Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three  (Read 890 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 572
  • Respect: +281
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2022, 12:51:49 pm »
0

So I hear you want 3s, so I made a 3 and added a side of 3 and topped it with a 3. I was not satisfied so put more 3s on your 3s then added a few more 3s and just for good measure shoved in some extra 3s for you.


Quote
Tres Leches
$3@3
Victory
Worth 3% if you have exactly three of this (otherwise worth 0%).
-
When you gain this, choose three: +3 Coffers; or +3 Villagers; or Exile three Golds from the Supply; or Queue three Slivers from the Supply; or gain three Horses; or gain three Spoils. The choices must be different.

I really like your submission, but I feel it's kind of too good. Especially if you buy this turn 1, there is a high likelyhood of you ending up with 4 golds in your deck by turn 3/4 (by queuing silver, gaining spoils, exiling gold, then buying gold). Which forces everyone to pursue the same strategy, as having that much buying power this early on is just too much of an advantage
Imo you should lower the T1 buying incentive by either only being able to exile a dingle Gold, or just removing that option outright to stick with the "3" Theme.

If you buy this on turn 1 choosing Coffers and Gold (and any 3rd choice), you're actually guaranteed to have 4 Gold in your deck by the end of turn 4 by spending the Coffers with your first  $3+ hand in the second shuffle. (You'll usually already have them after T3, unless you've drawn all 3 Estates and 2 Coppers for T3.)

Even without the Gold option, the on-gain bonus seems very strong - e.g. choosing Coffers, Horses and Villagers means you effectively get an Experiment, a Ride and an instant-Acting Troupe put together (plus a green card) for just one buy and at most $3.
Logged

Lackar

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2022, 02:02:54 pm »
0

Does this seem not as aggressive and priced right?


Tbh I think it's kinda weak now. E.g, why would you want to use an action to trash a single copper, if every other player also gets to trash a card, and I also don't see how the +1 Card option is ever going to get chosen, unless you don't have a copper you want to trash.
Imo replacing +1Card with +1 buy or +2 crads might be better, alltgough +2 cards could be a little bit strong.
I like the extend use of Victory tokens in this newer Version, but other than that I don't really see a use for this card, because it can't thin your deck (and even helps your opponents), nor does it actually harm your opponents.
As it stands right now the play is probably to hope someone else buys it, that way you get to thin your deck a little, and spend your 5$ on more worthwile cards.

And btw I would put a "+" infront of the coin and victory token, and add the Doom typing to the card.


Something still feels off about this and to me is too much like the original bishop?
Logged

exfret

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +39
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2022, 02:33:08 pm »
0

Does something like this count? The only mechanical difference is that you evaluate your first choice completely before figuring out what your next choice will be (the turning face down makes it so that you still can't choose something multiple times). I thought this would be better in this situation than having to choose all the choices at the same time.













I can also create a version that follows the rules of this contest more strictly, although the card image generator isn't working for me right now so it'll have to be later. In case I don't get to it before the contest deadline, here is what it would look like (it is still an Action costing $5).

Logged

mathdude

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 187
  • Respect: +177
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2022, 02:38:15 pm »
0

I can also create a version that follows the rules of this contest more strictly, although the card image generator isn't working for me right now so it'll have to be later. In case I don't get to it before the contest deadline, here is what it would look like (it is still an Action costing $5).



If you do end up using this version of the card, I would recommend reordering the list, so it is more synergistic.  To my understanding, "choose cards" work by first choosing all the options, then by resolving them in the order they are listed on the card.

The final 3 options would likely prefer to be "look at top 5 cards", then "discard the top 3", then "look through discard and trash.  It's also possible you might want at least the first two of these to happen before the option to "+1 Card".
Logged
he/him

exfret

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +39
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2022, 02:47:15 pm »
0

I can also create a version that follows the rules of this contest more strictly, although the card image generator isn't working for me right now so it'll have to be later. In case I don't get to it before the contest deadline, here is what it would look like (it is still an Action costing $5).



If you do end up using this version of the card, I would recommend reordering the list, so it is more synergistic.  To my understanding, "choose cards" work by first choosing all the options, then by resolving them in the order they are listed on the card.

The final 3 options would likely prefer to be "look at top 5 cards", then "discard the top 3", then "look through discard and trash.  It's also possible you might want at least the first two of these to happen before the option to "+1 Card".

Huh, I thought you got to choose the order. Seems like that isn't the case though from the rules clarification for scrap. Yet another reason the first version is better (even if it is a little looser on fitting the contest requirements).
Logged

Meta

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
  • Respect: +29
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #55 on: January 13, 2022, 06:02:32 pm »
0


Quote from: Translation
Ghost Castle

Choose three:
Trash 2 Cards from your hand; +3 Cards, put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck;
+2 Cards; +1 Card; +1 Buy; +1 Coffers.
The choices must be different.

