Print

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

[pacovf]

That's easily fixed: add an "s" to the name of the card.

[LastFootnote]

Not that I care about flavor personally, but for flavor, I think zombie definitely should be non-terminal, because zombies are the type of things that you should be able to play a bunch of at once.

Necromancer: Action, $5
+1 Action. Gain a Zombie from the trash. Play any number of Zombies from your hand.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $4
+1 Card. [Attack effect here]

[scott_pilgrim]

Zombie
+2$
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. If a player trashed a card, he may gain a card costing at least $2 less.

I think you mean "at most $2 less", otherwise I'm gaining Province every time!  I'm not sure it needs that though, I think Saboteur only has it because it can trash Provinces (without support).

Have you considered having the non-terminal Necromancer gain the card to your hand?  Then you can play Zombies right away, but you can also do fun stuff with the other cards that have been trashed.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Zombie
+2$
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. If a player trashed a card, he may gain a card costing at least $2 less.

I think you mean "at most $2 less", otherwise I'm gaining Province every time!  I'm not sure it needs that though, I think Saboteur only has it because it can trash Provinces (without support).

Have you considered having the non-terminal Necromancer gain the card to your hand?  Then you can play Zombies right away, but you can also do fun stuff with the other cards that have been trashed.

You're right about the phrasing, as it should be in accordance with Saboteur's. But Asper said he wouldn't like for one to be ble to gain and play the card, which I assume meant, play it right away. I would agree as that would make Necromancer a little too simple for my taste.

I like Pacovf's idea of Necromancer being played as if it were a card from the trash, and Zombie trashing a card from your hand. Tha't actually a pretty interesting and flavourful BoM variant. It only has the problem tht Grave Robber and Rogue could easily ruin Necromancer's day and distort the game balance by gaining the only copy of Zombie that exists. This could be prevented by either putting a clause on Zombie such as, "When you gain this, trash it", which would be kind of awkward. Or just giving Necromancer two options;

Necromancer:
You may play this as if it were an Action card from the Trash that you choose. If you do, this is that card until it leaves play. Otherwise, (trash a card from your hand and)
each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest.

Looks really weird, though. I don't know, I'm also just brainstorming. Have fun, evaluating all the options

[GendoIkari]

Just making zombie cost $0* will stop it from being able to be gained from the trash, if you wanted to go that way.

[Asper]

I'll try to describe what i'm trying to achieve with the card duo, because i'm not sure i know myself:

• Necromancer is supposed to make use of cards in thre trash
• Zombie is supposed to start in the trash, useable by Necromancer
• Setup aside, Zombie should behave like any other card in the trash. It should be gainable by Graverobber and not be referenced on Necromancer besides in the set-up clause
• Zombie is supposed to add cards to the trash for Necromancer to use.
• I'd like them to be different from Town/Road in that i don't want a supply Village and a non-supply Draw. Everything else is fine.
• The cards should be simple.

I think giving +2 Actions to Necromancer is good already, but here are some other ideas anyway. I'm just brainstorming, so this may be very far away from what your idea is, but what about:

Necromancer:
Play this as if it were an Action card from the Trash that you choose. This is that card until it leaves play.
Setup: Put the Zombie card in the Trash.

This is an interesting idea, but it's very far from my original concept. I think it makes having 10 Zombie cards seem silly, considering how few other cards in Dominion could remove them from the trash. So maybe have just one costing $0. But, you know, this basically makes Zombie a "choose one" on Necromancer, where #1 is Zombie's ability and #2 looking at the trash. It kind of makes putting Zombie in the trash moot.

Also this version removes the deckbuilding aspect - instead of gaining an army of Zombies (and their victims) over time, you just expand your Necromancer's ability list. It plays very differently. If you want to do a card like this, i'd rather go with a personalized mat where trashed cards go, and a single card type that chooses between a trashing attack and impersonating a card on the mat:

Necromancererer
Choose one: Play a card from your graveyard mat; Or each other player reveals the top two cards from his deck, chooses one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. Put all chosen cards on your graveyard mat.

Not that I care about flavor personally, but for flavor, I think zombie definitely should be non-terminal, because zombies are the type of things that you should be able to play a bunch of at once.

