Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 55  All

Author Topic: Asper's Cards  (Read 324863 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #975 on: October 27, 2017, 05:34:59 pm »
+2

Another similarity is that Zombies trash cards. They have to. Otherwise, in games without other trashers, Necromancer could just as well gain its cards from a non-supply Zombie pile or in Donald's case, receive one of three "Zom-boons", if you get what I mean. Also, you listed the difference "Zombies aren't attacks" twice.  ;)

The good thing about the card was having cards start in the trash. Well, that and the name Zombie, which really wants to be on a card starting in the trash. Most of the rest follows from it, and there are only a few options that could have been done there. I like the way my Zombies do that (by attacking) better, to be honest, because Zombies are ghastly monsters that murder people. They aren't guys working on construction sites. Also, my Necromancer gains because it makes cards actually return from the grave - not do stuff while staying there. What I don't like about my version is that Zombies can trash Necromancers. I would usually try to remedy this because it's something I really hate about e.g. Warrior, and perhaps having both cards say "that isn't a Necromancer" would be fine. On the other hand, at least I have no "can it be moved" rules questions and don't need to specifically exclude Durations.

One problem with keeping my version of Necromancer on these forums would be that people would see it the first time and think "Man, this guy just slightly altered an official card and wants to sell it to us as his own fan card." They don't know that Necromancer predates Nocturne.

But yeah, if I was to rename it, I could do something like Lich and give it an army of Skelletons. Until that name's taken, of course. I think I lost three names and three concepts up to now, and we're not even completely through. It makes me proud to have done a card that resembles an official one as much, but at the same time I kinda wished this had been more like Werewolf, where it was name only.

Huh, maybe I should add a "retired" section to the OP and just put cards that had to leave for similar reasons there ;D

I'm probably writing a bit of garbage here, please cut me a little slack. I've been awake for about 33 hours.
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3500
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3838
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #976 on: October 27, 2017, 05:40:33 pm »
+2

Go sleep!
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1798
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1679
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #977 on: October 27, 2017, 08:26:22 pm »
+1

But yeah, if I was to rename it, I could do something like Lich and give it an army of Skelletons. Until that name's taken, of course. I think I lost three names and three concepts up to now, and we're not even completely through. It makes me proud to have done a card that resembles an official one as much, but at the same time I kinda wished this had been more like Werewolf, where it was name only.

Huh, maybe I should add a "retired" section to the OP and just put cards that had to leave for similar reasons there ;D
I don't see any reason why there can't be both an official Necromancer and an Asper's Necromancer...

I played a game with your Necromancer just a couple days ago. I like it better than the official one (though I haven't played with the official one yet).

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #978 on: October 28, 2017, 02:58:46 am »
+2

Go sleep!

No worries, I was just staying up a few more extra minutes to post. I'm fresh and de-zombified myself, now  :)
Logged

navical

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
  • Respect: +268
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #979 on: October 28, 2017, 04:30:14 am »
+1

But yeah, if I was to rename it, I could do something like Lich and give it an army of Skelletons. Until that name's taken, of course. I think I lost three names and three concepts up to now, and we're not even completely through. It makes me proud to have done a card that resembles an official one as much, but at the same time I kinda wished this had been more like Werewolf, where it was name only.
I can see the names (Necromancer, Werewolf, Nightwatch?), but the only concept I can see is Necromancer/Zombie?
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #980 on: October 28, 2017, 05:14:55 am »
0

But yeah, if I was to rename it, I could do something like Lich and give it an army of Skelletons. Until that name's taken, of course. I think I lost three names and three concepts up to now, and we're not even completely through. It makes me proud to have done a card that resembles an official one as much, but at the same time I kinda wished this had been more like Werewolf, where it was name only.
I can see the names (Necromancer, Werewolf, Nightwatch?), but the only concept I can see is Necromancer/Zombie?

Edicts are too similar to states. Spells are too similar to Boons. Summoner specifically is too similar to Druid. The only difference is that Spells have varying stength, and so Summoner must account for that in a way by discarding cards. Well, and you can buy Spells, but that's not specific to Summoner. I'm not saying those are even roughly as similar as Necromancer/Zombie, but they are similar enough to strip them of part their originality.

