Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 39  All

Author Topic: Asper's Cards  (Read 65154 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3913
  • Respect: +4162
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #50 on: February 08, 2015, 11:21:32 am »
0

Assemble is a new card. It's more like "dissemble", actually, but good luck finding images for that :P
Actually, it's more like "disassemble". "Dissemble" is something completely different.

Ah, i didn't know that. Thanks.

I would use the old wording, yes.

Changed it back, thank you.



Also, here's Vampire:


Certainly not the best card here, but it's my take on the Self-Curse concept and an older version was pretty popular in my gaming group. Figured i could just as well pick some art and post it here.

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3913
  • Respect: +4162
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #51 on: February 09, 2015, 10:17:42 am »
0

I have changed the wording of Parliament to avoid the somewhat clumsy "printed" clause. It now doesn't distinguish between $2 and $3 cards anymore, but i actually feel that's better balanced. Now it's just a King's Court for weaker and a Throne Room for better cards. Like, Fishing Village and Scout, for example...



The order of the conditions is to avoid cases where a hypothetical cheap cost reducer might be played 5 times with Parliament (play Bridge, play Minibridge three times, Parliament and Minibridge now both cost $0, play it twice). It could still do weird stuff with Actions that only reduce/increase the costs of certain cards, but i'm not going to do one of those and i hope Donald won't, either. Also you can use it as a TR for $5 cards after some cost reduction, but it doesn't go crazy at all.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6572
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8573
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #52 on: February 09, 2015, 10:43:29 am »
+2

I honestly do not understand why you're bending over backwards so that Parliament doesn't combo with cost-reducers. It's a combo, man. Combos are fun! You don't see Prince with wording that prevents you from prince-ing expensive cards after playing Highway. Border Village has the wording so that you can't take the whole stack after one Highway and Band of Misfits has it so that it can't copy itself. Parliament has no such issue with loops.
Logged

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3913
  • Respect: +4162
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #53 on: February 09, 2015, 11:07:04 am »
+1

I honestly do not understand why you're bending over backwards so that Parliament doesn't combo with cost-reducers. It's a combo, man. Combos are fun! You don't see Prince with wording that prevents you from prince-ing expensive cards after playing Highway. Border Village has the wording so that you can't take the whole stack after one Highway and Band of Misfits has it so that it can't copy itself. Parliament has no such issue with loops.

Well, it started out as a card where the times you played scaled with how cheap it was, which would have meant that a card could be played up to 5 times. In the process of fixing this (terribly overpowered) effect, i changed it so it wouldn't scale. Thinking about it, now that the maximum effect is King's Court, i could actually revert it to $4 and less than $4. "Combos are fun" is a valid concern, after all. Thank you :)

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3913
  • Respect: +4162
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #54 on: February 09, 2015, 11:22:39 am »
0

So, here's Parliament with room for cost reduction combos. the wording is a bit less pretty than the one before, sadly. The "3 or less" is mostly to avoid two coins saying "$4", which looks silly. +1 to whoever guesses why i didn't use: "If it costs $4/If it costs ($3 or) less"

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6572
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8573
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #55 on: February 09, 2015, 11:23:51 am »
+1

+1 to whoever guesses why i didn't use: "If it costs $4/If it costs ($3 or) less"

Is it so you don't play Bridge 5 times?
Logged

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3913
  • Respect: +4162
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #56 on: February 09, 2015, 11:25:31 am »
0

+1 to whoever guesses why i didn't use: "If it costs $4/If it costs ($3 or) less"

Is it so you don't play Bridge 5 times?

+1 respect was received ;)

Edit: I assume you could actually call that a combo, too... I just felt that it would look really unintended. Like putting revealed and bought Black Market cards back on top of the stack with Trader or stealing an Outpost turn with Possession. It technically works, but it's clearly a rule gap that causes the interaction.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6572
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8573
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #57 on: February 09, 2015, 01:31:51 pm »
+1

Edit: I assume you could actually call that a combo, too... I just felt that it would look really unintended. Like putting revealed and bought Black Market cards back on top of the stack with Trader or stealing an Outpost turn with Possession. It technically works, but it's clearly a rule gap that causes the interaction.

