Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 [52] 53 54 55  All

Author Topic: Asper's Cards  (Read 273935 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1275 on: November 20, 2018, 05:33:12 pm »
+1

When I made them "loyal" subjects, making them non-trashable seemed especially cute: Be it Knights, Rats, or Locusts, these guys never abandon you.
Looking at it that way, the extra effect is perfect.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1276 on: November 21, 2018, 02:18:39 pm »
0

Someone notified me that cards that never are placed next to the supply, such as Shelters, Heirlooms or the official Zombies (...) lack the "This is not in the supply" note that cards like Spoils, Travellers or Prizes have. For this reason, I should probably drop it from Zombie and Loyal Subjects (yay!).

On the other hand, the existing cards that appear this way all have a secondary type. They also all, unlike my Zombie/Loyal Subjects, contain several differently named cards. I would tend to believe I can get away with my cards not getting additional types, I guess? For cards with the "not in the supply" note, Spoils have no additional type, whereas Prizes do. And of cards in the supply, most cards, including split piles, don't, but Castles and Knights do. Any opinions here?

Logged

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +378
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1277 on: November 21, 2018, 02:32:02 pm »
+2

Someone notified me that cards that never are placed next to the supply, such as Shelters, Heirlooms or the official Zombies (...) lack the "This is not in the supply" note that cards like Spoils, Travellers or Prizes have. For this reason, I should probably drop it from Zombie and Loyal Subjects (yay!).
Even after you have learned that you can not return non-Supply cards with Ambassador the lack of optical markers (the * in the price / This is not in the Supply.) can make people forget that the cannot return Shelters via Ambassador.
So in my opinion it all depends on your playing group. Are they pros who get these subtleties or are they casual players whom you often have to remind about stuff like, you cannot gain cards from non-Supply piles and so on.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1278 on: November 22, 2018, 03:36:56 am »
+2

Someone notified me that cards that never are placed next to the supply, such as Shelters, Heirlooms or the official Zombies (...) lack the "This is not in the supply" note that cards like Spoils, Travellers or Prizes have. For this reason, I should probably drop it from Zombie and Loyal Subjects (yay!).
Even after you have learned that you can not return non-Supply cards with Ambassador the lack of optical markers (the * in the price / This is not in the Supply.) can make people forget that the cannot return Shelters via Ambassador.
So in my opinion it all depends on your playing group. Are they pros who get these subtleties or are they casual players whom you often have to remind about stuff like, you cannot gain cards from non-Supply piles and so on.

Sure, but isn't this something you should tell Donald X? I mean, I can choose to do it different than official cards, but as a rule of thumb I prefer working inside the framework.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1875
  • Respect: +1806
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1279 on: November 26, 2018, 10:33:48 pm »
+1

Everything that isn't the supply either has a special type OR * and (This is not in the supply)

The Zombies that start in the trash in the Nocturne have the type "Zombie" - I think yours should too. One of the ideas that pops up here which I enjoy is words that could refer to either the name of a card or type of a card (ie cards with the type "Silver" or "Duchy")

I think cards that start in your deck should have a type, as Shelters and Heirlooms do. Loyal subjects could also be a Zombie, just for a laugh, or give it some other type. I agree it should have some sort of marking that it isn't a supply card for the sake of Ambassador et al.

Knights and Castles have types because they are self referential. If Knights didn't trash themselves when they trashed Knights, they wouldn't need the type.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2018, 10:43:16 pm by NoMoreFun »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1280 on: November 27, 2018, 02:22:43 am »
0

Everything that isn't the supply either has a special type OR * and (This is not in the supply)

The Zombies that start in the trash in the Nocturne have the type "Zombie" - I think yours should too. One of the ideas that pops up here which I enjoy is words that could refer to either the name of a card or type of a card (ie cards with the type "Silver" or "Duchy")

I think cards that start in your deck should have a type, as Shelters and Heirlooms do. Loyal subjects could also be a Zombie, just for a laugh, or give it some other type. I agree it should have some sort of marking that it isn't a supply card for the sake of Ambassador et al.

