Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All

Author Topic: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!  (Read 27770 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
+3

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 concurrent challenge.  That is, if you have submitted a card to one challenge, you may not submit it to another challenge until the results of that first challenge have been announced.
* Do not disclose your submissions publicly, either in this thread or elsewhere

--

The deadline for this week's challenges is Monday, September 3, at 10am EDT.

--

Challenge #14 - Self-Synergizing Card

Objective: Create a card that synergizes or combos with itself in such a way that playing the card might be more effective or powerful when prior copies of the card have already been played.

Because self-synergy is difficult to define in black and white terms, no card will be refused eligibility.  However, voters will be charged with judging not just card quality but their conformance to the spirit of this objective as described above.

Note that this definition of self-synergy is a distinct concept from a card that is merely helpful to play in multiples.  For example, playing multiple Villages might be a good idea, because you can get a lot of +Actions that way.  But playing one Village doesn't generally enable you to play another to better effect.

For this challenge, no rules clarifications are permitted.  This is to avoid a situation where a rules clarification may suggest a non-obvious self-synergetic use for the card and leave voters to guess about a non-obvious self-synergetic use for other cards.  (However, there is no reason self-synergy for any or all of the submitted cards can't be discussed after the ballot is announced, including by the authors of the cards.)

Because all cards will be considered eligible for this contest, I will not list any non-examples.  Instead, I'll list a few sample arguments for some official cards that fit the spirit of this contest.

Better-Than-Linear Yields:  Bridge (cost-reduction and +Buys both stack, resulting in exponential benefits when multiples are played).  Goons (VPs-per-buy and +Buys both increase, resulting in exponential benefits when multiples are played).  King's Court (after one, play a card three times; after two, play three cards three times).  Fool's Gold (playing one quadruples the benefit of any others you play).

Compounding Draw: Crossroads (draws cards to power up other Crossroads).  Madman (draws cards to power up other Madmen.)

Subtle Self-Synergy: Stables (playing one successfully increases the chance that you'll have Treasure cards with which to play others successfully).  Mystic (one failed Mystic play guarantees the second will succeed).  Conspirator (playing a Conspirator as your second action activates successive Conspirators).  Native Village (play some to stow cards away, then another to draw them all into your hand).  Bank (playing one increases the value you derive from any others you can play).  Cartographer, Apothecary (a second play of each of these cards enables you to draw a specific card out of the next four in your deck).  Cultist (playing one means you can play others without consuming Actions).  Rogue (play one to put something good in the trash, then another to take it back out).

Single-Card Engines:  Minion (playing a Minion to cycle is more effective if you've already played some for cash).  Hunting Party (playing a Hunting Party is generally going to be better at finding your key cards -- or other Hunting Parties -- if you've already played some to draw copies of junk cards into your hand).  In this category, the line between "card that is good to spam" and "card that powers up successive copies" is especially fine, but it's there.

Unlikely Cases For Self-Synergy: Outpost, Counting House (they have no effect when stacked).  Militia, Ghost Ship, Fortune Teller (repeating the attack portions of these cards doesn't compound the severity of the attack).  Scout (each play of Scout decreases the likelihood that another Scout will be as helpful).  Laboratory (because although each play of a Laboratory increases the likelihood that you'll have another to play, the benefit you get from playing each Laboratory is the same).

Wrong Kind of Self-Synergy: You might say that University self-synergizes, because it gains you Actions and also gives you +Actions to play them.  Yes, but how does University enable or power-up playing other copies of itself?  There are a number of cards whose different components synergize with each other, but that's not the kind of self-synergy I'm looking for here.

I'm going to put Treasure Map in the "wrong kind of self-synergy" category too, because although you do need another copy of itself to get the four Golds, you don't play that second copy.  Grand Market and Peddler each help you buy more copies more easily when you play some, but they don't change the effectiveness of successive copies you play.

Still, these are nuances that voters will have the freedom to work out for themselves and come to their own conclusions about.

--

The Ballot
The Results
« Last Edit: September 13, 2012, 12:52:16 pm by rinkworks »
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2012, 01:35:36 pm »
0

Another type of self-synergy is "cheap cards that have +Buy". Cards like Hamlet, Pawn, and Squire are good examples, where you can use the +Buy to get a copy of these while also getting a more costly card (or, getting 2 copies).
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2012, 01:37:27 pm »
0

Suggestions for true Anti-Synergy, not just "unlikely"

Menagerie: each successive play decreases the likelihood of being able to get the +3 Cards benefit.
Cellar: each successive play decreases the number of cards cycled/sifted.
Oasis: each successive play decreases the number of discard choices.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2012, 01:37:29 pm »
+1

Another type of self-synergy is "cheap cards that have +Buy". Cards like Hamlet, Pawn, and Squire are good examples, where you can use the +Buy to get a copy of these while also getting a more costly card (or, getting 2 copies).

