Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jakav]

Hello everyone,

This week’s contest is about things that happen when you have a certain amount of tokens, outcomes. Outcomes are similar to events, except they are resolved by a card being played, and not by something being bought. When outcomes are resolved, they are always left where they are, and are resolved similar to actions. Specifically, this week’s challenge is to make a card, and a corresponding outcome. The actions that give outcomes will also give a token or something else to keep track of progress toward the outcome, which may be obtained multiple times.

Play is the keyword that resolves an outcome. Here is an example of an Action Outcome pair:



The custom color for Outcomes is 0.7, 1.25, 1.35.

Cards will be judged based on:

• How much I like the card personally
• How balanced it is
• How it stands up to official cards
• How well it uses the mechanic
• And how much it keeps wordiness and complexity down

Submissions will be due midnight, February 6th, forum time.

Edit:

The new contest is to instead make a card that uses tokens to keep track of something, using them for a different reason than originally intended. You can use the old contest and entries made before this edit will still be accepted.

[Freddy10]

What is the difference between "play the factory" and "gain four cards costing up to $4"?

[grrgrrgrr]

Mmm, this also looks pretty similar to the mechanic of the upcoming expansion (the one that had been leaked by accident)

[jakav]

What is the difference between "play the factory" and "gain four cards costing up to $4"?

The difference is that the Factory is abstracted away from Worker. This allows for more complexity, one card could use two outcomes. The example very simple, so that there is basically no difference, but the difference magnifies the more complexity comes in. An outcome could play another outcome. It allows for more intricate arrangements that would either be too complicated fit on one card, or would not be easy to understand if they were on that card. It lets you keep of track things better, and allows for interesting things to happen that would be impossible with a single action. It can look better and be more interesting to play with. If you want, you can make small changes to the mechanic.

[Xen3k]

Ok, took a crack at making something complicated enough to justify the separate card. I couldn't use a landscape card for what I was trying to do, and the Outcome card is double sided. Overall it is way too convoluted to be really practical to play with, but it does do something interesting.

[spineflu]

There are no tracking issues that can be automatically better solved by a landscape.

right, that's why Deluded and Envious don't exist, and were printed directly on their Hex instead

[mathdude]

What is the difference between "play the factory" and "gain four cards costing up to $4"?

I definitely see this as a deterrent to designing Outcomes and cards that use them.  But I also get that due to complexity, interaction, tracking, and possibly other reasons, there could still be some design space for them.

I wonder if some mechanical changes might make Outcomes a little more Dominion-y, and less like "let's put this text on a different card-like-thing" - maybe giving it a little more purpose.

What if Outcomes were a stack of Landscapes available to you - all similar power level to each other like Boons or Ways, but obviously much stronger than each of those.  But unlike WELPs that are randomly chosen to be part of a game, they are triggered more like Boons.  If a card that uses them is in the game, then you take one random Outcome to include in the game (regardless of how many cards use Outcomes).

Then on any designed card, you would give out a type of token (coffers, villagers, whatever), have the option to spend them, and use the wording "play the Outcome" (rather than "play the Factory").  Thus, the function of cards that trigger Outcomes differ from one game to another, rather than always being tied to the same Outcome.

Just putting it out there as a thought.  It makes the Outcomes more of a mechanic, rather than a way to put more text on (off) a card.

[mathdude]

I guess from a completely different perspective, going back to "basics" - the contest could also just be converted to the Fan Mechanic of "spending tokens for something different than their original purpose".  Rather than having Outcome "cards", we could actually put the text right on the original card.  But it's still a new mechanic, since it allows tokens to do something new.  Like the OP, giving out Villagers, which could instead be used as gainers if you accumulate enough (NOTE - it looks like the OP has had the example cards go missing).  Or have a card give out Coffers, but if you accumulate enough they can give you something else other than coins.

[spineflu]

(NOTE - it looks like the OP has had the example cards go missing)

trello's having network trouble today, expect it to be sporadic for a minute

[spineflu]

Causeway • $3* • Action
If you have 3 or more Causeways in play, you may return this to the supply to play Marshland; If you didn't, cards cost $1 less this turn, and you may play a Causeway from your hand.
-
This costs $1 more for each token on Marshland. When you buy this, add a token on Marshland.

Marshland • Outcome
+1 Buy per token here, then remove a token from this.

[jakav]

I guess from a completely different perspective, going back to "basics" - the contest could also just be converted to the Fan Mechanic of "spending tokens for something different than their original purpose".

