Print

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

[Asper]

--EDITED 2--

Maybe i'm overdoing it, posting new threads with over ten cards. So only 2 4 for now.

Aqueduct
5$, Action
+ 1 Action
+ 2$
Discard a Card from your hand. If you do: + 1 Card
While this is in play, Attack Cards you play have no effect on other players.


Rental
7$, Victory
Worth one per Coin Token on your Rental Mat at the end of the game.
When you gain this, set it aside. Gain two Coppers and shuffle them and this in your deck.
Setup: Each player gets 7 Coin Tokens and places them on his Rental Mat. Whenever a player trashes a Copper, he must instantly remove a Coin Token from his Rental Mat.


Nouveau Riche
4$, Action
You may discard an Estate. If you do: + 3 Cards
You may discard a Duchy. If you do: +2$
You may discard a Victory Card that is not an Estate or a Duchy. If you do: + 1 Action


Parliament
4$, Action
You may choose an Action card from your hand.
If it costs...
0$: Play it 4 times.
1$ to 3$: Play it 3 times.
4$: Play it 2 times.

[heron]

After a quick read-through, the three biggest issues that I see are:
Nouveau Riche:
This is a really weak card. It's way worse than baron. $4 and a buy is clearly better than 3 cards or $2. You need a stronger effect than 3 cards, I can get that for cheaper on a smithy. And it's reliable! $2 is even weaker than 3 cards, and +1 action is useless.
So, I would up the power level of the effects. Maybe +4 cards and +$3, +1 action would be good.

Parliament: Pretty much worse than throne room; I would rather play my witch or market twice than my oracle three times. I could be wrong there though. I was going to say that it's OP if highway or bridge is on the board, but if you can play 5 highways in one turn you are probably going to win soon anyway.

Rental: I don't like this because I sense that it will just be a better province in many games. It discourages engines as well, and generally people prefer engines to big money.

[eHalcyon]

Aqueduct -- I like to compare non-terminal +$2 to Silver, because that is often what it is -- a Silver+.  The bonus for Aqueduct is that you get a mini-Cellar.  This is a decent bonus.  If you discard a junk card, Aqueduct was essentially a GM.  Actually, that's pretty powerful... and then you have that nerf at the bottom, which I find quite unique.  If you have Aqueduct and an attack in hand, you want to play the attack first.  Of course, most attacks are terminal...

I like it, and I think it is correctly priced.

Rental --  This is often 7VP for $7.  That's more VP than Province but at a lower cost.  The caveats are that it gets top-decked when you gain it, it further junks your deck with 2 Coppers, and it actively discourages Copper trashing.  This does set up some interesting tensions.  It can be difficult to get to $7 regularly if your deck is full of Copper.  So should you play for Rental and keep all the extra Copper, or should you ignore Rental, trashing away for a different strategy?

Worth noting is that it combos well with Trader, because you can replace those Coppers with Silver without lowering the value of Rental.

While this card is interesting in theory, I'm not sure it will play out that way in practice.  As heron says, it probably encourages BM strategies too heavily.  This is especially true if there is only weak trashing or no trashing available.  The extra Coppers don't hurt that much.  Just a Smithy is enough to hit $7 pretty regularly, even with a deck full of Copper.

[LastFootnote]

I don't have anything to say about Rental that hasn't already been said.

Aqueduct is probably fine at $5 without the penalty. The penalty is meaningless in games without Attack cards and kind of a downer on boards with them. It's a unique idea, but maybe not a fun one.

To jazz it up, you might want to have it discard and draw up to 2 cards rather than always 1. As a bonus, a Cellar-like wording makes the "if you do" clause superfluous.

[jbrecken]

Rental
7$, Victory
Worth one per Coin Token on your Rental Mat at the end of the game.
When you gain this, put it on your deck and gain two Coppers.
Setup: Each player gets 7 Coin Tokens and places them on his Rental Mat. Whenever a player trashes a Copper, he must instantly remove a Coin Token from his Rental Mat.

How different would the play be if you just made the VP value of Rental 2 less than the number of Copper in your deck, with a minimum value of 0 and a maximum of 7?  Less messing around with tokens.

[eHalcyon]

Rental
7$, Victory
Worth one per Coin Token on your Rental Mat at the end of the game.
When you gain this, put it on your deck and gain two Coppers.
Setup: Each player gets 7 Coin Tokens and places them on his Rental Mat. Whenever a player trashes a Copper, he must instantly remove a Coin Token from his Rental Mat.

How different would the play be if you just made the VP value of Rental 2 less than the number of Copper in your deck, with a minimum value of 0 and a maximum of 7?  Less messing around with tokens.

