1
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #218: Tokens
« on: May 06, 2024, 06:34:48 pm »
48 hours left to submit
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #218: Tokens
« on: May 03, 2024, 08:11:58 pm »
QuoteLodge • $1 • Action - Shelter
If you have no Villagers, +2 Villagers.
Take your -1 Card token.QuoteCairn • $1 • Night - Shelter
Trash a card you would discard from play this turn.
Take your -$1 token.QuoteHostel • $1 • Treasure - Shelter
Flip-over your H-token (it starts face-up). When it is face-up, +$1; otherwise +1 Buy.Here is a trio of Shelters all using a different token.
These are interesting designs for sure, but I have no idea how to judge these.
Are they meant to replace Dark Ages shelters? 3 for 3? How does that replacing happen? Is it randomly choose 3 shelters of the now 6 available?
Even if you detail the rules for including these, it will be difficult for a card that is not in the supply AND is not a sideways card to win the contest, simply from a practicality point — it would take too much playtesting to judge the balance since it’s less about comparing other cards/events/projects/etc to buy, and more about — everyone gets these cards, how does it change the game? It’s the same reason I warned against submitting ways and traits.
3
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #218: Tokens
« on: May 01, 2024, 11:35:40 am »Shares
Action - $2
Choose one: Place one of your Shares tokens on an Action supply pile, or take back one of your Shares tokens for +2 Cards and +2 Actions
____
In games using this, when any player gains a card, +1 Card per shares token you have on it.
This does not qualify, you made a “stackable” token.
Kindly review the opening post
Quote
"Stackable" Tokens (like Coffers, Villagers, Debt, VP) where you can acquire more than one per player, do not count for this
4
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #218: Tokens
« on: April 29, 2024, 11:39:35 pm »Are Coffers, Villagers, VP, or Debt tokens allowed? What about made-up tokens similar to these?
No, those are not the kind of tokens that go on a card pile, and not the kind I mean. I’ll edit the opening post to clarify, thanks for the question.
Well, those kind of tokens could be used, as long as there is a card-pile token involved. Like an event that says “Move your +1 debt token to a Supply pile. (When you gain a card from that pile you take 1 Debt)” would be allowed.
Weekly Design Contest #215: Tokens218 not 215
Damnit, haha. Copy and paste got me, thank you for the correction.
5
Weekly Design Contest / Weekly Design Contest #218: Tokens
« on: April 29, 2024, 08:16:18 pm »
Weekly Design Contest #218: Tokens
I think the Tokens in Adventures are pretty cool!
Design a card or card-shaped thing that uses a Token, like the Adventure Tokens, or a new Token of your creation
If you design a new token, for simplicity, let's make each Token separate for each player. You can proxy a group token by something like "Move everyone's -$2 cost Token to the Estate Pile." You do not have to design a new token, there will be no points intrinsically for using the existing Tokens or designing a new one.
Contest Guidelines
Judgment Details:
Entries:
I think the Tokens in Adventures are pretty cool!
Design a card or card-shaped thing that uses a Token, like the Adventure Tokens, or a new Token of your creation
If you design a new token, for simplicity, let's make each Token separate for each player. You can proxy a group token by something like "Move everyone's -$2 cost Token to the Estate Pile." You do not have to design a new token, there will be no points intrinsically for using the existing Tokens or designing a new one.
Contest Guidelines
- Your Design has to use a Supply-pile based Token in it. Like the kind of Tokens in Adventures. The tokens can be used in a card (like Teacher) or a card-shaped thing (like Plan).
- You can make your own kind of Supply-pile based Token, or you can use the Tokens present in Adventures.
- "Stackable" Tokens (like Coffers, Villagers, Debt, VP) where you can acquire more than one per player, do not count for this. However you can use a "stackable" Token in your design as long as you also have a Supply-pile based Token. For example a card saying "+1 Coffers, move your +1 Buy token to the Province pile (When you play a card from that pile, you first get +1 Buy)" would be a valid submission.
- You may use a mix of mechanics and themes from various expansions
- Please include your card-text as text, and with a mock-up. You don't need to add card art, but I want to see the text fit on a card. I recommend using this mock-up tool.
- Make a new post if you update your entry, please do not edit posts. I include this because I might miss your update!
