Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Emergence - yet another fan set  (Read 16042 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Newcomer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Emergence - yet another fan set
« on: October 03, 2011, 01:35:04 pm »
0

Hey everyone, I haven't posted much here yet, but I love reading what everyone has to say on these forums. If you're up for yet another fan set, these are some custom cards I've been working on for a while. I've only play-tested a couple of them so far. I've culled this down to about 40 cards right now, and I've been editing them a good deal, but without play-testing I'm sure some of them are still way off. I guess I'm looking for some feedback, but also I'm just providing more ideas, because I know it can be fun seeing others' ideas and talking about all the possibilities within the Dominion framework.

Oh, one more note.. I'm gobbling up Dominion and have read a whole lot of the strategy on these forums, but really, I'm still pretty new to the game. I have base set, Prosperity, and Cornucopia, have also played Intrigue in person, and have played with the other sets online. But I met Dominion 2 months ago. For whatever it's worth.

This is Emergence. The gameplay themes of this set:

-a -1 Action mechanic, which is a way to make a card use up 2 Actions instead of 1. This allows some stronger cards, but introduces its own problems. The rule is that if a card says -1 Action and you have any Actions remaining, you now have 1 fewer. If you had none to begin with, then you don't worry about negative Actions, it's just something you tried to do and failed.

-"If you do,… If you do not,…" clauses. This helps with the -Actions, as it can allow an alternate ability to trigger if there are no spare Actions available.

-cards that deal with the discard pile. I was actually expecting I'd do more with that than I ended up doing, but basically there are some cards that let you place the last cards you discarded back into your hand. I imagine you might be thinking, oh boy, he has no clue what he's doing.. I think I've handled this aspect well enough, but feel free to point out flaws with the cards. I want to make it work. I've read rinkworks's guide, but I did play-test this mechanic with one card and I didn't find it to be a big deal at the time. That card never can go more than 2 deep into the discard pile, and you'd rarely go deeper anywhere in the set, considering interactions, so I think it adds more to the game than it takes away. I'm willing to be proven wrong, though.

-more cards that provide +VP. Probably too many of them, but if I cut the set down further that would fix the problem. I think it's okay as-is.

-cards that provide benefits to your opponents. These are very hard to balance, and I'm sure there are some problems I've missed.

-duration cards that stay in play indefinitely.

-and there are a smattering of multi-type cards out there, such as Treasure-Reaction.

Introducing cards by cost seems to be working well for some other sets, so I'll start that with the first reply. :-)
Logged

Newcomer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2011, 01:36:58 pm »
0

The $1 and $2 cards:


Brass
TREASURE   $1
---
Worth 1 coin
---
When you buy this, gain 2 Coppers and put them into your hand.  You may immediately play them.  If you do, +1 Buy, and you may not buy Brass again this turn.

-So buying this lets you buy a card $1 higher than you can afford.. at the price of putting 3 Coppers (2 Coppers and the Brass) into your deck. Probably a worthwhile gamble occasionally, but it'll hurt you quite a bit if you use it rashly.  Some interesting potential interactions with Gardens and Goons.


Bust
ACTION   $2
---
+1 Buy
You may discard a card from your hand.  If you do, +1 VP.

-It goes in a different direction than most of the weak vanilla cards. Painful as a source of +Buy, as it doesn't help you with money, cards, or even actions. But if you have cards to discard, the VP can compensate. Not sure how balanced it is..


Page
ACTION   $2
---
Choose two: +1 Action; +1 Card; place the top card of your discard pile on top of your deck.
(The choices must be different.)

-A specialized Pawn variant. You have freedom in what you discard last, so you can put your Gold on top and hope to draw it back next turn. Or play this after gaining a nice card. I might change it to choose one, and combine the first two choices, if the discard pile benefit feels too strong.


Sorcerer
ACTION   $2
---
-1 Action; if you do, +5 Actions and gain a Curse.  If not, +2 Actions and you may trash a card from your hand.

-This card probably looks ridiculously weak. In conjunction with some of the -Action cards in this set, so many Actions could prove quite useful, and it has a built-in trasher, so the Curses aren't permanent. Most of the time, though, you want to play it when you only have 1 Action left, so that it gives you Actions and optional trashing. Just don't play it if you have 2 Actions left, unless you have a good plan for all of those Actions. I'm very curious how this will play, as it seems like a fairly useful card for the non-terminal trashing aspect, as long as you time it right.


Will
ACTION-DURATION   $2
---
Leave this card in play indefinitely.
---
While this is in play, whenever you draw a Victory card, you may set it aside on your Will mat. If you do, +1 Card. At the end of the game, pass all cards on your mat to the player on your left.