Putting the cheaper one first is best. Playing Bridge 5 times is a little too nuts, I think.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9683
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +9497
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #58 on: February 09, 2015, 02:16:54 pm »
+1

You could have an "otherwise" in there if you wanted to put the more expensive one first. Not worth it, though, unless you're going to come up with a fan card that increases costs because then you need it there anyway.

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3913
  • Respect: +4162
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #59 on: February 09, 2015, 02:30:39 pm »
0

You could have an "otherwise" in there if you wanted to put the more expensive one first. Not worth it, though, unless you're going to come up with a fan card that increases costs because then you need it there anyway.

Yeah, i had it as "If it costs $4/Otherwise, if it costs less" shortly, but that looked plain stupid. I don't think i'll ever make a cost increaser - there's Cutpurse and Embargo, so it's not really novel, and then there are rules issues with Highway etc.

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3913
  • Respect: +4162
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #60 on: February 10, 2015, 06:30:52 am »
0

Guys, about Politician: Do you think it should cost $4? I know it costed $4 before i carried it over to this collection thread, but that had no particular reason as i didn't settle on the vanilla bonus back then. Obviously Parliament/Politician is crazy strong, but i'm willing to accept this as an edge case. Not being able to open with this and another $4 might still be a good idea, though. The question is just whether +$3 and a drawback are actually something you'd consider buying for $4, even if the drawback is just a Chancellor effect...

Alternatively, i could of course change the benefit it gives. For example it could take coin/vp tokens (and give one of the same kind as a possible opponent bonus), which would make sure the card doesn't need tokens just for the possibly rare case you give one to an opponent.

In fact, i could even do both, like:

Politician, Action, $4
Take three coin tokens.
...yadda, yadda, yadda...
He may take a coin token;


Looks pretty strong though, doesn't it? Maybe it's a $5, even. Given that decisions take a while, it maybe shouldn't be easily available.
Edit: On second thought, 3 coin tokens are probably too much at any cost. Not because it's unbalanced, but because it shifts the focus from "political card" to "that one massive coin token card". Maybe this was a bad idea.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6572
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8573
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #61 on: February 10, 2015, 01:14:48 pm »
+1

I think Politician should have at most 3 options. Letting him put his deck into his discard pile is a bad option because it only works once (at most), which matters if you play it multiple times or if it's a game with more than two players.

I personally hate to see just one or two cards that use Coin or Victory tokens in a set. It's like, if you don't own this other set, this card is unplayable :P .

So my three options would be "draw a card; trash a card from his hand; gain a Silver".
Logged

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3913
  • Respect: +4162
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #62 on: February 10, 2015, 02:55:33 pm »
+1

I think Politician should have at most 3 options. Letting him put his deck into his discard pile is a bad option because it only works once (at most), which matters if you play it multiple times or if it's a game with more than two players.

I personally hate to see just one or two cards that use Coin or Victory tokens in a set. It's like, if you don't own this other set, this card is unplayable :P .

So my three options would be "draw a card; trash a card from his hand; gain a Silver".

Hmm... I see your points. I wanted it to have 5 options so the card could demand you to give another bonus to each player, without that becoming impossible in a 6 player game. The reason was that i wanted the card to be as political as possible, and forcing different choices was a means to ensure that. If i only have 3 options, i have to drop that clause. Maybe that's not horrible, though. Actually, it might be better. Instead of thinking "how can i distribute the bonuses between my opponents so the uselessness is maxed" it's just "what will be the least useful to Charles". It would certainly reduce analysis paralysis.

And you are clearly right about the non-stacking Chancellor effect. I was aware of that, but i guess it's true that in a 4 player match, where everybody plays Politician, the one guy who was chancellor'd first will receive no bonus for the next two plays, either.