Next time, I will spend more time making sure my mechanic works well. This would actually work well. I will update the OP for future entries, leaving the two that have already been submitted as they are, though spineflu and Xen3k could submit something with the updated OP instead. segura makes a good point, outcomes are only useful for saving space on a card.

[emtzalex]

Here is the card I am submitting:

Currency • $5 • Treasure $2 Choose one to play: Exchange; or Staff; or Recruit; or Fund; or Option; or Put; or Tithe.

And here are the 7 Outcomes I designed to go with it.

Exchange • Outcome Pay any amount of $ and +2 Coffers per $3 paid (round down).	Staff • Outcome Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers. +2 Villagers per 3 tokens removed (round down).	Recruit • Outcome Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers. Gain an Action card costing up to $1 per token removed. Set it aside. If you did, play it.
Fund • Outcome Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers. Gain a Treasure card to your hand costing up to $1 per token removed.	Option • Outcome Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers. +1 Buy per token removed.
Put • Outcome Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers and Villagers. Gain a Victory card costing up to $1 per Coffers removed and Freeze it 2 times per Villager removed.	Tithe • Outcome Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers. +1 Worshipper per 3 tokens removed (round down).

This is an interesting challenge. As has already been pointed out, there is nothing that an Outcome could do that could not technically be done with wording on the card itself. However, that is arguably true of a number of these fan mechanics. For example, the cards using the Aquatic mechanic initially had text explaining how they work (which technically could have just been put on without adding the type). Similarly, the cards with the Level mechanic could have all just said "When you Buy this, instead of gaining it you may put one of your Level tokens on its pile." Thus, (imo) there is nothing inherently wrong with a mechanic having the effect of de-complicating wording.

However, putting it to optimal use is a bit of a challenge. The obvious play is to park more text than you could fit on a card, especially where you might want to do things multiple times or in different orders. However, this can quickly lead to an excessive amount of complexity. To me, what made the most sense was to use the mechanic to give a bunch of simple but wordy options, in a place where there is not a lot of room on a card.

One place where I have been frequently annoyed by the lack of space to do things is on Treasure cards that give a fixed amount of $. The symbol for the amount is huge, leaving only a few line beneath to add text. I sometimes try to get around this by making the payload conditional or optional or otherwise within the text, so it turns into the much smaller "+$X" but sometimes that is not what I want to do mechanically.

Thus, I came up with Currency. A $5 Silver plus, the more contemporary-sounding Currency allows the player to make a number of more advanced economic moves, each in the form of an Outcome. They can turn their $ into Coffers with Exchange (albeit at a less-than-optimal exchange rate), or use their Coffers (either from previous plays of Currency or from other sources) in a variety of beneficial ways. One of the Outcomes, Put, uses the Freeze mechanic from Week 9, while Tithe uses the Worshipper mechanic from Week 1.

While there are seven different Outcomes, each resolves fairly simply, so the overall operation is not too complicated (I hope). Exchange turns Coins into Coffers; Staff, Option, and Tithe turn Coffers into Villagers, Buys, and Worshippers, respectively; and Recruit, Fund, and Put each allow the player to use Coffers to gain a card in a way that is beneficial based on that card's type.

[spineflu]

This is an interesting challenge. As has already been pointed out, there is nothing that an Outcome could do that could not technically be done with wording on the card itself. However, that is arguably true of a number of these fan mechanics. For example, the cards using the Aquatic mechanic initially had text explaining how they work (which technically could have just been put on without adding the type). Similarly, the cards with the Level mechanic could have all just said "When you Buy this, instead of gaining it you may put one of your Level tokens on its pile." Thus, (imo) there is nothing inherently wrong with a mechanic having the effect of de-complicating wording.

This, but also check out the history of certain keywords in MtG - they exist prior to the keyword's existence. Ward, that one is new within the last two or three years, but mechanically it was showing up for a decade-plus beforehand.
Even stuff like the various flavors of "set aside" like island, exile, and tavern/reserve mats; some cards behave either very similarly or the exact same if miser used the island mat, for instance. If there was a keyword for what hostelry does, it would be mechanically very close to overpay. Provided the necessary concept can be abstracted out sufficiently to a single "mechanic", it should be fair game in these, regardless of whether the concept was done before in a WDC or existing expansion.

That is to say, I think it's fine that this could be done another way; it's on us as implementors of the mechanic to figure out a way to use it that couldn't be or would be onerous to do a different way.

[arowdok]

Edit:
The new contest is to instead make a card that uses tokens to keep track of something, using them for a different reason than originally intended. You can use the old contest and entries made before this edit will still be accepted.