-The first of my indefinite duration cards. It's an effective way to rid yourself of your Estates, at the steep expense of directly aiding your opponent. It could lead to some very interesting strategic decisions in the endgame, as your deck greens up. If you know you're on the brink of a killer game-winning turn, you might be willing to eat a Duchy to get the right card into your hand and buy that Colony. Risky, but for a spare $2 buy, it might be worth having on the table.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2011, 02:00:52 pm »
0

The -1 Action mechanic is an interesting idea.  I worry, though, that the cards won't be useful in the absence of a board with any source of extra actions.  On the other hand, Sorcerer solves that problem by being its own source of extra actions.  I look forward to seeing what else you have along these lines.

The problem with the discard thing isn't really how deep you go into the discard pile but whether you put a limit on it at all.  What you have in Page isn't broken, I don't think; I just question whether it's worth having to consciously order your discards every turn just in case you draw Page for the next one.  But you're right not to blindly discount anything my guide warns against -- if you test it, and it's fun, great.  I do think Page is probably quite balanced as you have it.

Brass is interesting, but I wonder if I'd ever ever want to use it except in a Gardens game or on the last shuffle through the deck.  It could be really useful on that last shuffle, though; since the effect takes place at buy time, it's not like I have to buy it first, then only reap the benefit after I draw it again, at which point it's taking up a slot in my hand that probably could have been better used with something else.  So, a highly situational card, I think, but the $1 price and the conditional +Buy make it workable when it so easily could have been a never-buy.

I'm not sure I understand Bust.  My worry there is that it would allow the game to degenerate into an infinite state, where the best move for all players is to repeatedly play Bust every turn and never buy anything.  But that's possible with Monument in theory too and never seems to happen.  So maybe this works after all; I'm not sure.

Will is very interesting, but I don't like how it favors only one opponent.  Someone could win the game just because the player to his right uses this card.  Better would be to credit all other players instead of just one.  I'd say you could count VPs as if they all had the set-aside cards in their decks, but since there is only one physical copy of each to go around, this could make calculating Gardens, Vineyards, and Fairgrounds totals quite tedious and error-prone.  So how about a flat +1 VP for all other players per card on your mat?  More simply still, count each card on the mat as -1 VP for you?

I suspect that would be balanced.  Currently, players tend to be happy to use up an Action to trash an Estate in some way, which results in a permanent -1 VP.  Surely it's worth an extra -1 VP to trash them without consuming an Action to get rid of them and without letting them consume a card slot when they're drawn.

I would suggest changing the mechanic to be more consistent with the other duration cards, though:  "At the beginning of your next turn, you may set aside any number of Victory cards from your hand onto your Will mat.  For each card set aside this way, +1 Card."

This is slightly weaker, as Victory cards drawn during the play of your hand won't get to be set aside.  But I think this hazard helps make the card more interesting as well as more consistent.

Great work, and I look forward to seeing what else you've got.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 02:05:41 pm by rinkworks »
Logged

Newcomer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2011, 02:15:20 pm »
0

Thanks for the feedback! :-)

Re: -1 Action.. I was very aware of that problem, and it was in mind when I designed each of the cards that use it.. I'll wait to see what you think once I start revealing them.

Re: Brass.. yeah, I think the card works for itself. It serves a (small) purpose and has its uses. But I'm not sure if it's worth taking up a kingdom card slot for that.

Re: Bust.. My instinct is that 1 VP per turn wouldn't win the game.. Get two Provinces and that's already 12 VP, which means 12 plays of Bust to catch up. I guess maybe in a KC situation, or with villages it could be dangerous. By no means am I sure of anything yet.

Re: Will.. I like your -1 VP suggestion. That seems pretty balanced. I'm not sure where the problem is with "whenever you draw?" My idea was Will stays in play for the remainder of the game, and any time you draw a Victory card you have the option of getting rid of it. A painful temptation, because you want a better hand, but all the VP will add up. I can change it to only at the beginning of turns, but do you see a problem with the permanent duration aspect? Or do I just need to clarify that intent?

Logged

Newcomer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2011, 02:22:19 pm »
0

And since Will was named based on the idea that you're bequeathing those Estates to another player, I'll need a new name.  So something like this:

Charity
ACTION-DURATION   $2
---
Leave this card in play indefinitely.
---
At the beginning of each subsequent turn, you may set aside any number of Victory cards on your Charity mat. For each card set aside this way, +1 Card.
---
At the end of the game, -1 VP for each card on your mat. Trash the cards.
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2011, 02:25:52 pm »
0

I like these cards in general. The sorcerer's really cute.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2011, 03:36:14 pm »
0

Re: Bust.. My instinct is that 1 VP per turn wouldn't win the game.. Get two Provinces and that's already 12 VP, which means 12 plays of Bust to catch up. I guess maybe in a KC situation, or with villages it could be dangerous. By no means am I sure of anything yet.

