# Dominion Strategy Forum

• September 19, 2018, 07:30:40 am
• Welcome, Guest

### News:

DominionStrategy Wiki

Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 48  All

### AuthorTopic: Asper's Cards  (Read 102770 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Gazbag

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 531
• Respect: +713
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1075 on: March 19, 2018, 10:58:04 pm »
+2

Okay, think about it this way, if you play Town and then play your Road twice, that's the same net result as playing a Smithy. You increase your handsize by 2 and have a net -1 Actions.

Increases your handsize by four, so it's equivalent to a Royal Blacksmith. Even ignoring the Road that comes back to your hand in the end, that's still increasing your handsize by three, so equivalent to Hunting Grounds.

Quote
Because Road isn't just turning your Towns into Labs (or Smithies), it's effectively converting any +1 Action you have into +1 Card.

Into TWO cards.

I was ignoring the Moat returning to hand to make it seem less bonkers than it actually is, but that's actually only relevant to the Lab argument. Playing the Road twice is like playing a Hunting Grounds yeah (with a Road returning to hand too!), because the second play isn't decreasing your handsize like playing 2 separate Moats would. It's late over here and I need sleep, forgive this blunder!
« Last Edit: March 19, 2018, 11:01:44 pm by Gazbag »
Logged

#### pacovf

• Cartographer
• Offline
• Posts: 3327
• Multiediting poster
• Respect: +3660
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1076 on: March 19, 2018, 11:01:58 pm »
+2

No problem :p

Note that even using Road once per village, it's turning each village into a double-Lab, only once you are done converting them, one of the cards in your hand will be a glorified Moat (terminal Road). The more villages you have (and less Roads), the more the double-Lab scenario is relevant.
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

#### Gazbag

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 531
• Respect: +713
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1077 on: March 19, 2018, 11:08:50 pm »
+1

No problem :p

Note that even using Road once per village, it's turning each village into a double-Lab, only once you are done converting them, one of the cards in your hand will be a glorified Moat (terminal Road). The more villages you have (and less Roads), the more the double-Lab scenario is relevant.

Yeah I was being conservative by saying you're building it like a regular Village Smithy (Hunting Grounds?) deck, you can easily do something much better than that. But it's still too good for \$4 even if you're taking a Road every time, that was the point I was trying to make.
Logged

#### Holunder9

• Tactician
• Offline
• Posts: 443
• Respect: +181
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1078 on: March 20, 2018, 03:55:48 am »
+1

Town/Road: This seems like a pretty clear \$5 to me. Playing a Town and then Road is better than Lab! Sure, you have to draw them together for that to happen, but this can even just be a regular Village or a Smithy if you double play the Road. I think all this extra functionality makes up for the early unreliability. The Road gain isn't even mandatory!

I'm not seeing it. A clunky Lab can absolutely be priced at \$4 (See Caravan, Advisor.) The Smithy effect is something you usually don't want, because it means you drew a Road without the corresponding Town. Also, the main reason to not gain the Road is if there's a better terminal draw you want to use. If that's the case, wouldn't it, well, kind of suck if the only village on the board is \$5 but is just a Vanillage?

It isn't a clunky Lab though, I can tell you with 100% confidence as a mid-high skill dominion player that I would buy this over Lab about 99% of the time.
+2 Cards is OK as terminal draw but not exciting. Any village and Smithy variant nets 2 extra cards whereas this just nets 1 card. Same as Lab but without the consistency.
Of course you are right that the Moats that return to hand are useful under two conditions, extra village support or discard for benefit.

Doesn't justify a price tag of \$5 though. That's like saying that Village+Smithy is as good as two Labs so both cards should cost \$5, a statement which would be ignorant of the matching/consistency problem.
Logged

#### Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4540
• Respect: +4884
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1079 on: March 20, 2018, 04:38:15 am »
+1

Sorry for seeing this just today. So, here are some answers:

Sheriff: Seems too strong, I think it needs to cost at least \$3. You can get one of these for \$4 on the opening and then one for \$5 on the second shuffle and that gives you 5 tokens so it's kinda like you've bought a terminal Silver curser for \$4 which seems a little too good for me.
I agree that Sheriff might be too strong. However, at five tokens it would run out of Curses much faster than a regular Curser - if uncontested. If contested in 2P, it basically becomes what you say. It's just one of those weird cases where increasing the cost to 3\$ breaks the card. For 4\$ it's a one-shot Curser and for 5\$ clearly too weak for its cost. I'd rather make it a terminal Copper instead.