Edit: This is how a 3-option-Politician looks:

I admit it's much more simple. A bit... vanilla-ish, even, but i think that's fine. Thank you for your very helpful consideration, LastFootnote :)

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6572
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8573
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #63 on: February 10, 2015, 04:02:20 pm »
+1

I will now critique the cards that have images. Yay, images!




I am working under the assumption that this card is not meant to be bought. Yes, you might buy it if it's the only +1 Buy on the board, but maybe not even then. The real thrust of Swamp seems to be that you can gain it instead of a Curse, Ruins, etc. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's worth one of your 10 Kingdom card slots. I don't even think I want Swamp out as an 11th Kingdom pile most of the time. It makes witches weak for a while and it empties fast, and that's about it.




I'm not sure this card needs the on-gain "penalty". Is the idea that it's usually a bonus because it's the only Potion card out? If so, that rubs me the wrong way, though I can see the logic behind it coming from the "full random" crowd.

I don't find Homonculus exciting, but it's probably a fine utility card. Small nitpick: it should say, "Trash a Potion you have in play", not, "Trash a [potion symbol] you have in play."




This is also unexciting. I wonder if it would be too strong if you looked at the top 3 and drew one, discarded one, and put the last one back. Similar to Lookout, but I still think it's an improvement. The current version is very Pearl Diver; usually doesn't hurt, but not enough cool combos to make it pop.




Very cool idea. It makes me sad that you need a village to make it activate, though. Conspirator needs non-terminal Actions, but chances are really good that you'll have some of that in your Kingdom. The chance that you'll have a village is way lower, and without one, River is just +2 Cards.




I am having trouble envisioning a reason to use this other than trashing Estates. I don't think I'm likely to trash a Province for a Gold in hand. I guess I could turn a Duchy into a Silver to buy the last Province, but even that sounds weak. Really the whole card just seems very weak. I'm trying to think of a fix, but I'm coming up short. Even if you put 2 copies of the Treasure into your hand, it has these same issues. That's where i'd start if you want to make this card work, though.

Just noticed it says "discard" instead of "trash". Cool card! I don't think I'd use it on Estates that often, but maybe it makes me want Duchies? Obviously it's great once you have Provinces.




I would make the trashing mandatory. Suggested rewording:

Quote
+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand, then reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a more expensive card that shares a type with it. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

Cool card. I think I'd like it better with a non-Potion cost and without the +1 Card, but it's definitely a neat concept.




I think that the "if you do" is unnecessary. If you have no cards in your hand to discard, then I think you deserve the +1 Card.

The card isn't very interesting to me. The effect needs to be bigger. At minimum, I would have it discard 2 cards, then draw 2 cards.




Probably another vanilla bonus would be better. Sure, there are a lot of Attack cards with +2 Cards or +$2, but they're classics for a reason.

The attack effect itself has potential. It might cause too much AP, but I think it's worth testing as-is. Suggested rewording:

Quote
Each other player reveals all but 3 cards from his hand. You choose whether he discards them or puts them back in an order of his choice.




Hmm... I think I like it.




I don't think I really understand this. First of all, the chancellor effect seems out of place, especially on a card that draws. If you play it multiple times (throne, multiple copies, etc.), your chancellor effect is just prompting extra shuffles and likely hurts you. I also don't understand why the bottom option helps your targets.

I hate Minion. I hate the way that it casually wipes away good hands and makes the game more random in a really frustrating way. Tribunal is at least wiping your hand intentionally, but I'm not sure that's much better. It seems potentially super harsh and very un-fun to me.




Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.



I'll do the next batch soon. Sorry for the harsh critiques!
« Last Edit: February 10, 2015, 04:06:52 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6572
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8573
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #64 on: February 10, 2015, 04:28:12 pm »
+1



Hmm, might be fine. Sort of like Jubilee for card drawing.




I think this version is worth testing.




Bah, VP chip cards. Well, I guess this is OK. Combos with Copper-trashers and/or alt-VP.