An example of what I mean is, say you wound up with, by accident or design, a deck consisting only of the cards Throne Room, Bust, Estate, Estate.  And say your opponent wound up with that deck, too.  Every turn, you play TR-Bust, discard two Estates, and earn +2 VP.  Every turn, your opponent does the same thing too.  The reason this is a degenerate game state isn't so much that you can do this infinitely but that it's possibly the optimal play.  Because for either of you to end the game, you'll have to start buying cards, which will quickly ruin your ability to earn 2 VP per turn and thus concede ground to your opponent.  Very likely you'll not be able to build up a Province-buying deck before you've lost too much ground for those Provinces to make up.  Whether that's technically true or not, it's very conceivable that both players will perceive the optimal strategy to be to continue to play TR-Bust ad nauseum.

It's worth pointing out that a degenerate game state is conceivably possible already -- namely, if all players somehow wind up with decks consisting only of Monuments.  Obviously this (and my TR-Bust example above) are  unlikely to occur exactly in a real game, but the examples demonstrate the possibility of such a degenerate deck.  Maybe a more realistic example is a game where inexperienced players buy up Witches and Moneylenders and trash all their Copper before they think to buy Silver.  Add Monuments or Busts to the resulting devastation, and that may well be such a broken game state.

But Monument at least offers an encouragement to buy cards simply by offering some money to spend.  Bust doesn't, and that makes me nervous.  I'm not saying it IS broken, mind you.   It's just a big question mark I have.

Quote
Re: Will.. I like your -1 VP suggestion. That seems pretty balanced. I'm not sure where the problem is with "whenever you draw?"

Not a mechanical or balance problem, just an aesthetic one.  It just seems to me like it's better to use existing mechanics and hooks where possible, as it's not always easy to anticipate where broken combos or rules quandaries might result from a new mechanic (including possibly with future official cards).   But I can't think of anything broken with your version off-hand.

Quote
...but do you see a problem with the permanent duration aspect? Or do I just need to clarify that intent?

No and no.  Duration cards already only get cleaned up until after their effects are complete.  So if you were to say, for example, "At the beginning of each of your subsequent turns..." (note: clarify that you do mean only YOUR turns), then no further additional clarification that the card stays in play is necessary.
Logged

Newcomer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2011, 04:43:17 pm »
0

timchen: thanks. :-)

An example of what I mean is, say you wound up with, by accident or design, a deck consisting only of the cards Throne Room, Bust, Estate, Estate.  And say your opponent wound up with that deck, too.  Every turn, you play TR-Bust, discard two Estates, and earn +2 VP.  Every turn, your opponent does the same thing too.  The reason this is a degenerate game state isn't so much that you can do this infinitely but that it's possibly the optimal play.

I mostly understood the never ending game issue, I was just hoping Bust would be weak enough to avoid it. I was also looking at the +Buy as encouragement to buy, but it's not very strong. However, I was looking from the perspective of aiming for that kind of deck, not backing into it. I'm going to drop Bust, for the moment, and maybe come up with something else later.

I'm actually going to prematurely introduce one of my $4 cards now to see what you think of it. I wrote this description before your last post, but it captures my thought process a little. This card can play as a weaker Monument, but a) that might be bad, since there's less incentive to buy cards, and b) it enables itself and could work as a never-ending engine. I still like the choice aspect to it, but it might just be too dangerous (because of endless games) to work.

Quote
Shrine
ACTION   $4
---
Choose one: +1 Card and +2 Actions; or +$1 and +1 VP

-A village if you need it, and if that's useless to you, there's a consolation benefit. I wanted another village for the set, and I thought a + VP village was an unexplored direction. +1 VP every time you played a village seemed way too strong, but as part of a choice I think this is fun. Thematically, a village sprang up around the shrine to trade with the pilgrims.
Okay, in re-reading rinkworks's guide, I've figured out why this might be bad.. trim your deck down to 3 Shrines and you get +2 VP every turn and don't buy anything. The +$ might make it useful not to do that, but with 6 Shrines you'd get 4 VP. Still, you had to buy 6 Shrines, and a good trasher, and trim your deck down. Hmm..

I think my understanding of the +VP danger was shallow, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Perhaps a simple fix would be to make the second half "trash a card and, if you do, +1 VP." But that seems like a really nice card, a mini-Bishop that reverts to a Village when you're out of starting cards.

Basically I like the idea enough to look for ways to make it work.



