Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8  All

Author Topic: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenges #1 and #2!  (Read 63361 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #150 on: July 09, 2012, 03:54:34 pm »
0

I have a question about Soothsayer. Do the cards on your mat count for scoring purposes? And how would it interact with Trader and Watchtower?
#1 - Soothsayer by LastFootnote with 21 points (Proteus)
$4 - Action-Attack
+2 Cards
Each other player puts a Curse from the Supply on his Soothsayer mat.
--
In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase you may discard a Treasure from your hand. If you don't, gain all the cards on your Soothsayer mat.

The way I understand it, you don't immediately gain the curses, so they don't count towards your score until you choose to gain them. And, since they're in limbo on the mat, you can wait until you have Trader or Watchtower in hand to take the curses, but can't reveal either when Soothsayer is played. (But you can still play other reactions).

The Watchtower/Trader interaction you mentioned is correct, but I just realized that once you have Curses on your mat, you can reveal a Trader to gain a Silver for each one, and they all stay on your mat. I guess that's not the end of the world. Just don't buy Soothsayer when Trader is available, like you wouldn't buy Masquerade in a Possession game.

As for if they count toward scoring, I hadn't decided and when I submitted the card, I forgot to specify one or the other. I'll leave it up to the community to decide that when these cards get tweaked.

Why would you be able to reveal the Trader to get Silver on the mat? Your wording says that you put a curse on the mat. I would be inclined to say that on the mat they're in Limbo. You haven't yet gained them, so you can't reveal a Trader yet.

Basically, you can only gain a given card one time, so either you gain them when they move from the supply to the mat or you gain them when they move from the mat to your deck. The latter case is the one I'm inclined to support and only allows Watchtower/Trader to be revealed when they move to your deck. This would also imply that they don't count for score.

However, the first idea is also valid. That would mean that you could reveal Trader/Watchtower when the curses move from the supply to the mat, but not when they move to your deck. And that way, they would immediately count for score.

Yeah I think we need to be really really careful about the wording on the card though otherwise trader will break the game. I would be in favor of wording it like: Each other players gains a curse card, putting it on the mat. --- If you don't discard a treasure place cards on mat in discard.

I think that avoids the trader issues.

Logged

gman314

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 589
  • Respect: +281
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #151 on: July 09, 2012, 03:56:46 pm »
0

Yeah I think we need to be really really careful about the wording on the card though otherwise trader will break the game. I would be in favor of wording it like: Each other players gains a curse card, putting it on the mat. --- If you don't discard a treasure place cards on mat in discard.

I think that avoids the trader issues.

I'm getting sick of nested quotes! :D

That makes sense to me. Since you would gain the curses when they move from the supply to the mat, Trader wouldn't break the game.
Logged

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #152 on: July 09, 2012, 03:57:49 pm »
0

Yeah I think we need to be really really careful about the wording on the card though otherwise trader will break the game. I would be in favor of wording it like: Each other players gains a curse card, putting it on the mat. --- If you don't discard a treasure place cards on mat in discard.

I think that avoids the trader issues.

I'm getting sick of nested quotes! :D

That makes sense to me. Since you would gain the curses when they move from the supply to the mat, Trader wouldn't break the game.

And just for clarity sake and to preempt the blue dog comments, with that wording, when you reveal trader, the silver goes into your discard, and not on the mat.

And I love nested quotes.
Logged

gman314

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 589
  • Respect: +281
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #153 on: July 09, 2012, 04:00:58 pm »
0

And just for clarity sake and to preempt the blue dog comments, with that wording, when you reveal trader, the silver goes into your discard, and not on the mat.

And I love nested quotes.

I was thinking about making the same discard pile comment!
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #154 on: July 09, 2012, 04:08:48 pm »
0

The very low scores towards the bottom suggested some people did not use their 1 point "approval vote" at all.

Yes, but only a very few.  For Contest #1, a total of 208 votes were cast (counting 3-point and 2-point votes as a single vote), and 34 people voted, so that means people voted for an average of 6.12 cards apiece, over a range of 2-20.  (So nobody voted for just one card, although one person did vote for only one card in Contest #2.)
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #155 on: July 09, 2012, 04:12:31 pm »
0

Six seems low to me.
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #156 on: July 09, 2012, 04:13:25 pm »
0

Thanks everyone! I just found the results, and haven't read all the comments yet, but I can't wait to do so! Also, congrats to LastFootnote - I believe I gave you a big vote, so I'm happy to see you won the Curser contest!
Logged

gman314

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 589
  • Respect: +281
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #157 on: July 09, 2012, 04:16:47 pm »
0

Six seems low to me.
I made a point of not voting for more than 5 cards in each contest.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 04:21:28 pm by gman314 »
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #158 on: July 09, 2012, 04:28:14 pm »
0

I'll do my best to shut up
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #159 on: July 09, 2012, 04:46:28 pm »
+1

You don't have to shut up, but I'm not worried about the system based on the voting so far.  Not using the approval votes should be a valid option.  Yes, it would tend to increase the relative weight of your vote; on the other hand, it puts all your eggs in one basket, because if that one card doesn't make it, you have no further say whatsoever.  I think people are recognizing the downside there and are choosing to shore up their ballots with multiple choices.