I would take out the third part to keep it simpler.




I have seen this sort of idea before (maybe from your other threads, not sure), and I'm not a huge fan of it. I like the idea of combos with cheap cards, but this seems kludgy to me. I'm struggling to come up with a fix, though. Maybe it's fine.




Cool. If trashing $5 cards into Province/Copper ends up too strong, try having the gained cards go on your deck.




My problem with VP for empty piles is that it's really hard to get them above 3 in most games. A formula VP card that has a range of 1VP to 3VP just doesn't grab me. I like the outside-the-box thinking with the Curse gaining, but it doesn't fix this particular issue.




Hmm, I wonder if this wouldn't be better as a Treasure/Action. Maybe it being a Reaction is less confusing. The card seems maybe a bit weak, but the flexibility is nice.




Worth a shot, I guess. The biggest worry is that the tokens run out in a game with lots of players. I guess you could introduce negative VP tokens for just this problem.




That's all for now!
Logged

TheOthin

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 438
  • Shuffle iT Username: TheOthin
  • Respect: +420
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #65 on: February 10, 2015, 04:43:07 pm »
+2

A Tribunal engine could be incredibly painful, forcing them to redraw over and over again until they get a shit hand. You do offer them a chance to improve their hand when you let them keep it and at any later Tribunals, but... it'd just be so unpleasant, and could border on pin territory. And think of all the shuffling.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6572
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8573
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #66 on: February 10, 2015, 04:46:17 pm »
+1

I have had an Idea. What if you add Jeweler's reaction to River?

Quote
River (or Jeweler)
Types: Action - Reaction
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Put this into your hand.

At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard this. If you do, +$1.

Way more worth buying without villages. With villages, you feel less bad about picking up multiple copies because at worst they're Coppers.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2015, 04:53:02 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1662
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +1811
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #67 on: February 10, 2015, 05:05:03 pm »
+1

Jeweler should say "you may discard this from your hand" right? As worded you can discard from play and get both the +3 cards and +$2.
Logged

scott_pilgrim

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 969
  • Respect: +1877
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #68 on: February 10, 2015, 05:07:57 pm »
+1

I have had an Idea. What if you add Jeweler's reaction to River?

Quote
River (or Jeweler)
Types: Action - Reaction
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Put this into your hand.

At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard this. If you do, +$1.

Way more worth buying without villages. With villages, you feel less bad about picking up multiple copies because at worst they're Coppers.

I was actually going to suggest the same thing.  Except I think it's actually cleaner as an Action/Treasure.  If you play it as an action, +2 cards and return it to your hand.  If you play it as a treasure, +$1.  I think this might be the first case where an Action/Treasure is really worth doing.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6572
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8573
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #69 on: February 10, 2015, 05:09:52 pm »
+1

Jeweler should say "you may discard this from your hand" right? As worded you can discard from play and get both the +3 cards and +$2.

Discarding is always from your hand unless otherwise stated. Although hey, just another reason to combine River and Jeweler. Then it'd never be in play.
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1662
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +1811
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #70 on: February 10, 2015, 05:20:33 pm »
+1

Jeweler should say "you may discard this from your hand" right? As worded you can discard from play and get both the +3 cards and +$2.

Discarding is always from your hand unless otherwise stated. Although hey, just another reason to combine River and Jeweler. Then it'd never be in play.

Hmm, I guess you're right.
Logged

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3913
  • Respect: +4162
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #71 on: February 10, 2015, 05:41:16 pm »
+1



I am working under the assumption that this card is not meant to be bought. Yes, you might buy it if it's the only +1 Buy on the board, but maybe not even then. The real thrust of Swamp seems to be that you can gain it instead of a Curse, Ruins, etc. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's worth one of your 10 Kingdom card slots. I don't even think I want Swamp out as an 11th Kingdom pile most of the time. It makes witches weak for a while and it empties fast, and that's about it.

