Print

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

[ahyangyi]

Hello, everyone. I'm a newbie, but I want to share some of my ideas here. Please tell me your ideas on it!

The idea is that you don't print kingdom cards at all. Instead, provide only randomizers, and then abuse the "setup instructions" on them to make variants of existing card. This would be the cheapest way to greatly increase number of possible kingdom cards.

For example, we could have this one:

----------------------------------------
"Settled X"
Do whatever X do.
2 Victory Points
Original type + Victory, Cost+$3
----------------------------------------
Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile costing 2 or 3 to the supply. Cards from that pile are called Settled X where X is the original name of the card.
----------------------------------------

So you get a Settled Woodcutter which costs $6, gives you +2coin, +1buy, is an Action/Victory hybrid, and gives you 2 VP at the end of the game. On the other day you might get a Settled Tunnel (sorry, the name doesn't make sense this time) which is worth 4 VP for $6. If you hit a treasure like Loan, you get a Settled Loan which costs $6, is a Treasure/Victory hybrid, and works exactly like the original Loan except the addition of 2 VP.

You cannot only add something to a card. This will leave our set with only expensive cards...
However, it's hard to reduce the effectiveness of an existing card. As well known, giving negative VP to a very strong card and making it cheaper might not work. However, we still have some chance...

----------------------------------------
Lazy X
+1 Card, +1 Coin
Keeps X's other effects besides its action.
-------------------------------------
Whenever another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, do whatever X do.
Reaction, $2
----------------------------------------
Setup: Add an extra Kingdom action card pile costing 2 or 3 to the supply. Cards from that pile are called Lazy X where X is the original name of the card.
----------------------------------------

So you get a Lazy card. It usually is just between a Duchess and a Moat. But when somebody else attacks you, he begins to do his real work.

And finally, with action chaining, and treasure chaining, obviously I would allow our shiny new Randomizers to chain themselves. So you might get a Settled Lazy Village...

[Drab Emordnilap]

How does my Lazy Woodcutter work?

[ahyangyi]

Oh, it's like this:
-------------------------------
Lazy Woodcutter
+1 card, +1 coin
-------------------------------
Whenever another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, +2 coin and +1 buy, then discard this.

Reaction -  $2
-------------------------------

I missed the "discard this" clause in the original post.

[Drab Emordnilap]

Oh, I missed the "At the start of your next turn"; I read it too fast.

[ahyangyi]

Admittedly, the Lazy Woodcutter isn't super interesting.

But, designing a modification that makes a card cheaper is so hard. You can't really add -1 buy or -1 coin to any card and make them cheaper.

Using reaction to replace action could be a good direction, because it makes the good effect of a card conditional, thus cheaper. However, except the Horse Trader reaction used here, none of the existing reaction cards work for this purpose. Because they let you do something in other's turn, and +buy, +coin, +action are all nonsense when it's not your turn.

[Drab Emordnilap]

But, designing a modification that makes a card cheaper is so hard. You can't really add -1 buy or -1 coin to any card and make them cheaper.

Here's some ideas for abilities to add to cards to make them cheaper:

"Discard a card."

"Trash this. If you do..."

"When you gain this, gain a Curse."

"While this is in play, cards cost $1 more."

"At the start of your next turn..."

"Each other player may discard 2 cards, then draw a card."

"When you gain this, each other player gains a Silver."

"-2 VP"


I agree they're not as easy as increasing the cost of a card.

I like this idea; I think there's a lot of neat things you can do with it. I don't know how necessary it is to have cost ranges on the powers? At least not all the powers.

Also:


"Peddling ________"

Cost +$4
During your buy phase, this card costs $2 less for each action card you have in play.

[ahyangyi]

"Discard a card."
Yes, I thought about this one, and think it's good. The only reason I didn't take it as an example is, well, I don't want to show two examples that are both very very vanilla...

