Print

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

[Robz888]

You are truly the Marin of fan card design.

[Kirian]

Grats to eHalcyon again!  I was hopeful about mine, but I'll take the #3 slot as well.  I don't know how many people looked at it and said "Oh hey, it's a high-power one-shot Steward that also works vs. Swindler, etc."

I definitely liked Mountain Pass, and I quite like the name as well.  Good job on a fourth card!

[eHalcyon]

I am still least pleased about Harbinger though, for various reasons.  Since it tied, and we have quite a lot of non-terminal draw in the set anyway... maybe we could just drop it from the set?  I'd love to make room for other entrants.

[eHalcyon]

Some people brought up that the price reduction on Mountain Pass could be abused because it will stack with KC.  I didn't want to put up a big defense while it was still in voting, but I'll discuss it now.

Stackability was fully intended.  Since MP is one-shot, it is awkward to word it such that it doesn't stack.  Lacking +Buy and being one-shot actually hurts a lot while you are building your deck.  With Bridge, you can play it and build up your deck quickly.  You can't do that with MP -- if you use it, it disappears and you'll have to buy a new one.  To use MP effectively, you'll need to build an effective engine without it and  THEN bring it in for one big turn.  You can do the same with Bridge, except it needs less support (coming with its own +Buy) and it can help you during the ramp-up.

MP would be most used as support for a cool engine with +Buy, probably in a mega-turn strategy.  If there is cheap +Buy on the board (Market Square, Hamlet), it can also be a nice slingshot.  I thought it would be good for the set, which has plenty of expensive cards.  We still need +Buy though!

Oops, actually, the easy wording to limit it would be "if you do".  But again, I think it is better without that limit.  There is a soft-limit in that it forces you to trash another card from your hand.  That can screw up your hand if you're not careful.

[PenPen]

Some people brought up that the price reduction on Mountain Pass could be abused because it will stack with KC.  I didn't want to put up a big defense while it was still in voting, but I'll discuss it now.

Stackability was fully intended.  Since MP is one-shot, it is awkward to word it such that it doesn't stack.  Lacking +Buy and being one-shot actually hurts a lot while you are building your deck.  With Bridge, you can play it and build up your deck quickly.  You can't do that with MP -- if you use it, it disappears and you'll have to buy a new one.  To use MP effectively, you'll need to build an effective engine without it and  THEN bring it in for one big turn.  You can do the same with Bridge, except it needs less support (coming with its own +Buy) and it can help you during the ramp-up.

MP would be most used as support for a cool engine with +Buy, probably in a mega-turn strategy.  If there is cheap +Buy on the board (Market Square, Hamlet), it can also be a nice slingshot.  I thought it would be good for the set, which has plenty of expensive cards.  We still need +Buy though!

Oops, actually, the easy wording to limit it would be "if you do".  But again, I think it is better without that limit.  There is a soft-limit in that it forces you to trash another card from your hand.  That can screw up your hand if you're not careful.

I'll have to admit that my eyes failed me and I thought that it didn't require you to trash another card! 

My bad on that one.

[nopawnsintended]

Wow!  eHalcyon is the designer to beat!

I was a little sad that people thought my Badge/Whimsey was a joke submission.  I'd like to chalk it up to the card being named "Whimsey" but I think the fact that Badge is related to Scout might have been the culprit there...

[Tdog]

2nd place! So when I submitted I had intended it to be able to gain golds on top of the deck but then was worded wrong for the purpose.  Would it be better worded something else? I feel the concept is good but the execution poor.

[rinkworks]

I have to admit, I am very doubtful about Mountain Pass not having an anti-TR/KC clause.  I am less doubtful after reading a thoughtful defense from eHalcyon, but I just don't know.  I'm very intrigued to try this out in test games.

[rinkworks]

2nd place! So when I submitted I had intended it to be able to gain golds on top of the deck but then was worded wrong for the purpose.  Would it be better worded something else? I feel the concept is good but the execution poor.

I think an "up to 7" would have helped a lot.  I actually liked the card a lot, but I don't know how many times you'd skip buying a $5 because if you buy your card first, you can get a $5 AND a free $2!  Or say what you really want is a $3/$4 pair (Fishing Village/Conspirator, maybe?)  I don't know if buying your card instead of one of those cards is necessarily the right move.  True, you'd get to pair them up on the same turn the first time.  Maybe I'm underestimating that.

But it just seemed underpowered or overpriced, one of the two.  With "up to" instead of "exact," maybe that would be enough of a boost?