So would Swashbuckler be an official card that would qualify for this updated contest?

[jakav]

Edit:
The new contest is to instead make a card that uses tokens to keep track of something, using them for a different reason than originally intended. You can use the old contest and entries made before this edit will still be accepted.

So would Swashbuckler be an official card that would qualify for this updated contest?

Yes, Swashbuckler would qualify. So would Butcher. I don't think there are any other official cards except those that would qualify, unless there is something in Allies. Really, all the change does, is it allows for submissions without outcomes, as those are difficult to work with and can be unnecessary in many cases.

[nyxfulloftricks]

Customs
$4
Action
Choose one: Place an embargo token on any one supply pile; or you may trash a card from your hand. If you do, gain a card costing up to the cost of the trashed card plus $1. Cards gained with Customs cost $2 less per embargo token on their supply pile. (For the rest of the game, when a player buys a card from that pile, they gain a Curse.)

As I have had seaside on the brain from another weekly design contest, I wanted find a way to use those cool embargo tokens again. I would like to preface that I am not sure if there is a better way to word this card to make it clear, so in case it is unclear, these are my intentions: You can do either of the following on your turn. Add an embargo token to any supply pile, or you can trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to the cost of the trashed card plus $1. If the supply pile you have chosen has one or more embargo tokens on it, add $2 money per embargo token to the cost of the card that you may gain. For example, if there are already two embargo tokens on the silver pile and I trashed a copper, I can then gain a silver with Customs as it has made silver cost four less from the two embargo tokens when gained by customs. If anyone can think of a better way to word this, let me know!

[LibraryAdventurer]

Customs
$4
Action
Choose one: Place an embargo token on any one supply pile; or you may trash a card from your hand. If you do, gain a card costing up to the cost of the trashed card plus $1. Cards gained with Customs cost $2 less per embargo token on their supply pile. (For the rest of the game, when a player buys a card from that pile, they gain a Curse.)

As I have had seaside on the brain from another weekly design contest, I wanted find a way to use those cool embargo tokens again. I would like to preface that I am not sure if there is a better way to word this card to make it clear, so in case it is unclear, these are my intentions: You can do either of the following on your turn. Add an embargo token to any supply pile, or you can trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to the cost of the trashed card plus $1. If the supply pile you have chosen has one or more embargo tokens on it, add $2 money per embargo token to the cost of the card that you may gain. For example, if there are already two embargo tokens on the silver pile and I trashed a copper, I can then gain a silver with Customs as it has made silver cost four less from the two embargo tokens when gained by customs. If anyone can think of a better way to word this, let me know!

I would just remove the parenthetical and put it in the rulebook so the rest of the text won't have to be so small.

[arowdok]

Martyr
$4
Treasure - Attack
$2
When you play this, if your –1 Card token is on your deck, +1 Buy and +2 Coffers. Otherwise, each player (including you) puts their –1 Card token on their deck.

A strange self harm card that uses previous Martyrs for extra value, or other players' Martyrs. Also it slows everyone down in a strange way, which kind of the point of attack cards right? right?

[jakav]

24 Hour Warning

[Joxeft]

Martyr
$4
Treasure - Attack
$2
When you play this, if your –1 Card token is on your deck, +1 Buy and +2 Coffers. Otherwise, each player (including you) puts their –1 Card token on their deck.

A strange self harm card that uses previous Martyrs for extra value, or other players' Martyrs. Also it slows everyone down in a strange way, which kind of the point of attack cards right? right?

I don't think this qualifies, it does not check if you have a certain amount of Coffers, or use them for something else. It uses the -1 Card token for the intended purpose. Customs qualifies, but barely, only because it uses Embargo tokens for something else in addition to their original purpose, making it easier to gain with Customs. I will still judge the card, but it is not topical.

[nyxfulloftricks]

Martyr
$4
Treasure - Attack
$2
When you play this, if your –1 Card token is on your deck, +1 Buy and +2 Coffers. Otherwise, each player (including you) puts their –1 Card token on their deck.

A strange self harm card that uses previous Martyrs for extra value, or other players' Martyrs. Also it slows everyone down in a strange way, which kind of the point of attack cards right? right?

I don't think this qualifies, it does not check if you have a certain amount of Coffers, or use them for something else. It uses the -1 Card token for the intended purpose. Customs qualifies, but barely, only because it uses Embargo tokens for something else in addition to their original purpose, making it easier to gain with Customs. I will still judge the card, but it is not topical.

Judge would you agree that Customs "barely" qualifies? It's pretty much ripping the text off of butcher and using tokens for something besides their intended use?