I guess states didn't end up as global as I feared, so I might keep Edicts. But in the end, all Edicts are either setup clauses (which could be on cards) or abilities/restrictions, which could be on states (also possibly brought into play by cards, or Events, alternatively).

I guess my Spells aren't random and more Event-like, so perhaps they're fine. They were never as popular to begin with, although I think that if any fan had suggested a card like Fool that has 1000+ components and immense randomness, noone would have liked that, either. Donald has the bonus that, because the cards are official, you basically got to give them a chance. Sometimes that means you get a pleasant surprise (which I think will apply to some cards in Nocturne - not necessarily Fool, which I have grown to dislike a lot even though he has a Heirloom I enjoy). I think this factor applies to Spellcasters, too. If you gave them a chance, they turn out to be fine. However, why give them a chance if you don't need to? I like that they are not random, and honestly I prefer them to Boons, but they are still similar in that a card gives you one of several possible effects. But hey, maybe people will try them out now. Either way, Summoner.

The third name is Raider (from Seasons), although Night Watchman probably has to change, too. However, that never was all that great in the first place.
Logged

navical

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
  • Respect: +268
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #981 on: October 28, 2017, 06:43:03 am »
+2

I really like Spellcasters, although as you've found as well the issue is playtesting them... I have done a bit, testing against BM, but none with other players. They're much more like Events than Boons - I think you're underestimating how much of a difference "you have to pay for them" is. The interesting thing is that they're one-shots, not that they're different each time.

I can see the point that if Summoner is the only Spellcaster in the kingdom then it's like Druid in the sense that it's "pick one of these three bonuses, which are different each game". But with other Spellcasters around, the fact that you can delay the bonus becomes a much bigger thing: discard 2 Estates at the end of your turn to get +2 Cards when you play your first Trickster next turn, for example - or, provided there's enough terminal space, there's the combination with Magician. Even with Summoner on its own Harm is the only Spell you always want to play immediately rather than saving.

The only State that is remotely similar to an Edict is Lost in the Woods, and the interesting thing there is more the hot-potato aspect for Fool, rather than the actual effect of Lost in the Woods. Yes, some of them could go on other cards (and I really like fragasnap's Greed for that), but not all of them, and there they kind of need to tie into the card, rather than being just "occasionally the rules of the game are different" in the way they currently are. Messing around with ways to give them out rather than just being permanent (for this game) rules changes takes away a lot of the elegant simplicity of the current design.
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3500
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3838
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #982 on: October 28, 2017, 09:33:02 am »
+2

I also don’t see spells as being particularly similar to boons, boons are random and free.
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #983 on: October 30, 2017, 12:59:24 am »
+6

I don't think States and Edicts are really very similar at all. I don't know enough about Spells to form an opinion, but they don't seem that much like Boons at first glance.

Sorry you don't like Fool. You can blame me for it existing, since Donald would likely have killed it half a dozen different times had I not fought to save it. Admittedly it was better when you knew what you were getting before you played Fool. For a while Boons were choice-of-3, you see. You'd deal three Boons out and when a card said "receive a Boon", you'd pick one of the three and then replace it with a fresh one from the deck. And for Fool you'd just take all three. So you still couldn't control what you'd get, but you knew if/when to play it.

I still enjoy Fool a lot as-is, though. It's exciting to see what it's going to be out of the 220 possibilities, and I enjoy the tactics of ordering and resolving the Boons. It's what Tribute always should have been, that's my feeling.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #984 on: October 30, 2017, 08:31:15 am »
+2

I don't think States and Edicts are really very similar at all. I don't know enough about Spells to form an opinion, but they don't seem that much like Boons at first glance.

Sorry you don't like Fool. You can blame me for it existing, since Donald would likely have killed it half a dozen different times had I not fought to save it. Admittedly it was better when you knew what you were getting before you played Fool. For a while Boons were choice-of-3, you see. You'd deal three Boons out and when a card said "receive a Boon", you'd pick one of the three and then replace it with a fresh one from the deck. And for Fool you'd just take all three. So you still couldn't control what you'd get, but you knew if/when to play it.

I still enjoy Fool a lot as-is, though. It's exciting to see what it's going to be out of the 220 possibilities, and I enjoy the tactics of ordering and resolving the Boons. It's what Tribute always should have been, that's my feeling.

