Print

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

[PenPen]

Congrats to Jack Rudd, Polk5440 and NoMoreFun! We now have 3 +buy cards. Awesome.

A question about Barge however, as I didn't vote for it because my understanding was that you can gain-trash as many cards as you would like, while it's put in play? It felt like there's lots of opportunity where you can manipulate your hand with the right combination. But I do like the soft-counter reaction as a duration thing.

[Schneau]

Congrats to the winners - I voted for all three! I am very happy to have these as +Buys in our set.

[eHalcyon]

So, who can decipher my joke?

[rinkworks]

A question about Barge however, as I didn't vote for it because my understanding was that you can gain-trash as many cards as you would like, while it's put in play? It felt like there's lots of opportunity where you can manipulate your hand with the right combination.

The while-in-play effect does certainly work for as many cards as you gain, but you're still limited by how many cards you can gain in the first place.  With +Buy, that does mean you can buy two Coppers at minimum, but doing that undermines whatever deck-thinning you hoped to accomplish.  So it's really more of an sneaky upgrader (like Rats) than a trasher.

As for manipulating your hand, you can't add cards to it, only remove cards, so I guess you could sneakily activate a Menagerie that wouldn't otherwise have activated, but that seems like something you ought to be able to do if you're clever enough.

Maybe there's something I'm missing, though.

[jotheonah]

Well, Watchtower lets you trash cards without putting Coppers in your deck, but that's pretty trivial.

[PenPen]

A question about Barge however, as I didn't vote for it because my understanding was that you can gain-trash as many cards as you would like, while it's put in play? It felt like there's lots of opportunity where you can manipulate your hand with the right combination.

The while-in-play effect does certainly work for as many cards as you gain, but you're still limited by how many cards you can gain in the first place.  With +Buy, that does mean you can buy two Coppers at minimum, but doing that undermines whatever deck-thinning you hoped to accomplish.  So it's really more of an sneaky upgrader (like Rats) than a trasher.

As for manipulating your hand, you can't add cards to it, only remove cards, so I guess you could sneakily activate a Menagerie that wouldn't otherwise have activated, but that seems like something you ought to be able to do if you're clever enough.

Maybe there's something I'm missing, though.

Right...it doesn't seem that crazy now that you've explained it (and maybe I misread a word or two). I look forward to seeing this card get some playtime!

#14 (tie) - Poseur by PenPen with 4 points (Street Racer)
$2 - Action
+1 Buy
All players (including you) reveal a card from their hand. All cards revealed this way cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0.
--
If you did not buy any copies of the revealed cards, you may put this card on top of your deck.

On my card, it seems like most people liked the idea but it was too weak. It was the original intention for everyone to reveal the card, but as some mentioned, it's mostly revolving around you because the other players will reveal a useless card like Copper or Curse or whatnot. That's halfway intentional, which is why I made the cost so low.

I think that if you combine this with some discarding attacks it'd be much more useful, but Poseur could use some tuneups though. Maybe +$1, but that'd make this a Bridge-lite.

I also wanted to name the card "Wannabe" as in "all the other cool kids got their cool cards and I want one too" but that sounds too modern for the theme. 

[jotheonah]

#31 (tie) - Bartering Chip by jotheonah with 1 point (Pole Position)
$5 - Treasure
If this is the only Treasure you play this turn, choose 2. Otherwise, choose 1: +$1P; OR +$2; OR +$1, +1 Buy.

Some thoughts on my widely-panned card and first submission ever (talk about joining the game way too late.)

The apparently problematic "If this is..." clause was a last-minute addition to make the card more interesting. I see the problems now, I still think there's a way to make it work, but whatever.

I basically wanted to create a Swiss Army Treasure. You need a +buy? It's a Copper with a +buy. You need a Potion? It's a Copper and a Potion (not as good as a Potion since it won't help your Apothecaries or Alchemists). You don't need any of those things? Well, you spent $5 on a Silver. But you do that with Stash and, sort of, Venture, so that's not such a big deal.

[NoMoreFun]

Thanks for the votes everyone. I am so happy to win.