Some further stats:  Between Challenges 1 and 2, a total of 68 sets of votes were received.  Just 4 of them, or a little under 6%, lacked an approval vote.  Furthermore, nobody submitted approval-vote-less ballots for both challenges.
Logged

andwilk

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 201
  • Respect: +152
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #160 on: July 10, 2012, 07:24:36 am »
0

Congrats to the two winners!  I'm am really happy that my pick for the Curser won!  It's a very unique card and would be interested to try that one out in a game sometime.  Although I like the concept of the Peddler-variant winner, I did not vote for it because I did not feel it met the criteria for entry.  Gaining a copper is in no way the same as +$1 on a card.  In fact, it's a mistake I've seen some beginner Dominion players make (i.e. gaining a copper when they play a Market).
Logged

Autumn

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #161 on: July 10, 2012, 07:55:55 am »
0

Disappointed by the low placement of Lucky Coin. For me it was the Peddler-variant suggestion which would most dramatically impact how we approach the kingdom, and it's just a really fascinating card generally.

Also, apparently I gave Luddites 3 of its 4 points. I just really love the sense of paranoia it would cause: do you buy from the untouched pile risking getting a curse in the process? The psychological effect sounds really interesting.

That said, I'm happy with the two winners. Congrats to those that designed them! :)
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #162 on: July 10, 2012, 10:05:47 am »
+4

Yeah I think we need to be really really careful about the wording on the card though otherwise trader will break the game. I would be in favor of wording it like: Each other players gains a curse card, putting it on the mat. --- If you don't discard a treasure place cards on mat in discard.

I think that avoids the trader issues.

I'm in favor of this idea, too.  Plus, if cards on the Soothsayer mat weren't added back into your deck at the end of the game, it would be the only such mat to do that, which seems weird.

I suggest this wording:

Soothsayer
$4 - Action-Attack
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse, putting it onto his Soothsayer mat.
--
In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase you may discard a Treasure from your hand. If you don't, place all of the cards on your Soothsayer mat into your discard pile.


Ramifications:

* The -1 point happens immediately, but the more problematic deck-clogging is postponed.
* If you want to reveal Trader, you must do so when the opponent plays Soothsayer, not on whatever buy phase of your own would cause you to put the mat cards into your discard pile.  If you do reveal Trader, you get a Silver in your discard pile instead of a Curse on your Soothsayer mat.  I like this timing better, because it requires you to have Trader at the right times, rather than purposely timing the mat-to-discard move to whenever you have your Trader in hand.

Should we add a clause saying "At the end of the game, put the cards on your Soothsayer mat into your deck," similar to Native Village and Island?  Seems like we should, but I didn't quite know where to put it.

Anyway, that's my vote, but I'm open to whatever people want.
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #163 on: July 10, 2012, 10:10:44 am »
0

Yeah I think we need to be really really careful about the wording on the card though otherwise trader will break the game. I would be in favor of wording it like: Each other players gains a curse card, putting it on the mat. --- If you don't discard a treasure place cards on mat in discard.

I think that avoids the trader issues.

I'm in favor of this idea, too.  Plus, if cards on the Soothsayer mat weren't added back into your deck at the end of the game, it would be the only such mat to do that, which seems weird.

I suggest this wording:

Soothsayer
$4 - Action-Attack
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse, putting it onto his Soothsayer mat.
--
In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase you may discard a Treasure from your hand. If you don't, place all of the cards on your Soothsayer mat into your discard pile.


+1 for this. I think it fixes all weird interactions, since the gaining is when Soothsayer is played, and not when you don't discard a Treasure.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #164 on: July 10, 2012, 10:31:25 am »
+2

If that's the route people want to go with the card, that's fine. I suggest this wording:

Soothsayer
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. Each other player gains a Curse, setting it aside on his Soothsayer mat.

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase you may discard a Treasure from your hand. If you don't, discard all cards on your mat. Return all set aside cards to your deck at the end of the game.

It's more concise, keeps the set-aside wording of Island and Native Village, and includes the clause to return the cards to your deck at end-game.