[jakav]

Submissions Closed

Judge would you agree that Customs "barely" qualifies? It's pretty much ripping the text off of butcher and using tokens for something besides their intended use?

To clarify a few things:
1. My brother has recently made an account and I keep accidentally using it instead of mine.
2. This contest was intended to make use of Coffers, Villagers, Worshipers, etc. though I did not make this clear and there are better submissions because of it.
3. That post you (nyxfulloftricks) were referring to was actually by me (accidentally as Joxeft), though I did not explain what I thought clearly. What I meant was that it was not what I had intended, it completely qualifies and is an interesting card.

I really like the submissions that were given in this contest and I hope that I will be able to get judging done soon.

[jakav]

I just finished judging!

This is an interesting card. It is slightly convoluted, but it keeps the complexity manageable while providing some interesting effects. It uses the outcomes effectively and as they were originally intended. I like the way this works and it seems balanced, a very useful five to get early on but not overpowering. It would encourage big money, but not massively and would be good engine payload and a small amount of draw. Exotic Imports could be a landscape (assuming the text fits), and provides the fun effect of Gold gaining.

Currency • $5 • Treasure $2 Choose one to play: Exchange; or Staff; or Recruit; or Fund; or Option; or Put; or Tithe.

And here are the 7 Outcomes I designed to go with it.

Exchange • Outcome Pay any amount of $ and +2 Coffers per $3 paid (round down).	Staff • Outcome Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers. +2 Villagers per 3 tokens removed (round down).	Recruit • Outcome Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers. Gain an Action card costing up to $1 per token removed. Set it aside. If you did, play it.
Fund • Outcome Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers. Gain a Treasure card to your hand costing up to $1 per token removed.	Option • Outcome Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers. +1 Buy per token removed.
Put • Outcome Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers and Villagers. Gain a Victory card costing up to $1 per Coffers removed and Freeze it 2 times per Villager removed.	Tithe • Outcome Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers. +1 Worshipper per 3 tokens removed (round down).

A useful and versatile card, Currency provides a variety of effects, all of them having some use, but not a massive one. It provides a way to get Coffers to later exchange them for other effects and does the same with Villagers, though they are a bit expensive ($9 for only 4 villagers), which compares unfavorably to Acting Troupe. It does provide an extra use for them, and it is a Silver variant, but it does not look like it would be bought much. It does compare to Royal Seal well, but then there is Spices. Too many options!

Causeway • $3* • Action
If you have 3 or more Causeways in play, you may return this to the supply to play Marshland; If you didn't, cards cost $1 less this turn, and you may play a Causeway from your hand.
-
This costs $1 more for each token on Marshland. When you buy this, add a token on Marshland.

Marshland • Outcome
+1 Buy per token here, then remove a token from this.

A good source of +Buy for big turns, this card also provides cost reduction. It would be difficult but fun to play with and suffers from a large amount of text. It uses tokens in an interesting way, though it seems like it would not often be a choice to buy due to the cost. You would have to be playing all of your Causeways every turn as the cost reduction to always cost 3, and that does not happen very often, they would often be 4, or even more.

Customs
$4
Action
Choose one: Place an embargo token on any one supply pile; or you may trash a card from your hand. If you do, gain a card costing up to the cost of the trashed card plus $1. Cards gained with Customs cost $2 less per embargo token on their supply pile. (For the rest of the game, when a player buys a card from that pile, they gain a Curse.)

A card that places Embargo tokens, but does not provide other major benefits, this seems like something I would want to play with. It is interesting how it compares to Procession, and the benefit to Embargoed piles would not shut the pile off as much as Embargo does, providing some gaining. It does have more text than is usual, but it seems easy to follow, only doing three different things. It gives a good benefit to careful planning, and I like it.

Martyr
$4
Treasure - Attack
$2
When you play this, if your –1 Card token is on your deck, +1 Buy and +2 Coffers. Otherwise, each player (including you) puts their –1 Card token on their deck.

Seems like an interesting card to play with, but probably too powerful, if you make a chain of three of them you get more than enough money to buy a Province, in addition to some Coffers! The -1 Card token effect would make things harder for everyone, slowing the game down significantly. The fact that it is a treasure gives it some appeal. The idea does seem interesting though, and Treasure - Attack cards are uncommon.

Runner-Up: Customs by nyxfulloftricks

Winner:
Shady Dealer, by Xen3K

[Xen3k]

Thank you jakav for the challenge! I have an idea for the next challenge, but it will be a little bit for me to get it ready to post.