Necromancer: Action, $5
+1 Action. Gain a Zombie from the trash. Play any number of Zombies from your hand.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $4
+1 Card. [Attack effect here]

I didn't really think about it when i first suggested the card, but i guess what makes it actually reasonable to use the trash in my original concept is this: Necromancer gains cards from a shared pile, Zombies start in that pile and put cards from other player's decks there for Necromancer to gain. You can do this without using the trash - but it's far less trouble using it.

With this version, using the trash becomes pretty unnecessary: Zombies behave just like any other non-supply pile (except for Rogue and Graverobber), and the cards they put in the trash are ignored by Necromancer. If i assume you forgot to put that part there, it still treats Zombie differently - i'm not sure i like that.

I had an idea for a version that could play a Zombie, though:

Necromancerer
(possible vanilla bonus)
(You may) gain a card costing from $3 to $6 from the trash. If it is an action card, you may play a copy of it from your hand.
----
Setup: Put the Zombie cards in the trash.

Zombie
+2$
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. If a player trashed a card, he may gain a card costing at least $2 less.

I think you mean "at most $2 less", otherwise I'm gaining Province every time!  I'm not sure it needs that though, I think Saboteur only has it because it can trash Provinces (without support).

Have you considered having the non-terminal Necromancer gain the card to your hand?  Then you can play Zombies right away, but you can also do fun stuff with the other cards that have been trashed.

I figured it would work this way, because you can translate "at least 2 less" as "less by at least 2", but i see how it's misleading. As "at most" is the wording on Saboteur, that's the way to go, obviously. Thanks for pointing this out

[LastFootnote]

Based on your excellent comments and ideas from the above post, how about something like this?

Necromancer: Action, $5
Play a card from your Graveyard mat.
Your Graveyard mat starts with a Zombie on it.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $0*
+$1. Return this to your Graveyard mat. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure or Action card costing at least $3, and discards the rest. Put one of the trashed cards onto your Graveyard mat.

EDIT: Well as you say, this is still pretty far from your original concept. Hmm...

Necromancer: Action, $5
Gain an Action or Treasure card from the trash and play it.
Setup: Put the Zombie cards in the trash.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $4
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest.

[Asper]

Based on your excellent comments and ideas from the above post, how about something like this?

Necromancer: Action, $5
Play a card from your Graveyard mat.
Your Graveyard mat starts with a Zombie on it.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $0*
+$1. Return this to your Graveyard mat. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure or Action card costing at least $3, and discards the rest. Put one of the trashed cards onto your Graveyard mat.

EDIT: Well as you say, this is still pretty far from your original concept. Hmm...

Necromancer: Action, $5
Gain an Action or Treasure card from the trash and play it.
Setup: Put the Zombie cards in the trash.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $4
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest.

This isn't bad at all... I'm not sure which variant i like more. The second is so very simple on paper, but allows for a whole lot of options. I just wonder whether it might be too many. It seems balanced, either way, with Necromancer behaving similar to Dame Natalie at the start, possibly becoming Explorer (gain a Silver) or even a limited but more flexible Band of Misfits of sorts. I like it. Thanks for that idea

Edit: Here are the mockups:



I decided to keep the "not in the supply" on Zombie just to make sure nobody would take it for a kingdom card. On their own i think they'd be a bit boring. Also i dropped their price to 3$ (even though it doesn't matter), because i doubt a card like that would be worth $4 (might also not be worth $3, but whatever). I wouldn't want people to misjudge Zombie's power just because they looked at the price.

[GendoIkari]

My only problem with this latest version is the terminal thing. You have a terminal action that gains you more terminal actions. Unless you have lots of Villages, or your opponent is trashing lots of non-terminal actions, then you don't want to play this card too many times, because each time you do you just get another terminal. You don't get to play your army of zombies that you've built. Since the only way to get a Zombie is to play the Necromancer, I'm thinking that Zombie might not be too strong if it had +1 action.

And although you probably don't want to make it too much like Knights, I sort of feel like it would make sense if it interacted somehow if a Zombie hits another Zombie.

[LastFootnote]

My only problem with this latest version is the terminal thing. You have a terminal action that gains you more terminal actions. Unless you have lots of Villages, or your opponent is trashing lots of non-terminal actions, then you don't want to play this card too many times, because each time you do you just get another terminal. You don't get to play your army of zombies that you've built. Since the only way to get a Zombie is to play the Necromancer, I'm thinking that Zombie might not be too strong if it had +1 action.