"Trash this. If you do..."
I thought this would be OK for most cards. But if Embargo and Feast get this template, their improved versions is strictly stronger than before. Fortress and rats are also problematic in that they're enhanced instead of weakened by self-trashing.

This is an example that shows why it's so hard. You get an idea that can be applied to most cards. But there are just a few cards that completely ruins your plan.

"When you gain this, gain a Curse."

Perhaps gain two Curses would be safer, as in Cache vs Gold.

"While this is in play, cards cost $1 more."
"At the start of your next turn..."

These are brilliant!!

"Each other player may discard 2 cards, then draw a card."
"When you gain this, each other player gains a Silver."

I should have found these. DXV uses the give-other-players-bonus trick so many times.

"-2 VP"
Although I have thought about this, the "A Dominion Fan Card Creation Guide" explicitly recommends not to do so.

[ahyangyi]

I like this idea; I think there's a lot of neat things you can do with it. I don't know how necessary it is to have cost ranges on the powers? At least not all the powers.

Hmm, I limited Settled to use 2~3 cost cards because it has cost+3, therefore cost 5 or 6. This is so that the "cost distribution" in this set could look the same as other sets. Except this reason, I can see most of the Randomizers can put no restriction on the cost.
I can see that in Prosperity games you might want Settled Farmlands at $9 which gives 4VP and an on-buy remodel...

[Asper]

These cards are crazy. I like it
Looking at the fact that Silver becomes Harem by being settled, it totally makes sense. Also an Estate becomes Duchy. It only works for cheap cards (Duchy +2VP is not Province), and i think that's why it's good you chose 2-3 as possible cost. I really have to try this out

About the cost reduction i'm not so sure. It seems more difficult, but making the card an Reaction is probably not that bad of a way to achieve it (much better then a "Gain a Copper" clause or something like that).

[Morgrim7]

Peddling Goons…oh man…

[NoMoreFun]

I like the concept

Another idea

BLESSED
Place any kingdom card costing $2 or $3 on top of this. This kingdom card may be revealed to prevent the effects of an attack.

[RTT]

BLESSED Scheme - would just destroy every attack card.

also attack cards like blessed swindler or ambassador could defend against itself.


its just like the bane card for young witch but just for every attack =)

its just difficult to have an ultimativ non terminal moat reaction

[Morgrim7]

What is BLESSED Moat was the bane of Young Witch?

[soulnet]

I think the problem is that cost changing may make the card a lot worse and thus unplayable lot of the times. For instance, the Settled Loan that is mention, is not worth it, because Loan is only useful (usually) when you have a good density of Coppers among your Treasures. By the time you have the $6 to buy the Settled Loan, you will use its ability to trash Coppers only a few times once in a while, and also, late trashing is quite bad compared to early trashing.

Basically, notice that Settled Loan is way worse than Loan. However, Settled Island may be a game-changer, and possibly something in the middle could be balanced, but I find it hard to believe that there is a general way of converting cards that mantains the balance (even up to a certain tollerable margin).

Also, adding a condition to which card can be selected (like, being terminal, for instance). May be a good idea.

[Qvist]

I think the problem is that cost changing may make the card a lot worse and thus unplayable lot of the times. For instance, the Settled Loan that is mention, is not worth it, because Loan is only useful (usually) when you have a good density of Coppers among your Treasures. By the time you have the $6 to buy the Settled Loan, you will use its ability to trash Coppers only a few times once in a while, and also, late trashing is quite bad compared to early trashing.

I like the idea and I think that this problem isn't really a problem at all. Some card will be stronger, some will be worse. You have to evaluate them newly every game and therefore I really like the idea. Newer players will be definitely confused by that, but for experienced player this is a cool variant. I really like to see a complete set of those modifiers.