I'm not even sure I would have liked that as much better. It'd still have many components and be very luck driven. I think the luck is obvious with the Boons, but the hot potato thing is just as much. Given you have so many Silvers, you will often have little influence on when you draw Fool, meaning you might have the state for 10 turns, or none. Either way, it's still Donald's game, and not mine. If he decides to do things the way he does, for whatever reason, then that's the way it is. But thank you for the info. And I'm sorry that when I complain it somehow manages to often hit things you were involved with. On the bright side, I have come to enjoy almost everything in Empires by now, except Farmer's Market and Wild Hunt, which have the same shuffle-timing issue I dislike about Fool. But Crown for example, which I think you were also involved with, is just fine for me, now. So I guess some things just need a little time, which is probably true to some degree about Boons and Hexes, too.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #985 on: October 30, 2017, 09:12:42 am »
0

Another thing Nocturne does which I tried to do before is a Smithy that you can play as something else when you draw it dead. My take was Jeweler, which was a strategy in itself because the other option it did was Silver. Nocturne's Werewolf has an attack instead. It's still as monolithic, but at least you don't win by just attacking. It's more annoying though.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #986 on: October 30, 2017, 03:10:07 pm »
+1

I don't think States and Edicts are really very similar at all. I don't know enough about Spells to form an opinion, but they don't seem that much like Boons at first glance.

Sorry you don't like Fool. You can blame me for it existing, since Donald would likely have killed it half a dozen different times had I not fought to save it. Admittedly it was better when you knew what you were getting before you played Fool. For a while Boons were choice-of-3, you see. You'd deal three Boons out and when a card said "receive a Boon", you'd pick one of the three and then replace it with a fresh one from the deck. And for Fool you'd just take all three. So you still couldn't control what you'd get, but you knew if/when to play it.

I still enjoy Fool a lot as-is, though. It's exciting to see what it's going to be out of the 220 possibilities, and I enjoy the tactics of ordering and resolving the Boons. It's what Tribute always should have been, that's my feeling.

I'm not even sure I would have liked that as much better. It'd still have many components and be very luck driven. I think the luck is obvious with the Boons, but the hot potato thing is just as much. Given you have so many Silvers, you will often have little influence on when you draw Fool, meaning you might have the state for 10 turns, or none. Either way, it's still Donald's game, and not mine. If he decides to do things the way he does, for whatever reason, then that's the way it is. But thank you for the info.

I don't think of Fool as really having more components than many Fate cards for any practical purpose. I guess it has an Heirloom. But I keep my Fools, Lucky Coins, and Lost in the Woods all in one slot in my storage solution, so the setup isn't bad.

Don't get me wrong, I wish Fool could have just been "Take 3 Boons. Receive them in any order." That would have been great. But it slowed games down way too much. Lucky Coin was added to fix that. And then when that wasn't enough, Lost in the Woods was added. I wish we could have then moved Lucky Coin to a different card, but it was getting very near the date when the set had to be done and Donald wasn't interested it trying it on another card. These days I often try to trash my Lucky Coin after a few plays (there's a reason it costs $4, also originally my suggestion).

And I'm sorry that when I complain it somehow manages to often hit things you were involved with. On the bright side, I have come to enjoy almost everything in Empires by now, except Farmer's Market and Wild Hunt, which have the same shuffle-timing issue I dislike about Fool. But Crown for example, which I think you were also involved with, is just fine for me, now. So I guess some things just need a little time, which is probably true to some degree about Boons and Hexes, too.

No need to apologize. I'm not at all upset about you disliking Fool. I was upset about your criticisms of Crown being inelegant because in my opinion that was (and still is) the most elegant way to do that concept.
Logged

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 744
  • Respect: +864
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #987 on: October 30, 2017, 04:04:53 pm »
+3

Yo Asper, it's been so long since I publically reviewed your cards. We’ve played with a lot of them last year and you revised them many times. Now I feel like writing something about them. I will only cover your “main set” cards. Edicts, Spellcasters and Team cards would be too much for me. Alright, here we go!

Alley: I can only remember one game with Alley where we both bought it lot. I assume we had extra buys there, which is of course the most common opportunity to snatch them up. Also, in contrast to Poor House, this is something you actually want when you Upgrade or Remake your Coppers. And that’s enough for it to be good. No more words required.