I get what you mean and admit it's likely not worth a pile. Maybe i just grew attached to it and probably that's why i didn't scrap it, yet. I mean, it's certainly not on top of my "to print and try" list, so i guess that's a bad sign.



I'm not sure this card needs the on-gain "penalty". Is the idea that it's usually a bonus because it's the only Potion card out? If so, that rubs me the wrong way, though I can see the logic behind it coming from the "full random" crowd.

I don't find Homonculus exciting, but it's probably a fine utility card. Small nitpick: it should say, "Trash a Potion you have in play", not, "Trash a [potion symbol] you have in play."

Well, in the Hinterlands contest, i tried this for 2$ and with the penalty that you had to set it aside when bought, putting it in your discard only after your next shuffle. It was called "Artifact" back then, and maybe you remember me constantly pestering you with "No, LastFootnote, the wording has to be exactly this way for ominous reasons, stop fixing my weird wordings.". Anyhow, it was clearly overpowered, and so i went to price it at $3, then $4. That seemed balanced. Thing is, having it cost a Potion and trashing that might be marginally worse, but it solves the delayed gain in a much simpler way than strange "set aside" rules. I allready felt the symbol was off, but didn't see what itched me... Thank you for pointing it out.



This is also unexciting. I wonder if it would be too strong if you looked at the top 3 and drew one, discarded one, and put the last one back. Similar to Lookout, but I still think it's an improvement. The current version is very Pearl Diver; usually doesn't hurt, but not enough cool combos to make it pop.

It's allready pretty similar to Vagrant, power-wise, and the fact that you might be seing two good cards, being forced to discard one, is mostly what makes it not-strictly-better. I agree that it's unexciting, though. Another one that's probably fine, just not worth the slot.




Very cool idea. It makes me sad that you need a village to make it activate, though. Conspirator needs non-terminal Actions, but chances are really good that you'll have some of that in your Kingdom. The chance that you'll have a village is way lower, and without one, River is just +2 Cards.

Hmm... I'm not sure whether the "no-Village" scenario isn't really too off-putting... I mean, it's a Moat if there are none... If i was to fix this "issue", it would really have to be a gentle fix, a setup clause seems the most appropriate, but i don't really like even that. A buy, maybe. it's something that you don't really need that many of, anyway...




I am having trouble envisioning a reason to use this other than trashing Estates. I don't think I'm likely to trash a Province for a Gold in hand. I guess I could turn a Duchy into a Silver to buy the last Province, but even that sounds weak. Really the whole card just seems very weak. I'm trying to think of a fix, but I'm coming up short. Even if you put 2 copies of the Treasure into your hand, it has these same issues. That's where i'd start if you want to make this card work, though.

Just noticed it says "discard" instead of "trash". Cool card! I don't think I'd use it on Estates that often, but maybe it makes me want Duchies? Obviously it's great once you have Provinces.

Did you notice that it's a weaker Oasis with Estates and can discard Harems for Harems? ;)
Actually, this started with the premise "something arabic that can gain Harems", and was "Grand Vizier" for a long time. it went through tens of versions... I know that's the absolutely wrong way to do a card, and i'm kind of surprised that after long time, it actually became something interesting. I'm very glad you like it :)




I would make the trashing mandatory. Suggested rewording:

Quote
+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand, then reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a more expensive card that shares a type with it. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

Cool card. I think I'd like it better with a non-Potion cost and without the +1 Card, but it's definitely a neat concept.

Thanks :)
I'm pretty happy with it. I had high hopes for it in the Alchemy contest. I don't even know why it has the Potion cost, i think i just saw it as fitting. No reason not to give your version a try, though :)




I think that the "if you do" is unnecessary. If you have no cards in your hand to discard, then I think you deserve the +1 Card.

The card isn't very interesting to me. The effect needs to be bigger. At minimum, I would have it discard 2 cards, then draw 2 cards.