- I would prefer you to not use Ways or Traits, since those are harder to reason about the power-level of them without extensive playtesting
- I would also prefer the number of card-shaped things I have to read to be 1-3. A single card, or an Event, etc is great. An Empires-style Split pile or Dark Ages style (like Urchin/Merchenary) is fine. An Allies-style Split pile, a Traveller pile, or a Knights/Castles pile is all too much to read for me.
Judgment Details:
- The contest will close roughly one week from today.
- I will judge the entries based on balance, how well it fits in existing Dominion design-practices (for example, attacks are not political), how fun I think the card is, and simplicity where possible.
Entries:
- Name by author. Brief Description
6
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #217: Silver
« on: April 29, 2024, 08:06:20 pm »
Thanks for the win and the judging!
For what it's worth, I appreciated your succinct notes. It felt like for a while there was an arms-race of which judge could provide the most intensive, detailed feedback, (I am guilty for competing in that as well) and I welcome brevity as a welcome breath of fresh air.
For what it's worth, I appreciated your succinct notes. It felt like for a while there was an arms-race of which judge could provide the most intensive, detailed feedback, (I am guilty for competing in that as well) and I welcome brevity as a welcome breath of fresh air.
7
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #217: Silver
« on: April 25, 2024, 01:11:56 pm »I think that a wording like with Merchant would be more compact "The first time you play a Silver this turn, +1 Card, then you may put a card from your hand onto your deck." and it would also have the effect that the card works more naturally with Throne Rooms (it becomes throneable) and Ways (the Way ignores the Silver effect as there is no below-line stuff anymore).
That functionally changes it such that with three Hot Springs and 1 silver, you get to draw 3 cards when you play a silver. The current wording requires 1 hot spring and 3 silvers to draw 3 which is better balanced since silver is a stop card. Also, your suggested wording would render the “play a treasure” less useful since only your first silver play does anything.
I appreciate the simpler wording, but I think it would make the card not designed as well. Thanks for your thoughts.
8
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #217: Silver
« on: April 25, 2024, 11:46:11 am »
Updated entry
Updated the wording to prevent stacking. I also made it slightly stronger in that the very first Hot Springs can trigger the Silver bonus. It just seemed too awkward to say "more than one" as in "In games using this, if you have more than one Hot Springs in play..." Also the "lab" potential isn't crazy strong, given you always need Silvers to pair with it, and the more Silvers you get, the more they can cloud up your deck.
So here is my design. It's not supposed to be a dominating strategy, but it should almost always be nice to pick up, and gives you a lot more reason to buy Silver, which is nice. It has fun niche strategies like trying to make it a draw engine, or using it for draw-to-x, slightly improving some treasures by playing them in your Action phase, or using it to set up future turns with the top-decking.
Quote
Hot Springs | Action | $3
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a Treasure from your Hand.
-
In games using this, if you have a Hot Springs in play when you play a Silver, +1 Card and then you may top-deck a card from hand.
Updated the wording to prevent stacking. I also made it slightly stronger in that the very first Hot Springs can trigger the Silver bonus. It just seemed too awkward to say "more than one" as in "In games using this, if you have more than one Hot Springs in play..." Also the "lab" potential isn't crazy strong, given you always need Silvers to pair with it, and the more Silvers you get, the more they can cloud up your deck.
So here is my design. It's not supposed to be a dominating strategy, but it should almost always be nice to pick up, and gives you a lot more reason to buy Silver, which is nice. It has fun niche strategies like trying to make it a draw engine, or using it for draw-to-x, slightly improving some treasures by playing them in your Action phase, or using it to set up future turns with the top-decking.
9
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #217: Silver
« on: April 23, 2024, 02:49:27 pm »Ok that makes sense. But now I have a wording complaint -- I get that the text below triggers at the point when you play it, so at the time when you play the first it is in effect and then doesn't stop working if you play a second one. So it does what you intend (except that the effect is throneable). But it's quite confusing because you look at it and think, well if I have two in play the drawing part no longer works.
I think you can achieve the same much more elegantly with a horizontal line and "When you play a Silver while having at least one Hot Springs in play, +1 Card"
I believe that your wording still stacks, since bottom lines do stack with multiple cards. (For example, talismans, goons all both fire). However, you've inspired me to use "in games using this" to simplify it.
How about "In games using this, if you have at least 2 Hot Springs in play when you play a Silver, +1 Card and then you may top-deck a card from hand." That seems totally unambiguous.