Decree: A decent Silver variant. You don’t always want it but when you do, you can usually do pretty nifty tricks with it. It benefits from Estate trashing and hates cursing attacks.

Sheriff: This is so clever, yet so simple, like so many of your cards. $4 or $5 seems like a good price to pay for this, and you should always open with it (paying the highest price possible) on any board where you would want a curser. You usually want a second one that costs at least $5, because if you paid too little for the first 2 and there’s still Curses left in the Supply, you have that difficult decision to make whether you buy a third Sheriff (which usually sucks for your deck). And that last part is the best thing about it!

Sunken City: I love Sunken City and always bought as many of them as possible. A more educated player would probably handle this more carefully as they tend to whiff about half of the time, unless you trash really fast and gain Action cards simultaneously. It looks like a double Herald but it’s really not. The missing card on the turn you play it hurts a lot when it whiffs. But that’s fine. It costs $2 after all. But one the right board it can be an excellent $2!

Carrier/ Nightwatch: This is completely new to me. It looks like a decent Peddler variant, but only in non-mirrors. My intuition tells me you want a lot of Carriers (3-4) fast but leave at least one on the pile so if other players want to block yours, they’d have to gain the last and  then gain Nightwatches and then have them in hand when you play your Carriers. Until that happens you will have gotten a lot of use out of your Carriers. But in games with 3-4 players, if everyone gets one or two Carriers each, they will probably suck for everyone as soon as people also have Nightwatches. Since there are so few of each card, it might feel extra bad if yours get blocked and your opponents’ don’t (and here I thought you don’t like that characteristic in a card). Still they are both okay cards (in matters of strength) since their opportunity cost is very low, even if you only buy them for one specific purpose. Lastly, I like the reaction of Nightwatch flavor-wise and am looking forward to some interesting multiplayer games with it.

Lady-in-Waiting: Two years ago, I might have said, this is rarely ever worth it. With the huge boost to alternate VP strategies since Empires, as well as lots of your cards supporting VP rushes, this is actually a decent card. Again, opportunity cost is the only thing that matters here. It’s a cantrip that leaves your deck once played which makes it perfect for BM + draw and “good stuff” decks. In both cases, it’s probably better than your third or fourth Silver.

Pilgrim: Ah yes, I remember our first (and only) game with Pilgrim as if it had been last week. There are several considerations to make before deciding how many Pilgrims you play when you have them in hand; How much $ do I want to make this turn? Can I find my key actions in my deck with this? Do I trigger a reshuffle with this? And most importantly, can I afford to give my opponent another Pilgrim? Tough decision in a simple card. I like it. The on-gain incentive is good. If Pilgrim tends to be bought too infrequently, just boost that.

Sawmill: This is a Chancellor variant in a fancy disguise. Don’t deny it! I know you liked Chancellor a lot ;) In the second shuffle, instead of +$2, you gain a card costing $2 or $3. If there’s any such card you want, Sawmill is probably better than Chancellor. And, other than the latter, Sawmill gets better each time you shuffle when building an engine. In slogs it’s horrible though.

Scientist: Neat. We played with Scientist once. I think it was balanced. Taking debt is an elegant penalty.

Well: Wasn’t this one of my favorite cards of yours? I still like it a lot. We should play with it soon!
Farmer: This was called Blacksmith before, I think. Back then I thought it was weak but it turned out picking cards from a large sample is actually pretty useful in most decks (monolithic strategies being the exception), provided there’s Copper trashing.

Heir: Cool idea. We played a game where you made it work but I can’t remember if you won or what. It’s certainly a powerful support card for Victory card rushes. Its flexibility should also make it useful in engines and help them green earlier.

Hunter: A weak-ish Lab variant that has gotten better over time. A must-buy in VP slogs where you rarely hit $5.

Scribe: A card that hurts engines the most. I would say I’m starting to see a pattern if the pattern wasn’t clearly in front of me, yet. Although I doubt the existence of this card in the Kingdom alone would be sufficient to discourage you from building even a weak engine. That’s because when you buy this card you essentially pay $4 for a much-delayed Silver. That’s bad. Like… really bad, especially for money decks (which want the Silver now, not later). Because of that delay, Scribe might be at its best in an engine mirror with spare actions. Even then it would struggle hard to be the best $4 to buy on any board.