And here's the revised text for Will/Charity

Charity
ACTION-DURATION   $2
---
Leave this card in play indefinitely.
---
At the beginning of each of your subsequent turns, you may set aside any number of Victory cards on your Charity mat. For each card set aside this way, +1 Card.
---
At the end of the game, -1 VP for each card on your mat. Trash the cards.
Logged

Newcomer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2011, 09:56:01 am »
0

The $3 cards:


Bribe
ACTION   $3
---
Pass a Treasure card from your hand to the player on your left. He may either put it into his hand, or trash it.  If he puts it into his hand, +2 VP

-[note: i've seen other cards with the name bribe, most recently ChaosRed's.. this idea has been in my set for a while, and the idea of bribing your opponent just seems to be a common thought among fan designers] Quite literally a bribe attempt. At worst, it's a convoluted way to trash your Coppers. Otherwise, it's a calculated move, where you literally try to buy a few VP off of your opponent. I can foresee the objection that it can benefit one player too strongly if the person to their right keeps handing them Silvers. A possible fix would be to trash a Treasure, any other player may gain a copy, if any do, +2 VP. I'm not sure if I like it as much, but it's a possibility


City-State
ACTION   $3
---
+2 Actions
Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.

-I'm really curious to see how this one plays. From a neutral hand, it acts like a village. If you play it after depleting your hand, it's a more effective card drawer. But if you have any real card draw, it won't get you cards very often. I have a feeling it can be really good in a few situations, but most of the time it'll leave you wishing you could've used it better.


Samaritan
ACTION   $3
---
+1 Action
Gain a Silver and put it into your hand. Each other player may put the top card of his discard pile on top of his deck.

-It makes up for the fact that you didn't buy Silver instead when it puts Silver into your hand the first time you play it. Then it remains as a non-terminal source of Silvers, which will vary in its value depending on the game. But the opponent benefit can be big, since they can put their best card from their last hand on top of the discard pile. I originally had them putting the card in their hand, but that seems way way way too strong.


Sphinx
ACTION   $3
---
+1 Action
+1 Card
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it costs more than 3 coins, place it into your hand. If not, every other player may gain a copy of it.

-I've drastically rewritten this card multiple times. I probably will again. As it is, it's a Lab if it hits, and a free card for your opponents if it misses with anything worth having, which includes Sphinx. I think the penalty and condition are enough to bring it down to $3, and it's a terrible opener anyway.
Logged

Newcomer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2011, 09:59:03 am »
0

Sphinx should read:
+1 Card
+1 Action

I just added the +1 Card late and shoved it in the wrong spot. It used to not draw any cards unless it hit, but now it's at least a cantrip.
Logged

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1323
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1379
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2011, 10:36:23 am »
0

City-State looks very strong in conjunction with discard-for-benefit cards, or even with non-terminal non-drawing cards such as Pawn.
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2011, 10:55:31 am »
0

Bribe

This is sort of a kingmaker card, which is to say that a losing player can purposely shift a win from one opponent to the other.  If, in a 3p game, you're so far behind you can't win, while the player to the right has a slight lead, you can shift the victory to the left-hand player by passing him Golds and Platinums.  Worse, you can justify it by saying you're passing those good treasures to earn a nominal amount of VP for yourself.

I also have the question about how much strategy is really opened up by the card.  Although the opponent may accept or trash any card passed, probably these few choices will account for 90+% of all uses of the card:

1. Player passes Copper.  Copper is trashed.
2. Player passes Silver.  Silver is trashed.
3. Player passes Gold.  Gold is gained.  (Early and mid-game.)
4. Player passes Gold.  Gold is trashed.  (Late game.)

Certainly you *might* see a Silver being accepted, but Silver so often doesn't matter enough either way, so you'd probably not want one if it meant someone else getting 2 VP.

Of course when other treasure cards are in play, the possibilities are more interesting, but Copper, Silver, and Gold probably still account for most of the treasures in your deck.  That begs the question:  Why not be able to pass ANY (non-victory) card instead of just a treasure card?  It might be more interesting if a player has to choose to accept or trash a Steward or a Bishop or something.  On the other hand, this worsens the kingmaker problem, as then you could pass Goons and Grand Markets.

Quote
City-State

Very interesting card!  You might want to read this thread about WW's Squire card, as a lot of the same issues will apply.  A big one is that the card's power is very variable.  But this slight difference from Squire solves the problem of the card being useless on a good percentage of boards, because if nothing else it's a Village.

Because of the variance, it's a difficult card to cost.  You might have to go to $4, even though on some boards it's weaker than Village, just because on other boards it will be a very dominating card.

Quote
Samaritan

Not sure you need the "every other player" penalty.  Silver is usually a pretty neutral card.  Sometimes you want a lot, and sometimes you don't want any, but most of the time the addition (or removal) of a Silver doesn't matter a whole lot.  Which is why it might be most often the worst thing Jester can turn up.  Playtesting, of course, will reveal the ultimate verdict.

