Print

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

[rinkworks]

While we're waiting for any last-minute entries for Part 1 to trickle in, here are the next two Challenges!  Like last week, I decided to go with one wide-open challenge and one narrow challenge.

--

Submission Rules

* Submit no more than one card per person per challenge.  You do not need to submit for all challenges if you don't want to, but of course you can't win if you don't compete.
* Submit your cards to me via this forum's messaging system.  Submissions made after each week's deadline cannot be accepted.
* Each card you submit must have a name, a cost, a list of types, and the exact wording that should appear on the card.  Also include a brief description of any special design considerations (e.g., Stash having a unique back), but do NOT include any other information, such as strategic commentary or examples about it would play.
* Although you must submit names for each of your cards, the names will not be listed on the voting ballots, so make sure your card's appeal does not depend on your choice of name.
* I will accept revisions to your contest entries provided they are submitted to me before the deadline.  If you submit a revision to an entry you have previously submitted to me, resubmit your revised card(s) in their entirety.  That is, don't tell me "Oh, can you make that +2 Cards say +3 Cards instead?"  Just resubmit the full card.
* Only submit cards that are your own design.
* You may submit cards that have been previously posted here in this forum, including those that have been refined by the community as a whole, provided you can still claim that the central conceit of the card -- and the majority of its final version -- is yours.  This applies to cards previously posted, however -- if your submissions aren't already posted on his board, please refrain from doing so until after the results have been announced.
* A single card might conceivably qualify for multiple challenges within this series.  However, you may not submit the same card for more than one challenge.
* Do not disclose your submissions publicly, either in this thread or elsewhere

--

The deadline for this week's challenges is Monday, July 9, at 8am EDT.

--

Challenge #3 - Victory Card

Objective: Design a Victory card.  The card cannot be a dual-type card -- that is, its one and only type must be "Victory."

Official Examples: Estate, Duchy, Province, Colony, Gardens, Duke, Vineyard, Fairgrounds, Silk Road, Farmland.

Official Non-Examples: Curse, because Curses are of type "Curse" not "Victory."  Great Hall, Nobles, Harem, Island, and Tunnel, because these are dual-type Victory cards.  Monument,  Bishop, and Goons, because although they award VPs they are not Victory cards.

--

Challenge #4 - Terminal Drawer

Objective: Design a card that adds cards to your hand and does not provide +Actions.  Each play of the card must add a minimum number of cards to your hand, based on the following:

(1) If the card gives you no control over what cards you add to your hand (e.g., "+3 Cards") then the card must add at least 3 cards to your hand (e.g., Smithy) or up to a total of 7 cards in hand.
(2) If the card gives you the ability to selectively add cards to your hand somehow, then the card must add at least 2 cards to your hand (e.g., Oracle) or up to a total of 6 cards in hand.
(3) If the card gives your opponents the ability to selectively add cards to your hand somehow, then the card must add at least 4 cards to your hand (e.g., Envoy) or up to a total of 8 cards in hand.
(4) In the case of Duration cards, cards drawn on the next turn (or on any turn other than the one where the card is played) do NOT count, as these cards are never drawn dead.

Note:  If a card also removes cards from your hand, you must subtract how many are removed from how many are added.  Thus, for the purposes of this challenge, Embassy only adds 2 cards to your hand, not 5.  However, the draw-then-discard mechanic can be considered selective drawing, and so it qualifies for this challenge under item (2) above.

Note 2:  Cards that only add cards to your hand conditionally are ineligible unless they can guarantee the required minimum.  But there is an exception here, too, which is that you may assume the player's deck is large enough to draw the required number of cards.  After all, even a Smithy will fail to draw 3 cards if there are no cards left in the player's deck!

Official Examples: (1) Smithy, Council Room, Torturer, Rabble, Margrave. (2) Adventurer, Library, Courtyard, Embassy, Oracle. (3) Envoy.

