Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 54  All

Author Topic: Asper's Cards  (Read 121655 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1029
  • Respect: +1998
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #350 on: July 22, 2015, 01:01:35 am »
+3

I think Research is the best fan event I've seen and possibly the best fan [card or event].  It's such a simple and unique effect, that should be useful in a reasonably often without being too game-changing or a must-buy.

That being said, there is this weird complaint I have about it.  The complaint is, without any other Potion cards, you could get the same effect pretty much by just making it a treasure card costing $4, with the same text (after the +1 buy part).  If there's nothing else to spend the Potion on, since Research costs only a potion and gives you the +buy back, there's no reason to ever not do it if you can, so it basically just means that Potion is a new card that does Research's effect.

I can't explain why that seems like a bad thing to me, but I'd feel better if it was fixed.  It's unfortunate, because it otherwise feels perfect as is, so maybe it's not worth changing.  Probably the easiest solution is to price it at $1P (or higher if you decide that's necessary anyway).  You could also take off the +buy, but I think that's a pretty important part of the event and I don't think it works without it in kingdoms without other potion cards or +buy cards.

The golden deck Erick648 mentioned is something else to think about, but I expect it will be slow to set up most of the time, and the times when you can set it up, there should usually be something better that you can set up faster.  I'd say it's okay, as long as it's not like every Research game ends up being a race to the golden deck.  Like KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge, it's still a race to see who can get there first, and getting there first is still an interesting game that will depend heavily on the kingdom, so it's not like it will ruin games by being possible (and unlike KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge, it's not an insta-win if you get it).
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5260
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #351 on: July 22, 2015, 02:48:53 am »
+1

The fact that it practically turns Potion into another card in the absence of Potion cost cards is something i'm aware of, and i don't necessarily like that, either. While i'm not sure it has to cost more, i will of course increase the price if that turns out to be necessary. Would solve the issue, as you pointed out. I have one or two other ideas to fix it, but they are not exactly perfect. If all solutions should be worse, i think i can live with it as is.

About the PPGGG hand that buys a Province every turn, i can't believe i never thought of that... I'll have to think about how i can solve this, but once per turn seems reasonable. Sadly it would make a second Potion you draw a dead card :'(
Or i could disable Research from topdecking Potion, which would also make it more different from Scheme. Not too happy with that, though. Maybe "once per turn" is better.

Either way, thank you all so much. I didn't expect so many positive responses at all. :)

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
  • Respect: +842
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #352 on: July 22, 2015, 04:49:06 am »
+2

About the PPGGG hand that buys a Province every turn, i can't believe i never thought of that... I'll have to think about how i can solve this, but once per turn seems reasonable. Sadly it would make a second Potion you draw a dead card :'(
Or i could disable Research from topdecking Potion, which would also make it more different from Scheme. Not too happy with that, though. Maybe "once per turn" is better.

Either way, thank you all so much. I didn't expect so many positive responses at all. :)
Don't make any rushed decisions. Let's keep on testing it as-is. Such a Golden deck would not be easy to build and be vulnerable to many attacks. You'd need a board with strong trashing and no attacks and then your Golden deck would still be required to be faster than an engine, if one is available, and straight Big Money. We can look out for such boards but until it happened, please don't remove the crucial parts of the Event.

If Research needs fixing, the order of tweaks I would make would be this:
1. increase cost (e. g. to $1P or $2P);
2. no topdecking Potions;
3. "once per turn" clause, I really dislike that option. Mainly because buying a Potion is a big opportunity cost and if Research was the only Potion card in the Kingdom, it would rarely be worth it, barring single card powerhouses like HP, Lab or Minion stacks.
Logged
Check out my fan cards!
Dominion: Seasons - a small set Asper and I made that revolves around a unique and original mechanic
Roots and Renewal - this set is about interacting with the Supply and manipulating your opening turns
Flash cards - trying out a new concept

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5260
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #353 on: August 01, 2015, 10:34:31 am »
0

Played a game yesterday against Co0kieL0rd. Cards:

Enterprise's Auction and General, my Jeweler and Fountain, Roots & Renewal's Deposit as well as a new card that resembles Co0kie's Robber Knight, Greed's Inquisitor, Baker... And 2 other cards i can't recall. No other draw, relevant attack or Village, that's what i remember.

also the Events Quest and Plan.



My strategy was simply getting as many Jewelers as possible to play a pseudo-Smithy-BM where Jeweler fills out both roles at once (which is basically the point of the card). I wanted to see whether that actually works, and well, for this game it did. I didn't really only gain Jewelers, though, as Fountain was just too nice as an action source to not play several Jewelers - Plan, Quest, Baker and Auction also played a role.

