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 #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!  (Read 5047 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MochaMoko

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
  • Shuffle iT Username: MochaMoko
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« on: August 04, 2021, 11:37:19 pm »
+6

WDC #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
Design a non-terminal Attack card.
For this week, ready your pitchforks and load your weapons, it’s Attack time!

Most Attacks in Dominion are terminal. That’s because many Attack effects may either take a long time to resolve or be extremely painful when stacked. Some just have other vanilla effects instead (think most Attacks that draw cards).
There are 10 non-terminal Attack piles if I’m counting correctly (Minion, Scrying Pool, Familiar, Urchin, Relic, Idol, Werewolf, Raider, Vampire, Coven), and a few asterisks in Cultist, Dame Molly, Sir Bailey, and Black Cat. I’ll just say that not all of these are cards you should look for for inspiration. I think Minion sucks (It even has a clause that prevents it from discarding too much, but I still think it’s too much). Scrying Pool doesn’t need the attack imo, Urchin is Urchin, and Familiar… well, I dunno. The later cards are a lot more of what I would like to see in a Dominion card. Donald X. is really good at making cards these days! Who woulda thunk it!

The nature of non-terminal cards is that you can play more of them much easier. Therefore, many non-terminal Attacks have a weaker effect or have an effect that doesn’t stack. Please take these considerations into account when making your card. Of course, you are free to do as you wish! Surprise me!

Clarifications:
・On non-terminality, if when it’s Attacking, it’s non-terminal, that’s a non-terminal Attack. So Werewolf for example counts, but if its options were switched (putting aside how horribly weak that would be), it would not.
・For what's non-terminal or not, we can argue on the specifics of what makes something non-terminal, but I don't feel like taking the time to describe the specifics. If it looks non-terminal to me, it's non-terminal. I'll tell you if your card doesn't fit, and if enough people disagree, I'll relent on it.

The deadline will be in a week, midnight UTC of 12 August (end of Thursday), or 24 hours after I give the 24 hour warning, whichever comes later. Happy designing!

I’ll say this right now: I don’t particularly like many of the non-terminal Attacks in Dominion. Oppressive Attacks aren't really my cup of tea. Maybe I just don't like fun. In my opinion, this is a hard prompt. I do want to see more Attacks (that I like), though! So I’m excited to see what you all have to offer.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2021, 12:10:51 am by MochaMoko »
Logged

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1222
  • Respect: +1039
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2021, 11:53:17 pm »
+5





EDIT: Changed wording as per anordinaryman's suggestion.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2021, 12:34:42 pm by Gubump »
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 7353
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10348
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2021, 12:16:52 am »
+1

Are non-Supply cards allowed?
Logged

JW

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 835
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +1489
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2021, 12:41:08 am »
+1

Forest Witch

Action - Attack
+ and +1 Buy.
Take a Villager from the Forest Witch Supply pile. If you can’t, +1 Villager and each other player gains a Curse.
Setup: Put three Villagers per player on the Forest Witch Supply pile.
 
This is inspired by Coven. Cursers are less dominating if they don’t junk your deck right away. The symmetry of when it starts handing out curses means that it needs a reason why it should get bought by the first player to do so. But I also don’t want it to be an auto-buy. Updated from a previous contest with the power level reduced, because that version was judged to be too much of an auto-buy.
 
Flavor: I think of the Witch in Into the Woods stealing the baby Rapunzel. “Forest” also fits with the not-so-missed Woodcutter.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1740
  • Respect: +1492
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2021, 01:00:21 am »
+1

Hostile Village
Action - $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
The next time you play a card this turn, each other player with 5 or more cards in their hands discards a copy of it (or reveals a hand without it)
Logged

AJL828

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJL828
  • Respect: +106
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2021, 01:05:28 am »
0



Djinn
Action - Attack ($5)

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on their deck.

An attacking Peddler Variant. Quick to resolve, doesn't stack (usually, Council Room/Governor could kinda make it stack), no annoying opening swinginess. Hopefully that covers most things people hate about some of the official attacks :P


I’m withdrawing this card but I’ll be posting another card with the same name and picture in awhile when I’m home.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2021, 12:34:54 pm by AJL828 »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 7353
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10348
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2021, 01:23:17 am »
+5



Djinn
Action - Attack ($5)

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on their deck.

An attacking Peddler Variant. Quick to resolve, doesn't stack (usually, Council Room/Governor could kinda make it stack), no annoying opening swinginess. Hopefully that covers most things people hate about some of the official attacks :P

Isn't this just Relic, only it's a Peddler instead of a Silver, and at the same cost?
Logged

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1222
  • Respect: +1039
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2021, 01:27:20 am »
0



Djinn
Action - Attack ($5)

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on their deck.

