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 #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One  (Read 8869 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

grep

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 263
  • Respect: +365
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #50 on: May 12, 2021, 11:39:18 am »
0


Quote
Village of Secrets - Action Night, $4 cost.
If it's your Action phase, +1 Card and +2 Actions. Otherwise, you may play an Action card from your hand to gain a copy of it.

Is the interaction with Scepter, March and other Buy phase Action enablers intended? Werewolf is formulated in an opposite way: "If it's Night phase [...], otherwise [...]"
Logged

mxdata

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1086
  • Respect: +1214
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #51 on: May 12, 2021, 12:22:15 pm »
0


Quote
Rabbit
Action
$5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
If you have exactly 1 other Rabbit in play, gain a Rabbit.
This seems very reminiscent of this card from a previous contest:
EDIT: Updated Version


Quote from: Rabbit
$4 - Action-Reaction
+1 Card
+1 Action
If you have exactly 2 Rabbits in play, +$2 and gain a Rabbit.
-
When any player gains a Rabbit, you may return this from your hand to its pile for +2 Cards and +$1.

Oh, I'd forgotten about that one.  It's not exactly the same, but it's certainly similar.  Maybe I should withdraw this one then?
Logged
They/them

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +628
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #52 on: May 12, 2021, 01:44:00 pm »
+1


Oh, I'd forgotten about that one.  It's not exactly the same, but it's certainly similar.  Maybe I should withdraw this one then?

Other than the name and being Peddler variants that care about the number of copies of itself in play, I think they are quite different so I don't think you should withdraw it.  My version is really about the Reaction, IMO.
Logged

X-tra

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +936
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #53 on: May 12, 2021, 02:36:35 pm »
+9

Design of that one got some tweaks from the good folks on the Discord:



So, which head will you choose? The one that's a super-Village? Or perhaps the Smithy head? Or why not the Peddler head, it's always been reliable in the past.
Careful though. When you cut a Hydra's head, 2 more pops in its place. A courageous Knight smiting the Hydra will only multiply it in your deck, for instance.
Logged
Bottom text

fika monster

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +303
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #54 on: May 12, 2021, 02:46:09 pm »
+1

Third times the charm. This is my submission now

Jewelry is a 20 card supply pile, regardless of the numbers of players



A self gaining gold that hates having other copies of itself in its hand: Can give you a huge boost early on, but tank your deck if you aren't careful

edit 2:

Improved wording courtesy of crlundy



Edit 3:

Increased its cost to 4 so players cant double open with jewelry: Buffed it by adding an option to trash itself. Its now a 20 Card pile, similar to Rats
« Last Edit: May 13, 2021, 04:52:43 am by fika monster »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5119
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +2885
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #55 on: May 12, 2021, 03:09:33 pm »
+7

I had to read 'either choose all, or one three times' about five times before getting it. That may be just me, there's a lot of variety in how people parse weird grammar. But I really think "Choose one: +3 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +$3; or +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1." would be an improvement. It also fits on three lines.
Logged

fika monster

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +303
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #56 on: May 12, 2021, 03:10:51 pm »
0

I had to read 'either choose all, or one three times' about five times before getting it. That may be just me, there's a lot of variety in how people parse weird grammar. But I really think "Choose one: +3 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +$3; or +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1." would be an improvement. It also fits on three lines.

i think I agree here
Logged

Xen3k

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #57 on: May 12, 2021, 06:31:25 pm »
0



Quote
Irregulars - $3+
Action - Attack
+2 Cards
You may play an Irregulars from your hand to trash this. If you do, gain a Mercenary or 3 Silver. Otherwise, each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
----
When you buy this, you may overpay by $2 to gain an Irregulars.

I've been messing around with ideas for alternate ways to get a Mercenary. This is what I came up with. I had a version where you gain a Copper along with an Irregular in the overpay, but thought it may be too unappealing then. Not sure on what the power level for this is. Feedback is appreciated.