They help you buy more copies, but they don't help you play more copies, which is what I was getting at when I mentioned Grand Market and Peddler in the "wrong kind" section at the end.
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2012, 01:39:46 pm »
0

More examples: Alchemist and Scrying Pool. Each successful play of one of these makes it more likely that you will be able to consistently play more of these.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2012, 01:40:17 pm »
0

Suggestions for true Anti-Synergy, not just "unlikely"

Menagerie: each successive play decreases the likelihood of being able to get the +3 Cards benefit.
Cellar: each successive play decreases the number of cards cycled/sifted.
Oasis: each successive play decreases the number of discard choices.

The main reason I said "unlikely" instead of "anti" is that I just know somebody somewhere will figure out some weird exception.  But I agree with your reasoning in all three examples here.
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2012, 01:43:04 pm »
0

Another type of self-synergy is "cheap cards that have +Buy". Cards like Hamlet, Pawn, and Squire are good examples, where you can use the +Buy to get a copy of these while also getting a more costly card (or, getting 2 copies).

They help you buy more copies, but they don't help you play more copies, which is what I was getting at when I mentioned Grand Market and Peddler in the "wrong kind" section at the end.

Ah yes, I was confuseled. You are correct here.
Logged

ChocophileBenj

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 504
  • Respect: +575
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2012, 01:43:26 pm »
+1

And what about... Torturer !!!!?
Logged
Chocolate is like victory points in Dominion. Both taste good but they'll hurt you if you eat too much of it instead of something else in your early days.

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2012, 01:46:13 pm »
0

And what about... Torturer !!!!?

That's a great example, actually, at least in the case where the victims choose the discard option.  When a victim chooses the discard option, that means taking the Curse would be worse.  Therefore, a second Torturer means that the victim must either (1) choose that worse option, or (2) discard two less-junky cards.  In both cases, the second attack is more severe than the first.
Logged

qmech

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1918
  • Shuffle iT Username: qmech
  • What year is it?
  • Respect: +2320
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2012, 03:09:31 pm »
+4

Better-Than-Linear Yields:  Bridge (cost-reduction and +Buys both stack, resulting in exponential benefits when multiples are played).  Goons (VPs-per-buy and +Buys both increase, resulting in exponential benefits when multiples are played).  King's Court (after one, play a card three times; after two, play three cards three times).  Fool's Gold (playing one quadruples the benefit of any others you play).

Some mathematical pedantry for those who might be interested.  Sorry.  :-[

Bridge and Goons aren't exponential: in each case the benefit is #(plays) x #(cards bought); with each card giving +Buy, the effects are quadratic in the number of cards played.  Madman is truly exponential because your hand size (almost) doubles each time.

KC and Fool's Gold are both linear, with (2n-1) triplings for n KC's and $(4n-3) for n FG's.  "Superadditive" is fair, since playing two is more that twice as good as playing one.


Your regularly scheduled card design contest continues after this message.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2012, 04:38:57 pm »
+2

Better-Than-Linear Yields:  Bridge (cost-reduction and +Buys both stack, resulting in exponential benefits when multiples are played).  Goons (VPs-per-buy and +Buys both increase, resulting in exponential benefits when multiples are played).  King's Court (after one, play a card three times; after two, play three cards three times).  Fool's Gold (playing one quadruples the benefit of any others you play).

Some mathematical pedantry for those who might be interested.  Sorry.  :-[

Bridge and Goons aren't exponential: in each case the benefit is #(plays) x #(cards bought); with each card giving +Buy, the effects are quadratic in the number of cards played.  Madman is truly exponential because your hand size (almost) doubles each time.

KC and Fool's Gold are both linear, with (2n-1) triplings for n KC's and $(4n-3) for n FG's.  "Superadditive" is fair, since playing two is more that twice as good as playing one.


You beat me to the exact comment I was going to make. Bank is another example of a <a href="http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1269.msg20671#msg20671">quadratic card</a>, like Bridge and Goons.

Rinkworks, I take it from the statement of the assignment that (non-playable) Victory cards with self-synergy are no good for this one? E.g., Silk Road has self-synergy in that getting more Silk Roads increases the value of the Silk Roads you already have.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2012, 05:06:12 pm »
0

Better-Than-Linear Yields:  Bridge (cost-reduction and +Buys both stack, resulting in exponential benefits when multiples are played).  Goons (VPs-per-buy and +Buys both increase, resulting in exponential benefits when multiples are played).  King's Court (after one, play a card three times; after two, play three cards three times).  Fool's Gold (playing one quadruples the benefit of any others you play).

Some mathematical pedantry for those who might be interested.  Sorry.  :-[

Bridge and Goons aren't exponential: in each case the benefit is #(plays) x #(cards bought); with each card giving +Buy, the effects are quadratic in the number of cards played.  Madman is truly exponential because your hand size (almost) doubles each time.

KC and Fool's Gold are both linear, with (2n-1) triplings for n KC's and $(4n-3) for n FG's.  "Superadditive" is fair, since playing two is more that twice as good as playing one.


You beat me to the exact comment I was going to make. Bank is another example of a <a href="http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1269.msg20671#msg20671">quadratic card</a>, like Bridge and Goons.