[popsofctown]

I mirror your thoughts.  I'm surprised it got second..

[Schneau]

2nd place! So when I submitted I had intended it to be able to gain golds on top of the deck but then was worded wrong for the purpose.  Would it be better worded something else? I feel the concept is good but the execution poor.

I think an "up to 7" would have helped a lot.  I actually liked the card a lot, but I don't know how many times you'd skip buying a $5 because if you buy your card first, you can get a $5 AND a free $2!  Or say what you really want is a $3/$4 pair (Fishing Village/Conspirator, maybe?)  I don't know if buying your card instead of one of those cards is necessarily the right move.  True, you'd get to pair them up on the same turn the first time.  Maybe I'm underestimating that.

But it just seemed underpowered or overpriced, one of the two.  With "up to" instead of "exact," maybe that would be enough of a boost?

My only problem with this suggestion is that it can basically be a one-turn-later Gold if you have the action to spare. Sure, it takes up a spot in your hand and makes you use an action to get the Gold, but that's still pretty strong for $5. In my comments I suggested the wording "Gain exactly 2 cards costing up to a total of $7". With this change, you have to get 2 cards, but they can be Gold and Copper, or 5/2, or 3/3, etc. I think forcing the Copper with the Gold takes down the power a little. Maybe it would be fine with your suggestion, but if it's too strong my suggestion probably would help.

[Schneau]

#27 (tie) - Keep by Schneau with 3 points (Withers)
$3 - Action
+1 Action
Trash this card.
--
When you trash this card, set it aside. At the start of your next Buy phase, +1 Buy, +$3, and put this card in the trash.
--
(Rules clarifications: When you put this card in the trash after it was set aside, you are not trashing the card, so the "When you trash this card..." clause doesn't take effect.)

I'm a bit disappointed that commentators thought that this should be a Duration card. Since the "when trash" takes effect at the start of your next Buy phase, if you play it and trash it, it will take effect that turn - not next turn. The only reason I had to have it set aside was for cases when you trash it during another player's turn - I think it would be confusing if it gave "+1 Buy, +$3" immediately when trashed during someone else's turn. But, you'll never play this and have it around until your next turn, so I don't think it should be a duration.

Most of the time, this card will just be "+1 Action, +1 Buy, +$3". But, it's more interesting if you can trash it without playing it, since it will still get the bonus. Maybe I was trying to be too tricky - Kirian had a well-implemented card using the same idea of on-trash bonus and did well at the polls.

[rinkworks]

2nd place! So when I submitted I had intended it to be able to gain golds on top of the deck but then was worded wrong for the purpose.  Would it be better worded something else? I feel the concept is good but the execution poor.

I think an "up to 7" would have helped a lot.  I actually liked the card a lot, but I don't know how many times you'd skip buying a $5 because if you buy your card first, you can get a $5 AND a free $2!  Or say what you really want is a $3/$4 pair (Fishing Village/Conspirator, maybe?)  I don't know if buying your card instead of one of those cards is necessarily the right move.  True, you'd get to pair them up on the same turn the first time.  Maybe I'm underestimating that.

But it just seemed underpowered or overpriced, one of the two.  With "up to" instead of "exact," maybe that would be enough of a boost?

My only problem with this suggestion is that it can basically be a one-turn-later Gold if you have the action to spare. Sure, it takes up a spot in your hand and makes you use an action to get the Gold, but that's still pretty strong for $5. In my comments I suggested the wording "Gain exactly 2 cards costing up to a total of $7". With this change, you have to get 2 cards, but they can be Gold and Copper, or 5/2, or 3/3, etc. I think forcing the Copper with the Gold takes down the power a little. Maybe it would be fine with your suggestion, but if it's too strong my suggestion probably would help.

I think you're right here.  "Gain exactly 2 cards costing up to a total of $7" is a good way to nerf the buff and come out in a good place.

[eHalcyon]

#1 - Mountain Pass by eHalcyon with 18 points (Fletcher)
$2 - Action
Trash this and another card from your hand.  All cards cost $2 less this turn, but not less than $0.


It was a close one, but eHalcyon ekes out the win by a single point.  It's a one-shot Bridge-type card that also trashes.  Without +Buy, it's a one-shot Silver with light trashing; late in the game, you can perhaps put together a megaturn, although getting all the pieces in place is a touch tricky since you have to have a card in hand to sacrifice to it.