Edit: Changed wording so it actually functions as intended. Changed price to 3 and overpay is limited to allowing you to gain one additional copy at most. Bumped up Silver payout to 3 so getting more than two for a Merc is more appealing. Just realized this kinda behaves like Treasure Map.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2021, 06:03:19 pm by Xen3k »
Logged

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1152
  • Respect: +1017
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #58 on: May 13, 2021, 12:54:28 am »
+2

Design of that one got some tweaks from the good folks on the Discord:



So, which head will you choose? The one that's a super-Village? Or perhaps the Smithy head? Or why not the Peddler head, it's always been reliable in the past.
Careful though. When you cut a Hydra's head, 2 more pops in its place. A courageous Knight smiting the Hydra will only multiply it in your deck, for instance.
Not excited about the vanilla stuff but it is obvious very strong with Remodelers. I’d consider returning it to the Supply when it is trashed.
Logged

fika monster

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +303
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #59 on: May 13, 2021, 04:52:52 am »
0

Third times the charm. This is my submission now

Jewelry is a 20 card supply pile, regardless of the numbers of players



A self gaining gold that hates having other copies of itself in its hand: Can give you a huge boost early on, but tank your deck if you aren't careful

edit 2:

Improved wording courtesy of crlundy



Edit 3:

Increased its cost to 4 so players cant double open with jewelry: Buffed it by adding an option to trash itself. Its now a 20 Card pile, similar to Rats

Update
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
  • Respect: +371
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #60 on: May 13, 2021, 11:57:05 am »
+3


Quote
Locket - $4
Treasure

Gain a card costing up to $4. If it is an Action or Treasure that you have no copies of in play, play it.

Version history:

This one might give instructions to play Victory cards and Curses. That weirdness is avoided with the new, clumsier, wording.

I love the concept of this card. It seems a little too strong. Non-terminal workshop for $4 is a fairly strong 4. Making it a Treasure workshop for $4 is even better than that. And in early game (when you want workshops), it acts as a cantrip workshop where you draw a card you actually want to play.

I think a cost of $5 makes more sense here. You could add a $1 to it even.

If you want to keep it $4, I think you'd have to have to either restrict the clause to just action or treasure card auto-playing (where I think Action is more interesting). Alternatively, you could turn it into a terminal action. I do believe this is well-balanced as a terminal Action card and competes with other $4 gainers decently.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3209
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4743
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #61 on: May 13, 2021, 03:18:24 pm »
+2

I love the concept of this card. It seems a little too strong. Non-terminal workshop for $4 is a fairly strong 4. Making it a Treasure workshop for $4 is even better than that. And in early game (when you want workshops), it acts as a cantrip workshop where you draw a card you actually want to play.

I think a cost of $5 makes more sense here. You could add a $1 to it even.

If you want to keep it $4, I think you'd have to have to either restrict the clause to just action or treasure card auto-playing (where I think Action is more interesting). Alternatively, you could turn it into a terminal action. I do believe this is well-balanced as a terminal Action card and competes with other $4 gainers decently.
I don't think Treasure-Workshop is better than non-terminal Workshop, gains in your Action phase that you can still play the same turn more than make up for the threat of being drawn dead.

I'm also kind of unconvinced on your last paragraph. If this were a terminal Action for $4, I think it would be significantly stronger than the current version. The things you want to gain with Workshops are most of the time Cantrips anyways, and that would be very good with the card that you suggest, but it is kind of crappy on Locket.
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7467
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10648
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #62 on: May 13, 2021, 11:49:29 pm »
+12



Quote
Pier: Action, $4
+3 Cards
You may discard a non-Victory card to gain a copy of it.

A card that I had sitting around in my file. I got to test it yesterday with X-tra just as a sanity check to see if it was obviously broken.
Logged

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +628
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #63 on: May 14, 2021, 12:12:27 am »
+3

I really want to play with Pier and Village Green!  :D
Logged

gambit05

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
  • Respect: +494
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #64 on: May 14, 2021, 07:40:48 am »
+8

My Submission:

Update: With a more precise wording, without changing functionality

 
Scriptorium
$5 – Action
Quote

Gain an Action card costing
 up to $5. Each player
     (including you) may set aside     
 a copy of it from their hand
 and either plays it now or at
 the start of their next turn.




Original submission:

 
Scriptorium
$5 – Action
Quote

Gain an Action card costing
    up to $5. Each player may set   
 aside a copy of it from their
 hand and either plays it now
 or at the start of their turn.

« Last Edit: May 15, 2021, 08:02:02 am by gambit05 »
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
  • Respect: +371
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #65 on: May 14, 2021, 12:28:24 pm »
+1

I love the concept of this card. It seems a little too strong. Non-terminal workshop for $4 is a fairly strong 4. Making it a Treasure workshop for $4 is even better than that. And in early game (when you want workshops), it acts as a cantrip workshop where you draw a card you actually want to play.