Rinkworks, I take it from the statement of the assignment that (non-playable) Victory cards with self-synergy are no good for this one? E.g., Silk Road has self-synergy in that getting more Silk Roads increases the value of the Silk Roads you already have.

Correct.  I thought about expanding the rule to accommodate Victory cards, but the set already has quite a number, so I didn't feel it important to make the necessary allowances.
Logged

ConMan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1400
  • Respect: +1705
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2012, 11:59:23 pm »
0

Ah, nuts. I had a great idea, then I realised that it sits somewhere between "Wrong kind of synergy" and "Anti-synergy" (in that having multiple copies is better, but you'd rather not play them together). I might pop it into a thread of its own.
Logged

Saucery

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
  • Respect: +82
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2012, 07:35:43 pm »
0

I suppose cultist would count for this contest, but what about venture?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2012, 07:43:41 pm »
0

I suppose cultist would count for this contest, but what about venture?

From reading the topic, I would expect it not to count.

Quote
Create a card that synergizes or combos with itself in such a way that playing the card might be more effective or powerful when prior copies of the card have already been played.

Playing a second Cultist is more effective in that it doesn't cost an action if it follows the first.  But playing a Venture does not improve subsequent plays...

But on further reflection, maybe it does?  The first one can pull others out of the deck and play them...

But then, that goes for any treasure, not just other Ventures.  Cultist only works on other Cultists.  So I am back on thinking Venture doesn't count.
Logged

Guy Srinivasan

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
  • Respect: +38
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2012, 08:13:34 pm »
0

Since, on average, coin gives superlinearly increasing utility as the amount you get per turn grows, would Gold count as self-synergizing? :D
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2012, 10:35:47 pm »
0

Since, on average, coin gives superlinearly increasing utility as the amount you get per turn grows, would Gold count as self-synergizing? :D

In many cases, your fourth Gold on a turn is way less useful than your third.
Logged

Guy Srinivasan

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
  • Respect: +38
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2012, 10:46:58 pm »
0

Since, on average, coin gives superlinearly increasing utility as the amount you get per turn grows, would Gold count as self-synergizing? :D

In many cases, your fourth Gold on a turn is way less useful than your third.
Right, it's also more unlikely than getting your second Gold... what I'm guessing is that on average, taking a random non-Gold card from a random hand from a random game played by a random Dominion player, given that that hand contains a Gold, given that a Gold remains to be drawn and will not miss the reshuffle, swapping the upcoming Gold with the card in your hand will improve your odds of winning more than the same procedure without conditioning on the hand containing a Gold.

This was not a serious question, though, hence the ":D". :D (;))
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2012, 07:55:46 am »
0

This is exactly why I bowed out of trying to define strict rules of eligibility.  :-)

I will submit, however, that the fourth play of a card need not be improved -- can even be weakened -- if the second or third or fifth is improved instead.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2012, 07:57:04 am by rinkworks »
Logged

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3347
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2012, 08:39:46 am »
0

This is a tricky one. I submitted my card, but after rereading the rules, realised it was more a high density in deck being good than a high density in hand. So... this is tricky.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

nopawnsintended

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
  • Respect: +186
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2012, 09:07:14 am »
0

I don't think this one has been mentioned, but what about Nobles?  Also, on the issue of cards whose options synergize with each other, Governor for Gold into Governor for Remodel seems like it would qualify.
Logged

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3347
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2012, 10:55:00 am »
0

Nobles anti-synergises with itself, if anything. One in hand, you get a Smithy ($4 card). Two in hand, and you get a Village and a sub-Moat ($3+$2). Governor, I'd say, is a self synergy, but again, it's not really dependant on getting the Governors in hand together.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2012, 02:59:29 pm »
0

Anyone want to review my card ideas for these two challenges and picking a favorite?  I can never predict how well my submissions will do, which is a sign I'm not in touch with what other people want to play with.  I think I'm good with concepts and balance, though.  Maybe.  Self serving biases meh..
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2012, 03:02:47 pm »
0

Anyone want to review my card ideas for these two challenges and picking a favorite?  I can never predict how well my submissions will do, which is a sign I'm not in touch with what other people want to play with.  I think I'm good with concepts and balance, though.  Maybe.  Self serving biases meh..

I can review, if you'd like.  I think I'm decent with concepts, not as good at balance/costing (Aqua Vitae was originally stronger and cost less).  I don't have an entry for this contest and I'm not sure I will... I had an idea but I think it is the wrong kind of synergy (playing it makes subsequent plays stronger, but plays don't have to be in the same turn for there to be benefit).
Logged

Archetype

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
  • Suffers from Fancy Play Syndrom
  • Respect: +690
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenge #14: Self-Synergizing Card!
« Reply #24 on: August 29, 2012, 08:27:03 pm »
0

Would Archivist qualify? I'm assuming so, you were the one who created it :)

Also eHalcyon, can I ask for your critiques on my card too? I your a higher ranked iso player than me, but even if you aren't, you have won several of these contests. I hope some of your winningness would rub off on me :P

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All
 

Page created in 0.118 seconds with 20 queries.