Baker allowed opening Jeweler/Fountain, which also trashed one of my Estates for an Auction. The Auction in turn increased the chance of getting to after playing my Jeweler to buy more of them. The first time i got less than i could buy Plan to put a trashing token on Jeweler, too. Because of Quest, Auction and Jeweler's reaction itself, playing Jeweler blindly was never a problem.

Co0kieL0rd was very tired and wasn't as happy with how he played, missing out several things - for example the fact that he should have wanted a few more Jewelers himself simply because they were draw. I think he got 2 of them. Other than that, he attacked me a bit with Inquisitor, but well, Plan, Auction and Quest made that ignorable. One interesting thing: Auction doesn't really work with Plan nor Quest. Other than that it's pretty good.

In the end i often had turns where i produced ten simply by playing a Jeweler and discarding a few of them. So, the card is strong enough, or at least it seemed so this game. Fountain seemed really strong too, but of course i went for a strategy centered around a single terminal draw and there was a nice target to replace a starting Estate with.

Conclusion? I have no idea. This wasn't the dumb "just get many Jewelers" i was planning to play, simply because there were so many nice support cards. It wasn't the most exciting game of Dominion ever had, though. Either way, i think i'll try the strategy again on a less helpful board, and if it turns out to be strong again, i guess i'll have to change the card. I don't want to do another Minion. But, right now, i'm just glad that it's not as terribly weak as i used to believe.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5260
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #354 on: August 05, 2015, 06:28:25 pm »
+1

Considering an alternate version of Barkeep now that doesn't just let you get incredibly many Barkeeps and nothing else to power up one of them to be super-strong. Here, if you go full Barkeep, your deck will not just stay clear of terminals as with past versions. I hope this will help make the card more interesting and less of a "get as many as you can" race. Nice thing that a price of does: Most trashing attacks can't hit the card (which would be a pretty sad fate to befall the last Barkeep in your deck).



I also mocked up a version at that always drew 2 cards and only put itself on the Mat at the end, but i didn't feel it really solved the main problems Barkeep has. The also is just a quick thing, though. Not tested at all.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5260
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #355 on: August 10, 2015, 09:03:16 am »
0

Thinking about my last version of Barkeep, i am now pondering whether "calling" the card would be better. The wording, as it is currently, means this:

1. I draw a card (and put my Barkeep on the Mat)
2. I can discard any number of barkeeps (including the played one)
3. I draw cards equal to the number of Barkeeps
4. I can technically draw Barkeeps i discarded before, including the one i played.

Now, i'm wondering, whether there's an elegant way to get to this:
1. I draw a card (and put the Barkeep on the Mat)
2. I can call (put in play) one Barkeep at a time, drawing a card.
3. After each Barkeep, i can decide to stop calling them.

Versions that don't do what i want:
Quote
+1 Card
Put this on your Tavern Mat. Call any number of Barkeeps from your Tavern Mat, for +1 Card each.
Problem: Only difference is that called Barkeeps end up in play. I still have to decide how many of them to call before drawing any card but the first, don't i?

Quote
+1 Card
Put this on your Tavern Mat.

When you play a Barkeep, you may call this, for +1 Card.
Problem: I get the +1 Card on the Barkeep i play last, which is confusing and not what i want.

Versions that are a bit clunky:
Quote
+1 Card
Put this on your Tavern Mat. Do this any number of times: Call a Barkeep from your Tavern Mat, for +1 Card.
Problem: Would this mean i can "call" Barkeeps that are not there and still get +1 Card? I think not, but i'm not sure. Not sure whether "Endlessly trying to call Barkeep for no effect" is really an issue.

Quote
+1 Card
Put this on your Tavern Mat.

Directly after resolving a Barkeep, you may call this, for +1 Card.
I really dislike the "resolved" trigger, but i guess it's okay. I also don't think i like that the effect is spelled out under the line instead of above it. Probably the one with the least issues, though(?).

Anybody has another idea how to word this? Input as to which version i should use is equally appreciated.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7065
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9768
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #356 on: August 10, 2015, 11:31:51 am »
+1

Overall, I liked the version that just stayed on your mat way better. If they go off of your mat, calling is better than discarding, both for tracking and for power-level (not being able to re-draw the ones you discard). And I think the "after resolving" wording is the best, even though it's clunky.