Town/ Road: Another simple set of cards that require you to make important decisions. How many Roads do you want in your deck? A good player shouldn’t have too much trouble figuring that out though, I assume.

Assemble: I liked the old Assemble that gained two cards onto your deck with a total cost of up to $3 more than the trashed card. What was the problem with it? This is very different, although more useful overall. In a thin deck you can gain cheap engine components by trashing Coppers. When trashing is more scarce, you can buy Assemble in the end-game to turn $5-cards into Provinces. The Copper penalty for the $2-discount compared to Expand is totally reasonable here.

Cliffside Village: This is the first card in this list I don’t like. It’s boring and seems redundant even though there’s not actually an official card akin to this. It’s just perception.

Craftsmen: This is too powerful for $5. Artificer often gains $3-cost cards but you gotta do a lot of work if you want more expensive stuff, or you just gain a card with one Artificer per turn while the others gain nothing. Craftsmen just burn through piles with no downside while also providing economy. Drop the +$1 and it might be fine.

Maze: Another one of my favorites. This usually equates to a Duchy in points and provides cursing. It’s pretty powerful but the power is distributed over two different aspects (you get the other half of the benefit at the end of the game) and pay some opportunity cost (no economy) so it should be balanced.

Necromancer/ Zombie: Someone already compared this to Nocturne’s Necromancer and found enough differences so they should be able to happily coexist. Yours is stronger, hence it costs $5. I also like yours a bit more. Games with it have been fun.

Sanctuary: This might be situationally pretty good. If there are any attacks that you normally can’t ignore, I will ignore Sanctuary if I want to win. Although, I might be totally underestimating it. If there aren’t any good attacks, I will buy the heck out of this.

Tribunal: I like the idea. Some people might not like it. But they can’t possibly deem this more unfair or hurtful than Mountebank or Minion.

Werewolf: This would be among the strongest attack cards in Dominion. It’s pretty swingy and similar to Mountebank but not as absurdly swingy as the latter (which I have come to hate in the past weeks). +$3 is huge and Silver as a defense hurts engines a lot. Your Werewolf might drive games towards Big Money even more than Witch does. That’s quite a ridiculous claim. You could rename yours “Lycanthrope” or “Lycan”.

Minister: Finally an engine component! And what a potent one! I’ll gladly give you 2-3 VP if you’re going for a money strategy to gain all the great cards. If you’re going for engine as well, the penalty doesn’t even matter. I’m not saying it’s too strong. It costs $6. It competes with Goons so it better be powerful.

Homonculus: A cantrip trasher is good but it’s delayed and the opportunity cost is so high that I will happily ignore it if there’s any decent alternative trasher available. On boards with other good potion cards you probably don’t want this too early as having to trash and re-buy the Potion would be too painful.

Incantation: We conclude with a great, great card. Incantation is so good. A lot of fan cards with Potion cost just have it for the Potion’s sake but this is such a good non-terminal that $3P-cost seems very adequate. And its effect is unique, too! Design-wise, probably your best work.

Phew, I wrote quite an essay here. It made me want even more to play with your cards again.
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: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #988 on: October 30, 2017, 04:35:57 pm »
0

Thanks for taking a look at all those cards again, Co0kieL0rd :)

I do agree Cliffside Village is too bland. It should probably have something else going on, like an on-gain effect, a Seasons effect, or be non-supply. Something, anything.

Craftsmen is based on Paddock, which only could gain Silvers. I think you might recall it being relatively weak. Unlike Artificer, it doesn't put the gained cards onto your deck.

I might just give Homunculus back the +1 Buy on buy, to make sure you're not sad to draw the Potion with a lot of money. It's a bit swingy otherwise.

And yes, I like non-engine boards at least once in a while. I still have Scientist, Well, Town, Minister, Sunken City, Sawmill, Sanctuary, Farmer, Homunculus and Incantation. But cards like Hunter, Lady-in-Waiting and Heir reward you for VP cards, both Scribe and Werewolf are rather Treasury-friendly attacks and Decree, Sheriff and Maze are stop cards (and two are Cursers, again).