Knights and Castles have types because they are self referential. If Knights didn't trash themselves when they trashed Knights, they wouldn't need the type.

On the other hand, all Shelters, Heirlooms and official Zombies are not only no piles, but also contain differently named cards. Practically, it is impossible to talk about any of them just by name. Neither do you want Necromancer's setup to spell out three cards, nor the rules about Shelters, or even mention 7 cards each time you talk about Heirlooms. Knights and Castles reference themselves, but at the core that also means they have the type to ease talking about them. Prizes never talk about themselves, but contain different cards, and you don't want Tournament to meantion five cards. Same with Spirits getting a type for Exorcist's sake. For Spoils, which is functionally very similar to Prizes or Spirits, you only have one card, and the same goes for Mercenary and Madman. I feel that all of this clearly supports the notion that types are tied to the problematique of reference (self-referential or not) and not necessarily the cards being "non-piles". I mean, we have no way of seperating the groups now, as non-piles appear only as collections of several cards right now, but the use of types as a reference tool is very well documented. Perhaps Donald has conciously made a decision to do it this way, but there is no way of telling.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 02:23:49 am by Asper »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1281 on: November 27, 2018, 04:30:08 am »
0

Just asked Donald X about it and he confirmed that types are for reference only. I'm aware that I don't need to follow all official standards with utmost devotion (and I haven't), but adding a type doesn't feel like something I want to do arbitrarily. So Zombie and Loyal Subjects will stay unique-type-less.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1282 on: November 27, 2018, 04:56:28 am »
+1

Still not too happy with Outskirts. Here's another try (old Outskirts to the left):



It has some similarity with Advance on the surface, but vastly different uses (mostly greening, I think). Do you guys think it should it be +3$? That basically would make every Action card an optional Spoils, which I feel might be too much.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1875
  • Respect: +1806
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1283 on: November 27, 2018, 11:00:34 am »
+1

What about, to account for the fact the Action could be anything from a Ruins to a King's Court:

Refund
Event - <1>
You may trash an Action Card from your hand. If you did, +1 Buy and +$ equal to its cost in coins.

Or even

Refund
Event - <2>
+1 Buy. At the start of clean up, trash an Action card you would discard from play this turn. +1 Coffers for each $1 it cost.
Logged

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +378
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1284 on: November 27, 2018, 11:47:49 am »
+2

I like the old version better. The new one is too automatic with Ruins for my taste.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1285 on: November 27, 2018, 08:03:42 pm »
0

I like the old version better. The new one is too automatic with Ruins for my taste.

I can see that, but on the other hand for Death Cart it's actually a combo and Cultist certainly can afford being not-quite-mandatory once in a while. Marauder truly becomes useless (gain a Spoils, each other player gains a 2/3 Spoils), but it's not like there aren't other situations where an attack becomes garbage due to the kingdom. Anyhow, I will ponder some further variants of this.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1286 on: November 27, 2018, 08:39:40 pm »
+1

I decided to re-visit Edicts and slightly alter their color scheme to be more in line with actual Reaction cards. Funny enough, the default color that Violet CM's Dominion card image generator gives me when I choose custom and sideways looks exactly like I want it. Weird. Anyhow, in the process I noticed that one of my Edicts had the same art I had used for guild Hall, and I like it better there. Also, a lot of the pictures were dark and grey-blue-ish, so I swapped around a bit there, too. Oh yeah, and new Edicts, I guess. Some better than others.

Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +698
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1287 on: November 27, 2018, 09:53:15 pm »
+3

Banishment
Types: Edict
Setup: Put the Estate pile in the trash.
The pile being empty is no fun. I'd word it as "Remove the Estate pile from the game," so that its pile doesn't count.

Bureaucracy
Types: Edict
When you gain a Victory card, put it on top of your deck.
I've played with an effect like this. It was commonly forgotten and difficult to remedy. An even bigger concern I have is how gaining Estates becomes such a non-option when they get top-decked: I'd recommend having Bureaucracy only trigger once per turn (and probably only on your turns so that rare Estate junking isn't so miserable).