I'm not at all fond of each one being +1 Card. I'd rather have it be +2 Cards one way or the other.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5260
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #357 on: August 10, 2015, 11:49:31 am »
+1

I'm honestly not sure how i will make this work. The problem with a version that stays on your Mat is simply that, opportunity cost aside, more Barkeeps are always better than less. There's no point at which you need to stop, and if they are supposed to be okay when shared, people will rush for them to make sure they get a good share. If they are supposed to be good only when you have most of them, well, then they suck. It becomes worse because additional Barkeeps do not increase the amount of terminal space you need, so committing to them is pretty easy.

Also, probably this isn't apparent enough, but with all wordings but the second, you should be able to discard/call the Barkeep you played for an additional card. So, if you have only one of them, it should be a Moat. But maybe none of those ideas is good.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7065
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9768
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #358 on: August 10, 2015, 02:52:41 pm »
+1

Also, probably this isn't apparent enough, but with all wordings but the second, you should be able to discard/call the Barkeep you played for an additional card. So, if you have only one of them, it should be a Moat.

No, I get it. But somehow +1 Card/+1 Card is different—and seems worse—than +2 Cards. It's more likely that you're going to get only a dead card from each individual Barkeep you call. But if each one called game +2 Cards, then there's a better chance that one of those cards will do you some good.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7892
  • Respect: +8714
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #359 on: August 10, 2015, 03:31:41 pm »
+2

Also, probably this isn't apparent enough, but with all wordings but the second, you should be able to discard/call the Barkeep you played for an additional card. So, if you have only one of them, it should be a Moat.

No, I get it. But somehow +1 Card/+1 Card is different—and seems worse—than +2 Cards. It's more likely that you're going to get only a dead card from each individual Barkeep you call. But if each one called game +2 Cards, then there's a better chance that one of those cards will do you some good.

I'm very confused by this... isn't +1 Card/+1 Card strictly better than +2 Cards? The only difference is that the first one gives you the option of sticking with just +1 card total, and saving the other for another time.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7065
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9768
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #360 on: August 10, 2015, 03:33:56 pm »
+1

Also, probably this isn't apparent enough, but with all wordings but the second, you should be able to discard/call the Barkeep you played for an additional card. So, if you have only one of them, it should be a Moat.

No, I get it. But somehow +1 Card/+1 Card is different—and seems worse—than +2 Cards. It's more likely that you're going to get only a dead card from each individual Barkeep you call. But if each one called game +2 Cards, then there's a better chance that one of those cards will do you some good.

I'm very confused by this... isn't +1 Card/+1 Card strictly better than +2 Cards? The only difference is that the first one gives you the option of sticking with just +1 card total, and saving the other for another time.

Yes, it's strictly better, but I think it feels worse. The more cards you draw at once, the more likely you get something good out of it. If you call a Barkeep for a single card and it's e.g. a dead Action, you're kicking yourself.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5260
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #361 on: August 10, 2015, 03:58:36 pm »
0

If i understand right you think i should increase the amount of cards a Barkeep gives when called. Hmm. Obviously i can't let it give +1 Card on play and +2 on call (or vice versa), because that basically makes Barkeeps behave like Smithies (if i can't call after putting them on the Mat, n Barkeeps are still n-1 Smithies).

So i assume you are talking about giving nothing on play except putting them on your Tavern Mat. I guess that works. What's nice is that it doesn't draw dead. I wouldn't even think it's strictly better.  With the +2 Cards/+0 Cards variant, i can save up Barkeeps for one good turn. Tactician shows how good it can be to waste one turn for the sake of another.

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
  • Respect: +842
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #362 on: August 10, 2015, 04:00:22 pm »
+1

Also, probably this isn't apparent enough, but with all wordings but the second, you should be able to discard/call the Barkeep you played for an additional card. So, if you have only one of them, it should be a Moat.

No, I get it. But somehow +1 Card/+1 Card is different—and seems worse—than +2 Cards. It's more likely that you're going to get only a dead card from each individual Barkeep you call. But if each one called game +2 Cards, then there's a better chance that one of those cards will do you some good.

I'm very confused by this... isn't +1 Card/+1 Card strictly better than +2 Cards? The only difference is that the first one gives you the option of sticking with just +1 card total, and saving the other for another time.

Yes, it's strictly better, but I think it feels worse. The more cards you draw at once, the more likely you get something good out of it. If you call a Barkeep for a single card and it's e.g. a dead Action, you're kicking yourself.


I agree, so why not give Barkeep +2 Cards back, give you the option to call additional ones for +1 Card each, and have it cost ?
« Last Edit: August 10, 2015, 04:02:34 pm by Co0kieL0rd »
Logged
Check out my fan cards!
Dominion: Seasons - a small set Asper and I made that revolves around a unique and original mechanic
Roots and Renewal - this set is about interacting with the Supply and manipulating your opening turns
Flash cards - trying out a new concept

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5260
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #363 on: August 10, 2015, 04:17:13 pm »
0

Also, probably this isn't apparent enough, but with all wordings but the second, you should be able to discard/call the Barkeep you played for an additional card. So, if you have only one of them, it should be a Moat.

