps you gain quickly, as well as other $3 or even $2 cards (Lurker, Fool's Gold, Page, Peasant, Encampment).  The +1 Buy can make this gaining (of deck-cluttering cards) even more powerful, if you want.

Cleaning is generally a reference to cleaning out other players' decks, but it can also relate to dealing with your own clutter (in a positive way, though not getting rid of it).  If you can get 3 of the 5 Clutter cards, you can even use Cleaning to gain a Province or Platinum!  And while you can use Cleaning to steal Clutter from other players, they are also going to be trying to do the same from you.  The trash will usually have cards costing up to $3, but if you can match your Cleaning with even 2 Clutter cards, that can get you a Gold or other $5 or $6 card from the Supply instead of digging through the trash.

While designing these cards, I went through a number of different options, but my thought was a split pile, right from the start.  At first, Cleaning was going to be an Action-Duration-Attack, which stole from some set of cards when someone played them, but I couldn't find a good balance.  Then, Clutter was going to be an Action card with +1 Action, +$1, +1 Buy and the "while this is in play" clause, allowing Cleaning to be a Treasure-Attack (so Clutter is played before Cleaning).  Once I realized I could shift that Cleaning card to be Night-Attack instead, it was an easy switch to make Clutter a Treasure, allowing them to be played more reliably.

I was getting close to the current versions, but having troubles with them.  I briefly considered having Cleaning be its own 10-card pile, with Clutter becoming a non-Supply pile, likely with 20 or 30 cards.  Cleaning would look at other players' cards like now, but return any revealed Clutter cards to their pile; and it would have gained a Clutter as well as a card costing up to $2 or maybe $3 per Clutter you had in play.  Unfortunately, that forced gain could result in getting a Copper if you had no Clutter in play, and some decks would be able to gain Provinces too easily.  So I ended up back at the split pile, and added the choice for the gain, landing where the cards are now.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 12:17:06 pm by mathdude »
Logged
he/him

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1236
  • Respect: +1057
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #51 on: April 21, 2021, 03:34:05 pm »
+3

As worded, Clutter lets you gain the entire Village pile, since it both triggers on-gain and causes gaining.
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.

fika monster

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 245
  • Respect: +201
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #52 on: April 21, 2021, 03:39:11 pm »
0

new card submission



"Exile one copy of any trashed cards" needs clarification.  Are you Exiling the actual card from the Trash?  Are you Exiling a copy of it from the Supply (if there are any left)?  Is the "one copy" meant to say that if there are 3 Estates you only get 1?  Or is "one copy" meant to help clarify my earlier question, that it's actually a copy from the Supply rather than the actual card from the Trash - in which case, you should probably say "a copy"?

I think +2 Cards, and a forced trash for all other players (which, granted, may sometimes help them, but later in the game may also be quite harmful) with the option to Exile is probably already strong enough for $4.  I don't think it needs to let you play the Exiled card (let alone twice!)  That option for playing the card makes it very swingy and situational.

As with similar attacks, this can get very powerful in multi-player games (e.g. Pirate Ship more likely to succeed, Thief getting more cards), but that's part of the game.  But imagine someone having to choose between trashing a Silver or Duchy near the end of the game?  They either give you $4 this turn, or a swing of 6 points (they trash 3 points, you Exile 3 points).  If you do want to allow playing the Exiled card, I think once is plenty, and even then may require the card to go up to $5 instead of $4.

On another note - with Emulators (such as Command-type), they generally do not allow the play of Duration cards, for tracking issues.  I think that would be wise to include here, if you keep the option to play the Exiled card.  Especially tracking if Duration cards can be played twice would become troublesome if more than one were played (in 3+ player games), as the Throne Room (or variant) is usually set aside with it, but you can't easily do this with multiple cards.

Could playing a Night card during your Action phase have any unintended consequences? 