6$  Action


The most accurate translation of the cards name would probably be "Haunted Castle", but that name is already taken by an offical card.

The choices may seem confusing at first, but there is a lot of flexibility. E.g the card can be equivalent to Hunting Grounds (+4 Cards) or Tragic Hero (+3 Cards and +1 Buy), which is also the reason why the card costs 6.
Furthermore the trashing and coffers allow for situational plays.

The chosen actions must be followed in the order in which they are listed (similar to Scrap).
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1746
  • Respect: +1506
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #56 on: January 13, 2022, 09:09:47 pm »
+4

Swiss Village
Action - $4
Choose three (the choices must be different):
+1 Card; +1 Action; another +1 Action; +1 Buy; trash a Copper from your hand.

Rules clarification: After you choose, the options are performed in the order that they're written (so you can trash a Copper from your hand after drawing)

« Last Edit: January 15, 2022, 03:09:40 am by NoMoreFun »
Logged

exfret

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +39
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #57 on: January 13, 2022, 10:01:26 pm »
0


Quote from: Translation
Ghost Castle

Choose three:
Trash 2 Cards from your hand; +3 Cards, put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck;
+2 Cards; +1 Card; +1 Buy; +1 Coffers.
The choices must be different.

6$  Action


The most accurate translation of the cards name would probably be "Haunted Castle", but that name is already taken by an offical card.

The choices may seem confusing at first, but there is a lot of flexibility. E.g the card can be equivalent to Hunting Grounds (+4 Cards) or Tragic Hero (+3 Cards and +1 Buy), which is also the reason why the card costs 6.
Furthermore the trashing and coffers allow for situational plays.

The chosen actions must be followed in the order in which they are listed (similar to Scrap).

Note that this is strictly more powerful than a Hunting Grounds without the Duchy gain ability on trashing, because the +4 Cards is an option *in addition* to other choices you have. The other combinations of choices don't seem like much to write home about, but the flexibility plus the fact that this is Hunting Grounds at a minimum makes this too strong IMO. You could increase cost to $7 but I think generally it's better to decrease the power level than have a card with a really high cost. That being said, I can't see it being too broken, just seems like it would play like Wharf where you get it almost every game since it was balanced on the (much) stronger side.
Logged

exfret

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +39
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #58 on: January 13, 2022, 10:08:06 pm »
0

Swiss Village
Action - $4
Choose three (the choices must be different):
+1 Card; +1 Action; another +1 Action; +1 Buy; trash a Copper from your hand.

Rules clarification: After you choose, the options are performed in the order that they're written (so you can trash a Copper from your hand after drawing)

At first I thought this was strictly better than workers village without realizing you'd have to give up the +card. This seems pretty balanced and I like the flexibility. Have you tested how it plays at all? If not I'd be willing to test it out in tabletop simulator if you have that.
Logged

arowdok

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
  • Respect: +28
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2022, 12:44:42 am »
0

So I hear you want 3s, so I made a 3 and added a side of 3 and topped it with a 3. I was not satisfied so put more 3s on your 3s then added a few more 3s and just for good measure shoved in some extra 3s for you.


Quote
Tres Leches
$3@3
Victory
Worth 3% if you have exactly three of this (otherwise worth 0%).
-
When you gain this, choose three: +3 Coffers; or +3 Villagers; or Exile three Golds from the Supply; or Queue three Slivers from the Supply; or gain three Horses; or gain three Spoils. The choices must be different.

I really like your submission, but I feel it's kind of too good. Especially if you buy this turn 1, there is a high likelyhood of you ending up with 4 golds in your deck by turn 3/4 (by queuing silver, gaining spoils, exiling gold, then buying gold). Which forces everyone to pursue the same strategy, as having that much buying power this early on is just too much of an advantage
Imo you should lower the T1 buying incentive by either only being able to exile a dingle Gold, or just removing that option outright to stick with the "3" Theme.

If you buy this on turn 1 choosing Coffers and Gold (and any 3rd choice), you're actually guaranteed to have 4 Gold in your deck by the end of turn 4 by spending the Coffers with your first  $3+ hand in the second shuffle. (You'll usually already have them after T3, unless you've drawn all 3 Estates and 2 Coppers for T3.)

Even without the Gold option, the on-gain bonus seems very strong - e.g. choosing Coffers, Horses and Villagers means you effectively get an Experiment, a Ride and an instant-Acting Troupe put together (plus a green card) for just one buy and at most $3.