I was like, "that would be SO different" until you said "max of 7".

Play would still be different though.  Trash all the Copper you want and get a lean deck.  Buying Rentals will go a long way towards getting you up to 9 Copper for the max 7 VP.  Even if you can't hit 9 this way (which would take 5 Rentals), you could easily buy them back, especially with extra +Buy.  The current wording is much harsher because it means you are mostly stuck with your starting Copper and any extra Copper you gain from Rental itself.

[Asper]

About Rental: Originally it shuffeled the two Coppers and the Rental itself in your deck, but i couldn't find a wording that does that (loose track rule and all...). I also like engines more than BM, but i think so many card support Engines it was time to add something different.

After a quick read-through, the three biggest issues that I see are:
Nouveau Riche:
This is a really weak card. It's way worse than baron. $4 and a buy is clearly better than 3 cards or $2. You need a stronger effect than 3 cards, I can get that for cheaper on a smithy. And it's reliable! $2 is even weaker than 3 cards, and +1 action is useless.
So, I would up the power level of the effects. Maybe +4 cards and +$3, +1 action would be good.

Parliament: Pretty much worse than throne room; I would rather play my witch or market twice than my oracle three times. I could be wrong there though. I was going to say that it's OP if highway or bridge is on the board, but if you can play 5 highways in one turn you are probably going to win soon anyway.

Rental: I don't like this because I sense that it will just be a better province in many games. It discourages engines as well, and generally people prefer engines to big money.

I removed Nouveau Riche because i felt that too many cards seem to scare reviewers (do they?), but i'd like to mention i actually don't have a clue at which price Nouveau Riche would be balanced. I felt it was okay when i playtested it for 4$, but i'm a mediocre player that often tries strategies that are far too complicated. I'll work on it, again.

About Parliament: Probably also needs some working. Would 4$ be too less? I was thinking of a 5-2 split, but probably it would be more interesting to early KC a 3$ with this...

Rental
7$, Victory
Worth one per Coin Token on your Rental Mat at the end of the game.
When you gain this, put it on your deck and gain two Coppers.
Setup: Each player gets 7 Coin Tokens and places them on his Rental Mat. Whenever a player trashes a Copper, he must instantly remove a Coin Token from his Rental Mat.

How different would the play be if you just made the VP value of Rental 2 less than the number of Copper in your deck, with a minimum value of 0 and a maximum of 7?  Less messing around with tokens.

Interesting idea... But i wanted to keep players from trashing any Coppers. So you could just buy them at the end of the game, as eHalcyon pointed out. By the way, the idea for Rental came up when we discussed Copper replacements that are worth VP, so i'd like it to keep that "don't loose your Copper"-aspect.

[Asper]

Nouveau Riche:
This is a really weak card. It's way worse than baron. $4 and a buy is clearly better than 3 cards or $2. You need a stronger effect than 3 cards, I can get that for cheaper on a smithy. And it's reliable! $2 is even weaker than 3 cards, and +1 action is useless.
So, I would up the power level of the effects. Maybe +4 cards and +$3, +1 action would be good.

Another thing: You did notice you can use all three options, didn't you? So you can discard an Estate, draw a Duchy, a Silver and a Silk Road and discard both for 2$ and an Action.

[heron]

Oh...
I missed that. In that case I think the bonuses are okay. It's a situational card, but that's okay in dominion. I would definitely price it less than $5 though.

Edit: Or maybe you could price it at $5 and change all of them to you may discard a victory card. That would probably be a bit too strong though, I'm not sure.

[Asper]

Oh...
I missed that. In that case I think the bonuses are okay. It's a situational card, but that's okay in dominion. I would definitely price it less than $5 though.

Changed to 4$. Another benefit of 4$ is that it doesn't collide with Duchy itself. Thank you for the input

Aqueduct is probably fine at $5 without the penalty.

Originally it didn't have the penalty. It seemed very strong that way, though, stronger than Mystic. You could often chain Aqueducts until you played 4 of them, because every Aqueduct you play gives you the chance to draw a new one. I had the choice between Aqueduct being slightly better or slightly worse than Mystic, and i liked the restriction - i guess it's a matter of taste, though

I'm glad eHalcyon likes it.

[ConMan]

For Nouveau Riche's last effect, do you mean "You may discard another Victory card (including another Estate or Duchy)", or "You may discard a Victory card that isn't an Estate or Duchy"? Because the first will be more generally useful, whereas the second will be of limited use when there aren't alt Victory cards around (but I can see why that may be the one you were thinking of). Even in the first form, I think it's a neat defense against early greening, without being too strong.