Aside from the fact that I don't think this card needs to even Play cards that were Exiled, yes, I think there could be some consequences.  Looking through the official Night cards - if we remove the ability to play Duration cards, I think that fixes some of the issues.  Here are my comments on how they are all effected:
  • Guardian - not too bad, but just need to remember that even when in Exile, is it played or just in Exile?
  • Monastery - in most cases, this would serve no purpose when played at this time
  • Changeling - this will usually not allow you to gain a copy of a Treasure anymore by playing it this way, but that's the way it is
  • Ghost Town, Cobbler, Den of Sin, Ghost - the only concern is tracking that these have been played, but remains in Exile instead of in Play
  • Night Watchman - this card may actually be stronger by allowing it to be played with Spoiled Heir
  • Devil's Workshop - this card is definitely stronger, as it will usually allow you to gain a Gold, then later you can still Buy a card this turn (normally, you have to choose not to Buy a card in order to gain the Gold)
  • Exorcist, Bat - functionally, I don't think these card are much different if played now in the Action phase instead of the Night phase, unless Fortress is in the Kingdom
  • Crypt - this card is practically useless when played in your Action phase, unless Storyteller or Black Market are in the Kingdom and even then it's weak
  • Vampire - in general, this probably doesn't affect much, unless you can still draw cards and have a near-empty Deck, then drawing the card you just gained with Vampire can be quite powerful, as well as possibly being able to draw your newly Exchanged Bat and getting it back to a Vampire the same turn
  • Werewolf - would you get a choice between playing the Action-ability or the Night-ability, since you can play either Type with Spoiled Heir, or would it default to only getting the +3 Cards since it is technically the Action phase?
  • Raider - this would force other players to Discard one of the Action cards you have in play, rather than potentially having an option to discard only a Copper if you would have played one of those (alternatively, it also doesn't give you the option of only playing Silver and Gold and hoping people have to discard one of those or a Raider)


 thank you for the detailed critique. ill give it some thought!
Logged

mxdata

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
  • Respect: +901
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #53 on: April 21, 2021, 04:35:45 pm »
0

As worded, Clutter lets you gain the entire Village pile, since it both triggers on-gain and causes gaining.

Or any $3 or less pile.  If you have two of those in play (or just one with some other +buy) with just $5 to spend, you can instantly three pile the game by buying, say, a Silver, a Copper, and an Estate, since you'd gain those entire piles

The obvious fix is to change it to "when you buy", but you could also potentially do something like "When you gain a card costing $3 or less other than with this ..." similar to how Sewer avoids mass-trashing
« Last Edit: April 21, 2021, 04:38:56 pm by mxdata »
Logged
They/them

mxdata

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
  • Respect: +901
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #54 on: April 21, 2021, 04:48:28 pm »
0

As worded, Clutter lets you gain the entire Village pile, since it both triggers on-gain and causes gaining.

Or any $3 or less pile.  If you have two of those in play (or just one with some other +buy) with just $5 to spend, you can instantly three pile the game by buying, say, a Silver, a Copper, and an Estate, since you'd gain those entire piles

The obvious fix is to change it to "when you buy", but you could also potentially do something like "When you gain a card costing $3 or less other than with this ..." similar to how Sewer avoids mass-trashing

Add cost reduction and you get really insane.  Imagine a Duke game, with two highways, one Clutter, $6 to spend, and some other +buy.  Pile out the Duchies *and* Dukes and end the game by emptying the Coppers pile with your last buy
Logged
They/them

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1002
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #55 on: April 21, 2021, 05:40:30 pm »
+2

Changing out my entry

Quote
Masterwork • $4 • Treasure - Attack
+$4
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a Treasure (or reveals they can't).

The player to your left may discard 2 more cards from their hand to gain this from you.