Farmer: This seems like it is to Journeyman what Oracle is to Catacombs, so I thinm it can get away with being \$3.
Might be. I always compared this to Smithy: One card less, great choice. Dropping the price never really occured to me. I feel its choice effect is quite a bit stronger than Journeyman's, but I never played all that much with that one to be honest.

Town/Road: This seems like a pretty clear \$5 to me. Playing a Town and then Road is better than Lab! Sure, you have to draw them together for that to happen, but this can even just be a regular Village or a Smithy if you double play the Road. I think all this extra functionality makes up for the early unreliability. The Road gain isn't even mandatory!
The thing with Road is that you have a tradeoff between the card being reliable and having fewer dead Roads in your deck. Considering the fact that every Road you draw after the first is a dead card, I feel that a cost of 5\$ is too much. I am however willing to playtest it at that price range. If it turns out to be weak at 5\$, I'll say that I prefer a fun powerful card over one that gets barely played. But yeah, not opposed to trying this.

Cliffside Village: This is incredibly powerful, but you probably realise that. Better than Junk Dealer easily, villages are great.
Isn't it worse than Junk Dealer in the early game? Even so, it certainly could stomach being a bit weaker. Considering how simple/bland it is right now, it could maybe do with a bonus for the other players. I assume a coin token on gain is still too much? Alternatively, this could be a high-debt-cost card (haven't gotten one of those, yet), but I generally prefer player interaction.

Necromancer/Zombie: I don't think a kingdom pile based around the Rogue/Graverobber+Knights interaction is a good idea. These game would never end!
I tend to agree. There certainly seems to be something lacking to keep that from happening. I assume this is part of why the official Necromancer never returns cards from the trash. It's not like we need two of these, either way.

Tribunal: I'd be careful about this, the attack seems like it could be very frustrating! I imagine Tribunal big money to be particularly agonising!
Yes, this is another poor one. It was designed with Intrigue in mind, and like several Intrigue attacks, it's really no fun to get hit by.

Minister: It's probably broken, but all the cost reduction cards are so I guess it just join the party!
I'm actually kinda happy with this one, to be honest.

Improve: I think this should just be remodel, not expand. Trashing an Estate to gain a \$4 is similar to Summon and Seaway as a thing where you're spending \$5 on a \$4 but getting some other benefit. Trashing one to get a \$5 has basically no decision involved because it's almost always going to be better than buying the \$5.
Hum... This is barely tested, so you might be right. One thing is that you can never open with this, so you only can expand Estates later on, an only thrice. In the end you might use it again to turn 5\$ s into Provinces, I guess. Either way, I'm not sure it being almost strictly better than buying a 5\$ directly is an issue. People don't complain that buying Delve is better than buying Silvers.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 07:43:57 am by Asper »
Logged

#### Gazbag

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 531
• Respect: +713
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1080 on: March 20, 2018, 11:21:42 am »
0

Okay so I realise now that I was purposefully underselling the draw Town+Road gave in my big ol' wall of text because I was assuming that you take Road every time, and generalising that to each double Road play drawing a dead Road.

Anyway I'm seeing Town/Road being described as a "wonky" or "unreliable" Lab... that's just missing so much you can do with this card. It's missing the fact that this is a village for \$4, you know like Walled or Farming village (their additional effects are very marginal, and in a lot decks decks where you want villages are basically just Village). So already, completely ignoring the existence of Road we have a strong card (under my definition of strong anyway). Now look at Wandering Minstrel, you add a little bit of sifting to village and all of a sudden it's the 3rd highest ranked \$4 cost, this should be a signal to you for how strong the base village effect is and how easy it is to make a busted village+.

Anyway I outlined above how you can sub Towns in as Smithies in a village/Smithy deck and not only will the deck be more reliable because of an increased village density, it also has more drawing power than the village/Smithy deck, because the Town+2 plays of Road combination draws as much as Hunting Grounds (+a Road returning to hand). Note as well that this deck is always build-able because you use Town+Roads alongside Towns with no Roads. This card is pretty much strictly better than Smithy for this reason in an non-big money deck. But Town+Road is on the board so big money will never happen, so in actual games it's just always a better buy than Smithy.