I've been thinking about Barge a lot though, and I'm worried that it could be a bit too strong. It's not "light trashing"; it can trash 2 cards with each play if you just do the regular thing and gain one card every turn, so it can be compared to Ambassador, Remake, Steward and Trading post. Those cards are among the strongest in the game, and I think Barge has an edge over them. It's not going to hurt your hand as badly while you're trashing, since you can space the trashing over 2 hands, and each trashing is optional. The +$1 on each turn means that trashing your opening junk never hurts your buying power; a trait shared with Trading Post. It maintains utility into the late game, like Steward, especially with the +buys in a engine building deck. The duration effect absolutely obliterates cursers (which was intentional), but since it's such a generally useful card anyway, I don't think it's going to have interesting ramifications for the strategy.

We'll see how it playtests, but if it needs nerfing, I would like to suggest;
*Give it a chancellor effect, so it always misses reshuffles (an interesting concept I've been meaning to put on a duration card)
*Replace +$1 with "While this is in play, cards cost $1 less", so that everyone gets a benefit (but only YOU get the buys)
*Make the trashing not optional (which can be extremely dangerous; you could pin yourself if a knight hits your feodum)
*Maybe price bump to $5 if the other nerfs don't work.

[eHalcyon]

#31 (tie) - Troubadours by eHalcyon with 1 point (Road Runner)
$5 - Action
+2 Actions
+3 Buys
--
In games using this, when you trash a Fool's Gold, you may gain an Troubadours.
--
Setup: Add Fool's Gold as an extra Kingdom card pile.

Troubadours are musicians.  Therefore, this card gets +2 Actions, just like Wandering Minstrel.

This card also has + Buy Buy Buy.

As for why it likes trashing FG...

"Don't wanna be a fool for you / Just another player in your game for two"

 

[Jack Rudd]

I won one? Yay!

[Polk5440]

Wow, I am quite surprised that my entry won this one! rinkworks hinted that Flea Market is "tough to figure out." I agree -- and I created the card! I hope people have fun testing it.

I do find it amusing that this card gets more interesting when one supply pile is empty and Canal (my other winning entry) gets more interesting when two supply piles are empty. I guess I am good at creating those types of cards? I don't know....

Thanks for everyone who voted for mine! And congrats to the other winners.

[Davio]

Well, I'm glad Barge is in there, but I'm not too keen on having two new Markets.
I mean, there's so much room for creativity, to go off the beaten track and we get two cards which are a whole lot similar to cards we already have, just with a new twist.

Congrats to the winners though, but this set is not shaping up to what I would have liked.
If anything, the set is becoming sort of a mix between Base and Hinterlands, no real innovation.

[One Armed Man]

As I think popsofctown would put it, it is easy for the contest to devolve into: "I know I can identify that this card is fair for its price because of its combination of simple effects, so I will vote for this" and "This card changes the game so much and it is difficult to determine whether it is good without playtesting it, so I won't vote for it. Better safe than sorry." We are getting balanced cards, but not cards that define new strategies.

Somewhat of a shame, and it is odd that we would include this set of 3 cards and the other set of 2 cards because they got such low vote totals. Also, we just added 5 +1 Buys to the set! That seems like overkill! I may just be bitter that I never won a contest.

[popsofctown]

As I think popsofctown would put it, it is easy for the contest to devolve into: "I know I can identify that this card is fair for its price because of its combination of simple effects, so I will vote for this" and "This card changes the game so much and it is difficult to determine whether it is good without playtesting it, so I won't vote for it. Better safe than sorry." We are getting balanced cards, but not cards that define new strategies.

Somewhat of a shame, and it is odd that we would include this set of 3 cards and the other set of 2 cards because they got such low vote totals. Also, we just added 5 +1 Buys to the set! That seems like overkill! I may just be bitter that I never won a contest.

No, you're bitter because you never won a contest and derivative cards did.

And it is kinda suck that the challenges with less clarity on where the diamonds in the rough are cause more inclusions.  I was worried that would happen with the Alchemy challenge and it did. (possibly not a single alchemy submission was really printworthy, alchemy is really, really hard to design for)

[One Armed Man]

I looked through my comments of the winning cards this time (both contests), and I noted that every winner except Barge was uninteresting. I said Barge didn't belong in our set due to strength and similarity to other cards in the set. I am glad that I posted a fan set (shameless plug) because I think that I will have fun testing my cards anyway.