The last line here is actually incorrect.  As currently worded, you don't have to have an extra card to sacrifice.  If you play off a bunch of Markets and such and end up with just KC and Mountain Pass in hand, you can KC-MP and get the full benefit without trashing any other cards.  The forced trashing just means that you're probably not going to be playing many more cards after you KC-MP.

That said, I think that could be a good nerf if the current version proves too strong.

"Trash a card from your hand.  If you do, all cards cost $2 less this turn, but not less than $0.  Trash this."

That means it can still stack, but it is more difficult to do so.

[eHalcyon]

2nd place! So when I submitted I had intended it to be able to gain golds on top of the deck but then was worded wrong for the purpose.  Would it be better worded something else? I feel the concept is good but the execution poor.

I think an "up to 7" would have helped a lot.  I actually liked the card a lot, but I don't know how many times you'd skip buying a $5 because if you buy your card first, you can get a $5 AND a free $2!  Or say what you really want is a $3/$4 pair (Fishing Village/Conspirator, maybe?)  I don't know if buying your card instead of one of those cards is necessarily the right move.  True, you'd get to pair them up on the same turn the first time.  Maybe I'm underestimating that.

But it just seemed underpowered or overpriced, one of the two.  With "up to" instead of "exact," maybe that would be enough of a boost?

My only problem with this suggestion is that it can basically be a one-turn-later Gold if you have the action to spare. Sure, it takes up a spot in your hand and makes you use an action to get the Gold, but that's still pretty strong for $5. In my comments I suggested the wording "Gain exactly 2 cards costing up to a total of $7". With this change, you have to get 2 cards, but they can be Gold and Copper, or 5/2, or 3/3, etc. I think forcing the Copper with the Gold takes down the power a little. Maybe it would be fine with your suggestion, but if it's too strong my suggestion probably would help.

I think you're right here.  "Gain exactly 2 cards costing up to a total of $7" is a good way to nerf the buff and come out in a good place.

Would it be OK compared to Cache?  This Thanksgiving can give you Gold+Copper for $5, but Cache comes along with two Copper.

[Schneau]

2nd place! So when I submitted I had intended it to be able to gain golds on top of the deck but then was worded wrong for the purpose.  Would it be better worded something else? I feel the concept is good but the execution poor.

I think an "up to 7" would have helped a lot.  I actually liked the card a lot, but I don't know how many times you'd skip buying a $5 because if you buy your card first, you can get a $5 AND a free $2!  Or say what you really want is a $3/$4 pair (Fishing Village/Conspirator, maybe?)  I don't know if buying your card instead of one of those cards is necessarily the right move.  True, you'd get to pair them up on the same turn the first time.  Maybe I'm underestimating that.

But it just seemed underpowered or overpriced, one of the two.  With "up to" instead of "exact," maybe that would be enough of a boost?

My only problem with this suggestion is that it can basically be a one-turn-later Gold if you have the action to spare. Sure, it takes up a spot in your hand and makes you use an action to get the Gold, but that's still pretty strong for $5. In my comments I suggested the wording "Gain exactly 2 cards costing up to a total of $7". With this change, you have to get 2 cards, but they can be Gold and Copper, or 5/2, or 3/3, etc. I think forcing the Copper with the Gold takes down the power a little. Maybe it would be fine with your suggestion, but if it's too strong my suggestion probably would help.

I think you're right here.  "Gain exactly 2 cards costing up to a total of $7" is a good way to nerf the buff and come out in a good place.

Would it be OK compared to Cache?  This Thanksgiving can give you Gold+Copper for $5, but Cache comes along with two Copper.

But, you have to play Thanksgiving as an Action to get the Gold, and it takes up a place in your hand before you play it. Sure, it may be slightly better than Cache, especially considering you have the option for taking non-Gold cards, but man, Cache isn't that good of a $5. It got 44/48 on Qvist's latest ratings, so it's probably fine to be slightly better than it.

[brokoli]

Well, my idea was completely unbalanced. However, I really like the idea of a terminal silver with a chancellor effect when you buy it. It can add subtle strategic elements.

Congrats to eHalcyon.

[eHalcyon]

@Schneau -- good point.  OK, that does look good then!

Well, my idea was completely unbalanced. However, I really like the idea of a terminal silver with a chancellor effect when you buy it. It can add subtle strategic elements.

Marple/Old Tree was an interesting entry, if only because almost everyone thought it was too weak (I thought it was average, maybe a little weak) but it's actually likely to be too strong as an opener (nice catch by OAM there).