The stealing works in the opposite direction with this (if this still qualifies for the contest). The pile size for this is 5 cards - if you don't get one, wait til the player to your right plays theirs, then take it from them.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2021, 03:24:58 pm by spineflu »
Logged

mathdude

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #56 on: April 21, 2021, 07:04:26 pm »
+2

Ok, I get it. I get it.
When I'm next at a computer instead of on my phone, I'll change it to "when you gain a card costing $3 or less other than with Clutter..."
I don't want an on-buy effect because I want it to be able to trigger with a cheap gain from Cleaning. And "other than with this" wouldn't work if you have 2 Clutters in play, since the gain from one would trigger the other
Logged
he/him

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1746
  • Respect: +1507
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #57 on: April 21, 2021, 10:44:29 pm »
+1

Tyrant
Action/Attack - $5
Each other player with 5 or more cards on hand reveals a card from their hand. They either put it onto their deck and gain a Curse, or trash it (you choose).
Gain, onto your deck, either a Silver or a card from the trash costing up to $6.
Logged

fika monster

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 245
  • Respect: +201
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #58 on: April 22, 2021, 04:21:42 am »
0

new card submission



Edit: Removed the "play the exiled card" thing to make the card read simplier, and i think i clarafied that you exile the trashed cards.



edited the card
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3041
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4304
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #59 on: April 22, 2021, 05:06:48 am »
+1

Ok, I get it. I get it.
When I'm next at a computer instead of on my phone, I'll change it to "when you gain a card costing $3 or less other than with Clutter..."
I don't want an on-buy effect because I want it to be able to trigger with a cheap gain from Cleaning. And "other than with this" wouldn't work if you have 2 Clutters in play, since the gain from one would trigger the other
This wording can still drain the entire Experiment pile. Which granted, is not quite as big a problem, but worth keeping in mind.

I'm more generally worried about the power level of these cards. Clutter seems better than Talisman, a $4 cost, a lot of the time. I feel like even without the while-in-play effect, it would still be a decently strong (if boring) $2. Cleaning's blanket "gain a card from the trash" can be insane, especially since it's a Night, so you can go Salt the Earth - Cleaning. There's a reason that Rogue has a restriction.
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

Timinou

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 444
  • Respect: +543
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #60 on: April 22, 2021, 09:40:24 am »
+1

EDIT: Updated submission


Quote from: Original


I got some feedback on a few iterations of this on Discord and settled on this one.  Hijacker's attack is fairly weak early in the game as it actively helps your opponent by allowing them to trash Coppers and Estates; however, if they trash a Copper, then Hijacker will give you $5, similar to Death Cart.  Once players have thinned their decks, the attack becomes more brutal especially if you can stack two of these, but the payload will be weaker.  In the endgame, your opponent may want to trash more expensive cards to limit how much $ you gain.  Your opponents will generally be happy to trash Fortresses or Flag Bearers (or even Squires to be able to gain Hijackers), but I imagine this will be a fairly strong card in most kingdoms.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2021, 09:35:15 am by Timinou »
Logged

mathdude

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #61 on: April 22, 2021, 10:17:59 am »
0

Ok, I get it. I get it.
When I'm next at a computer instead of on my phone, I'll change it to "when you gain a card costing $3 or less other than with Clutter..."
I don't want an on-buy effect because I want it to be able to trigger with a cheap gain from Cleaning. And "other than with this" wouldn't work if you have 2 Clutters in play, since the gain from one would trigger the other
This wording can still drain the entire Experiment pile. Which granted, is not quite as big a problem, but worth keeping in mind.

I'm more generally worried about the power level of these cards. Clutter seems better than Talisman, a $4 cost, a lot of the time. I feel like even without the while-in-play effect, it would still be a decently strong (if boring) $2. Cleaning's blanket "gain a card from the trash" can be insane, especially since it's a Night, so you can go Salt the Earth - Cleaning. There's a reason that Rogue has a restriction.

Clutter comments - fair enough.  I wasn't aware of Experiment (I don't have Renaissance), but I had forgotten about Talisman.  I was tempted to switch to "when you buy" instead of "when you gain" to partly address these and other concerns, but I really want to keep the interaction between Clutter and Cleaning.  Instead, I have switched to allowing you to only gain a copy of each differently named card once.  I also raised the price to $3 in order to be closer to Talisman (which I think is very weak at $4), but only gaining cards up to $3 cost instead of $4 can allow Clutter to stay cheaper, I believe.