I will post another Combo update, though. I still love the fan set!

[popsofctown]

I looked through my comments of the winning cards this time (both contests), and I noted that every winner except Barge was uninteresting. I said Barge didn't belong in our set due to strength and similarity to other cards in the set. I am glad that I posted a fan set (shameless plug) because I think that I will have fun testing my cards anyway.

I will post another Combo update, though. I still love the fan set!

I'm happier when something like Barge wins than when something boring wins.  Barge is new.  If it's too strong, it's not something inherently wrong with the concept imo, the mandatory chancellor suggestion seems like a very, very good way to ratchet the power down.

[Qvist]

Well, I'm glad Barge is in there, but I'm not too keen on having two new Markets.
I mean, there's so much room for creativity, to go off the beaten track and we get two cards which are a whole lot similar to cards we already have, just with a new twist.

Congrats to the winners though, but this set is not shaping up to what I would have liked.
If anything, the set is becoming sort of a mix between Base and Hinterlands, no real innovation.

Exactly my thoughts as I said above.

Just take my card, the much talked about "Native Market" that I called Stock Market. There was a lot of talk going on if it is balanced or not at $4 and many seemed to like it.
But it only got 4 votes, that surprised me. Was it obviously too strong for you for the cost, or were you simply afraid that it may or may not be balanced?? Some said that they don't want to vote for a card with a mat which is acceptable.

My reasoning: Native Village costs one less than Village although it might often be stronger because you have a delayed draw, similar to Duration cards that are cheaper because of the delayed effect (yes and the possibility to miss the reshuffle). If I'm going to make a sort of Native Market than a cost at $4 might be fine although there may be many situations were it is superior to Market. Also I think it plays very differently to Market and Native Village although the idea is borrowed. I can't really say that about the winner Market variants, sorry, don't get me wrong and don't take this personal.

[Polk5440]

We are getting balanced cards, but not cards that define new strategies.

I'm happier when something like Barge wins than when something boring wins. 

These types of comments assume that entered cards that define new strategies were actually potentially interesting and potentially good cards.

I would claim (and I think I have in my comments on cards past) that most of the cards entered that had "new strategies" wouldn't actually be any good or much fun. Also, "new mechanic" does not equal "new strategy." Just because a card has something new to it doesn't mean it plays new. A lot of the cards with mats and tokens entered in the contest over the last couple of months are like this: tedious accounting without actually introducing sufficiently new strategy to the game to justify the pain. Also, just because a card doesn't have a new mechanic on it doesn't mean it doesn't play differently or introduce new strategy into certain Kingdoms.

I do think some interesting cards with new mechanics did very well in the past. In the treasure contest, my card Copper Press was way out there but placed fourth. A wacky card could have won if it was good enough. And I think that's a testament to the voting system and the way people voted. In addition, it's kind of hard to claim that "no new mechanic" won. We have some cool cards in the set.

I for one am happy so many people care about balance on the cards and that the contest did not devolve into including a bunch of wacky overpowered cards that you play once, realize are stupid or broken and then throw out, defeating the purpose of putting together a SET.

[Schneau]

We are getting balanced cards, but not cards that define new strategies.

I'm happier when something like Barge wins than when something boring wins. 

These types of comments assume that entered cards that define new strategies were actually potentially interesting and potentially good cards.

I would claim (and I think I have in my comments on cards past) that most of the cards entered that had "new strategies" wouldn't actually be any good or much fun. Also, "new mechanic" does not equal "new strategy." Just because a card has something new to it doesn't mean it plays new. A lot of the cards with mats and tokens entered in the contest over the last couple of months are like this: tedious accounting without actually introducing sufficiently new strategy to the game to justify the pain. Also, just because a card doesn't have a new mechanic on it doesn't mean it doesn't play differently or introduce new strategy into certain Kingdoms.

I do think some interesting cards with new mechanics did very well in the past. In the treasure contest, my card Copper Press was way out there but placed fourth. A wacky card could have won if it was good enough. And I think that's a testament to the voting system and the way people voted. In addition, it's kind of hard to claim that "no new mechanic" won. We have some cool cards in the set.