When playtesting it, it was usually considered a surprisingly strong $5. The "if you do" is the tiniest nerf. I can see the appeal of keeping it as simple as possible, though, but then again, the card is very simple allready. It's pretty standard, i admit.




Probably another vanilla bonus would be better. Sure, there are a lot of Attack cards with +2 Cards or +$2, but they're classics for a reason.

The attack effect itself has potential. It might cause too much AP, but I think it's worth testing as-is. Suggested rewording:

Quote
Each other player reveals all but 3 cards from his hand. You choose whether he discards them or puts them back in an order of his choice.

Yeah, the bonus is a little off. I wanted one that doesn't make this such an obvious Ghost Ship/Militia mashup and one that didn't work best if you just played one of these every turn. Actions ask for other cards to go with them and scale, the attack doesn't. I think it was my idea of how to make it a little more interesting.




Hmm... I think I like it.

I see nothing wrong with that. Arbitrary piece of information: It's called that way because it incorporates every Trusty Steed bonus in a minor way ;)




I don't think I really understand this. First of all, the chancellor effect seems out of place, especially on a card that draws. If you play it multiple times (throne, multiple copies, etc.), your chancellor effect is just prompting extra shuffles and likely hurts you. I also don't understand why the bottom option helps your targets.

I hate Minion. I hate the way that it casually wipes away good hands and makes the game more random in a really frustrating way. Tribunal is at least wiping your hand intentionally, but I'm not sure that's much better. It seems potentially super harsh and very un-fun to me.

I'm not very happy with this right now, and you pointed out the reasons pretty accurately. The Chancellor effect is probably the worst part. i wanted it on some cards for some reason (Politician being the other one) and when looking for a way to buff this a bit, i decided against a buy and for this. Obviously not my best choice. Anyhow, the bottom option is so you can not spam this until everybody has the worst possible hand. if somebody allready has a terrible hand, you help him a bit. But i see why that's off on an attack. I might have to scrap this. Maybe there's another way of doing the core attack. Even if you don't like it :P




Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.

Well, it's one point less than province for $6. Originally, it also trashed a Province from the supply when gained (so you had a chance that the game would end before you choke) but people argued that emptying 4 piles at once was a little too much... I have never playtested it, and if neither this version nor the Province trashing one works out (i haven't tried that one, either), i'll scrap this.




Hmm, might be fine. Sort of like Jubilee for card drawing.

It's ooooooold... Actually, this card predates Dark Ages. I was worried it might be too bland, but my gaming group at least enjoys it. Funny how it behaves vastly different to Poor House.




I think this version is worth testing.

I'll do that soon, hopefully. :)




Bah, VP chip cards. Well, I guess this is OK. Combos with Copper-trashers and/or alt-VP.

I'll just focus on the "OK", here ;)




I would take out the third part to keep it simpler.

Hm... I'm worried it might keep the card from being worthwile. On the other hand, i assume that having +actions depend on luck isn't very much fun.




I have seen this sort of idea before (maybe from your other threads, not sure), and I'm not a huge fan of it. I like the idea of combos with cheap cards, but this seems kludgy to me. I'm struggling to come up with a fix, though. Maybe it's fine.

Yes, the basic idea is old news. I can see that the strength of a combo here isn't mostly dependant on card price, but more on WHICH specific card you play. Chapel and Secret Chamber are horrible, Fishing Village is awesome. Might scrap it, but for now i'll keep it around just to playtest it a bit.




Cool. If trashing $5 cards into Province/Copper ends up too strong, try having the gained cards go on your deck.

Thanks :)




My problem with VP for empty piles is that it's really hard to get them above 3 in most games. A formula VP card that has a range of 1VP to 3VP just doesn't grab me. I like the outside-the-box thinking with the Curse gaining, but it doesn't fix this particular issue.

Well, the Curse gaining is a means to help you buy time. Originally this started out as "Maze" (german: "Irrgarten", literally "Insane Garden") and counted Curses other players had. It was bad, as it would potentially make you target specific players whenever that was possible. It was critizised for being a bit bland before, and i'm willing to let it go if i must. The premise is an attack-victory that gets more valuable by attacking, of course.