The unreliable argument just holds no water because Town is self enabling. You get the draw for free so you can spend more gains on villages.

Okay now onto Asper's argument of the tradeoff between reliability and drawing (dead roads decrease drawing). The Road is optional! There is no tradeoff! Even if the road wasn't optional, as I'm saying like a broken record, this still outclasses Smithy in any reasonably competently built deck. The raw power here is so high and cheap that the perceived drawback just doesn't exist, if you had to pay \$5 for a plain village if you didn't want the Road then maybe there would be a tradeoff because then you're overpaying for a village, but because you can just pick up a village for \$4 there is no tradeoff because that's a good deal anyway.

Anyway onto other things...

Sheriff - I'd totally buy a terminal Silver one-shot curser for \$4,  I think that would legit be better than Sea Hag. But this is better than that because you can buy more "fuel" for it later. I actually designed a very similar card to this years ago when Guilds first came out (even used embargo tokens for it!) and I found it to be much stronger than I first anticipated.

Farmer - I think this is weaker sifting than Journeyman actually, this is likely to just reveal 2 Coppers and stop where as Journeyman will skip all those Coppers for you. I'm assuming some kind of low/no trashing engine here as that's where you get the most benefit from the sifting. I have no problem with it at \$4, but I'd try at at \$3 myself.

Cliffside village is a little worse early yeah, but it isn't a mandatory trash so it never becomes dead itself like JD can and also village.

I think Minister is pretty sweet, that one was more a tongue-in-cheek thing about cost reduction being generally broken.

I think Improve just comes down to whether you want it to be a rules changey thing where you get free Estate trashes with \$5's or a Seaway type thing. Turning \$5's into Provinces might be a little easy with this too mind.
Logged

#### pacovf

• Cartographer
• Offline
• Posts: 3327
• Multiediting poster
• Respect: +3660
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1081 on: March 20, 2018, 12:13:19 pm »
+1

The trade off he was talking about is that the less Roads you have, the less likely you are to start your turn with one in your hand.
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

#### Gazbag

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 531
• Respect: +713
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1082 on: March 20, 2018, 12:19:56 pm »
0

The trade off he was talking about is that the less Roads you have, the less likely you are to start your turn with one in your hand.

Yes that's the reliability part, it's more reliability but worse draw vs better draw but less reliability. I'm saying the card is so strong that it doesn't matter, because no matter what you do you're drawing more and being more reliable that other options at this price.
Logged

#### Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4540
• Respect: +4884
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1083 on: March 20, 2018, 02:09:15 pm »
+1

The trade off he was talking about is that the less Roads you have, the less likely you are to start your turn with one in your hand.

Yes that's the reliability part, it's more reliability but worse draw vs better draw but less reliability. I'm saying the card is so strong that it doesn't matter, because no matter what you do you're drawing more and being more reliable that other options at this price.

In all fairness, when you write "There is no tradeoff!" one has to assume that you intend to say there was no tradeoff. Either way, I'm not opposed to testing a 5\$ version, as I said. Either either way, I'm also not sure what to think of the fact that you are assuming a deck with no/poor trashing when talking about Farmer, but are willing to assume you would draw Town and Road together often enough to buy it over Lab "99% of the time". I find this hyperbole and "I'm right, fight me" comments unhelpful and to be honest, it's not the kind of discussion I want to have. In fact, as my life has shifted to doing actual games and I'm doing fan cards for fun only by now, I actually prefer leaving them flawed over having that kind of discussion. So yeah, willing to try out and discuss stuff, but no interest in fights.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 02:10:44 pm by Asper »
Logged

#### Gazbag

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 531
• Respect: +713
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1084 on: March 20, 2018, 02:56:02 pm »
+1

The trade off he was talking about is that the less Roads you have, the less likely you are to start your turn with one in your hand.

Yes that's the reliability part, it's more reliability but worse draw vs better draw but less reliability. I'm saying the card is so strong that it doesn't matter, because no matter what you do you're drawing more and being more reliable that other options at this price.