Quote
Sphinx

Why the cost restriction?  Allowing the player to decide between the two options, regardless of what card is turned up, would expand the strategic space.  I love the idea -- kind of an inverted Jester, which is itself one of my favorite official cards.  I think it needs to go up in price, though, regardless of whether you keep the cost restriction or not.  Each play of the card makes it either a Lab or a junk attack, both of which are too powerful for a $3 card.
Logged

Newcomer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #12 on: October 04, 2011, 07:21:38 pm »
0

Bribe: I'm not in love with it. But what do you think about the alternate idea? Or how about...

Bribe
ACTION   $3
---
+$1
Trash a Treasure card. Each other player may gain a copy of it. If any do, +1 VP.


That way it's less targeted, and you don't play kingmaker. Primarily it's a Copper trasher, but a bit more. Now it's starting to look like a whole new card. I'm still not in love with it, but it might be on the way to something better.

City-State: I'll try it at $4 then, and see how it goes. I convinced myself to lower it to $3 because it would be weak too often, but it wouldn't be the only card bought at $4 purely for a village effect.

Samaritan: I originally had it as "Gain a Gold." That seemed strong, so I weakened it, without thinking too much. But then again, I had it as "Gain a Silver and put it into your hand. I thought that benefit was stronger. Would it be balanced as follows?

Samaritan
ACTION   $4
---
Gain a Gold and put it into your hand. Each other player may put the top card of his discard pile into his hand.


I agree, play-testing is the optimal solution, and I hope I find time to do a lot of that soon.

Sphinx: Well it's optional for the other player to gain the card. It's not meant as an attack. It's meant to be a drawback of the card. The card originally had much more swing between the benefit and the penalty. At first it was a compare your top card to the player's on your left. Either you put the card in hand and drew 4, or they gained a copy and your action phase ended. Huge benefit, or substantial loss. I trimmed it down, but I'd like to retain it as a bit of a gamble.. you can get something good, but if you fail, it hurts you.
So, if I changed it to

Sphinx
ACTION   $3
---
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it costs more than $4, put it into your hand and +1 Card. If not, each other player may gain a copy of it.

what do you think? A stronger Jester-like downside, and a bit of a stronger benefit. I'm willing to raise the price, but first I'm more concerned with finding a balance where you want to play the card, but you might just end up helping your opponent. If I can.
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2011, 03:30:38 am »
0

Samaritan: there is a card called explorer. While it benefits others, I still feel that a $4 cost card gaining a gold in hand is too strong.

Sphinx: again, too strong. It is still too strong even without +1 card or +1 action I think. At present form it is a fine $5. Note that giving a card costing less than $5 to an opponent is very seldom a great help: lots of useful $4 and $3 cards are useful terminals and extra copies do not help. One more village is usually marginal; at the beginning it can hit a lot of copper and estates.

I have a general recommendation here: when you think about the power level of a $3 card, you should think about something like wishing well or great hall or village; i.e., if it is a cantrip, it should only be useful with a proper setup. If it is a terminal, Masquerade and ambassador are already pushing the envelope.
Logged

Newcomer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2011, 09:17:49 am »
0

Good points. These are a couple cards that started out as a name and then I tried to find a fitting purpose for them. I also seem to have a lot of cards at $4 and few at $3, but maybe some of those will drop down.

And yes, when I think they can gain a card costing less than $5, I was thinking about how useful it is to get those villages and such through a gain, but I didn't really think about all those terminals and such. Still, as an option, I think it's a fine benefit, just not so strong a deterrent as I was thinking. I'll place it at $5 for now, then.
Logged

Newcomer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2011, 09:23:21 am »
0

The first batch of $4 cards:

Arbitrator
ACTION   $4
---
+2 Cards
Place the top 2 cards of your discard pile into your hand.
Discard 2 cards.
Place 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck.

-I play-tested this card with myself a little when I came up with it, and I absolutely loved it and thought it worked well. It wasn't broken but it was fun and useful. Since it's terminal, you usually can't use any Actions you pick up, so I'd always discard my best Treasures on top. The card is net zero card gain, but you can discard your two worst cards and then the Courtyard effect lets you balance this turn and next turn. And sometimes I placed another Arbitrator on top of my deck, knowing I'd be able to re-use my Golds yet again.


Bandit
ACTION-ATTACK   $4
---
+1 Card
+$2
Each other player reveals his hand. If it has 5 or more cards, he places one card with the lowest cost on top of his deck.

-This one was directly inspired by the recent thread about "How much is information worth?" The information is clearly not key to the card, but it grew out of those thoughts. It should often clutter the top of their deck with Copper, which probably weakens their next hand but assures they'll have some coin to spend. If you have multiple cards with the same lowest cost, I mean for the player whose cards they are to choose which one to top-deck, so let me know if I need to word that differently.


Borough
ACTION   $4
---
+1 Card
+3 Actions

-Again, more than 2 Actions will be more useful with some of the stronger cards in this set, which use the -1 Action mechanic to use up 2 Actions at a time. Even in other sets, though, it will sometimes be nice to have more than 2 Actions, and sometimes this will be the only village available. I think this card will be very nice to have within the set, but I agree it's a bit weak outside of it.