Official Non-Examples: Moat, because with no selectivity it needs to draw at least 3 cards.  Watchtower, because without selectivity "draw up to" cards must draw up to at least 7 cards in hand.  Jack of All Trades, because even drawing selectively it does not "draw up to" enough cards.  Hunting Party, because it awards +1 Action.  Wharf, because it only draws 2 Cards on the turn it is played.  Golem, because although it selectively pulls two cards from your deck, it puts them directly into play rather than into your hand.  Nobles, because it may be used for +Actions instead of the +3 Cards and therefore does not add cards to your hand every time it is played.

--

Ballots

Challenge #3 Entries
Challenge #4 Entries

--

Results

Challenge #3 Results
Challenge #4 Results

[Boldot]

What about cards like Library for Challenge #4? (draw up to 7 cards in hand)

[rinkworks]

What about cards like Library for Challenge #4? (draw up to 7 cards in hand)

Good question.  I'll add allowances for "up to" cards now....

[WanderingWinder]

What about cards like Library for Challenge #4? (draw up to 7 cards in hand)

Good question.  I'll add allowances for "up to" cards now....

As currently constituted, the 'Cards that only add cards to your hand conditionally are ineligible unless they can guarantee the required minimum.' seems to pretty explicitly disclude them. I am glad you are making the change - I feel there's a lot of room for these.

[Graystripe77]

Wow, these challenges are giving me GREAT ideas for my fan-expansion!

[eHalcyon]

Submitted a VP card idea!  Had one for a long time.  I actually sent a variation on it that would play very differently... wish I could submit both.

[Thisisnotasmile]

I'd like to request this is slowed to one challenge per week. With the amount of entries this is getting it's going to take me all week just to choose who I'm voting for for the last two challenges... and then on top of that I've got to create two more cards... and if we carry on at two challenges per week then from next week onwards we're getting discussion of previous winners on top of all that.

If other people disagree, I'm happy to be a bit wreckless with my voting, but there's no way I can give this all the attention it needs to do it properly with 2 challenges per week.

[rinkworks]

I'd like to request this is slowed to one challenge per week. With the amount of entries this is getting it's going to take me all week just to choose who I'm voting for for the last two challenges... and then on top of that I've got to create two more cards... and if we carry on at two challenges per week then from next week onwards we're getting discussion of previous winners on top of all that.

If other people disagree, I'm happy to be a bit wreckless with my voting, but there's no way I can give this all the attention it needs to do it properly with 2 challenges per week.

I'm open to that idea.  What do people think?

Another way to slow the pace down would be to issue two challenges at a time but not issue the NEXT two challenges until the voting period for the previous challenges is over.  That is, we'd alternate "submit cards" and "submit votes" weeks instead of having them overlap.

Anyway, chime in and let me know what you all want.  I'm happy to adjust the schedule if there is a rough consensus.

[Schneau]

I'm open to that idea.  What do people think?

Another way to slow the pace down would be to issue two challenges at a time but not issue the NEXT two challenges until the voting period for the previous challenges is over.  That is, we'd alternate "submit cards" and "submit votes" weeks instead of having them overlap.

Anyway, chime in and let me know what you all want.  I'm happy to adjust the schedule if there is a rough consensus.

I'm happy with however fast it goes, as long as it's no faster than it currently is. I'm just grateful that you're putting in so much time to organize this. It is a lot of fun and helps develop and exhibit a lot of good ideas!

[zxcvbn2]

I'd like to request this is slowed to one challenge per week. With the amount of entries this is getting it's going to take me all week just to choose who I'm voting for for the last two challenges... and then on top of that I've got to create two more cards... and if we carry on at two challenges per week then from next week onwards we're getting discussion of previous winners on top of all that.

If other people disagree, I'm happy to be a bit wreckless with my voting, but there's no way I can give this all the attention it needs to do it properly with 2 challenges per week.

I'm open to that idea.  What do people think?

Another way to slow the pace down would be to issue two challenges at a time but not issue the NEXT two challenges until the voting period for the previous challenges is over.  That is, we'd alternate "submit cards" and "submit votes" weeks instead of having them overlap.

Anyway, chime in and let me know what you all want.  I'm happy to adjust the schedule if there is a rough consensus.