I think a cost of $5 makes more sense here. You could add a $1 to it even.

If you want to keep it $4, I think you'd have to have to either restrict the clause to just action or treasure card auto-playing (where I think Action is more interesting). Alternatively, you could turn it into a terminal action. I do believe this is well-balanced as a terminal Action card and competes with other $4 gainers decently.
I don't think Treasure-Workshop is better than non-terminal Workshop, gains in your Action phase that you can still play the same turn more than make up for the threat of being drawn dead.

I'm also kind of unconvinced on your last paragraph. If this were a terminal Action for $4, I think it would be significantly stronger than the current version. The things you want to gain with Workshops are most of the time Cantrips anyways, and that would be very good with the card that you suggest, but it is kind of crappy on Locket.

To be honest, I didn't consider that (gaining in treasure phase is weaker). However, I think we can agree that accelerating your deck earlier on is much more powerful than later on, since the earlier you accelerate, the more you have time for those gains to compound. Early on, you use this to gain payload $4 costs (which are just as valuable to play in the Buy phase as they are in the Action phase), and earlier on, you don't have those in play so they get instant-played. It's just strong enough (in my opinion) to make the card less-fun. And later in the game, when you are drawing deck consistently, you can always use one as silver-gainer and just play it before other silvers.

You've convinced me that a $4 action doesn't actually solve this problem (especially since the action version is far more likely to activate the entire game, and the whole gaining cantrips thing). I agree that the action version is in fact even more over-powered.

This means we have to seek other ways to balance it. I think that a $5 cost version that produced 1 money would work just fine. You can also change it to only gain action cards, which would still be a strong 4, but would feel more balanced with other 4 gainers.

It's your card, and you're free to ignore my feedback of course.
Logged

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +628
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #66 on: May 14, 2021, 01:19:19 pm »
+3

EDIT: Revised submission:


Thanks to LastFootnote, gambit05, and emtzalex for their feedback.

Quote from: Original


Here's my submission for the week.  Scaffolding comes in a pile of 12 cards.

I've toyed around with a few versions, but it still feels a bit unrefined.  The idea behind Scaffolding is a temporary card in your deck that will help you gain additional cards to accelerate and improve your deck. 

If you play a Scaffolding and don't have any others in play, you could trash return it to the Supply to gain two $2-cost cards, which might be nice if there are good $2-cost cards like Pixies in the Kingdom.  If you already have a Scaffolding in play, you could play another Scaffolding and trash return it to the Supply to gain two cards costing up to $4 (including more Scaffoldings).  If you have two in play, you could play a third Scaffolding to trash return it to the Supply and gain two cards costing up to $6.  The duration-draw is primarily intended to help you find additional Scaffoldings in your deck, but could also provide some additional flexibility as the card might otherwise be a bit weak.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2021, 04:54:03 pm by Timinou »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7467
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10648
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #67 on: May 14, 2021, 01:22:45 pm »
+1

Here's my submission for the week.  Scaffolding comes in a pile of 12 cards.

I've toyed around with a few versions, but it still feels a bit unrefined.  The idea behind Scaffolding is a temporary card in your deck that will help you gain additional cards to accelerate and improve your deck.

Instead of having 12 in the pile, how about it returns itself to its pile instead of trashing itself? That's a recent change I made to a similar card of mine (a remodel that I was considering for this contest). Returning itself instead of trashing itself worked really well in my test game with it.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7467
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10648
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #68 on: May 14, 2021, 01:23:54 pm »
+1


My Submission:

 
Scriptorium
$5 – Action
Quote

Gain an Action card costing
    up to $5. Each player may set   
 aside a copy of it from their
 hand and either plays it now
 or at the start of their turn.


I like this, but I think it would be simpler if they just always played it at the start of their next turn.
Logged

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +628
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #69 on: May 14, 2021, 01:26:38 pm »
0

Here's my submission for the week.  Scaffolding comes in a pile of 12 cards.

I've toyed around with a few versions, but it still feels a bit unrefined.  The idea behind Scaffolding is a temporary card in your deck that will help you gain additional cards to accelerate and improve your deck.