Following official wordings for each phrase made this very wordy (and text way too small): While this is in play, when you gain a card costing $3 or less that you have not already gained this turn, you may gain a copy of it if.  So I adapted some slightly less conventional text, to reduce the number of words used.

Cleaning - I've significantly changed the trash-gain to only allow you to gain what was trashed with this card (so basically only worthwhile if you have no Clutter in play).



(edit - updated again)
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 12:18:37 pm by mathdude »
Logged
he/him

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3041
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4304
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #62 on: April 22, 2021, 11:11:26 am »
0

Clutter is probably fine at $3. I think Cleaning needs to say "gain a card trashed by this from the trash", as gaining by default is from the supply. And if you argue that this can implicitly gain cards from elsewhere, you might end up in a situation where you're able to gain a Fortress from your opponent's hand.
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

mathdude

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #63 on: April 22, 2021, 12:16:08 pm »
0

Clutter is probably fine at $3. I think Cleaning needs to say "gain a card trashed by this from the trash", as gaining by default is from the supply. And if you argue that this can implicitly gain cards from elsewhere, you might end up in a situation where you're able to gain a Fortress from your opponent's hand.

Updated in my original submission post
Logged
he/him

Shael

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #64 on: April 22, 2021, 04:18:40 pm »
0

Glad that I've already made a card with this type of effect:

Don't hesitate to told me what you think about it.
(Edited)
I don’t get the point of the variable cost. Is this really stronger in 3P?
you have more choice about wich card you could keep so it's strictly better at 3P than at 2P
Glad that I've already made a card with this type of effect:
<Carnival>
Don't hesitate to told me what you think about it.
(Edited)

With the similarities to Masquerade, using the Pass mechanic, I don't know if this would actually be an Attack card.  I guess where Masquerade (if an Attack) could be almost useless/redundant if people use a Moat, this card does make sense to protect against with a Moat, so maybe it's okay.

Would this qualify?  Your opponents are losing cards, but they're also gaining cards, and likewise, you're both gaining and getting rid of cards, so in the end you're just redistributing cards, like Masquerade on steroids

The variable cost is quite an interesting twist

I know I'm not judging.  But it seems to me that even if your/their cards are all "replaced", there is still the concept of "steal" and "gain" here.

Passing two cards can be harsh and it could be particularly brutal if played after a handsize attack.

I agree.  There probably needs to be a restriction on who it affects - maybe "Each other player with 4 or more cards..."?  You could put it at 5, but Legionary already sets a precedent for a player's cards temporarily going down to 2, so I think 4 is okay.

My own additional comment... I think this card borders on a political attack.  Yes, it's attacking everyone.  But the option to give one person 2 Curses and a different person 2 Coppers does allow for directed attacks.  Any time that cards allow for a non-random effect that can harm/hurt a single player, it specifically deals with the person to the Left (or Right), rather than allowing a choice.
Yes, there is still some problem with this card, but the handsize thing is probably a good way to nerf it.
At the begining I though that Masquerade have also this types of problem (giving a player a certain card in order to encourage him to do things that will be interestng for you) but carnival do it too much. Randomise card seem too swingy so I probably have to think about it one more year...
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 04:26:43 pm by Shael »
Logged
¤ Post here your favorite fan-cards ¤ The Archive ¤ Witchcraft, a Potion & Exile themed Expansion ¤ Not so Soon ¤                                          

Xen3k

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 244
  • Respect: +256
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #65 on: April 22, 2021, 05:15:20 pm »
0



Quote
Corrupt Official - $5
Action - Attack
+3 Cards
Each player with 4 or more cards in hand Exiles a card from their hand.
You may trash this to have each other player pass to your hand, from their Exile, a non-Victory card of your choice.

Ok, second attempt. This is a quasi hand-size attack that can be beneficial to everyone as it allows players to exile junk from their deck. Later on it can be trashed to steal non-victory cards from other players exile area for a payload. I am not sure about the wording for the stealing part, but I used Masquerade as a framework for it. The scaling will be a bit strange for it when it comes to the number of players as the payload will be bigger with more players, but the likelihood of getting a large number of copper junking your deck is greater. I did have it only draw 2 card for a while but figured that, between allowing everyone to exile cards and the stealing ability being pretty tame, making it a Smithy variant would make it more appealing. Feedback is appreciated.