I like this best. 1 week to submit, another week to vote. Though it may be a good idea to let everyone know the challenges during the voting week, but give us an extra week to submit the cards after voting is over. So you can choose to split your time up over those two weeks as you like. Plus, I think it might lessen the burden on you, rinkworks, as it'll give you more time to organize everything from week to week.

Whatever you decide, though, I'm happy with and will keep my eye on!

[LastFootnote]

I actually prefer the current system, which already seems slow to me. But if people want more time, I can't really begrudge them that. More time for thought should lead to better cards, after all!

[rbruba]

I'd prefer a week of entries and then the following week be voting/results, so that entries and voting are not overlapping. The contest as presented now seems a bit rushed and is something that would certainly still hold my interest if it was slowed down a bit.

Actually I think I'd prefer if instead of two new contests each week, there was just one. So the first week we would have just had one contest, then the 2nd week we'd have the voting/results for the first contest and opportunity to enter the 2nd contest. Essentially it cuts the work in half for all involved but each week there is still a new contest.

[jonts26]

I sort of like the current pace. Taking a full 2 weeks per 2 cards seems like a long time to me. It'll be like 2 months before we have the makings of a set. Maybe we could do non-overlapping but shorten the timeframe to like 4-5 days for creating/voting? Or maybe keep the full week but have 3 challenges at once instead? That seems like a lot though.

[Dubdubdubdub]

I'm also happy with the current pace.

I sort of like the current pace. Taking a full 2 weeks per 2 cards seems like a long time to me. It'll be like 2 months before we have the makings of a set. Maybe we could do non-overlapping but shorten the timeframe to like 4-5 days for creating/voting? Or maybe keep the full week but have 3 challenges at once instead? That seems like a lot though.

IMO, this is the best solution proposed so far.

[Schneau]

I sort of like the current pace. Taking a full 2 weeks per 2 cards seems like a long time to me. It'll be like 2 months before we have the makings of a set. Maybe we could do non-overlapping but shorten the timeframe to like 4-5 days for creating/voting? Or maybe keep the full week but have 3 challenges at once instead? That seems like a lot though.

If you have overlap, it's actually only 1 week for 2 cards, since each week 2 new cards will be voted in. I like at least a week for creation / voting no matter what, since any shorter may make it difficult for some people to enter, especially with summer vacations, etc.

[jonts26]

Maybe rinkworks could set up a poll? In the end, it's his choice of what to do, but a poll will give him a sense of what the community thinks.

[popsofctown]

well everything seems to have slowed down in the two threads so I guess the pace was not overly fast.

[jonts26]

And it's going to get crazy come tomorrow again. What about if the weeks were still full weeks but sort of offset from each other. Contest A runs sunday to sunday and Contest B runs thursday to thursday?

[Morgrim7]

What will the cards be judged by? Creativity? Balance?

[eHalcyon]

What will the cards be judged by? Creativity? Balance?

I think it was whatever criteria the public wants to use.

[andwilk]

I like the current pace.

[rinkworks]

And it's going to get crazy come tomorrow again. What about if the weeks were still full weeks but sort of offset from each other. Contest A runs sunday to sunday and Contest B runs thursday to thursday?

This is actually exactly what I had decided to do.  The split between people who wanted to keep the pace and people who wanted to slow down was pretty even, so I figured I'd break the tie by slowing down half a week instead of a full week.  There is also the realization of how much work it'll be for me to tabulate results AND make new ballots on the same day.

Which is what I'm about to start doing right now.  I'll work on the results for the first week first, then post the ballots for Part 2 here a while after that.

[greatexpectations]

could you work with theory or someone to set up a form for all these votes?  might be easier to figure out how to do that now.  saves you the time of hand tabulating votes from dozens of PM's, especially if this is going to be happening a few more times.

[rinkworks]

could you work with theory or someone to set up a form for all these votes?  might be easier to do figure out how to do that now.  saves you the time of hand tabulating votes from dozens of PM's, especially if this is going to be happening a few more times.

It'll be easier after today, because I'm writing a script to tally them automatically.  Easier and less error-prone than trying to do it all by hand, especially when checking for self-votes and making sure people get their free point for voting.

[rinkworks]

Here is the ballot for Challenge #3!