Countercurse
ACTION-ATTACK   $4
---
+1 VP
You may gain a Curse. If you do not, each other player gains a Curse.
Put this on the Curse mat.
---
At the end of the game, if there are exactly 1, 4, 7, or 10 Countercurse cards on the mat, each Curse is counted as 2 VP instead of -1 VP.

-I almost cut this card, but in the end I realized I only had one other curser, and that a hard-to-get cost 7 card. This is of course far from a traditional curser. You wouldn't really play the Countercurse strategy, but if you're getting cursed a lot, or if you want to go out on piles, it becomes an interesting tactic. At any rate, it's probably a card you can grab one of and only play near the end if it will help you. Its strongest use is probably trying to outwit the Countercurse junkie who tries to win with all the Curses. It's a little complicated and gimmicky, and I recognize that it's swingy. I imagine it would make one hesitant to buy cursing attacks at all. But maybe it would just sit there a lot.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #16 on: October 05, 2011, 11:24:31 am »
0

Arbitrator
ACTION   $4
---
+2 Cards
Place the top 2 cards of your discard pile into your hand.
Discard 2 cards.
Place 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck.

-I play-tested this card with myself a little when I came up with it, and I absolutely loved it and thought it worked well. It wasn't broken but it was fun and useful.

This reminds me of the I made, which went through several versions but finally wound up being this:

Architect
$3 - Action
+3 Cards, +$2.  Put 3 cards from your hand on top of your deck.

It started out as a $5-cost card with no money bonus, which was obviously very underpowered.  I overestimated how useful setting up your current and next turn really is.  But the final version is a lot of fun and works just fine.  I'm sure yours is as fun as you say.

It's hard to gauge its power because of the ability to pull in cards from your discard pile, though.  I don't like that mechanic, but I won't belabor that point:  I'm just wondering if the extra flexibility there is enough to have a $4 price AND a lack of other bonuses.  No matter how nicely it smooths out your turns, you still wind up down a card and down an action with no money to show for it.  You might try $3 or even $2 for the cost, OR adding a +$2 bonus.  One of those two changes might make what's already a good card into something that really pops.

Quote
Bandit
ACTION-ATTACK   $4
---
+1 Card
+$2
Each other player reveals his hand. If it has 5 or more cards, he places one card with the lowest cost on top of his deck.

A touch strong, I think.  Figure that +$1 and +1 Card are of roughly equal power on a terminal.  That means "+1 Card, +$2" is somewhat comparable to Smithy, but then you've got an attack on there, too.  I suspect the attack portion is of similar strength as Militia's attack (for reference, consider how much stronger the Ghost Ship attack is than the Militia attack).  If so, that means Bandit is too strong by approximately the extra card.

Of the remaining cards, Borough seems fine, and Countercurse too difficult for me to envision how it will play.  It definitely seems swingy, but hard to say whether how much strategy vs. luck determines the ultimate outcome.  Playtesting should be particularly revealing on this one.
Logged

Newcomer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #17 on: October 05, 2011, 06:39:48 pm »
0

Arbitrator: I liked the way the card worked, but I wasn't as sure on where to cost it, so I'll bump it down to $3 for now.


Bandit: This is a case of me making a quick change at the last second without thinking it through. I added the +1 Card because it seemed a bit weak as I was looking through my cards. I guess I was comparing too much to the top-deck effect of Bureaucrat, rather than thinking about the hand-size reduction. And Ghost Ship is a card I don't think I've played with yet, or maybe once, so while I'm aware of it, it doesn't really come to mind right away.

This card's attack is like half a Militia, and a top-deck attack. So it weakens this turn and probably the next one as well, instead of hitting this turn harder. Which might be even more effective late game. But with Chapel, this would start to put Silvers on top of the deck for next turn.

I'll take out the +1 Card and see how it plays, I guess.  :-)

Bandit
ACTION-ATTACK   $4
---
+$2
Each other player reveals his hand. If it has 5 or more cards, he places one card with the lowest cost on top of his deck.
Logged

Epoch

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 421
  • Respect: +38
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #18 on: October 05, 2011, 06:56:28 pm »
0

Bandit: This is a case of me making a quick change at the last second without thinking it through. I added the +1 Card because it seemed a bit weak as I was looking through my cards. I guess I was comparing too much to the top-deck effect of Bureaucrat, rather than thinking about the hand-size reduction. And Ghost Ship is a card I don't think I've played with yet, or maybe once, so while I'm aware of it, it doesn't really come to mind right away.

This card's attack is like half a Militia, and a top-deck attack. So it weakens this turn and probably the next one as well, instead of hitting this turn harder. Which might be even more effective late game. But with Chapel, this would start to put Silvers on top of the deck for next turn.