Also, thanks to everybody who voted for my card! I'm really glad so many people liked it.
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #165 on: July 10, 2012, 10:42:15 am »
0

If that's the route people want to go with the card, that's fine. I suggest this wording:

Soothsayer
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. Each other player gains a Curse, setting it aside on his Soothsayer mat.

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase you may discard a Treasure from your hand. If you don't, discard all cards on your mat. Return all set aside cards to your deck at the end of the game.

It's more concise, keeps the set-aside wording of Island and Native Village, and includes the clause to return the cards to your deck at end-game.

Also, thanks to everybody who voted for my card! I'm really glad so many people liked it.

I like this too. I'm more interested in the mechanic than the exact wording, so either of these are good to me.
Logged

chester

  • Ambassador
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
  • Respect: +21
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #166 on: July 11, 2012, 11:51:42 am »
+1

If that's the route people want to go with the card, that's fine. I suggest this wording:

Soothsayer
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. Each other player gains a Curse, setting it aside on his Soothsayer mat.

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase you may discard a Treasure from your hand. If you don't, discard all cards on your mat. Return all set aside cards to your deck at the end of the game.

It's more concise, keeps the set-aside wording of Island and Native Village, and includes the clause to return the cards to your deck at end-game.

Also, thanks to everybody who voted for my card! I'm really glad so many people liked it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the mechanic, but isn't this now like 99% as good as a regular witch, but it costs 4$?  The handed-out curses might miss a shuffle, but I can't imagine it's often a good idea to keep the curses on the mat for any appreciable length of time.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #167 on: July 11, 2012, 12:25:38 pm »
0

If that's the route people want to go with the card, that's fine. I suggest this wording:

Soothsayer
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. Each other player gains a Curse, setting it aside on his Soothsayer mat.

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase you may discard a Treasure from your hand. If you don't, discard all cards on your mat. Return all set aside cards to your deck at the end of the game.

It's more concise, keeps the set-aside wording of Island and Native Village, and includes the clause to return the cards to your deck at end-game.

Also, thanks to everybody who voted for my card! I'm really glad so many people liked it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the mechanic, but isn't this now like 99% as good as a regular witch, but it costs 4$?  The handed-out curses might miss a shuffle, but I can't imagine it's often a good idea to keep the curses on the mat for any appreciable length of time.
Deck clogging is much worse than the -1VP. If you are able to keep curses on the mat, that's huge.

Might be neat if instead of going into your discard, they went into your hand at the start if your turn. Then you could try to wait until you line up the curses with a trasher,
Logged

gman314

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 589
  • Respect: +281
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #168 on: July 11, 2012, 12:26:24 pm »
0

If that's the route people want to go with the card, that's fine. I suggest this wording:

Soothsayer
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. Each other player gains a Curse, setting it aside on his Soothsayer mat.

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase you may discard a Treasure from your hand. If you don't, discard all cards on your mat. Return all set aside cards to your deck at the end of the game.

It's more concise, keeps the set-aside wording of Island and Native Village, and includes the clause to return the cards to your deck at end-game.

Also, thanks to everybody who voted for my card! I'm really glad so many people liked it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the mechanic, but isn't this now like 99% as good as a regular witch, but it costs 4$?  The handed-out curses might miss a shuffle, but I can't imagine it's often a good idea to keep the curses on the mat for any appreciable length of time.

Well, it depends. If you can build a strategy with one treasure's worth of redundancy in it, you can keep yourself discarding that one treasure at the start of every buy phase and keep the curses from getting to you. If you hit $7 or $9, discard a copper and you can still buy a Gold or Province. And if you build an engine, just keep one copper sitting around. Assuming that this doesn't stop you from drawing your deck every turn, you'll be able to discard that copper to avoid the curses.

So, it's actually quite easy to build a deck which can cutpurse itself at the start of every buy phase while still hitting the magic numbers required.
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #169 on: July 11, 2012, 12:27:57 pm »
0

Deck clogging is much worse than the -1VP. If you are able to keep curses on the mat, that's huge.

Might be neat if instead of going into your discard, they went into your hand at the start if your turn. Then you could try to wait until you line up the curses with a trasher,

...but there is still that pseudo-cutpurse effect. being forced to discard a card every turn is not too effectively different from having a curse in the deck, arguably worse.
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #170 on: July 11, 2012, 01:09:47 pm »
0

Is the +2 Cards a main reason the card won? To me it seems like the curse-on-mat mechanic is, rather than being the "witch with choice," so could the draw bonus be modified slightly to better justify the $4 cost? Say, +1 Card +$1 or +$2 instead?