--

Voting Rules:

Each person may cast votes as follows:  For each Challenge, you may fill your ballot out in one of two ways:

(1) Award 3 points to one entry.  Award 1 point to any number of other entries.
(2) Award 2 points to each of two entries.  Award 1 point to any number of other entries.

Submit your votes via PM to me by Monday, July 16, 2012, 10am EDT in the following format:

Challenge 1

3 CardName
1 AnotherCardName
1 StillAnotherCardName
1 AnotherCardNameGoesHereToo

Challenge 2

2 CardName
2 AnotherCardName
1 StillAnotherCardName

Please use the above format!  One card per line, with the number of votes given before it, and no extra punctuation or anything.  This will make it easy for me to copy-and-paste your votes into the format my vote-counting script needs it to be in.

Do not submit votes for your own cards.  (If you do, my script will catch you anyway.)

By submitting vote(s) for a challenge, you will automatically earn 1 point for your entry in that challenge.  This is to incentivize contestants to submit votes.  (My script does this automatically, so don't worry that I'll forget to do this.)

Note that the supplied card names are for discussion/identification only -- they are not the card names that were submitted to me.  The proper card names will be revealed when the results are announced.  Whenever card text says "[This Card]" it means the submitted text says the card's own name there.

Inclusion on the ballot means that the card was deemed eligible for the contest.  You therefore do not need to consider eligibility when voting.  In some cases, this may mean a pretty loose interpretation of the eligibility requirements.  I tried to be fair but also forgiving when a submission came in that twisted the rules in a way I hadn't foreseen.

As a voter, you may use whatever criteria you wish in determining what your votes will be.  Be as forgiving or particular as you like concerning conformance to standard Dominion terminology.   For all winning cards, there will be a chance to tweak the wording as a community, if necessary, before they are canonized.

--

Challenge #3 - Ballot


Gadwall
$6 - Victory
4 VP
--
When you gain this, trash a card from your hand. If you trashed a Curse this way, gain a Gold.


Loon
$4 - Victory
Worth 1 VP per territory token on [This Card]'s supply pile.
--
Whenever a player buys a Province, put a territory token on [This Card]'s supply pile.
Whenever a player buys a [This Card], remove a territory token from [This Card]'s supply pile.


Grebe
$9* - Victory
Worth 1 VP per [This Card] token you have.
--
This costs $1 less per [This Card] token you have (but not less than $0).
--
When you gain this, gain a [This Card] token.


Flamingo
$2 - Victory
Worth 2 VP if you have more Estates than [This Card]s.
--
When you buy this, +$1, +1 Buy.


Petrel
$5 - Victory
Worth 1 VP for each card you have 5 or more copies of.


Shearwater
$4 - Victory
2 VP
--
When you buy this, place a card that is in play on top of your deck.


Guillemot
$4 - Victory
Worth 1 VP for every 2 Estates in your deck (round down).
--
When you gain this, trash a Treasure from the play area.  If you trash a Treasure, gain an Estate.


Cormorant
$6 - Victory
1 VP
--
When you buy this, gain 3 VP tokens.


Pipit
$4 - Victory
Worth 1 VP for each Masterpiece card in your deck.
--
Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile to the Supply. Cards from that pile cost $1 more and are Masterpiece cards.


Gannet
$6* - Victory
When the game ends, if the Province or Colony supply pile is empty (if it was available), then this is worth 4 VP. Otherwise, this is worth 2 VP.
--
During your Buy phase, if two supply piles are empty, then this costs $3.


Tanager
$6 - Victory
2 VP
--
The turn you buy this, only draw 3 cards (instead of 5) in this turn's Clean-up phase. Take an extra turn after this one. This can't cause you to take more than two consecutive turns.


Egret
$3* - Victory
2 VP
--
When you buy [This Card], pay any amount greater than or equal to its cost. Then, gain a victory card costing at most $2 less than that amount.


Heron
$8 - Victory
1 VP
--
During your buy phase, this card costs $2 less per action in play, but not less than $0.
--
When you buy this, you may set it aside. If you do, return it to your deck at the end of the game.


Bittern
$4 - Victory
This card is worth 1 VP for each [This Card] left in the supply at the end of the game.