Commerce
Types: Edict
After you shuffle during the game, you may gain a Silver.
Digging cards that don't stop on Silver (such as Golem and Sage with cost-reduction) can immediately drain the Silver pile with some finagling, if you think that's a problem or not.

Inflation
Types: Edict
Victory cards cost $1 more.
My Countess sends her regards.

Monarchy
Types: Edict
Directly after you finish playing an Action card, you may trash it to play it again.
I don't think being able to blow up your entire deck sounds like very much fun. This probably makes every board into a megaturn board and wildly exacerbates turn order advantage. This could be reasonably interesting if it was limited to once per turn so you'd have to pace the inevitable decline.

Subventions
Types: Edict
When you buy a Victory card, each other player may draw a card.
A Road Network you don't have to buy? It triggers optionally on-buy instead of mandatory on-gain, but it is just so similar I'm not sure it's worth the card.

Treason
Types: Edict
When you buy a card, each other player may reveal a copy of it from their hand. If anyone does, take {2}.
Great concept, but the way it favors players earlier in turn order and how supremely oppressive it may be in multiplayer games could kill it.

Appeasement
Types: Edict
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard an Estate from your hand, to be unaffected by it.
Exile
Types: Edict
When you gain a Curse, set it aside and gain a Copper.
Expansion
Types: Edict
At the start of your turn, you may take your -$1 token, to get +1 Action.
Reformation
Types: Edict
Setup: Add one Province to the supply per player.
I really like these ones most.
Appeasement doesn't need to state "from your hand" since "discard" implies that.

"Supply" and "Kingdom" should be capitalized (across Gigantism, Imperialism, and Reformation).
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1687
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1514
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1288 on: November 27, 2018, 10:08:01 pm »
+2

I agree with pretty much everything Fragasnap said.

For Banishment, it might help if you just add, "This doesn't count as an empty supply pile for purposes of ending the game."
I think Monarchy would be good with a once per turn clause.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1289 on: November 28, 2018, 03:14:13 am »
0

Ah yes, I forgot about Countess. I originally suggested rules changes on sideway cards as an alternative to how you did it, and honestly still think it solves part of the issue of forgetting to apply such effects.
Edit: If it bothers you, I'm sure I can think of something else. Making all non-kingdom cards or all cards from the third turn on more expensive might do it. Or I just have it say "When you buy a card, take <1>".

Anyhow, I can see why Bureaucracy would be easy to forget. That's why in an original version it had "When you gain a Victory card, any other player may make you put it onto your deck". Now if everyone forgets about it, it's not a rule break. I don't mind Estates being a non-option all that much.

Banisment was supposed to empty the pile. But perhaps that makes the game too fast. I'm going to try it out at least once, though, to see whether I can do the concept some other way.

About Commerce, I think we had similar topics already. I might have slipped up here and used the old wording. Either way, I'll make it state that the Silver gets shuffled into the drawn cards so there is no discard once you revealed those. If you are talking about something that resembles Golem/Tunnel this is a non-issue to me.

The concern about Monarchy makes sense, but I'll have to ponder how to make a "once per turn" trackable.

About Subventions, yeah, I guess I should have dropped it. It was nice before Renaissance came, but now having both looks silly.

I can definitely see that Treason would favor earlier players too much. I have considered a reverse version, but failed to find a good wording for it, yet.