Let's play again, soon :)
Logged

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 744
  • Respect: +864
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #989 on: October 30, 2017, 07:08:17 pm »
+1

Craftsmen is based on Paddock, which only could gain Silvers. I think you might recall it being relatively weak. Unlike Artificer, it doesn't put the gained cards onto your deck.
I can imagine Paddock being a good buy whenever you hit $5 with a money deck. You'll only want one (or zero) in an engine which is why we might have perceived it as weak back then. I just found it to be boring, mostly.
Craftsmen, on the other hand, if there are cheap engine components you want, can drain those piles insanely fast. Too fast to be reasonable, even for $5, I think. Artificer can only do this under very specific circumstances. With Craftsmen, it seems too trivial.
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

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +703
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #990 on: October 30, 2017, 07:42:29 pm »
+1

Craftsmen is based on Paddock, which only could gain Silvers. I think you might recall it being relatively weak. Unlike Artificer, it doesn't put the gained cards onto your deck.
I can imagine Paddock being a good buy whenever you hit $5 with a money deck. You'll only want one (or zero) in an engine which is why we might have perceived it as weak back then. I just found it to be boring, mostly.
Craftsmen, on the other hand, if there are cheap engine components you want, can drain those piles insanely fast. Too fast to be reasonable, even for $5, I think. Artificer can only do this under very specific circumstances. With Craftsmen, it seems too trivial.
My card Inventor is an Armory+Peddler at $5 and comes with a harsh downside. Even without +$1, cantrip card-gain is super strong due to its ridiculous pile control in so many games.

Craftsmen is at worst sleeper-overpowered.
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #991 on: October 30, 2017, 08:03:41 pm »
0

Hum... I mean, I could go back to original Paddock and maybe give it a boost by adding some additional bonus, like an on-gain. I'll think about some options.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #992 on: November 07, 2017, 08:55:27 am »
+3

Navical, if you have Tabletop Simulator for Steam, I'd be up to playing a few games of fan-card heavy Dominion. It's not Shuffle IT, but still one of the best ways to playtest fan cards imo. Co0kieL0rd and I wouldn't have come all that far with Seasons without this.

Also, some ideas that'll have to wait until Nocturne is fully revealed, because I don't want to waste too much energy on doing something that'll be obsolete later:
- Remodel variant where you discard to determine the improvement, could use to be a Night card or some other bonus to be worth 5$
- Doom-Druid, an attack where you pick one of the set-aside Hexes to hit you Torturer-style
- Pay-to-topdeck Night card

Cards I might change soon:
- Homunculus gets a +buy on buy
- Paddock gets a bonus/opportunity cost reduction and switches back to gaining Silvers
- Either Northern Village or Lumbermen might lose the buy. This won't be my decision alone, as Co0kieL0rd, the co-creator of Seasons, is back. The set might undergo further changes, too.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #993 on: November 11, 2017, 01:31:23 pm »
+3

I spent about an hour today looking for an image of an (artificial) human, ideally looking at its reflection, identical or not. The problem wasn't to find such images, it was to find such images that were good. Card name: "Replica".

Edit: I like to edit my posts for no good reason.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2017, 02:05:03 pm by Asper »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #994 on: November 11, 2017, 06:34:52 pm »
+3

P-P-P-Potion Time!

All this talk about 2nd Edition Alchemy never coming over in the Possession thread made me think. So, here's a replacement fro Possession and one to use instead of/in addition to Scrying Pool to add to my other two Potion cards. Admittedly, Replica is kinda boring and hard to track, but it's still better than Possession I guess. Meh. I AM pretty happy with Crystal Ball, though. Also, Homunculus can replace Transmute whereas Incantation is just, uh, the additional 2nd Edition card...? I re-added the on-buy-buy, too.



Edit: I should probably mention that the idea for Replica is pretty much exactly something Donald described once. I just added the Victory anti-stall thing.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2017, 06:38:14 pm by Asper »
Logged

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1153
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1797
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #995 on: November 12, 2017, 05:44:51 am »
+3

Incantation has always been a favorite of mine, even though I've actually never tried it. Will have to correct that sooner or later.

Crystal ball seems like it's overchastizing Scrying Pool. SP is overpowered compared to pretty much any other draw, but I could leave with that if only it wasn't so slow to resolve. That said, Crystal ball is clearly more balanced, so it may make for a more reasonable card. Maybe increase the inspection to 4?