I could change "at least 2 Hot Springs" to "a Hot Spring" which then strengthens the card to be able to lab with just one. I'm wondering if that's more powerful than I want. Thoughts?
There's a third option of making it a reaction "when you play a Silver you play this from your hand, if you do +1 Card and then you may top-deck a card from hand." but I like that the least.
10
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #217: Silver
« on: April 23, 2024, 11:31:48 am »Open to feedback.
I think this is just busted -- I don't see why you would ever not decide to build a hot springs/silver engine. Yes it's awkward that you need to alternate them and/or have more hot springs up front, and yes it starts a little slow since the first Silver is just +1 Card, but the upside is so massive. You get to use a card that you buy anyway as your engine piece, can skip other terminal draw entirely, and it becomes stronger than other draw pretty quickly. Not that hard to go hs/hs/silver/hs/silver/silver/silver and net +14 cards and +8$
You're absolutely right, I didn't mean for the Hot Springs draw to stack!! The intended functionality is that each silver only draws you 1 card no matter how many extra HS you have in play. I now edited the original post to only trigger drawing on the first hs.
11
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #217: Silver
« on: April 22, 2024, 06:20:42 pm »
UPDATE These two versions are out of date. New version here
VERSION 2:
The name is because of its similarities to Sauna which is the same except change "Avanto" to "Treasure" and "you may trash a card from your hand" to "+1 Card and then you may top-deck a card from hand" and with the extra clause "If this is your only hot springs in play,"
Note that "playing a treasure from hand" happens BEFORE the "this turn" clause, so you need 2 Hot Springs in play to get the pseudo-lab affect, and that's only if you have Silver in hand with the second play.
Otherwise, it boosts silver slightly, though drawing cards during your Buy phase is awkward, you also have the power to top-deck to help your next turns.
Overall, this is not a very strong card. It's not meant to be. It's a card that doesn't hurt to pick up (since it's a cantrip) and enables some fun strategy with top-decking and has the promise of a cheap lab (though it's difficult to make work and requires a lot of deck-control... a fun challenge). It also lets you play treasures in your action phase which can sometimes be useful (Coin of the Realm, Supplies, Bauble, Quary, Collection, Crystal Ball,Cauldron, Scepter, Sunken Treasure, Figurine, Orb, Sextant, Spell Scroll, and Staff are treasures that are slightly stronger if you can play them in Action Phase). As a final trick, it allows treasures to be incorporated into draw-to-x engines. So overall it has a place in many decks, though none of those roles are super strong.
Open to feedback.
OLD VERSION:
Thank you to silverspawn for pointing out the original version stacked the draw, such that with two hot springs, every silver draws 2 cards! Totally busted. I had to add the wordier "If this is your only hot springs in play" to deal with this.
VERSION 2:
Quote
Hot Springs | Action | $3
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a Treasure from your Hand.
If this is your only hot springs in play, this turn, when you play a Silver, +1 Card and then you may top-deck a card from hand.
The name is because of its similarities to Sauna which is the same except change "Avanto" to "Treasure" and "you may trash a card from your hand" to "+1 Card and then you may top-deck a card from hand" and with the extra clause "If this is your only hot springs in play,"
Note that "playing a treasure from hand" happens BEFORE the "this turn" clause, so you need 2 Hot Springs in play to get the pseudo-lab affect, and that's only if you have Silver in hand with the second play.
Otherwise, it boosts silver slightly, though drawing cards during your Buy phase is awkward, you also have the power to top-deck to help your next turns.
Overall, this is not a very strong card. It's not meant to be. It's a card that doesn't hurt to pick up (since it's a cantrip) and enables some fun strategy with top-decking and has the promise of a cheap lab (though it's difficult to make work and requires a lot of deck-control... a fun challenge). It also lets you play treasures in your action phase which can sometimes be useful (Coin of the Realm, Supplies, Bauble, Quary, Collection, Crystal Ball,Cauldron, Scepter, Sunken Treasure, Figurine, Orb, Sextant, Spell Scroll, and Staff are treasures that are slightly stronger if you can play them in Action Phase). As a final trick, it allows treasures to be incorporated into draw-to-x engines. So overall it has a place in many decks, though none of those roles are super strong.
Open to feedback.
OLD VERSION:
Quote
Hot Springs | Action | $3
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a Treasure from your Hand.