In all fairness, when you write "There is no tradeoff!" one has to assume that you intend to say there was no tradeoff. Either way, I'm not opposed to testing a 5\$ version, as I said. Either either way, I'm also not sure what to think of the fact that you are assuming a deck with no/poor trashing when talking about Farmer, but are willing to assume you would draw Town and Road together often enough to buy it over Lab "99% of the time". I find this hyperbole and "I'm right, fight me" comments unhelpful and to be honest, it's not the kind of discussion I want to have. In fact, as my life has shifted to doing actual games and I'm doing fan cards for fun only by now, I actually prefer leaving them flawed over having that kind of discussion. So yeah, willing to try out and discuss stuff, but no interest in fights.

In a trashed down deck the sifting is pretty meaningless, which is why that was a useful assumption. I'm comparing Town/Road to Village/Smithy style decks not Lab, Town/Road is much more consistent for the reasons I outlined, that you end up massively over-villaged because you can easily convert excess +actions to +cards. The lack of tradeoff is to with the fact that Town+Road is easily strong enough to be \$5 or \$6 and Town on it's own isn't particularly overcosted because village for \$4 is only overcosted in a kingdom with a different village variant. I haven't used any hyperbole, I just genuinely think this effect is that good.

The fight me part was not serious at all... I can't really believe I have to explain that, especially considering we've actually interacted quite a lot and tested cards together and you must have at least some idea what my character is like and what my intention is with a comment like that. Sorry if I upset you in any way anyway, but honestly I think I've articulated my thoughts on this pretty clearly and as you said, it's just fan cards, aren't we all just here because we find thinking and talking about them a bit of fun?
Logged

#### Holunder9

• Tactician
• Offline
• Posts: 443
• Respect: +181
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1085 on: March 20, 2018, 03:05:50 pm »
+1

Anyway I outlined above how you can sub Towns in as Smithies in a village/Smithy deck and not only will the deck be more reliable because of an increased village density, it also has more drawing power than the village/Smithy deck, because the Town+2 plays of Road combination draws as much as Hunting Grounds (+a Road returning to hand).
No. You need to spend 2 Actions to play Road twice and then you are out of Actions. Two cards combining into what one terminal draw card is of course a neat feature but doesn't constitute a drawn engine. A draw engine is always nonterminal and Town+Road just does half of what Village+Smithy is which is why the latter is normally preferrable.

The former has four advantages though: first you need only one Road for the whole thing so Town+Road+Town+ same Road again nets 3 cards which is close to the 4 net cards of Village²+Smithy².
Second, you can play the Road, as you neatly pointed out, as last terminal. Third, you can discard it for whatever. Fourth, with extra villages in the Kingdom Road becomes stronger.

So Road is potentially immensely strong or outright broken. But its strength is, as always, Kingdom dependent and I am pretty sure that something like Port+Torturer or Fishing Village+Wharf is still far better than Town+Road (although, as already mentioned, if the respective four cards are all present in the same Kingdom Road becomes a powerhouse due to the presence of a second village).
Logged

#### Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4540
• Respect: +4884
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1086 on: March 21, 2018, 07:14:36 am »
0

The trade off he was talking about is that the less Roads you have, the less likely you are to start your turn with one in your hand.

Yes that's the reliability part, it's more reliability but worse draw vs better draw but less reliability. I'm saying the card is so strong that it doesn't matter, because no matter what you do you're drawing more and being more reliable that other options at this price.

In all fairness, when you write "There is no tradeoff!" one has to assume that you intend to say there was no tradeoff. Either way, I'm not opposed to testing a 5\$ version, as I said. Either either way, I'm also not sure what to think of the fact that you are assuming a deck with no/poor trashing when talking about Farmer, but are willing to assume you would draw Town and Road together often enough to buy it over Lab "99% of the time". I find this hyperbole and "I'm right, fight me" comments unhelpful and to be honest, it's not the kind of discussion I want to have. In fact, as my life has shifted to doing actual games and I'm doing fan cards for fun only by now, I actually prefer leaving them flawed over having that kind of discussion. So yeah, willing to try out and discuss stuff, but no interest in fights.