I'm not sure that Replica will take away the unfun-ness of Possession games, since you can still play more than one Replica per turn. I appreciate the fact that it addresses the stalemate issue.
Also, in a Replica Engine mirror, the replicas will keep snowballing out of size, since they copy each other's gains.
A buys a Replica.
B buys a Replica.
A plays a Replica, gaining a Replica and buying a Village.
B plays a Replica, gaining a Replica and a Village, and buys a Potato
A plays a Replica, gaining a Replica, a Village, a Potato, and buys a Replica.
B plays two Replica, and the world explodes.
So, players will have to try and limit their gains, which is doubtfully fun.
I guess that at a certain point you just gain a quorum of Estates or Duchies with your Replica(s), and then gain estates and engine components and trash provinces one by one till the game ends miserably.

The problem of Possession is that it makes A's deck a better asset for B than it is for A, while A keeps control of it, so A's logical response is to destroy their deck.
Replica doesn't solve the problem: as soon as B can play two Replicas in a turn, each of A's gains is a bigger advantage for B than it is for A. The logical response is of course to make bad gains or not gaining at all, which brings us all the way around.

I strongly suspect that any Possession fix needs to either be once-per-turn or to be a one shot.

Homunculus is a very reasonable Transmute replacement, even though I'd still love to see a way to make the original concept work. :)
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #996 on: November 12, 2017, 08:49:45 am »
+1

Right, I see that Replica isn't that great as a card, even if only as a Possession replacement. I'll drop it. In retrospect, I wasn't even convinced of its quality when I posted it... The tracking also annoys me more when I think about it. And your point about players still getting more out of their opponent's deck than they is valid. I guess Replica is also not too interesting considering its similarity to Smugglers.

I haven't playtested Crystal Ball yet. Perhaps it should also put Potions in your hand, either way. I'll playtest that and perhaps I'll actually increase the reveal. I'm abit scared to do that, though.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #997 on: November 12, 2017, 01:41:07 pm »
0

The more I think about Crystal Ball, the more it looks like it's going to be Apothecary, just with "Coppers" replaced with "Action cards" and "4" replaced by "2". Not sure that's interesting enough.

I also pondered a Wishing Well like variant for 3$, but that's basically Herald.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 02:07:23 pm by Asper »
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3500
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3838
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #998 on: November 12, 2017, 03:02:38 pm »
+2

You could make Replica a Night card, limit gains to cards gained during the Action and Buy phase, and add a "if this is the first time you play a Replica this turn" clause, which IMHO should be in the official Possession. This version solves the "compounding gain" problem, and it's fast to resolve, but has tracking issues.

Another option would be to make it a Duration card, and gain cards as the next player does. Something like
Code: [Select]
At the beginning of next turn: bonus.
[hr]
While this card is in play, when the player to your left gains a card, you might gain {a copy of that card/a cheaper card that shares a type with it/etc}
This version has no tracking issues, no "compounding gain" problem, but having more than one in play means that the other player will likely just forgo their turn, since it's simply benefiting you more than them.

Of course, mixing Potions and Night cards would never happen in an official expansion, and mixing Durations with Potions is highly unlikely too, but eh.

EDIT: horizontal lines don't work anymore inside code snippets, or is it just me?


EDIT: Other idea, as a reserve card, with something like:

"At the start of Clean-Up of the player to your right, you may call this, to gain a copy of every card they gained during their {turn/buy phase}, then trash this"

If you go for "buy phase", then it's quite a bit weaker, but has limited tracking issues. If you go for turn, it's stronger but has worse tracking issues. Regardless, the fact that you have to trash it means that, even though the other player knows that you can call it, you only get to do so once, so just like with Torturer, you have to take the Curse eventually.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 03:16:01 pm by pacovf »
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1153
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1797
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #999 on: November 12, 2017, 04:20:17 pm »
+2

I wanted to make a post listing the ideal characteristics of a Possession replacement, but the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that it is just impossible.

Anyway, here's an idea that solves trackability and "game theory" issues but introduces all sorts of other problems (mostly because of wording issues):

Freeloader - Reaction
When the player to your right has most recently gained a card, you may reveal this to gain a copy of that card.

Which makes me think of a Smuggler variant that would work slightly better and give fewer problems:
Toll - Reaction
When another player gains a non-Victory card, you may discard this to gain a copy of that card to your hand.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 55  All
 

Page created in 0.223 seconds with 21 queries.