I'll take out the +1 Card and see how it plays, I guess.  :-)

I like this attack mechanic, by the way!

So, there are two different "goes back on the deck" attacks presently.

Bureaucrat:  This one doesn't hurt your present hand at all (barring some unusual non-standard Victory card situations), and can miss.

Ghost Ship:  The nasty thing about GS compared to Militia is that often with Militia you can get away with throwing out green cards or, failing that, Coppers, and you don't seriously hurt your present hand.  With GS, if you throw away bad cards, you get to suffer them AGAIN.  If you throw away good cards, then your present hand is probably totally worthless after you've gotten rid of your best cards.  Your only real hope is that you've got an awkward amount of money where you were going to waste some this turn.

Your attack is more like GS than Bureaucrat, in that it never entirely misses and often will hurt both hands pretty badly.  Your lowest-cost card is likely to be a Copper or a Curse.  Getting hit by this with a Copper in your hand as lowest-cost card means that this is worse than Cutpurse.  With Curse, it's a lot like a Bureaucrat.

What are the other possibilities?  Estate?  Not super-likely, since if you've trashed enough Copper that there are no Copper in your hand you've probably also trashed your Estates (but maybe not:  Mint or Moneylender?).  Like a Bureacrat.  Silver?  Knocks $2 out of your hand, but your hand value was probably already pretty high if Silver was the lowest-cost card.

So, yeah, definitely want to get rid of the +1 Card.  Does it need further weakening?  Possibly.  Does it need strengthening?  I REALLY doubt it.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #19 on: October 05, 2011, 09:44:47 pm »
0

Just one thing to add to Epoch's excellent Ghost Ship analysis:  the other big deal is that it slows the cycling of your deck, whereas Militia leaves the cycling rate unchanged.  Get hit by Ghost Ship twice, and that means you won't draw your new purchases until almost a full turn later.  That's a really big deal in addition to the other things Epoch mentioned.

It really took me a while to appreciate Ghost Ship's power.  When I first saw the card (before I knew the game very well), I didn't really see it as anything more than an expensive Militia with a gimmick.  Obviously it's not that at all.

Anyway, Bandit's attack is only half as strong, so I don't think it would lead to grueling games the way Ghost Ship does.  But I think it's competitive with other $4 attacks like Militia and Cutpurse, so that's good.
Logged

Newcomer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #20 on: October 05, 2011, 10:27:24 pm »
0

I love all the insight this is bringing to the game for me! Thanks for that! I like how Ghost Ship attacks your hand, slows down your deck, and might hurt your next hand. Bandit slows the deck half as much and will hurt at least one hand or the other. Taking a Copper out is bad when it was already there and that's one less coin, but it's bad to put it into the next hand too because it's probably worse than the other cards you could've drawn. And then there's the deck cycling element. Bandit is a more nuanced card than I realized.

I do think it will probably work at $4, because it is only a one-card attack. It's generally stronger than Cutpurse, but not strictly. And if it hits Silver, that may or may not be good for the next hand, but it's probably not bad. Unless you're about to play Thief next. :-P
Logged

Newcomer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2011, 03:30:30 pm »
0

More $4 cards:

Gargoyle
REACTION   $4
---
When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, discard this, +1 VP, and you may draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
---
When you gain this card, if there are no Attack cards available in the Supply, +2 VP.

-I thought the VP would be a very interesting reaction effect, and restoring your hand size could mean hand size-reducing attacks only help you to weed out weaker cards. In certain circumstances therefore it's a great reaction. But it's a pure Reaction card; if it's not reacting, it's a dead card in the hand. I added the Attacks-in-the-Supply clause to make it buyable in non-Attack games, where it gives you 2 VP like a Victory card but can be trashed afterward. It also makes it a bonus if you buy the Reaction after the Attack cards are bought out.


Haggle
ACTION   $4
---
Each other player may reveal a card from his hand. For each revealed card, you may gain a different card costing up to the cost of that card. If you do, he gains a copy of his revealed card.

-Strategic posturing on both sides. By revealing a card, he's deciding that it's worth you gaining a card for him to copy his own card. And if you decide to gain one, then the trade-off is worth it for you, too. Should I tag on a vanilla bonus? I want there to be enough incentive for people to buy the card, but if it's too even in its benefit for player and opponent, then there's not much point shelling out to be on the player side of it. In multiplayer it might be more useful, though.


Pageant
ACTION-VICTORY   $4
---
+2 Actions
---
2 VP

-Very simple hybrid card. Instead of being a dead card in the hand, it serves a small enabling role.


Patrol
ACTION-DURATION-REACTION   $4
---
+1 Action
+2 VP
Leave this card in play indefinitely.
---
When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from play, once per attack. If you do, +2 cards, his attack does not affect you, and at the start of your next turn, trash Patrol.