Thanks for liking the others. Those are the ones I'm most comfortable with, too.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2018, 06:35:47 am by Asper »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1290 on: November 29, 2018, 04:53:18 am »
0

So, to do:

  • Appeasement can stay as is.
  • Banishment needs to be changed. An idea I thought of: "When you gain a Victory card, trash a cheaper one from the supply." Now each Province also makes a 3-pile more easy, but also strips opponents of options.
  • Bureaucracy might say "When you gain a Victory card, any other player may make you put it onto your deck" for remembering purposes.
  • Commerce will shuffle the gained Silver right into the deck to avoid Golem issues.
  • Diplomacy can stay as is.
  • Exile can stay as is.
  • Expansion can stay as is (edit: except that it should say "for +1 Action").
  • Gigantism can stay as is (except for capitalization).
  • Imperialism can stay as is (except for capitalization).
  • For Inflation, I might just increase the cost of all cards and give players two Coin tokens on Setup, or instead enforce that cards can never cost less than 3. I actually think I like the second better.
  • I will think of a tracking mechanic for Monarchy - possibly: "Once per turn, after you finish playing an Action card, you may set it aside next to this to play it again. Trash it at the start of cleanup."
  • Reformation can stay as is  (except for capitalization).
  • Simplicity can stay as is.
  • Subvention will be removed for being a project now.
  • Supervision can stay as is.
  • I will try to think of a wording that reverses Treason. Perhaps it might become an Event in the process, but probably not.
  • Tyranny can stay as is.
  • Urbanization can stay as is.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2018, 10:19:37 am by Asper »
Logged

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1291 on: November 29, 2018, 08:01:11 am »
+1

Expansion could say "for +1 Action" instead of "to get +1 Action."
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1292 on: November 29, 2018, 10:19:08 am »
0

Expansion could say "for +1 Action" instead of "to get +1 Action."

Nice catch, thanks!
Logged

Jeebus

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1533
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1293 on: November 30, 2018, 03:48:31 pm »
+2



This started out as a suggestion for Kudasai's Barbarian Village. Originally I wanted it to gain a Copper in order to be topdecked, but the obscure lose-track rule makes this impossible.

You can just write:
When you gain this or discard it from play, you may put it onto your deck. If you do, gain a Copper.
The only difference is that it will still work after the Coppers are out.  :P

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1294 on: December 01, 2018, 04:47:58 am »
0



This started out as a suggestion for Kudasai's Barbarian Village. Originally I wanted it to gain a Copper in order to be topdecked, but the obscure lose-track rule makes this impossible.

You can just write:
When you gain this or discard it from play, you may put it onto your deck. If you do, gain a Copper.
The only difference is that it will still work after the Coppers are out.  :P

Yeah, I considered that. But I think I'm fine with how it is now. The Copper gaining might have been too harsh, anyhow.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1295 on: December 01, 2018, 05:23:36 am »
+3

Fixes:



Lame bonus:


Edit: Fixed Treason saying "on" instead of "in" hand.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2018, 05:44:35 pm by Asper »
Logged

MrFrog

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
  • Shuffle iT Username: MrFrog
  • Respect: +94
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1296 on: December 01, 2018, 01:09:57 pm »
+1

Shouldn't Treason say "Victory card" instead of "Action card"?
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1297 on: December 01, 2018, 03:05:11 pm »
0

Shouldn't Treason say "Victory card" instead of "Action card"?

Is this a theme or machanic inquiry?
Logged

MrFrog

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
  • Shuffle iT Username: MrFrog
  • Respect: +94
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1298 on: December 01, 2018, 03:13:54 pm »
+1

Shouldn't Treason say "Victory card" instead of "Action card"?

Is this a theme or machanic inquiry?

Your image in the German forum said "Punktekarte" and I assumed that was the right version. Otherwise the 4th player would have a huge disadvantage in the first round, wouldn't he?

EDIT: Oh, nevermind. I read the card wrong. In this case, the Action version probably is the more interesting one.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5335
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #1299 on: December 01, 2018, 04:01:21 pm »
0

Shouldn't Treason say "Victory card" instead of "Action card"?

Is this a theme or machanic inquiry?

Your image in the German forum said "Punktekarte" and I assumed that was the right version. Otherwise the 4th player would have a huge disadvantage in the first round, wouldn't he?

EDIT: Oh, nevermind. I read the card wrong. In this case, the Action version probably is the more interesting one.

Argh, my fault. The Action version is the right one. I simply messed up when doing the German version. Oops.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 [52] 53 54 55  All
 

Page created in 0.091 seconds with 22 queries.