I think it's worth testing as it is. In retrospect, probably Zombie should have some vanilla bonus like +2 Cards, but I think the ability to easily play lots of Zombies would just be too brutal.

And although you probably don't want to make it too much like Knights, I sort of feel like it would make sense if it interacted somehow if a Zombie hits another Zombie.

Well a Zombie "kills off" another Zombie it hits, like any other trashing attack. More importantly, Zombies can kill off Necromancers. I guess Zombies could be one-shots (with a bonus like +1 Card, +1 Action. Or I guess they could do a Knights-like thing and only trash themselves on any successful attack.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I also think you should try the terminal versions of Necromancer and Zombie. This way, players are discouraged from getting too many Necromancers, which is good IMO. Zombie is that kind of attack that you really don't want to be hit by too often. But it could do with a vanilla bonus (+$2 I think is fine).

[Asper]

I think i'll give the latest version a shot, though i can imagine one action on Zombie might be an improvement. Then again, what's wrong about a card that wants Villages in the kingdom? There are plenty. Not sure i want the self-trashing clause, though.

Either way, it's gonna take a while. Gotta playtest my own game first.

[LibraryAdventurer]

In responce to the other comments, here's my suggestion:

Zombie
Cost $4*. Action - Attack
+1 Action. +$1.
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If any cards are trashed, trash this.
(This is not in the supply.)

It can have the thematic muti-zombies in one turn thing, but that shouldn't happen very often when they trash themselves on a successful attack. (Added the +$1 to make up for the self-trashing.)

[pacovf]

I don't really like Zombie being a one-shot.

I am also partial to (my own idea of) giving Zombie a compulsory "Trash a card from your hand" (maybe with +1 Action). It fits both as a bonus and as a check on the number of Zombies that you want to get.

[Asper]

I think i really like the version LastFootnote suggested. They are so very, very little text and still clever solutions to my main problems (Necromancer being much better than Rogue, Zombies being better than Knights), while staying true to the original concept. There'd have to be big issues to get me away from this solution - which i wouldn't know for quite a while, cause i don't playtest (Dominion fan cards) currently.

[Asper]

Mockup for the new version of Hunter, which was named Ranger before and is now a Reserve. Created using LastFootnote's awesome template.
It's so much more text than i figured the effect would take...

[LastFootnote]

• Usually Dominion cards use numerals for cardinal numbers greater than one.
• I think Hunter would be more compelling and interesting if it searched 4 cards. This would also save text.

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck.
Put 2 into your hand; discard the rest.
Put this on your Tavern mat.

EDIT: I really like the card in general. It feels different enough from Wine Merchant to be worth doing.

[Asper]

• Usually Dominion cards use numerals for Cardinal numbers greater than one.
• I think Hunter would be more compelling and interesting if it searched 4 cards. This would also save text.

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck.
Put 2 into your hand; discard the rest.
Put this on your Tavern mat.

EDIT: I really like the card in general. It feels different enough from Wine Merchant to be worth doing.

Actually the "call to return" (edit: by VP buy) effect was an Adventures prediction i made before Wine Merchant was revealed. When it turned out no official card used VP cards as a limiter, i basically salvaged it to make Ranger more interesting.

Are you sure 4 cards isn't a bit much? It's allready a super-Lab for $4 as long as you get a single VP card per reshuffle. Then again, the "super" part is needed to deal with those VP cards in the first place - but minus that it's still a Lab for $4. It will eat up a few of your buys, which will give you some VP, so i guess it's worse than a normal Lab most of the time, but then again, it's a $4.

Edit: Of course, the price isn't what the card's about. If 4 seems more interesting but too good for $4, i could still try it at $5.

[Asper]

I just realized, i don't have a Cornucopia card, yet. I used to have one, but it was rubbish. This one might be better:



Not sure whether $3 is the appropriate cost. It might be a better Smithy very often. I was just hesistant to cost a card that could turn out as Ruined Market at $4, so i'm going with Donalds "cost lower when in doubt" reasoning for now.