In a trashed down deck the sifting is pretty meaningless, which is why that was a useful assumption. I'm comparing Town/Road to Village/Smithy style decks not Lab, Town/Road is much more consistent for the reasons I outlined, that you end up massively over-villaged because you can easily convert excess +actions to +cards. The lack of tradeoff is to with the fact that Town+Road is easily strong enough to be \$5 or \$6 and Town on it's own isn't particularly overcosted because village for \$4 is only overcosted in a kingdom with a different village variant. I haven't used any hyperbole, I just genuinely think this effect is that good.

The fight me part was not serious at all... I can't really believe I have to explain that, especially considering we've actually interacted quite a lot and tested cards together and you must have at least some idea what my character is like and what my intention is with a comment like that. Sorry if I upset you in any way anyway, but honestly I think I've articulated my thoughts on this pretty clearly and as you said, it's just fan cards, aren't we all just here because we find thinking and talking about them a bit of fun?

My apologies, I'm being thin-skinned recently. I've had a harder time trusting into people's good will ever since that tristan thing, but I am nonetheless sorry about not giving you the benefit of the doubt, especially considering our interaction in the past. It's not like I don't see most of your points, it's just that I find Road very hard to judge myself, and in the past, Road's strength has been estimated very very differently by different people, so I have been cautious to believe estimates without testing. Personally, I'd probably prefer a version for 4\$ that has mandatory gain, but how about we just playtest a 5\$ version soon?

#### ThetaSigma12

• Torturer
• Offline
• Posts: 1561
• Respect: +1607
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1087 on: March 30, 2018, 07:06:29 pm »
+1

Doesn't need the , see Charm.
I wouldn't like to change Investment's coin icon until I know they changed Horn of Plenty, too.

Ha! I feel vindicated. Too bad it doesn't matter anymore...
Logged
If you have a fan card you want to be created, just post about it here! I'd love to take a look at it.

#### Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4540
• Respect: +4884
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1088 on: March 30, 2018, 08:09:52 pm »
0

Doesn't need the , see Charm.
I wouldn't like to change Investment's coin icon until I know they changed Horn of Plenty, too.

Ha! I feel vindicated. Too bad it doesn't matter anymore...

There sure have been a lot of changes recently. *coff coff*

#### Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4540
• Respect: +4884
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1089 on: March 30, 2018, 10:41:48 pm »
0

Doesn't need the , see Charm.
I wouldn't like to change Investment's coin icon until I know they changed Horn of Plenty, too.

Ha! I feel vindicated. Too bad it doesn't matter anymore...

You know, as nice as the sleeker, more modest HoP is, it kind of makes Night cards feel even less necessary. Here, have an "Economy" Nocturne retheme with lots of Treasures giving no money:

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1099
• Respect: +848
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1090 on: March 31, 2018, 12:56:38 am »
+3

Boo. Then we wouldn't have the theme of night cards. It ruins it completely!

#### LastFootnote

• Offline
• Posts: 6937
• Respect: +9555
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1091 on: March 31, 2018, 01:29:48 am »
+3

And all the tracking issues, of course. There are a lot of ways Treasures can leave play, and “when you gain this, you may play it” has its own similar issues.

But yes, Horn of Plenty would be better as a Night card.
Logged

#### Holunder9

• Tactician
• Offline
• Posts: 443
• Respect: +181
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1092 on: March 31, 2018, 02:44:19 am »
+1

While I don't understand the desire to emulate Night cards via Treasure cards I think it is cool that you tried.
There are very slight mechnical differences though, namely gaining Spyglass during the Action phase and playing it immediately as well as all the interactions with Venture, Ironworks, Ironmonger, Rabbled, Farming Village and Haunted Woods plus whatever I forgot.
Logged

#### Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4540
• Respect: +4884
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1093 on: March 31, 2018, 08:22:06 am »
0

Introducing types for flavor reasons is totally a thing in some games, and rightfully so. Those games are thematic however. Dominion is a lot of great things, but thematic never really was one of them, was it? I understand having Vampires and such in the game is cool, but it's not like you couldn't have had them without the Night type.

I get that allowing to play Treasures when you gain them would have to be restricted to your Buy phase, and I purposefully didn't emilate Monastery and Devil's Workshop because I felt the ways to do those were a lot worse than the actual cards. I can't really think of too many ways to get Treasures out of play which don't also apply to Durations in general, actually. Oh right, Mandarin and Mint. Bonfire also doesn't affect Night cards for order reasons. Are there others?