Edit: Bumped up cost to $5 per suggestion from mathdude.

Old Version
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 08:33:52 pm by Xen3k »
Logged

Jupaoqq

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #66 on: April 22, 2021, 06:41:35 pm »
0

Submission:



The Beast $4* Action/Attack
Choose one: +3 Cards or +$3.
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck. You may trash this. If you do, gain one of those cards costing up to $4 from each player. They discard the rest.
-
This costs $1 more per player.

(psly)
Logged

mathdude

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #67 on: April 22, 2021, 06:47:44 pm »
+1



Quote
Corrupt Official - $4
Action - Attack
+3 Cards
Each player with 4 or more cards in hand Exiles a card from their hand.
You may trash this to have each other player pass to your hand, from their Exile, a non-Victory card of your choice.

Ok, second attempt. This is a quasi hand-size attack that can be beneficial to everyone as it allows players to exile junk from their deck. Later on it can be trashed to steal non-victory cards from other players exile area for a payload. I am not sure about the wording for the stealing part, but I used Masquerade as a framework for it. The scaling will be a bit strange for it when it comes to the number of players as the payload will be bigger with more players, but the likelihood of getting a large number of copper junking your deck is greater. I did have it only draw 2 card for a while but figured that, between allowing everyone to exile cards and the stealing ability being pretty tame, making it a Smithy variant would make it more appealing. Feedback is appreciated.

At +3 cards, I think it needs to cost $5. The exiling can be positive or negative so let's call it neutral. But the same way mining village costs more than village, the additional trash ability means this has to cost more than smithy, I think. Scaling is a bit of an issue, but not too bad I think. Otherwise, I think this is a good use of both Exile and the Pass mechanic, combined into an attack.
Logged
he/him

Xen3k

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 244
  • Respect: +256
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #68 on: April 22, 2021, 08:29:43 pm »
0



Quote
Corrupt Official - $4
Action - Attack
+3 Cards
Each player with 4 or more cards in hand Exiles a card from their hand.
You may trash this to have each other player pass to your hand, from their Exile, a non-Victory card of your choice.

Ok, second attempt. This is a quasi hand-size attack that can be beneficial to everyone as it allows players to exile junk from their deck. Later on it can be trashed to steal non-victory cards from other players exile area for a payload. I am not sure about the wording for the stealing part, but I used Masquerade as a framework for it. The scaling will be a bit strange for it when it comes to the number of players as the payload will be bigger with more players, but the likelihood of getting a large number of copper junking your deck is greater. I did have it only draw 2 card for a while but figured that, between allowing everyone to exile cards and the stealing ability being pretty tame, making it a Smithy variant would make it more appealing. Feedback is appreciated.

At +3 cards, I think it needs to cost $5. The exiling can be positive or negative so let's call it neutral. But the same way mining village costs more than village, the additional trash ability means this has to cost more than smithy, I think. Scaling is a bit of an issue, but not too bad I think. Otherwise, I think this is a good use of both Exile and the Pass mechanic, combined into an attack.

Fair evaluation. Gonna bump up the price as suggested.
Logged

spheremonk

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
  • Respect: +163
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #69 on: April 23, 2021, 12:26:12 am »
+2



This is an interesting, creative concept; however, the card seems rather political in a very un-Dominion-like way: players pass you cards, then you give the Curses to the players you hate and the Silvers to the ones you like.
Logged

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1267
  • Respect: +768
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #70 on: April 23, 2021, 03:26:20 am »
0