[Asper]

For Nouveau Riche's last effect, do you mean "You may discard another Victory card (including another Estate or Duchy)", or "You may discard a Victory card that isn't an Estate or Duchy"? Because the first will be more generally useful, whereas the second will be of limited use when there aren't alt Victory cards around (but I can see why that may be the one you were thinking of). Even in the first form, I think it's a neat defense against early greening, without being too strong.

I meant any card but Duchy and Estate, thanks for pointing out how the wording is unclear. Haven't playtested it enough yet, i guess, so it might change.

[Asper]

So, another try on Rental. I hope the wording works... Any idea how to avoid the "set-aside" without having problems with that awful lose-track-rule?

Rental
7$, Victory
Worth one per Coin Token on your Rental Mat at the end of the game.
When you gain this, set it aside. Gain two Coppers and shuffle them and this in your deck.
Setup: Each player gets 7 Coin Tokens and places them on his Rental Mat. Whenever a player trashes a Copper, he must instantly remove a Coin Token from his Rental Mat.

[Asper]

Here's the rest of the set again for those who are interested:

Alley
1$, Action
+ 3 Cards
Return this to the Alley Pile.


Lawyer
2$, Action - Reaction
Choose one: Put a Coin Token on your Lawyer Mat; or trash this and gain a card costing up to 1$ per Coin Token on the Lawyer Mat.
When another player gains a Victory Card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do and the player would put the Victory Card in his dicard, he must put it on his deck instead.


Baroness
3$, Action
+ 1 Action
Look at the top card of your deck. You may trash it. If you do, + 1 VP. Otherwise, discard the card and gain an Estate, putting it in your hand.


Stocks
4$, Treasure
1$
When you play this, you may trash it. If you do, +3$ and each other player gains a Silver.


Assassin
4$, Action - Attack
+ 1 Action
+ 2$
Discard a card.
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck. For each, you may choose one card he has to discard. He puts the remaining cards back on the top of his deck in any order he chooses.


Factory
6$, Action
All cards (including cards in players hands) cost 1$ less   this turn, but not less than 0$. Gain two cards that together cost up to 4$, putting one of them on top of your deck.


11th and 12th card are Iron Maiden (my version as seen in SirPeebles' thread http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=6523.0) and Contraption (aka Windmill http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7756.0), which makes the set reach small expansion size.

[Asper]

Old thread, nerly dead, but well. I made a new version of Parliament:

Parliament
4$, Action
You may choose an action card from your hand. Play it X times, with X being what the card costs less then 6$.

Balanced? It's capable of going crazy with cost reducers, but getting a Bridge/Village/Parliament or Highways/Parliament/Non-Highway engine working is hard enough to justify some reward. Also works with ruins, but other than as defense it means you have to actively go for them (and get the good ones).

[LastFootnote]

Old thread, nerly dead, but well. I made a new version of Parliament:

Parliament
4$, Action
You may choose an action card from your hand. Play it X times, with X being what the card costs less then 6$.

Balanced? It's capable of going crazy with cost reducers, but getting a Bridge/Village/Parliament or Highways/Parliament/Non-Highway engine working is hard enough to justify some reward. Also works with ruins, but other than as defense it means you have to actively go for them (and get the good ones).

It's great when cards are useful in some situations and less useful in others, but this card seems like it'll be nigh-useless on 98% of boards and completely dominate on the other 2%. That's something to avoid, I think.

It might be kind of a downer, as well, since the $5 cards are the ones you generally most want to play multiple times.

Maybe I'm off-base, though. Test it out and let us know how it goes!

[scott_pilgrim]

Parliament
4$, Action
You may choose an action card from your hand. Play it X times, with X being what the card costs less then 6$.

My first thought is that this is very strong with cantrip $2s.  In particular, playing pawn for +4 cards, +$3, +1 action, and being able to make that flexible based on what you need at the time, seems like too much.  Being able to King's Court a $3 card might also be good in some cases, and throning $4s is exactly what throne room already does, so that's fine.  There's also Poor House which, even with the other three cards in your hand being treasures, becomes +$5, and assuming none of those treasures are HoP, drawing Parliament+Poor House guarantees Province.

There are clearly situations in which this card is an absolute powerhouse, but I wouldn't be surprised if many games see it getting less use than throne room.  As LastFootnote pointed out, it's usually $5s (or $6s or $7s) that you want to throne room, and this can't do that.