No, I get it. But somehow +1 Card/+1 Card is different—and seems worse—than +2 Cards. It's more likely that you're going to get only a dead card from each individual Barkeep you call. But if each one called game +2 Cards, then there's a better chance that one of those cards will do you some good.

I'm very confused by this... isn't +1 Card/+1 Card strictly better than +2 Cards? The only difference is that the first one gives you the option of sticking with just +1 card total, and saving the other for another time.

Yes, it's strictly better, but I think it feels worse. The more cards you draw at once, the more likely you get something good out of it. If you call a Barkeep for a single card and it's e.g. a dead Action, you're kicking yourself.


I agree, so why not give Barkeep +2 Cards back, give you the option to call additional ones for +1 Card each, and have it cost ?

I think this seems allright. But if i can call Barkeeps after playing them, they are strictly better than Smithy. So i have to ensure that calling happens before putting Barkeeps on the Mat. Calling on play means i get the +1 Card before the +2 Cards of playing it, which i think isn't very pretty or intuitive. Calling on resolving means i can call the played Barkeep (see above). So, i need something like:

Barkeep,
+2 Cards
Call any number of Barkeeps, for +1 Card each. Put this on your Tavern Mat.

If you own two Barkeeps, you basically own a (more complicated) Smithy. Not sure i like that, but well, i guess it's balanced. If you own 3 Barkeeps, they are 2 Smithies, or 1 Moat and 1 Hunting Grounds, whatever you prefer. Not sure that's balanced, but i feel a version where just "play one, call one" is a common scenario isn't that exciting. A version that draws 0 or 2 cards avoids this by making it more attractive to bundle the drawing power in one big thing.

But maybe i should just playtest this a bit and see what happens. I might have a certain way of playing in mind while another is the much more plausible thing to happen. I just wouldn't like Barkeep to be a complicated Smithy surrogate.

Edit: About the version (that can call itself, i assume), that would be another option, yes. Though i don't know how attractive it is to save that third card to become a 4th later on. And how hesistant people are to put a on their Tavern Mat that might miss the shuffle.

gkrieg13

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
  • Shuffle iT Username: gkrieg
  • Respect: +463
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #364 on: August 10, 2015, 04:43:56 pm »
+1

I like it this way at 3, because you could then open with two of them and possibly save them up for later.  I don't know how many I would buy at 5.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5260
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #365 on: August 14, 2015, 06:30:18 pm »
+1

Still not sure what to do with Barkeep, but for now, here's another idea. You might recall the top part from Aqueduct, which was rather strong for even with an "if you do" after the discard. It was also rather boring. So, as i had no Guilds card yet, but a card to rebalance and a concept to try myself at (underpay), i just decided to throw all these factors together and see what i would get:



For a short while i considered to let it give coin tokens to opponents, but that took more place than i was willing to use.

In other news, Meadow got a new picture, hooray!



And, yes, i'm starting to credit artists. Probably should have done that, like, the beginning. Sorry artists. I hope you are okay with me using your amazing art, and i hope listing a website where people can get it/contact you is in your interest. Will try to find the sources of the other images i used soon.

Edit: I also changed Meadow to be "on gain" and Hunter to "look at" the top 3 cards. Hunter stays on buy to make getting them back less simple with gainers.

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
  • Respect: +842
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #366 on: August 15, 2015, 03:17:18 am »
+1

I like your new concept for Town Hall and I would like to see if it's balanced so we've got to test that soon. Did you write "underpay" instead of overpay in the text above the image on purpose?
Logged
Check out my fan cards!
Dominion: Seasons - a small set Asper and I made that revolves around a unique and original mechanic
Roots and Renewal - this set is about interacting with the Supply and manipulating your opening turns
Flash cards - trying out a new concept

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5260
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #367 on: August 15, 2015, 05:12:40 am »
0

I like your new concept for Town Hall and I would like to see if it's balanced so we've got to test that soon. Did you write "underpay" instead of overpay in the text above the image on purpose?

Thanks :)

The idea was to make a powerful card available for less than the balanced price and punish people for paying less. It's basically $6-. I just felt expressing it in overpay was better for avoiding new rules.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5260
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #368 on: August 19, 2015, 03:52:58 pm »
+2

Some small news:

I decided to have a take at GeeJo's "Gambling Den". His original version used a die, and i instead use the Harvest wording. Obviously credit for the idea goes to him, but i'm hesistant to spam his thread with versions of the card. So, expect that here. 6 cards at were much too strong, so now it's 5 at . If that's weak, i'd much rather decrease the price than buff the card reveal.