This is an interesting, creative concept; however, the card seems rather political in a very un-Dominion-like way: players pass you cards, then you give the Curses to the players you hate and the Silvers to the ones you like.
Or you play rational, keep the good stuff, pass the worst junk to whoever leads and the other stuff to the other dudes and dudettes.
I don't see the issue. An interactive card that makes the game less solitaire-ish, makes you want to memorize hard who leads and enables you to hit whoever leads (to a very mild degree) is more of an asset than a liability.
Logged

spheremonk

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
  • Respect: +163
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #71 on: April 23, 2021, 04:36:39 am »
+1



This is an interesting, creative concept; however, the card seems rather political in a very un-Dominion-like way: players pass you cards, then you give the Curses to the players you hate and the Silvers to the ones you like.
Or you play rational, keep the good stuff, pass the worst junk to whoever leads and the other stuff to the other dudes and dudettes.
I don't see the issue. An interactive card that makes the game less solitaire-ish, makes you want to memorize hard who leads and enables you to hit whoever leads (to a very mild degree) is more of an asset than a liability.
Would that every game player, in every game, were as enlightened as you, segura – the world would be a much better place. As it is though, Dominion is intended to be as non-political as possible. Just read anything Donald X. has said on the subject. Interactive is awesome; political is not. Carnival is political. Every official card ever made is not. (Or as the master would say: “There are players who like to pick who to hose and, well, there are games out there that cater to them.”)
Logged

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1267
  • Respect: +768
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #72 on: April 23, 2021, 05:24:42 am »
0



This is an interesting, creative concept; however, the card seems rather political in a very un-Dominion-like way: players pass you cards, then you give the Curses to the players you hate and the Silvers to the ones you like.
Or you play rational, keep the good stuff, pass the worst junk to whoever leads and the other stuff to the other dudes and dudettes.
I don't see the issue. An interactive card that makes the game less solitaire-ish, makes you want to memorize hard who leads and enables you to hit whoever leads (to a very mild degree) is more of an asset than a liability.
Would that every game player, in every game, were as enlightened as you, segura – the world would be a much better place. As it is though, Dominion is intended to be as non-political as possible. Just read anything Donald X. has said on the subject. Interactive is awesome; political is not. Carnival is political. Every official card ever made is not. (Or as the master would say: “There are players who like to pick who to hose and, well, there are games out there that cater to them.”)
I am aware of DXV's distaste for "political" games. I never got that term. The games I like least are solitaire-ish, the games I like moderately are indirectly interactive (like Dominion, although I obviously like Dominion quite a lot) and the games I like most are highly interactive (when you feel like you are playing the players and not the game).

So yeah, that card is interactive, it gives you the option to hurt people to a very mild degree (I think this matters, it is not as if we talk e.g. about a Witch that gives you the option to give one player two Curses and the other none). But my argument is that this does not break the game but actually enhances it. The "non-politics" dogma isn't a fundamental design principle that you cannot violate like, don't do a Village+ for $3 or whatever, but more or less just a matter of taste.
Logged

majiponi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 684
  • Respect: +593
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #73 on: April 23, 2021, 12:43:10 pm »
+2

Lupin
cost $4 - Action - Attack
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest.  You play one of the trashed Treasure, leaving there; each time that would give you +$ this turn, you get +Coffer instead.


A thief you want to play early.  Instead of junking your deck, you get one-shot Coffer immediately.  Use it to earn $5 or $8!
« Last Edit: April 23, 2021, 12:47:11 pm by majiponi »
Logged

Timinou

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 444
  • Respect: +543
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #112: Steal the Show
« Reply #74 on: April 23, 2021, 02:41:02 pm »
+1

Lupin
cost $4 - Action - Attack
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest.  You play one of the trashed Treasure, leaving there; each time that would give you +$ this turn, you get +Coffer instead.


A thief you want to play early.  Instead of junking your deck, you get one-shot Coffer immediately.  Use it to earn $5 or $8!

This seems a lot better than Pirate Ship.  You can trash an opponent's Platinum and get +5 Coffers during the same turn that you attack, which is amazing.  Or you could trash an opponent's Bank after having a bunch of Treasures in play with Storyteller or Black Market and potentially get a lot more Coffers.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All
 

Page created in 0.219 seconds with 22 queries.