[ahyangyi]

I think the problem is that cost changing may make the card a lot worse and thus unplayable lot of the times. For instance, the Settled Loan that is mention, is not worth it, because Loan is only useful (usually) when you have a good density of Coppers among your Treasures. By the time you have the $6 to buy the Settled Loan, you will use its ability to trash Coppers only a few times once in a while, and also, late trashing is quite bad compared to early trashing.

Basically, notice that Settled Loan is way worse than Loan. However, Settled Island may be a game-changer, and possibly something in the middle could be balanced, but I find it hard to believe that there is a general way of converting cards that mantains the balance (even up to a certain tollerable margin).

Also, adding a condition to which card can be selected (like, being terminal, for instance). May be a good idea.

I think I'm a little lucky that, as what I have written there could not be a Settled Island, because I required that base card to cost 2 or 3. Even if it's allowed, a Settled Island which costs $7 providing 4 VP looks interestingly strong but certainly not something you always want over Province or Gold. I think it's OK.

However, I do agree with your point. Dominion cards has been balanced so that some cards are stronger early (say, Loan), while others are stronger later (say, Village). By changing the price of a card by such a large margin as 3 coins, we make the early cards look too bad while the late cards too good. Such modification also rarely works with self-trashing (so you get your bonus much less often) or Island-type banishing (so you get the bonus only once, unless it's VP).

However, I don't think asking for such conditions is a good idea. What is a terminal, after all? A noble is more terminal than a spice merchant, because you use the Smithy ability of the former more often than the Necropolis ability, while you use the Village ability of the latter more often than the Woodcutter. A crossroads is a terminal if you have played it this turn. A throne room is a terminal in the sense that it doesn't give you +Actions, but works quite like villages, which is the opposite of a terminal.

As you can see, many cards are fun because they work in interesting ways. Putting such vanilla constraint on them ruins the fun a bit, because the more interesting cards usually don't fit such a clear-cut criteria. Therefore, I think it's best to just use cost range and card type.

We can try other ways to solve the problems, though. For example, we add 2VP and 3 cost so it hurts early cards too much, what about adding "When you buy this, you may trash an estate in your hand"? So you're a bit more motivated to buy it early. Well, I don't think this is a good one, but it could be used to illustrate how to balance things a bit.

[ahyangyi]

I think the problem is that cost changing may make the card a lot worse and thus unplayable lot of the times. For instance, the Settled Loan that is mention, is not worth it, because Loan is only useful (usually) when you have a good density of Coppers among your Treasures. By the time you have the $6 to buy the Settled Loan, you will use its ability to trash Coppers only a few times once in a while, and also, late trashing is quite bad compared to early trashing.

I like the idea and I think that this problem isn't really a problem at all. Some card will be stronger, some will be worse. You have to evaluate them newly every game and therefore I really like the idea. Newer players will be definitely confused by that, but for experienced player this is a cool variant. I really like to see a complete set of those modifiers.

Thank you! Honestly, I used to plan to design a few more before starting a thread here. But designing card-modifiers in this way is simply too hard for me. Therefore, I post early, so more people can have the fun to design card-modifiers.

[ahyangyi]

Another idea:

----------------------------------------
"Y-y X" (Call it Y X, Y-ing X, Y-ish X, or Y-ed X if it makes more sense. But you have to agree on the same name, so naming effects can work normally.)
Choose one: do X or do Y. If Y costs more than X at the setup, you may choose to do Y only once per turn.
Things other than the action part is the same as X.
X + Action, If X and Y cost the same, it costs one coin more; otherwise it costs whatever the more expensive card cost.
----------------------------------------
Setup: Find two extra action Kingdom card piles costing 2-4. Add the first pile to the supply, cards in it called "Y-y X" where X is the original name of the cards in it, and Y is the original name of the cards in the second pile. If they're different in price, use the cheaper one as X. (The second pile is not in the supply)
Y cannot be self-referencing. (Currently only Rats and Cultists count as self-referencing. None cause big problem here, I think. But thematically a Ratty village is not a Rat. It just does't feel right.) X can be self-referencing. If it does, change all such references to "Y-y X". (So you still get Scavenging Rats, which gives you more Scavenging Rats if you wish.)
----------------------------------------

Therefore, if "Y-y X" costs the same, it's like a Band of Misfits which can only choose X and Y as targets. But Y is not in the supply, so it is not strictly worse.

