Print

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

[Asper]

Also, since some expansions will have multiple slots, how will that be handled?  For example, will there be more Prosperity contests in the future, or will the top 2 (or 3?) from this contest be selected?  I advocate multiple contests so that contestants can submit cards based on perceived needs of the set.

• A single card might conceivably qualify for multiple challenges within this series. If your card doesn't win the first challenge you submit it to, you may submit it for any and all future challenges (until it wins), provided the card fits those challenges. This is particularly pertinent for cards that don't win the first of two slots for a large expansion, although depending on which card does win, your card may not qualify for the second challenge.

I read this as if it were going to be two distinct contests. I sure hope so. If my first submission for a big expansion is torn apart, i can still try a second(?).
i guess the last half sentence is about Victory/Treasure restriction...?

[LastFootnote]

To clarify: after a Victory or a Treasure has won, will future submissions be rejected if they share that type?

No, they will not be rejected. Once we have two Victory cards or two Treasure cards, I'll probably start rejecting cards of that type. We can burn that bridge when we come to it.

Also, since some expansions will have multiple slots, how will that be handled?  For example, will there be more Prosperity contests in the future, or will the top 2 (or 3?) from this contest be selected?  I advocate multiple contests so that contestants can submit cards based on perceived needs of the set.

There will be a second contest for each such expansion. Based on which card won the first expansion, I will place more strict rules on the second contest. If your submission meets the new guidelines, you may submit your card again.

[sudgy]

I have an idea that hasn't been playtested a single bit, so I have no idea how good/bad it is...

[shark_bait]

Just submitted.  Hoping for a similar response of my Tea House card from way back in the day.

[liopoil]

I figured I'd give this a try. I've never made a fan card before though, the one I submitted is my first one. I've read some of the cards and analysis of cards made on this forum though, so I think I have some idea of how to measure how balanced it is.

[eHalcyon]

Just going to pop this in here again.

I want to throw this out there -- I really want to see a card named Cabbage Merchant.  It should probably have something to do with trashing or discarding.

Bonus points to everyone who gets the reference.

[Robz888]

Just going to pop this in here again.

I want to throw this out there -- I really want to see a card named Cabbage Merchant.  It should probably have something to do with trashing or discarding.

Bonus points to everyone who gets the reference.

And I'm going to collect those points again. After I defeat you in an Agni Kai!

[Archetype]

That's a reference I get!

[Asper]

Another question: Will it be visible for contestants how good or bad a card they sent in did? I believe this to be especially relevant for big expansions, where a card that doesn't win the first slot may go for the second.

[cluckyb]

Can't we just vote for the thematically best card each round and not worry about how many other victory cards / cards costing $2 / whatever are already in the set? 

[LastFootnote]

Another question: Will it be visible for contestants how good or bad a card they sent in did? I believe this to be especially relevant for big expansions, where a card that doesn't win the first slot may go for the second.

Yes, it will be visible.

Can't we just vote for the thematically best card each round and not worry about how many other victory cards / cards costing $2 / whatever are already in the set? 

Mostly, yes. I'm not too worried about the cost distribution or the distribution of villages/trash-for-benefit/whatever because these cards are meant to be placed into the existing sets rather than to be one cohesive set. It would be cool if they worked together as a set, but that's not a priority.

HOWEVER, the number of Victory cards in the set does have to be controlled because the idea is that the set will have no more than 150 total cards.

[sudgy]

Argh, I don't know if I should submit my card that has no testing or not...

[Tables]

I realise it's unlike you're going to change the rules now, but I think one major thing a treasure chest expansion should do is having cards which incorporate multiple expansions mechanics. This doesn't mean EVERY card should do so, but I think there's potential there for ideas, and making a treasure chest that explicitly avoids it feels kind of like it's missing a big potential thing.

This was addressed already:

Ideally, I'd like to avoid mixing too many mechanics for this contest. I'd like to see us come up with cards that could be slotted into their respective expansion without the need to own any other sets. At minimum, this means that Looters and cards that reference Spoils could only be Dark Ages cards, cards that use VP tokens could only be Prosperity cards, etc.

However, this leaves the door open for another similar project in the future where we do mix mechanics. I'm guessing there wouldn't be a ton of overlap for submissions between these two sets and I think it'd be cool to see how each one plays out.

As for what this set will look like as a whole, it would be nice if it worked in its own context, but for me the higher priority is for each card to work in the context of its native expansion. If we end up with (for instance) no Villages in the final set, so be it.

Two more questions:

- Are the restrictions of max 1 Victory and max 1 Treasure strict?  They seem quite limiting if, for example, a Treasure-Victory card won.  Moreover, this can cause conflict due to scheduling.  Voting occurs at the same time submissions open for the next card, which means it is possible that (for example) a Victory card wins both.

- May we nominate cards posted in the forum that are not our own?  I assume not, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

I know it was addressed, that's not the point. Although I did miss the section about it being cards that would fit into their own expansions without issue, I suppose. I'm not complaining, but I just think combining mechanics has such a wide scope of possibilities that it's a shame to shut down the options.

[LastFootnote]

I'm not complaining, but I just think combining mechanics has such a wide scope of possibilities that it's a shame to shut down the options.

That's legitimate. But even as it stands, there are a lot of "expansion-specific" mechanics that aren't limited for this set. The list I gave in the OP of which mechanics are limited to each set is meant to be exhaustive. You can't have a Potion-cost Duration card, but you could have a Potion-cost card with an on-gain effect. Hopefully people don't find it too limiting.

[eHalcyon]

There was a non-winning entry in one of the previous contest challenges that I really liked, and I think it would fit perfectly for Prosperity.  I've PM'd the creator to ask him to submit it here, though he hasn't been around for a long time.  Hm.

[Asper]

Argh, I don't know if I should submit my card that has no testing or not...

You do it and i'll do it, too

[mail-mi]

/tag

[LastFootnote]

Quick update: I've received 14 valid submissions so far, none of which are really very similar to each other. Great work, everyone!

I'm also writing to let you all know that I am proofreading these submissions and I plan to make minor edits to keep things like wording, vanilla bonus order, and capitalization in line with official Dominion cards. If I can't think of a better way to word your card without keeping the effect EXACTLY THE SAME, I'll leave it as-is. Please let me know if you have an objection; I will not touch your wording if you tell me not to.

[Tables]

I'm fine with that, and actually think it's a good thing to do if you're willing to put in the time.

[eHalcyon]

I don't think the person I messaged will be back, so their entry will not get resubmitted here.  It was one of my favourites from the previous contest too.

[Polk5440]

I don't think the person I messaged will be back, so their entry will not get resubmitted here.  It was one of my favourites from the previous contest too.

Can you submit it on their behalf?

[LastFootnote]

I don't think the person I messaged will be back, so their entry will not get resubmitted here.  It was one of my favourites from the previous contest too.

Whose card is it?

[LastFootnote]

Argh, I don't know if I should submit my card that has no testing or not...

I think many, if not most of the submissions have little to no playtesting. You shouldn't let that stop you. Ideally these cards will be tested and tweaked even after they win the contests.

[sudgy]

Argh, I don't know if I should submit my card that has no testing or not...

I think many, if not most of the submissions have little to no playtesting. You shouldn't let that stop you. Ideally these cards will be tested and tweaked even after they win the contests.

Alright, I'll submit it...

[Nic]

I don't think the person I messaged will be back, so their entry will not get resubmitted here.  It was one of my favourites from the previous contest too.

Can you submit it on their behalf?

Yeah, you're making me pretty curious. If you want to be clear about the situation, just list the entrant as 'DominionFan69 (Emeritus)'.