So here is my updated version, that removes the Exiling of Golds and Queueing of Sliver from the Supply as they seemed too pushed.

**Updated Version**v1.3

Quote
Tres Leches
$3@3
Victory
Worth 3% if you have exactly three of this (otherwise worth 0%).
-
When you gain this, choose three: +3 Coffers; or +3 Villagers; or Queue the top three cards of your deck; or gain three Horses; or gain three Spoils; or trash up to three cards from your hand. The choices must be different.

As far as being a mega version of an Experiment, a Ride and an instant-Acting Troupe put together. I think having a dead card (Green worth 0VP unless you commit more effort) in your deck is quite the downside so the on gain effect needs to be strong enough to make the card worth it.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 412
  • Respect: +577
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2022, 01:35:32 am »
+1

Does something like this count? The only mechanical difference is that you evaluate your first choice completely before figuring out what your next choice will be (the turning face down makes it so that you still can't choose something multiple times). I thought this would be better in this situation than having to choose all the choices at the same time.




I can also create a version that follows the rules of this contest more strictly, although the card image generator isn't working for me right now so it'll have to be later. In case I don't get to it before the contest deadline, here is what it would look like (it is still an Action costing $5).



Yes, the first version would count, since the player is choosing 3 things from what is effectively a list potential effects. The fact that you put each list item on a different card doesn't change what is happening.

It would also be acceptable to say something like "Choose 3, in any order: ..." (if you wanted to go with the second version).

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.

Meta

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
  • Respect: +29
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2022, 12:24:11 pm »
0


Quote from: Translation
Ghost Castle

Choose three:
Trash 2 Cards from your hand; +3 Cards, put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck;
+2 Cards; +1 Card; +1 Buy; +1 Coffers.
The choices must be different.

6$  Action


Note that this is strictly more powerful than a Hunting Grounds without the Duchy gain ability on trashing, because the +4 Cards is an option *in addition* to other choices you have. The other combinations of choices don't seem like much to write home about, but the flexibility plus the fact that this is Hunting Grounds at a minimum makes this too strong IMO. You could increase cost to $7 but I think generally it's better to decrease the power level than have a card with a really high cost. That being said, I can't see it being too broken, just seems like it would play like Wharf where you get it almost every game since it was balanced on the (much) stronger side.

Yes it's better than Hunting Grounds, but not strictly. Being able to trash it to gain a Province and a duchy with remodel is something you can't do with my card, so I have to disagree with you.
I would never increase the cost to $7 as that wouldn't be much fun with the current concept.
I also don't think the card is too good, as hunting grounds is in my opinion not worth the 6$, especially as it's not better than Wharf, which only costs 5$.
The only thing I would consider changing is making it so that if you "choose" +4 Cards, that you have to discard one afterwards.

But to be honest, I don't really like this card either.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2022, 12:26:07 pm by Meta »
Logged

exfret

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +39
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #62 on: January 15, 2022, 01:32:08 pm »
0


Quote from: Translation
Ghost Castle

Choose three:
Trash 2 Cards from your hand; +3 Cards, put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck;
+2 Cards; +1 Card; +1 Buy; +1 Coffers.
The choices must be different.

6$  Action


Note that this is strictly more powerful than a Hunting Grounds without the Duchy gain ability on trashing, because the +4 Cards is an option *in addition* to other choices you have. The other combinations of choices don't seem like much to write home about, but the flexibility plus the fact that this is Hunting Grounds at a minimum makes this too strong IMO. You could increase cost to $7 but I think generally it's better to decrease the power level than have a card with a really high cost. That being said, I can't see it being too broken, just seems like it would play like Wharf where you get it almost every game since it was balanced on the (much) stronger side.

Yes it's better than Hunting Grounds, but not strictly. Being able to trash it to gain a Province and a duchy with remodel is something you can't do with my card, so I have to disagree with you.
I would never increase the cost to $7 as that wouldn't be much fun with the current concept.
I also don't think the card is too good, as hunting grounds is in my opinion not worth the 6$, especially as it's not better than Wharf, which only costs 5$.
The only thing I would consider changing is making it so that if you "choose" +4 Cards, that you have to discard one afterwards.

But to be honest, I don't really like this card either.

Hunting grounds is definitely a solid $6. You shouldnít compare to wharf, since wharf is just a $6 card that Donald decided to make cost $5 for some reason. I also donít think getting rid of a strong engine component in rare cases to snag a duchy at the end of the game is super strong. But, like I said, itís still a six cost. Just would be sad next to hunting grounds.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All
 

Page created in 0.088 seconds with 22 queries.