Examples:
----------------------------------------
Chapel Moat (which is a little stronger than, say, Moated Chapel. But both are OK, I think.)
Choose one: draw 2 cards; or trash up to 4 cards.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, you are unaffected by that attack.
Reaction, $3
----------------------------------------
Smithing Bureaucrat
Choose one:
draw 3 cards; or gain a silver card; put it on top of your deck. Each other player reveals a Victory card from his hand and puts it on his deck (or reveals a hand with no Victory cards).
Action - Attack, $5
----------------------------------------
Scavenging Rats
Choose one: + 2 Coins, You may put your deck into your discard pile. Look through your discard pile and put one card from it on top of your deck; +1 Card, +1 Action, Gain a Scavenging Rats. Trash a card from your hand other than a Scavenging Rats (or reveal a hand of all Scavenging Rats)
Action, $5
----------------------------------------
Farming-villagey Worker's Village
Choose one: +1 Card, +2 Actions, +1 Buy; or +2 Actions; Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal an Action or Treasure card. Put that card into your hand and discard the other cards.
Action, $5
----------------------------------------

Otherwise, you get a card which costs as much as Y, but the Y ability can be used only once per turn. Other than that, you can always use it for the X ability.

Examples:
----------------------------------------
Smithing Village
Choose one: +3 Card; or +1 Card and +2 Action. You may choose the first option only once per turn.
Action - $4
----------------------------------------
Militia Great Hall (Which I think is a bit too strong. It's essentially Militias that don't hurt if they collide)
Choose one: +2 Coin, Each other player discards down to 3 cards in his hand; or +1 Card and +1 Action. You may choose the first option only once per turn.
1 VP
Victory - Action - Attack - $4
----------------------------------------
Feasty Duchess (Awesome Duchy chains! Admittedly this is one of the more broken combinations I can think of. But doesn't it look so cool?)
Choose one: Trash this card. Gain a card costing up to 5; or +2, and Each player (including you) looks at the top card of his deck, and discards it or puts it back. You may choose the first option only once per turn.
In games using this, when you gain a Duchy, you may gain a Duchess..
Action, $4
----------------------------------------

Well, I admit, this is actually two different designs packed together. The reason that, you have two designs, one wants two cards of the same cost, the other wants two cards of different costs. By merging them together, you just find two action cards at the 2-4 price range, so it's actually simpler.

[soulnet]

My example restriction on "being terminal" was not actual text to include, of course, just an idea. But asking for a card to have/lack "+Actions" in is text is possible, and then you have a couple of border cases, but less than what you would have without the restriction. Also, you may require or forbid Actions or Treasures or Mix-types, and that may help a bit.

About specific examples, the problem with Loan at $7 is not that you don't want it early if it costs $7, is that early, you don't have $7, so you would only buy it if the bonus itself (plus the $1 of Loan) is enough, but costing $7 almost completely ruins the trashing power of Loan. This kind of thing is what I say can happen to many cards. However, for RL play, it could be fun to try and maybe repeat the choice if the resulting combination is bad in some sense.

[Awaclus]

About specific examples, the problem with Loan at $7 is not that you don't want it early if it costs $7, is that early, you don't have $7, so you would only buy it if the bonus itself (plus the $1 of Loan) is enough, but costing $7 almost completely ruins the trashing power of Loan. This kind of thing is what I say can happen to many cards. However, for RL play, it could be fun to try and maybe repeat the choice if the resulting combination is bad in some sense.