This is just a proof of concept either way. I have no interest into pushing this on someone. And I guess you can really look at HoP as the problem here, as it introduced (always) worthless Treasures in the first place. The distinction would be much clearer otherwise.

#### Gazbag

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 531
• Respect: +713
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1094 on: March 31, 2018, 12:19:31 pm »
+4

This treasure Raider is much stronger than regular Raider because you can play it before your other treasures. This Night Watchman is also very different because you play it before you buy, which eliminates Night Watchman's ability to topdeck cards you buy when you're drawing your deck. Ghost suffers this problem too, even worse actually, you can't buy a card and then Ghost it if Ghost is a treasure. Devil's Workshop and Monastery just don't work as treasures of course (without very tortured wording at least).

I find calling the Night phase unnecessary a little strange, personally I think it's the best new thing since Events, the cards are super fun! What other purpose could an expansion have then adding more fun cards?
Logged

#### LostPhoenix

• Golem
• Offline
• Posts: 176
• Shuffle iT Username: Lost Phoenix
• The Lurker
• Respect: +169
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1095 on: March 31, 2018, 12:45:07 pm »
+2

Yes, Dominion has always been lacking in theme, but that doesn't mean we should give up on the idea.
Logged

#### NoMoreFun

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1341
• Respect: +941
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1096 on: April 01, 2018, 03:20:08 am »
+1

Along the same lines, Masterpiece and Cache could easily be replaced with Events, and Quarry an Event costing \$P (which would also fit Alchemy thematically). Exorcist too.
Logged

#### Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4540
• Respect: +4884
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1097 on: April 01, 2018, 07:11:07 am »
+1

Along the same lines, Masterpiece and Cache could easily be replaced with Events, and Quarry an Event costing \$P (which would also fit Alchemy thematically). Exorcist too.

While that's true, this is the other way around. Masterpiece, Cache and Quarry all came before Events were introduced. The Night cards all came after Horn of Plenty. If Treasures worth 0 weren't a thing, I never would have suggested it to be a thing over Night cards. It's not even like I suggest it now. That would be too late, wouldn't it. I just felt like trying myself at something fun.

I see that some of the cards I mocked up actually behave very different than their Night original, and for Ghost at least I can see that the change harms the card. That wasn't intended. Originally I just mocked up a few of them and then decided to do more on the way. For the others (except perhaps Raider, which I haven't played with enough) I feel the differences are no real issue. Sure, it's not exactly, totally 100% identical, but that's not the point either way.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 07:12:38 am by Asper »
Logged

#### somekindoftony

• Steward
• Offline
• Posts: 26
• Respect: +3
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1098 on: April 06, 2018, 08:36:51 pm »
+1

So much to comment on but I mostly just want to say how much I love 'Well'. It's a reverse swindler, a fools gold enabler (trash those estates and use those buys) and a soft counter to curses.
You can even turn surplus Wells into silver if you need to.
A lot of cards here (meaning on this forum not amongst these cards) seem a little high on the power curve but Well is the sort of card that plays a role in many kingdoms without overpowering.  Nice one.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2018, 01:25:54 am by somekindoftony »
Logged

#### Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4540
• Respect: +4884
##### Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1099 on: May 07, 2018, 05:57:25 am »
+1

I decided to add an interactive clause to Mountain (er, I mean Cliffside) Village to have it be better balanced. My considerations were giving the other players a coin token on gain (much too strong) or letting them trash a card on gain (already has been there). Also I thought about allowing them to gain a cheaper card (reverse Border Village) or allowing to discard cards to draw cards (either on gain or play, but on play seemed too slow, also it was there already). And then I thought about allowing them to gain a Copper in hand, which they'll probably just use to buy another copy, trashing the Copper later... Maybe allow them to discard two cards to put a Silver in hand on gain? That bonus combos much more poorly with other Mountain (Cliffside!) Villages, as you can sift junk away and Silver isn't the worst card ever to have in your deck. Only problem is it kind of was there already, but it has a nice theme.

Any ideas? Is there one you guys like?
Personally I like the Silver one and the gaining of cheaper cards most right now, although both have some special implications I'm not sure I like that much...
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 03:14:01 pm by Asper »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 48  All

Page created in 0.149 seconds with 21 queries.