My initial impression of this is that it is either brokenly overpowered or completely useless, but I think I may have convinced myself that it's not so bad.  You can probably get some interesting engines that really focus on playing this with $2 and $3 cards on many boards, and I'm guessing on many boards there will be a temptation to try to set up such an engine, and it just won't work.  I think that's a good thing.  There will be some boards where it's absolutely dominant, but that's not really a problem, every card has boards where it shines.

I think that a re-wording would be necessary though, as well as clarification as to what happens with potion-cost cards.

[Asper]

Thank you guys. I see your concerns and will test it... A lot.

The old wording didn't allow such great differences, as it made a case distinction, KCing 1-3$s and quadrupling only 0$s. So if this doesn't work out, i'll return with a re-wording of its older version, maybe as a 3$, as a 4$ with a BV-clause, unchanged, whatever turns out working.

You shall hear again from the peoples Throne Room.

I think that a re-wording would be necessary though, as well as clarification as to what happens with potion-cost cards.

You mean like "You may chose a card costing from 0$ to 6$"? I figured Potion cost cards and 7$+ cards just would be chosen and not played.

[scott_pilgrim]

I was thinking like "You may choose an action card from your hand costing up to $6.  Play it X times, where X is 6 minus the cost of the card, in coin."  I think the second sentence is a little clearer, and then the first sentence prevents playing potion-cost cards, as well as trying to play a $7 card negative one times (or Peddler negative two times).

[Asper]

I was thinking like "You may choose an action card from your hand costing up to $6.  Play it X times, where X is 6 minus the cost of the card, in coin."  I think the second sentence is a little clearer, and then the first sentence prevents playing potion-cost cards, as well as trying to play a $7 card negative one times (or Peddler negative two times).

Probably you are right. It needs a unit to count in.

Also:

In-pand Egrof
Put your discard piles top card back in the supply. Gain any number of cards from the trash that have the same total cost as the returned card and put them in your hand.

[scott_pilgrim]

In-pand
Put your discard piles top card back in the supply. Gain any number of cards from the trash that have the same total cost as the returned card and put them in your hand.

This is probably never worth getting if there is no other trashing card on the board.  The other two gain-from-trash cards we have have a way to get good stuff into the trash; this doesn't.

More importantly, this is probably not even worth getting on any board that doesn't have a card that cares about cost when trashing.  That is, if there is something like Chapel on the board, but not something like Remodel, then there are probably going to be only Coppers and Estates (and possibly Curses and Ruins) in the trash, and you probably don't want any of those.

I get that gaining a bunch of Copper from the trash into your hand could be cool, but Beggar gains Copper in hand, and look how popular Beggar is.  So I wouldn't be surprised if you tend to end up worse off by playing this card (being forced to gain Estates or Shelters) than you would by not playing it.

Anyway, it's an interesting idea.  Having something that cares about the top-card of your discard pile is whacky, but it could be fun.  I would suggest adding a vanilla bonus or something to counterbalance its weakness, and/or add something that gets good cards into the trash.

[Asper]

In-pand
Put your discard piles top card back in the supply. Gain any number of cards from the trash that have the same total cost as the returned card and put them in your hand.

This is probably never worth getting if there is no other trashing card on the board.  The other two gain-from-trash cards we have have a way to get good stuff into the trash; this doesn't.

More importantly, this is probably not even worth getting on any board that doesn't have a card that cares about cost when trashing.  That is, if there is something like Chapel on the board, but not something like Remodel, then there are probably going to be only Coppers and Estates (and possibly Curses and Ruins) in the trash, and you probably don't want any of those.

I get that gaining a bunch of Copper from the trash into your hand could be cool, but Beggar gains Copper in hand, and look how popular Beggar is.  So I wouldn't be surprised if you tend to end up worse off by playing this card (being forced to gain Estates or Shelters) than you would by not playing it.

Anyway, it's an interesting idea.  Having something that cares about the top-card of your discard pile is whacky, but it could be fun.  I would suggest adding a vanilla bonus or something to counterbalance its weakness, and/or add something that gets good cards into the trash.

In-pand is Forge played -1 time. It was supposed to be a joke.

Edit: No wonder you got it wrong, i thought of Expand when naming the gag card. Obviously i suck at jokes. Or english. Probably both.

[scott_pilgrim]

Ah, okay.  I wondered while I was replying to that if there was something I was missing.  That makes a lot more sense now.

[jbrecken]

How about this?  "You may choose an action from your hand with a cost less than $6.  Play it a number of times equal to the difference in coins between its cost and $6."

[Asper]

How about this?  "You may choose an action from your hand with a cost less than $6.  Play it a number of times equal to the difference in coins between its cost and $6."

That's good. I'll use that, if the version turns out to work better than the case destinction. Didn't yet have a chance to playtest it enough, though.