An attacking Peddler Variant. Quick to resolve, doesn't stack (usually, Council Room/Governor could kinda make it stack), no annoying opening swinginess. Hopefully that covers most things people hate about some of the official attacks :P

Isn't this just Relic, only it's a Peddler instead of a Silver, and at the same cost?

Yes it is, and that comparison makes it clear that it's too strong.
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.

AJL828

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJL828
  • Respect: +106
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2021, 01:47:36 am »
0

I was kinda worried about it being too similar to Relic. I totally glossed over the Silver/Peddler comparison. I’ll resubmit something else when I have more time to think it over.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2021, 02:21:28 am by AJL828 »
Logged

MochaMoko

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
  • Shuffle iT Username: MochaMoko
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2021, 03:24:56 am »
0

Are non-Supply cards allowed?

Anything goes! As long as it includes a non-terminal Attack.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4286
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2021, 04:36:16 am »
+10


Quote
Raiding Village - $4
Action/Attack

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand and gains a Horse.
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

xyz123

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
  • Respect: +307
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2021, 04:52:11 am »
+1

Guard
$5
Action - Attack

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1

Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.



- Edit -
Changed from a Throne Room variant to a peddler variant following feedback that the can take a while to resolve when chaining the card for a Throne->Throne effect.
There is still a potential element of this to a lesser extent, but on that point I did want to create a card with a potentially stackable attack where subsequent plays have the potential to help opponents rather than hinder them. Personally, I do like Margrave for this reason and  I wanted to make an attack with a similar effect. I accept that some people might not like this though.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2021, 04:31:12 pm by xyz123 »
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4286
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2021, 05:00:16 am »
+1

Royal Guard
$5
Action - Attack

You may play an action card from your hand twice.
_______________________________________________________________
Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.
This seems like it is going to be very tedious to resolve when you do Royal Guard chains.
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

xyz123

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
  • Respect: +307
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2021, 05:40:09 am »
0

Royal Guard
$5
Action - Attack

You may play an action card from your hand twice.
_______________________________________________________________
Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.
This seems like it is going to be very tedious to resolve when you do Royal Guard chains.

I did consider that, but I don't think it will be much different to Margrave. They can end up being chained together for draw and that involves your opponents drawing and discarding cards. Margrave was actually one of the inspirations as one of the things I find interesting about it is that subsequent plays can end up helping rather than hindering your opponents. I wanted to achieve a similar effect.

-Edit-
Apologies, you might be right. Didn't consider that the Royal Guard-Royal Guard scenarios double the number of times it has to be resolved. I will have another think about it.
Thank you for the feedback.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2021, 05:54:28 am by xyz123 »
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4286
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2021, 05:55:42 am »
+1

Royal Guard
$5
Action - Attack

You may play an action card from your hand twice.
_______________________________________________________________
Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.
This seems like it is going to be very tedious to resolve when you do Royal Guard chains.

I did consider that, but I don't think it will be much different to Margrave. They can end up being chained together for draw and that involves your opponents drawing and discarding cards. Margrave was actually one of the inspirations as one of the things I find interesting about it is that subsequent plays can end up helping rather than hindering your opponents. I wanted to achieve a similar effect.
The issue comes mostly from Throne chains. Imagine the following plays:

Throne Room - Throne Room - Throne Room.
The last TR plays a card twice, then the second TR has another play left. All that I really need to remember is that I may play 3 cards twice now, and add +1 for each further throned TR.

Royal Guard - Royal Guard - Royal Guard.
So three times I attack, then I play a card twice, then I attack again, then I play another card twice, then I attack again, and finally the third card twice. Okay, slightly annoying, but if I just remember to do the attack after each double-play, it's fine.

Royal Guard - Royal Guard - Throne Room.
Okay, so 2 attacks, then the TR doesn't attack, then I guess now I play 2 cards twice without attacking in between, then I attack and then I play another card twice. Here it becomes really messy.

I see the comparison with Margrave. Honestly I already find the subsequent attacks on Margrave a bit annoying, but they are acceptable. Royal Guard is much worse because
1) you usually want to chain Thrones, meaning you get more total attacks out of 3 Royal Guards than you would out of 3 Margraves, see second example above.
2) the number of Margraves you want is often limited to however much you need to draw your deck. Also it's terminal, so you need support to play more than one already. However, Thrones you can never have enough of, meaning in the average game you will have a lot more Royal Guards than you would have Margraves.

EDIT: Wrote this before seeing you edit. Well, I'll leave it here in case it is helpful to others.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2021, 05:56:44 am by faust »
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

majiponi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 683
  • Respect: +593
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2021, 06:32:40 am »
0

Interest
cost $5 - Treasure - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one of those Treasures, and discards the rest. You may gain and play one of the trashed Treasures.