Hmm, I wonder if this wouldn't be better as a Treasure/Action. Maybe it being a Reaction is less confusing. The card seems maybe a bit weak, but the flexibility is nice.

Actually, Action-Treasure is the premise here. I thought if Donald can make a Duration-Copper (Treasury), i can do an Action-Treasure. The Reaction type is my solution to the rules issues Treasure-Actions generate. It's honestly not much more than that, but it's interesting you believe that it might be weak. I considered it a potential one-card-strategy. If i hadn't, i might have done this:

Quote
Jeweler, Action-Reaction, $5
+3 Cards
----
At the end of your buy phase or when another player plays an attack card, you may set this aside. If you do, at the start of your next buy phase: +$2 and discard this.




Worth a shot, I guess. The biggest worry is that the tokens run out in a game with lots of players. I guess you could introduce negative VP tokens for just this problem.

I wanted to avoid having to introduce new material for the card, that's why i went with VP instead of Curse tokens. They are technically unlimited anyhow, but i see that it IS an issue in physical Dominion games... Maybe use some coins or stuff as placeholders? I'm actually preferring that to the introduction of VP tokens, i admit.



Thank you for your critique :)
I don't consider it harsh, but very valuable. You actually pointed out some flaws that i was pondering myself, while on other occasions you made some positive remarks on cards that i was still a little worried about :)

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3913
  • Respect: +4162
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #72 on: February 10, 2015, 05:47:09 pm »
0

LastFootnote, i like your idea. I'm just not certain whether bringing together two breaks of unwritten Dominion rules isn't a bit too much... Then again, Jeweler is not very exciting but solid, and River might be exciting but sometimes useless. It's actually a neat solution in that respect :)


I have had an Idea. What if you add Jeweler's reaction to River?

Quote
River (or Jeweler)
Types: Action - Reaction
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Put this into your hand.

At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard this. If you do, +$1.

Way more worth buying without villages. With villages, you feel less bad about picking up multiple copies because at worst they're Coppers.

I was actually going to suggest the same thing.  Except I think it's actually cleaner as an Action/Treasure.  If you play it as an action, +2 cards and return it to your hand.  If you play it as a treasure, +$1.  I think this might be the first case where an Action/Treasure is really worth doing.

I really don't think i want to make it an Action-Treasure, sorry :(
All the rules i'd have to break are just not worth it. I'd rather have a reaction that can never happen outside your turn. At least there's ONE precedent with Hovel.

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1662
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +1811
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #73 on: February 10, 2015, 05:47:53 pm »
+2

I wanted to avoid having to introduce new material for the card, that's why i went with VP instead of Curse tokens. They are technically unlimited anyhow, but i see that it IS an issue in physical Dominion games... Maybe use some coins or stuff as placeholders? I'm actually preferring that to the introduction of VP tokens, i admit.

I doubt it's more of an issue than with Goons - I often use Trade Route tokens as 20 or 25 VP in IRL Goons games.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6572
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8573
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #74 on: February 10, 2015, 05:54:54 pm »
+1

LastFootnote, i like your idea. I'm just not certain whether bringing together two breaks of unwritten Dominion rules isn't a bit too much...

I'm not sure which two rules you mean. I assume you're talking about the two new things it does, which are: a card that returns to your hand when played, and a reaction that always triggers at the start of your buy phase. Do not be afraid of new stuff! New stuff is cool! The important things are:

#1. It's not too confusing.
#2. It plays well (not too many tracking/logistics issues).
#3. It's fun (for at least some players).

Anyway, I don't think the card would be confusing and I think it would play better than River as printed. If it turns out lousy, you can always go back to Jeweler as you have it here. You can try River as you have it here too of course, but I'm not optimistic there. I love how simple River is, but I worry that it's just dead without villages.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 39  All
 

Page created in 0.103 seconds with 20 queries.