-Like Gargoyle, it's a one-time +2 VP if there are no Attacks, but it takes itself out of your deck, making it superior. Its reaction effect is also very strong, but once it activates you have to trash it. You can reveal it multiple times during that round, but then it's gone. Note the "revealing from play." You can decide not to reveal it, saving it for a stronger attack, even though it's already visible by being in play. You need to actually indicate that you're revealing it to use it.


With some of my cards, my implementation sometimes seems a little clunky, but I like the directions I'm branching into. Maybe they'll inspire some better cards in the future.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2011, 03:55:17 pm »
0

More $4 cards:

Gargoyle
REACTION   $4
---
When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, discard this, +1 VP, and you may draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
---
When you gain this card, if there are no Attack cards available in the Supply, +2 VP.

-I thought the VP would be a very interesting reaction effect, and restoring your hand size could mean hand size-reducing attacks only help you to weed out weaker cards. In certain circumstances therefore it's a great reaction. But it's a pure Reaction card; if it's not reacting, it's a dead card in the hand. I added the Attacks-in-the-Supply clause to make it buyable in non-Attack games, where it gives you 2 VP like a Victory card but can be trashed afterward. It also makes it a bonus if you buy the Reaction after the Attack cards are bought out.

I'm a little nervous about +VP for the reactor.  That seems too much like punishing the attacker for attacking, which has some gameplay problems.  In 2p, it's the logical equivalent of causing the attacker to lose VP, which is absolutely punishment.

However, I *love* the "when you buy this" clause and think that's a brilliant way to keep the card relevant on every board.  It's kind of like two separate cards, based on the kingdom it appears in, but the way you can get both benefits if you buy it when the attack cards are gone gives it just enough unity to hold together.

Quote
Haggle
ACTION   $4
---
Each other player may reveal a card from his hand. For each revealed card, you may gain a different card costing up to the cost of that card. If you do, he gains a copy of his revealed card.

-Strategic posturing on both sides. By revealing a card, he's deciding that it's worth you gaining a card for him to copy his own card. And if you decide to gain one, then the trade-off is worth it for you, too. Should I tag on a vanilla bonus? I want there to be enough incentive for people to buy the card, but if it's too even in its benefit for player and opponent, then there's not much point shelling out to be on the player side of it. In multiplayer it might be more useful, though.

I love this idea, too.  I'd give it a vanilla bonus, though:  compare with Jester, another card that allows gains of multiple good cards and which also offers a vanilla bonus.  Even with Jester's +$2 bonus, though, this card is still weaker than Jester, as Jester is (usually) never also good for the opponent.

Add a bonus of some kind, and you've got a very interesting $4 card.

Quote
Pageant
ACTION-VICTORY   $4
---
+2 Actions
---
2 VP

Probably balanced and correctly priced, but Nobles covers this ground pretty well.

Quote
Patrol
ACTION-DURATION-REACTION   $4
---
+1 Action
+2 VP
Leave this card in play indefinitely.
---
When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from play, once per attack. If you do, +2 cards, his attack does not affect you, and at the start of your next turn, trash Patrol.

-Like Gargoyle, it's a one-time +2 VP if there are no Attacks, but it takes itself out of your deck, making it superior. Its reaction effect is also very strong, but once it activates you have to trash it. You can reveal it multiple times during that round, but then it's gone. Note the "revealing from play." You can decide not to reveal it, saving it for a stronger attack, even though it's already visible by being in play. You need to actually indicate that you're revealing it to use it.

Not a fan of special-casing this to be only revealable once per attack.  I would suggest requiring the reactor to trash the card immediately upon using it in response to an attack.  Something like this:  "When another player plays an attack card, you may trash this from play.  If you do, +2 Cards, and you are unaffected by the attack."

Mechanical wrinkles aside, I also really like the gameplay possibilities this card suggests.  It's a powerful reaction, but it's out there to see, and opponents may judge whether to use their attack cards against it as they see fit.  Unlike Lighthouse, there is a cost to using it to block an attack, so opponents won't necessary just see the card out and automatically discount their attacking opportunities for that turn.

Excellent work.
Logged

Fangz

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2011, 08:46:40 pm »
0

I can't see when I'd ever reveal a card to haggle. Far better to refuse and ruin their turn, making their card a turn ruining curse that eats actions, than to dilute my lead in whatever key card by letting him have one as well.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Emergence - yet another fan set
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2011, 09:46:22 pm »
0

Oh, I missed that opponents only "may" reveal a card with Haggle.  I would change it to a requirement AND add a vanilla bonus, for exactly the reason Fangz says he'd never want to participate.  The card has to be worthwhile for the player to play.  A vanilla bonus and mandatory reveals will fix that.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All
 

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 20 queries.