Another Adventures prediction i did was a card that rewards you for guessing which cards our opponents are going to play. Just as i wanted to post the Duration implementation of this, it occured to me that an Event might be the better way to go:

Prophecy, Event, $6
Put one of your Prophecy tokens on an Action card pile in the supply. When another player plays a card, you get +1 Card per Prophecy token in your color on the pile the card is from.

Edit: Probably the name's not very fitting, though, as at the point where you can afford $6 you'll likely have a good idea of what your opponent is having in his deck. So it's less about prediction. Also i have no clue whether $6 is appropriate.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I assume Blacksmith has you reveal cards until you reveal a duplicate of a card that you already revealed. Is there an example of an original card that uses the same wording? Otherwise I would suggest you clarify this in the card text, maybe like this, "until you reveal two duplicates".
As for Blacksmith's effect I'd say it's a better sifter than Smithy although pretty random, like Harvest. In thin-deck engines, it's worse but the +buy may or may not be significant. So, hard to say if it should cost $4 or $3. Try it at $3 first.

For Prophecy the most obvious comparison is Pathfinding which is ridiculously strong and rightfully costs $8. Normally, this would justify a cost of $6 for Prophecy, since your opponent controls how many cards you draw but when the token is on a key card, it's still very powerful. With that said, I think having unlimited Prophecy tokens might be broken. Have you tested the event at all, yet? If not, I'd suggest testing it with only one token per colour.

[Asper]

Actually, i tend to playtest very, very little. So no, Prophecy was just a shot in the blue, made up while writing. The idea to just have one Prophecy token (or at least only allow one per pile) seems good, though.

Edit: And yes, Blacksmith talks about revealed cards. Maybe it should be "two duplicates"? My english fails here...

[LastFootnote]

Actually, i tend to playtest very, very little. So no, Prophecy was just a shot in the blue, made up while writing. The idea to just have one Prophecy token (or at least only allow one per pile) seems good, though.

Edit: And yes, Blacksmith talks about revealed cards. Maybe it should be "two duplicates"? My english fails here...

Blacksmith should probably say, "Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal two with the same name."

[GendoIkari]

Actually, i tend to playtest very, very little. So no, Prophecy was just a shot in the blue, made up while writing. The idea to just have one Prophecy token (or at least only allow one per pile) seems good, though.

Edit: And yes, Blacksmith talks about revealed cards. Maybe it should be "two duplicates"? My english fails here...

Blacksmith should probably say, "Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal two with the same name."

^This.

At first I thought Blacksmith had you put the 2 duplicate cards in your hand; now I see that it has you put any 2 you want in your hand. That sounds crazy strong. In a Menagerie style deck; this will let you often find the 2 best cards in your deck, as well as provide massive cycling. Early on it's usually a Woodcutter, but it just gets stronger and stronger as the game goes. I think it could cost $5.

[Asper]

Actually, i tend to playtest very, very little. So no, Prophecy was just a shot in the blue, made up while writing. The idea to just have one Prophecy token (or at least only allow one per pile) seems good, though.

Edit: And yes, Blacksmith talks about revealed cards. Maybe it should be "two duplicates"? My english fails here...

Blacksmith should probably say, "Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal two with the same name."

^This.

At first I thought Blacksmith had you put the 2 duplicate cards in your hand; now I see that it has you put any 2 you want in your hand. That sounds crazy strong. In a Menagerie style deck; this will let you often find the 2 best cards in your deck, as well as provide massive cycling. Early on it's usually a Woodcutter, but it just gets stronger and stronger as the game goes. I think it could cost $5.

You have a point and i was about to say you're right, but i'm not sure. I think it could work at $4, maybe. After all, Blacksmith still draws only two cards and getting such a deck isn't trivial. What's more, unlike Menagerie or Scrying Pool, the card's a terminal, which means you have to get Villages, and this in turn means you'll buy duplicates of at least one type of card (unless there are plenty of Villages). In a way, you need to find the right amount of Villages for a Blacksmith deck.

Still no doubt that it is rather strong. If i increase the price to $4 and also remove the buy, we basically get a Smithy that draws less but better cards:



I might still be underestimating it, though.

[AJD]

I think a good comparison is Embassy: net +2 cards with substantial sifting. Embassy costs $5 and has an on-gain bonus to your opponents; but on the other hand its sifting is a lot more flexible and doesn't depend on a particular deck setup.