Strong Thief! It earns at least $2! Prepare not to be Thiefed your Interest!
« Last Edit: August 05, 2021, 06:39:49 am by majiponi »
Logged

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1149
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +933
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2021, 09:19:10 am »
+1


Quote
Pearl • $5 • Treasure - Attack - Doom
+ $2
If you have an odd number of Pearls in play, +1 Buy. Otherwise, choose a face up Hex for each other player to receive, turning it face down for the turn.
-
Setup: Set aside the Famine, Fear, and Haunting Hexes, face up

Idol-esque multiflavored handsize/topdeck attack, sort of in the style of Druid. Does the necromancer facedown thing because with a curser in the kingdom, picking Famine every time could result in a pin.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2021, 09:20:36 am by spineflu »
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4286
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2021, 10:09:09 am »
0

Idol-esque multiflavored handsize/topdeck attack, sort of in the style of Druid. Does the necromancer facedown thing because with a curser in the kingdom, picking Famine every time could result in a pin.
I find it hard to believe that you could effectively set up a Famine pin. Famine is by far the weakest option here anyways, and you'd need to play like 6+ Pearls each turn to set something up halfway reliably. If you're able to do that in a Curser game without trashing, you probably won anyway.

I don't think preventing that is worth the extra complexity.
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1149
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +933
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2021, 11:19:34 am »
0

Idol-esque multiflavored handsize/topdeck attack, sort of in the style of Druid. Does the necromancer facedown thing because with a curser in the kingdom, picking Famine every time could result in a pin.
I find it hard to believe that you could effectively set up a Famine pin. Famine is by far the weakest option here anyways, and you'd need to play like 6+ Pearls each turn to set something up halfway reliably. If you're able to do that in a Curser game without trashing, you probably won anyway.

I don't think preventing that is worth the extra complexity.

yeah idk. I wanted to do a sort of rondel/whatever you call the turn option mechanism in scythe but that was too much to fit on a card ("do a hex different than the last one you chose"?)

I think using each of those hexes in the order you choose is fine.
Logged

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1249
  • Respect: +753
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2021, 01:29:56 pm »
+6

Logged

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1222
  • Respect: +1039
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2021, 04:11:00 pm »
+1

Guard
$5
Action - Attack

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
_______________________________________________________________
Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.



- Edit -
Changed from a Throne Room variant to a peddler variant following feedback that the can take a while to resolve when chaining the card for a Throne->Throne effect.
There is still a potential element of this to a lesser extent, but on that point I did want to create a card with a potentially stackable attack where subsequent plays have the potential to help opponents rather than hinder them. Personally, I do like Margrave for this reason and  I wanted to make an attack with a similar effect. I accept that some people might not like this though.

This shouldn't have the dividing line. It's also an on-play effect.
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.

xyz123

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
  • Respect: +307
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2021, 04:32:14 pm »
0

Guard
$5
Action - Attack

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
_______________________________________________________________
Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.



- Edit -
Changed from a Throne Room variant to a peddler variant following feedback that the can take a while to resolve when chaining the card for a Throne->Throne effect.
There is still a potential element of this to a lesser extent, but on that point I did want to create a card with a potentially stackable attack where subsequent plays have the potential to help opponents rather than hinder them. Personally, I do like Margrave for this reason and  I wanted to make an attack with a similar effect. I accept that some people might not like this though.

This shouldn't have the dividing line. It's also an on-play effect.

Thanks. The dividing line was left behind from the previous version.
Logged

X-tra

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 326
  • Respect: +571
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2021, 05:26:57 pm »
+4

Logged

Aquila

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 471
  • Respect: +650
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2021, 05:31:38 pm »
+1

A money-oriented puzzler:

Quote
Appanage - Treasure Attack, $5 cost.
$2
Gold costs $1 less for the rest of the turn.
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a Treasure costing less than this (or reveals they can't).
When Treasures are the payload in a game, this makes swings and roundabouts. Gold looks tasty, but an opposing double-Appanage could see them discarded and/or you want to keep Coppers around to protect them (discards a Treasure costing less than 'this', i.e. Appanage normally at $5) and dilute your money density a bit doing so.
Could be doing a bit too much for $5, or a chance $5 opening with this could be too strong.
Logged

AJL828

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJL828
  • Respect: +106
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2021, 07:09:35 pm »
+2



Action - Attack - Duration ($5)
Djinn

+1 Card
+1 Action
Until your next turn, when any other player buys a card that they have a copy of in play, they gain a Curse.
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card.

(it has the same name and picture because I didn't wanna part with those, but it does a different thing now)

My two points of comparison for this were Caravan and Swamp Hag. Swamp Hag is a mediocre curser, and also costs $5. However I feel that since Caravan is already $4 and is almost certainly more useful than a next turn terminal gold, that the cursing on this attack should be a little more difficult. It can stack, but all cursing can be ignored by avoiding purchasing the wrong cards (which granted, does still slow you down).

At the very least, I hope this card is notably less irritating than Familiar is.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All
 

Page created in 0.09 seconds with 22 queries.