Ibis
$3 - Victory
1 VP
Worth another 1 VP for every 3 tokens on your [This Card] mat.
--
Setup: Each player has his own [This Card] mat. At the start of a player's Clean-up, he gains a token on his [This Card] mat for each unused Buy.


Spoonbill
$4 - Victory
Worth 1 VP for every two differently named cards in the trash, rounding down.


Osprey
$5 - Victory
Worth 1 VP per [This Card] in your deck.
--
Can only be bought if you have at least 1 Action Card in play.


Harrier
$4* - Victory
2 VP
During your Buy phase, this costs whatever you want, as long as it costs at least $4.
--
When you buy this, gain a card costing less than this.
--
(Rules clarification: [This Card]'s cost can change in the middle of the Buy phase. E.g., with $11 and 2 buys, buy [This Card] for $5 and for $6. When cost reduction like Bridge is out, [This Card] must still cost at least $4.)


Kestrel
$6 - Victory
8 VP
--
When you gain this, trash all treasures you have in play and gain a Curse.  If you do not gain a Curse, place [This Card] on top of your deck.


Plover
$5 - Victory
This card is worth 1 VP for every 5*P cards in the trash (round down).
(P = number of players)
--
When you gain this, trash up to 4 cards from your hand.


Oystercatcher
$6 - Victory
Worth 10 VP, minus 2 VP for every 5 non-Victory cards in your deck (rounded down).
--
When you buy this, you may trash a card from your hand.


Yellowlegs
$7 - Victory
2 VP
--
When you gain this, gain a card costing less than this.


Sandpiper
$2* - Victory
When you gain this card, place a VP token on this card's supply pile.
--
For each VP token on the pile, the cost of this card increases by 1.
--
At the end of the game, this card is worth victory points equal to the number of VP tokens on the pile.


Tern
$3 - Victory
2 VP
--
If you gain this during your action phase:
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1


Puffin
$9 - Victory
4 VP
--
When you gain this, gain a Duchy and an Estate.


Macaw
$6 - Victory
2 VP
--
When you gain this, you may trash a card from your hand. If you do, gain 2 Silvers; if you don't, gain 1 Silver. Put the gained Silver(s) on top of your deck.


Hummingbird
$6 - Victory
2 VP
--
When you gain this: +1 VP.  You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, get +VP equal to half its cost in coins, rounded down.


Kingfisher
$4 - Victory
Worth 1 VP for every 2 cards in the supply pile with the [This Card] token on it (rounded down).
--
When you gain this, you may move the [This Card] token to a Kingdom supply pile of your choice.
--
Setup: Place the [This Card] token on the [This Card] supply pile.


Pelican
$6* - Victory
4 VP
--
When you buy this card, you may pay an additional $3 ($6). If you do, gain another (2) [This Card].


Waxwing
$6 - Victory
Worth 1 VP for every Province in the supply at the end of the game.


Woodpecker
$4 - Victory
Worth 5 VP minus 1 for every three treasures in your deck (round up), but not less than 0.
--
When you buy this, you may trash a treasure card from play and from your hand.


Flycatcher
$4 - Victory
Worth 1 VP for every three [This Card] tokens you have.
--
In games using this, you may gain a [This Card] token at the end of any turn in which you shuffled your deck.


Bluebird
$10 - Victory
Worth 1 VP for every differently costed card in your deck.
--
Rules: In games using this, add Platinum to the Basic cards in the Supply.


Vireo
$6 - Victory
3 VP
--
When you gain this, gain a Victory card costing less than this.


Bunting
$6 - Victory
Worth 1 VP for each special card in your deck.
--
Setup: Before the first turn each player selects a special card from among the kingdom cards and these are announced simultaneously.


Lark
$4 - Victory
2 VP
--
When you gain this card, you may gain a copy of a card costing $4 or less that does not have the name [This Card].


Nuthatch
$4 - Victory
2 VP
--
When you gain this, you may gain a Curse. If you do, gain a card costing up to $6 that is not a Victory card.


Warbler
$5 - Victory
Worth 1 VP for each set of Copper, Silver, and Gold in your deck.