For people that don't see how:

Turn 1: Buy OT.  You put your deck into discard.
Turn 2: If you draw OT, you are guaranteed Gold!  If you miss it, there is still a high chance you'll get it before the next reshuffle.

[Tdog]

I'd vouch for the two cards up to 7 if a best of the second contest happens.

[Titandrake]

My card is what happens when you start with a neat idea (buying cards for cheaper than they are, but with the risk of opponents changing them into terrible ones). Then I realized that wasn't a one shot. Then I added way too much stuff to make it a one shot while still making it desirable.

I kinda like the idea of "Copy a card, get a bonus +$1 in exchange for one-shot", but it seems far too unworkable.

[Archetype]

Another win for eHalcyon! I personally liked Tdog's better, but I'm glad a low costing card won.

I got 4th! Wow! I thiought Wildfire/Arcensic was better than Foundry/Magnum, but if that's what the people want…

The origin of my card is from the card'Sacrafice' in my original Woodlands expansion. It is a card that solves the problem that Chapel has of hanging around once all the trashing is done. But this card ended up playing a lot different from Chapel.

I'd also like to thank eHalcyon for helping me tweak Wildfire and Foundry. This guy really knows his Dominion!

[RobertJ]

Congratulations to the winner. I voted for both the top two cards this time.

My card (Lifeboat/Beresford) wasn't popular but I'm interested to see if anything can be salvaged from it.

I do still like the set aside to play when you want mechanic but the details obviously weren't quite right here. The point (as the name alludes to) was to resuce you from having several terminals but no village or lots of money but no +Buy. The trashing option was a late addition to make it a bit more flexible and perhaps this was a mistake. Anyway it would be great to hear anyone's ideas for how to improve this card.

[rinkworks]

Congratulations to the winner. I voted for both the top two cards this time.

My card (Lifeboat/Beresford) wasn't popular but I'm interested to see if anything can be salvaged from it.

I do still like the set aside to play when you want mechanic but the details obviously weren't quite right here. The point (as the name alludes to) was to resuce you from having several terminals but no village or lots of money but no +Buy. The trashing option was a late addition to make it a bit more flexible and perhaps this was a mistake. Anyway it would be great to hear anyone's ideas for how to improve this card.

I think there were just too many pieces.  I would isolate the "play when you want" feature and strip away all the distractions.  So what simplified top half would be most useful on a "when you need it" basis?  All of those things, really:  the +2 Actions, the +Buy, the +$, and the trashing.  So let's narrow it down to the most situational two or so options, and drop the price accordingly.

Next, you don't need a "when you play this" clause, because everything is "when you play this" by default.  Thus, we get:

Lifeboat
$2 - Action
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
Return this to the supply.
--
When you gain this, set it aside; at the beginning of any future turn, you may add it to your hand.

At this point, what's jumping out at me is the "return to supply" piece making the card too weak.  But forcing such a weak card to stick around might not be great either.  So how about this?

Lifeboat
$2 - Action
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
You may trash this.
--
When you gain this, set it aside; at the beginning of any future turn, you may add it to your hand.

Now it no longer qualifies for this challenge, but that doesn't matter anymore.  Anyway, now we have a card that you can use when you need it once, and then whenever it comes up normally, unless you actually want to get rid of it.  I'd say that's a pretty fair $2 card, but there may well be room for further improvements, and I'm positive there are other directions to take your original card in and fix it up a different way.

[JFugue]

First off, congratulations to eHalcyon for the win!

I will admit I did not vote for it, in part because I felt this slight unease that there was some very unbalanced aspect to the card that I was unable and unskilled enough to spot.




To explain my own card idea, Pyromancer/Drew, in slightly more detail, I wanted to try and design a card that acted both as a curser and fairly cheap source of trashing to get rid of curses; Sea hag/Witch/Familiar kingdoms without trashing are some of my least favorite games to play, so I wanted to have a card that guaranteed both the cursing and the trashing.  The +2 cards was to serve as a way of finding the curses a little easier.  Originally my design for the card had it costing $4 but after some discussions with a friend (Anton on Isotropic), he suggested I lower the cost and I eventually agreed (if it was to be a low-cost way of getting a trasher when your deck is being pounded with curses, then $3 cost is more reasonable).  The low cost/power seems to have been the reason most people disliked it, however.

Ah, well.  Live and learn.  Thanks for the fun and congratulations to eHalcyon again!