Instead of having 12 in the pile, how about it returns itself to its pile instead of trashing itself? That's a recent change I made to a similar card of mine (a remodel that I was considering for this contest). Returning itself instead of trashing itself worked really well in my test game with it.

I had an earlier iteration that did precisely that, but I felt like it was too wordy.  That said, the earlier versions were cantrips so I needed to set it aside first and then return it during clean-up to prevent looping, but I don't know if setting aside would be necessary now that it is terminal.
Logged

gambit05

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
  • Respect: +494
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #70 on: May 14, 2021, 01:48:29 pm »
0


My Submission:

 
Scriptorium
$5 – Action
Quote

Gain an Action card costing
    up to $5. Each player may set   
 aside a copy of it from their
 hand and either plays it now
 or at the start of their turn.


I like this, but I think it would be simpler if they just always played it at the start of their next turn.

Thank you! Before I start to (hopefully) discuss the pros and cons of "now" and/or "next turn", I would like to cautiously ask whether you are aware that this is meant to be for "each player".

I just realized that I forgot the word "next".
Logged

gambit05

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
  • Respect: +494
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #71 on: May 14, 2021, 02:05:36 pm »
+1



Here's my submission for the week.  Scaffolding comes in a pile of 12 cards.

I've toyed around with a few versions, but it still feels a bit unrefined.  The idea behind Scaffolding is a temporary card in your deck that will help you gain additional cards to accelerate and improve your deck. 

If you play a Scaffolding and don't have any others in play, you could trash it to gain two $2-cost cards, which might be nice if there are good $2-cost cards like Pixies in the Kingdom.  If you already have a Scaffolding in play, you could play another Scaffolding and trash it to gain two cards costing up to $4 (including more Scaffoldings).  If you have two in play, you could play a third Scaffolding to trash it and gain two cards costing up to $6.  The duration-draw is primarily intended to help you find additional Scaffoldings in your deck, but could also provide some additional flexibility as the card might otherwise be a bit weak.

I also prefer to return it to the Supply. I don't think length is a problem. The last line of the current text just has one word in it. Also, I would change the order, i.e. the "next turn" option as the second option.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
  • Respect: +1179
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #72 on: May 14, 2021, 02:06:45 pm »
+2

If you play a Scaffolding and don't have any others in play, you could trash it to gain two $2-cost cards

No you couldn't, because the one Scaffolding would be in the trash, not in play. To work as you want it to, it would have to say "...or gain 2 non-Victory cards costing up to $2 per Scaffolding you have in play, then trash this." That would allow the card to be played without trashing using Command cards/Necromancer, but in those cases the copy of Scaffolding being played wouldn't be in play, so it would be weaker.
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.

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +628
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #73 on: May 14, 2021, 04:26:11 pm »
+1

If you play a Scaffolding and don't have any others in play, you could trash it to gain two $2-cost cards

No you couldn't, because the one Scaffolding would be in the trash, not in play. To work as you want it to, it would have to say "...or gain 2 non-Victory cards costing up to $2 per Scaffolding you have in play, then trash this." That would allow the card to be played without trashing using Command cards/Necromancer, but in those cases the copy of Scaffolding being played wouldn't be in play, so it would be weaker.

Ah, good catch!  I'll fix the wording, and I will likely go back to returning it to the supply rather than trashing.  So something like "gain 2 non-Victory cards costing up to $2 per Scaffolding you have in play, then return this to the Supply."
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7467
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10648
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #114: Two (or more) for the Price of One
« Reply #74 on: May 14, 2021, 06:45:08 pm »
+2

If you play a Scaffolding and don't have any others in play, you could trash it to gain two $2-cost cards

No you couldn't, because the one Scaffolding would be in the trash, not in play. To work as you want it to, it would have to say "...or gain 2 non-Victory cards costing up to $2 per Scaffolding you have in play, then trash this." That would allow the card to be played without trashing using Command cards/Necromancer, but in those cases the copy of Scaffolding being played wouldn't be in play, so it would be weaker.

Ah, good catch!  I'll fix the wording, and I will likely go back to returning it to the supply rather than trashing.  So something like "gain 2 non-Victory cards costing up to $2 per Scaffolding you have in play, then return this to the Supply."

“Gain two non-Victory cards, each costing up to $2 per Scaffolding you have in play, then return this to its pile." That's the wording I recommend.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2021, 07:30:41 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All
 

Page created in 0.103 seconds with 22 queries.