I agree, as is, this card is almost Witch and Witch is strong...

Or maybe, discard a card rather than discard a treasure?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2012, 01:10:52 pm by Polk5440 »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #171 on: July 11, 2012, 01:16:45 pm »
0

Deck clogging is much worse than the -1VP. If you are able to keep curses on the mat, that's huge.

Might be neat if instead of going into your discard, they went into your hand at the start if your turn. Then you could try to wait until you line up the curses with a trasher,

...but there is still that pseudo-cutpurse effect. being forced to discard a card every turn is not too effectively different from having a curse in the deck, arguably worse.

Hmm, good point.  Although it might be 1 treasure to keep 5 Curses at bay.  And you can choose not to give up the treasure.  It also doesn't hurt cycling, and it would only be the treasure that is affected.

With that in mind, maybe something like, "before your action phase ends, you may either put all cards on the mat into your hand or discard a treasure card from your hand."  That way, you have a chance to draw your deck to find your trasher, or to draw an extra treasure to discard.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #172 on: July 11, 2012, 01:46:47 pm »
0

Deck clogging is much worse than the -1VP. If you are able to keep curses on the mat, that's huge.

Might be neat if instead of going into your discard, they went into your hand at the start if your turn. Then you could try to wait until you line up the curses with a trasher,

...but there is still that pseudo-cutpurse effect. being forced to discard a card every turn is not too effectively different from having a curse in the deck, arguably worse.

Hmm, good point.  Although it might be 1 treasure to keep 5 Curses at bay.  And you can choose not to give up the treasure.  It also doesn't hurt cycling, and it would only be the treasure that is affected.

I guess it's a function of deck size, then.  If your deck has 25 cards in it, then in the absence of drawing, having to discard a treasure every turn -- meaning you're effectively playing with a 4-card hand -- is no different from having five Curses in your deck.  The question is what would be usual?  An engine deck drawing itself every turn benefits from the Soothsayer mat as soon as there are two Curses on it.  A Philosopher's Stone deck is probably better off taking all the Curses as they come in.

What about requiring the discard at the start of your turn (like the next-turn effects of Durations) and having the Curses go in hand if you don't Cutpurse yourself?  It's still just as strong on boards with no trashing, but quite a bit weaker otherwise.  I'd also be fine changing the vanilla bonus.

A simpler fix might be just to trash Curses on the mat at the end of the game.  I was initially arguing that they should return to the deck, but I think a good point has been made about how the treasure-discard requirement will hurt in a similar way as the deck clogging does.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #173 on: July 11, 2012, 01:51:14 pm »
0

Deck clogging is much worse than the -1VP. If you are able to keep curses on the mat, that's huge.

Might be neat if instead of going into your discard, they went into your hand at the start if your turn. Then you could try to wait until you line up the curses with a trasher,

...but there is still that pseudo-cutpurse effect. being forced to discard a card every turn is not too effectively different from having a curse in the deck, arguably worse.

Hmm, good point.  Although it might be 1 treasure to keep 5 Curses at bay.  And you can choose not to give up the treasure.  It also doesn't hurt cycling, and it would only be the treasure that is affected.

I guess it's a function of deck size, then.  If your deck has 25 cards in it, then in the absence of drawing, having to discard a treasure every turn -- meaning you're effectively playing with a 4-card hand -- is no different from having five Curses in your deck.  The question is what would be usual?  An engine deck drawing itself every turn benefits from the Soothsayer mat as soon as there are two Curses on it.  A Philosopher's Stone deck is probably better off taking all the Curses as they come in.

What about requiring the discard at the start of your turn (like the next-turn effects of Durations) and having the Curses go in hand if you don't Cutpurse yourself?  It's still just as strong on boards with no trashing, but quite a bit weaker otherwise.  I'd also be fine changing the vanilla bonus.

A simpler fix might be just to trash Curses on the mat at the end of the game.  I was initially arguing that they should return to the deck, but I think a good point has been made about how the treasure-discard requirement will hurt in a similar way as the deck clogging does.

I suggested "start of turn, gain in hand" above. :)

I've changed the suggestion to "during action phase, gain in hand" which makes the curser even weaker.  It gives the player a chance to draw to his trasher, or find an extra treasure, rather than needing the treasure in hand or hoping to be able to get to the trasher.
Logged

chester

  • Ambassador
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
  • Respect: +21
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #174 on: July 11, 2012, 02:29:03 pm »
0

One other idea:  Curses only come off the mat one at a time.  So you can control the deck-bloating a little more, and not be completely screwed over if you really need that extra coin on a single turn later in the game.  And you can still keep them all on the mat on an engine game.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8  All
 

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 21 queries.