I for one am happy so many people care about balance on the cards and that the contest did not devolve into including a bunch of wacky overpowered cards that you play once, realize are stupid or broken and then throw out, defeating the purpose of putting together a SET.

I agree 100%. In addition, every set needs some more basic cards - not every card can be as crazy as Grave Robber or Poor House. For example, Sage definitely doesn't "define new strategies" or "introduce new mechanics" - but, it is a fine card that fits the set well.

[rinkworks]

+1 to Polk5440.

For starters, every set needs some basic utility cards.  Wacky, crazy Dark Ages still has Junk Dealer and Hunting Grounds and Wandering Minstrel.

Secondly, it's a great observation that new mechanics aren't the same thing as new strategies.  A new mechanic can open new strategic opportunities, true, but not necessarily; and it doesn't take a new mechanic to introduce a new strategy.  I wouldn't say Production Village or Tea House (just to pick two random examples) are new mechanics, but they certainly offer new strategic opportunities I'm excited to explore.

Third, although I can absolutely understand and respect the desire and hope to invent new mechanics (on a par with Potions introduced by Alchemy and Ruins introduced by Dark Ages and Platinum/Colony introduced by Prosperity) and would have liked to have seen some of that myself, I think it's an unrealistic expectation that that would occur in a set constructed card by card.  Were we to create a fan expansion along those lines, I think we'd have to have a separate contest for choosing a mechanic and only then designing cards to exploit it.  It's actually somewhat fortunate that we stumbled upon a theme of sorts -- a Copper theme, with Almoner giving cards like Pawn Shop and Aqua Vitae a wider range of strategic opportunity than otherwise.

That said, we do have some cards with new mechanics:  Soothsayer, Pawn Shop, Canal, Harbinger, Missionary, Astrolabe, and Barge all seem like brand new mechanics to me, and a few like Crystal Ball and Gatherer straddle the line.  That isn't so many that the set couldn't accommodate a few more, but too many such cards is arguably worse than too few.

[Rush_Clasic]

This was never the ideal way to build a set anyway. I'd just take it for what it is: a collection of interesting ideas. For the set to seem like anything more would take plenty of testing and crafting of different thematic ideas, and you just don't get that in this format. Not that I think this was a bad idea; it was a great exercise!

[popsofctown]

Maybe everyone wants something different out of this than I do.  I wanted to make high quality cards and card concepts, playtest them until they work, and then mock them up and play with them as much as the official ones to enhance my Dominion experience.

That involves giving unusual, dangerous ideas a chance.  Donald says he has done tons of outtakes that didn't turn out workable, but amongst the outtakes were great, innovative cards. 

Maybe that is not the purpose others have.  Maybe most people are more interested in the fun of sparring in a contest to impress eachother and balance cards well, and want to put all these cards in a glass case in a sticky thread on the forum and just look at them.  And say "hey, I got one in there." 

I'm starting to think most people are more interested in the latter attitude.  The lack of playtesting makes it increasingly obvious.  So I should really be less surprised when a correctly costed incest-baby of Farmer's Village and Market wins a slot in the contest.  It's not a vanilla waste of a blank card, it's a witty pun for the glass case.


EDIT: I was ninja'ed rather poetically by someone who "gets" what the actual point of the contest is, rather than what I misperceived/hoped it was.

[yuma]

I think it is also important to consider what someone else has said before in regard to this forum that constraints inspire creativity. This specific challenge, the + buy, was not a huge constraint... as such there was less creativity and I think that was reflected in the voting.

My submission, which was very vanilla as a woodcutter, village card took 4th and certainly wasn't very creative, but I didn't have to be.

Other challenges of this contest have been more specific with greater constraints and required and received greater creativity.

[Rush_Clasic]

I was ninja'ed rather poetically by someone who "gets" what the actual point of the contest is, rather than what I misperceived/hoped it was.

If you get people who want to playtest the set and leave wide open the ability to adjust, cut, and add cards as needed, the set can be more than what I see it as. Right now, it's nothing more than a collection of cards. (Set-wise, that is. Contest-wise, it's much more.)