Fountain now doesn't trash cards anymore. The reason is to remove the pile control from it, which wasn't part of its concept.





I also have two different approaches to Barkeep that i want to test, but there isn't much to say about them for now.

Stand turned
Strand tune
Stray tuna
Stay tuned.

XerxesPraelor

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1069
  • Respect: +362
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #369 on: August 19, 2015, 04:03:02 pm »
+2

Mill is really weak - compare workshop and Harvest. I doubt it would be good even at $2.

Re: Fountain, pile control cards are often quite fun. Why not just let it have that extra facet to it?
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3386
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3719
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #370 on: August 19, 2015, 04:14:12 pm »
+7

If it's "I buy a Fountain, trashing a Province, gaining a Province" that bothers you, just make Fountain gain a different card.
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5260
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #371 on: August 19, 2015, 04:23:44 pm »
+3

Mill is really weak - compare workshop and Harvest. I doubt it would be good even at $2.

Re: Fountain, pile control cards are often quite fun. Why not just let it have that extra facet to it?

I playtested Mill at and revealing 6 cards. The cycling was insane, especially early in the game, where 6 cards are basically your deck. Playing Mill the first time usually meant revealing Copper, Estate and your other opening buy (unless you drew it in hand with Mill), allowing you to gain another Mill. Or you could just play Mill as a Chancellor in case your other buy was a nonterminal (for example Silver) and try again after you bought a card. All in all, the cycling made this much, much better than Workshop for building an engine, and gaining more cards helped make Mill stronger and stronger. I might decrease the price back to in case this is too weak, but the reveal of 5 cards will stay. I admit i might have overdone it though when i both increased the price and lowered the reveal.

The problem is that, unlike Salvager, Fountain doesn't cost an action and doesn't need to be in your hand. You can just do your turn, draw, do whatever you want, oops, i only got this time, let's cut the game short then. I see that there's one thing that speaks for keeping it with trashing, and that's simplicity. Maybe that reason is good enough. It certainly doesn't need it to be a strong enough card, though.


If it's "I buy a Fountain, trashing a Province, gaining a Province" that bothers you, just make Fountain gain a different card.

That's a really nice idea. I think it would have to be "differently named". Thanks :)

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7065
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9768
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #372 on: August 19, 2015, 04:32:33 pm »
+2

Usually I'm in the camp of "use the simplest phrasing and if it introduces quirks then so be it". But in this case, I agree with Asper that Fountain shouldn't let you effectively trash Provinces from the Supply. I like pacovf's suggestion.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5260
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #373 on: September 01, 2015, 02:16:26 pm »
0

Update:

Mill's price has been decreased to . Looks like i overdid it when i both increased the price and nerfed the effect. This should be fine now.



Fountain now gives you a differently named card for the card you trash. Thanks again for the suggestion, pacovf.



Town Hall doesn't really work as intended. It's just too good with gainers or too bad otherwise. I can't really balance it like that. Probably it would work if the card was good enough to make its lower end , but that's getting somewhere else entirely. I have an idea to fix it, but i don't really think it's the best option.



I decided to give my fix for Spy a try. Here's how it looks:



It's about as weak for attacking, especially once you revealed a junk card, but it's a lot more useful to yourself, which makes playing it much more satisfying. Still doesn't make Spy, or Assassin here, a star. Anyhow, if you'd like to try it, here the card is with art that differentiates it from original Spy. It's not strictly better, so technically you can use both.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7065
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9768
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #374 on: September 01, 2015, 02:33:46 pm »
+2

It's about as weak for attacking, especially once you revealed a junk card, but it's a lot more useful to yourself, which makes playing it much more satisfying. Still doesn't make Spy, or Assassin here, a star. Anyhow, if you'd like to try it, here the card is with art that differentiates it from original Spy. It's not strictly better, so technically you can use both.

I swear I have said this before, but apparently I haven't said it in this thread, so here goes:

The biggest problem with Spy is not that it's weak, but that it's super slow to resolve. It's a cheap cantrip you can load up on, and each time you play it, you make a decision per player. Assassin is worse in this regard, because at least with Spy you can tell players to keep putting back their Estate or whatever. There was a card in Enterprise with Assassin's attack; I held onto it for way too long. Eventually I realized that it was slowing games down way more than it was adding gameplay.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 54  All
 

Page created in 0.094 seconds with 22 queries.