Settled Loan would be $6. But it's true, Settled Early Game Card is usually very bad, because you don't want to pay extra for VPs in the early game. At least Steward, Chapel and Swindler if it is the only curser in the game are exceptions - while they lose a lot of their power when Settled, Steward is still usable for its versatility in the mid game and Chapel and cursers are just that good.

Settled Fortune Teller would be very interesting. Probably not very good though.

[ahyangyi]

About specific examples, the problem with Loan at $7 is not that you don't want it early if it costs $7, is that early, you don't have $7, so you would only buy it if the bonus itself (plus the $1 of Loan) is enough, but costing $7 almost completely ruins the trashing power of Loan. This kind of thing is what I say can happen to many cards. However, for RL play, it could be fun to try and maybe repeat the choice if the resulting combination is bad in some sense.

Settled Loan would be $6. But it's true, Settled Early Game Card is usually very bad, because you don't want to pay extra for VPs in the early game. At least Steward, Chapel and Swindler if it is the only curser in the game are exceptions - while they lose a lot of their power when Settled, Steward is still usable for its versatility in the mid game and Chapel and cursers are just that good.

Settled Fortune Teller would be very interesting. Probably not very good though.

Perhaps the only usage of Settled Loan I can think of, is when you won't buy a Province late game (because you either fail to hit 8 or you face PPR). You have 3 options then:
Gold: +3 coin
Duchy: +3 VP
Settled Loan: +2 VP, +1 coin, deck cycling (which is probably undesired at this stage), optional treasure trashing (which is probably marginally useful)

If you would certainly take Gold over Duchy, you won't want Settled Loan. If you would certainly want Duchy over Gold, you won't want Settled Loan either. But if Gold and Duchy are almost as good for you, Settled Loan could become a marginally better option.

That being said, being situationally marginally useful is still miserable.

With the additional clause "When you buy this, you may trash a Victory card from you hand", however, buying it at turn 3 or 4 is as good as buying a Silver in terms of average buying power, but you get the trashing ability. This would be closer to a Turn 3 or 4 Loan, which is as good as buying a Copper in terms of average buying power but also gets you the trashing ability. Perhaps it would make it a bit more desirable.

[Awaclus]

With the additional clause "When you buy this, you may trash a Victory card from you hand", however, buying it at turn 3 or 4 is as good as buying a Silver in terms of average buying power, but you get the trashing ability. This would be closer to a Turn 3 or 4 Loan, which is as good as buying a Copper in terms of average buying power but also gets you the trashing ability. Perhaps it would make it a bit more desirable.

How often you have $6 and a Victory card you want to trash in hand before the second reshuffle?

[soulnet]

How often you have $6 and a Victory card you want to trash in hand before the second reshuffle?

Opening Silver/Smitty or Silver/Oracle makes it not that uncommon. With Silver/Silver (or a terminal equivalent to Silver) it is really unlikely.

EDIT: Maybe Silver/Courtyard is fine too.

[popsofctown]

I very much disagree that Settled Loan is a problem.  Loan is already a really crappy card, and you usually use it when the elements of some sort of engine are really compelling, so you bite the bullet and get the crappy trasher.  If you have Grand Markets or Conspirator or some other strong pull that would make you buy Loan, then Settled Loan is worth a look too imo.  Loan often requires you to find a way around buying Silver anyway, to be good.

Settled Loan is also way better than Duchy against Ghost Ship.

My point is, I think Settled Loan passes the "better than Bureaucrat" test with flying colors.  And I suspect that every Settled card can pass that level of scrutiny too.

[Awaclus]

Opening Silver/Smitty or Silver/Oracle makes it not that uncommon. With Silver/Silver (or a terminal equivalent to Silver) it is really unlikely.

EDIT: Maybe Silver/Courtyard is fine too.

Yeah, it's certainly possible, but it is still pretty uncommon to have Settled Loan and one of those three cards in the same kingdom. After all, Settled Loan happens only 1/52 times as often as a regular kingdom card.