This turn, when you play a Silver, +1 Card and then you may top-deck a card from hand.
Thank you to silverspawn for pointing out the original version stacked the draw, such that with two hot springs, every silver draws 2 cards! Totally busted. I had to add the wordier "If this is your only hot springs in play" to deal with this.
12
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #216: Blue Dogs
« on: April 14, 2024, 12:59:15 pm »
This is the updated version of my submission
Using silverspawn's suggested wording "gain and play" and also giving it the looter type since it needs to have the Ruins in the Supply.
Quote
Junk Dog | Action - Reaction - Looter
+2 Cards
You may gain and play a Ruins.
-
When anyone trashes a card costing $0, you may play this from your hand.
Using silverspawn's suggested wording "gain and play" and also giving it the looter type since it needs to have the Ruins in the Supply.
13
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #216: Blue Dogs
« on: April 11, 2024, 12:07:35 pm »QuoteHunting Dog
$4 Action - Reaction
Reveal the top two cards of your deck and put any number of them into your hand.
-
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word “reveal”), you may play it.
Priced at $4 as it synergizing with itself and there are a good amount of instances that cause one to reveal their hand and thus, by accident, this too.
I believe you need to say what happens to the cards you don’t put into your hand. “And discard the rest” is simplest and I like the synergy of this card triggering both “reveal” and “discard” reactions. I believe that works better than “put the rest back in any order” for this particular card.
I also think this is a little on the strong side, though I don’t know how to change it, so it might just be strong. I’m basing this on how easy/often I get cultist chains running— at $4 it’s a lot easier to do so. It might just be good being a stronger $4
You are correct, it's definitely a stronger $4!
I'd be worried for it to be too strong, if it allows to discard by choice too. Happy to get more opinions on this!
In regards to it as-is needing to specify what happens to them: Generally no (e.g. see Piazza and Wishing Well), but as this reveals 2 cards, I believe it should indeed, given all other cards revealing more than one and giving you a choice do tell you what to do with the rest.
I will adjust this in the next version; as I said I'd appreciate further feedback regarding the option to discard the ones not put into hand.
Both the cards you refer to only reveal one card, thus they don’t have to specify “put the rest back in any order.” The only order for 1 card is the same as it was before.
Cards that can reveal multiple have to specify — is it the same order they were originally in (no dominion card does that) or is it any order you choose?
In general, putting the cards back is a stronger option with drawing because, unless you have a draw-to-x engine (which is an anti synergy with this card anyway), drawing is equivalent to discarding; however, putting back on top allows you to save cards for future turn, or prevent terminal drawing dead. The additional flexibility would make this stronger overall.
So, for your card, in most cases “discard the rest”
is actually weaker than “put back in any order.”
14
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #216: Blue Dogs
« on: April 10, 2024, 07:05:16 pm »
This is a slightly old version. New version here is almost functionally identical, but better phrased and has the looter type on the card
Note, you do NOT leave the ruins in the Supply. So this is essentially an optional gain and play a Ruins. So if ruined library is showing up top, you can make this a smithy, at the cost of self-junk.
But if you trash that junk later, you get to play this non-terminally. So that's fun. Also if anyone else trashes a $0 instead and you have this in hand, you get to play it non-terminally.
Thematically the Junk Dog will bring you junk, and will excitedly eat it from the trash (come out to play non-terminally).
Thanks to segura for feedback on an earlier version of this card.
Quote
Junk dog | Action - Reaction | $3
+2 Cards
You may play a Ruins from the Supply.
-
When anyone trashes a card costing $0, you may play this from your hand.
Note, you do NOT leave the ruins in the Supply. So this is essentially an optional gain and play a Ruins. So if ruined library is showing up top, you can make this a smithy, at the cost of self-junk.
But if you trash that junk later, you get to play this non-terminally. So that's fun. Also if anyone else trashes a $0 instead and you have this in hand, you get to play it non-terminally.
Thematically the Junk Dog will bring you junk, and will excitedly eat it from the trash (come out to play non-terminally).
Thanks to segura for feedback on an earlier version of this card.
15
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #216: Blue Dogs
« on: April 10, 2024, 02:05:54 pm »Sled Dog- Action Reaction
+3 Cards
----
At the start of your turn, you may discard a Treasure to play this from your hand.
Wow this is great! It fits into existing Dominion paradigms and with other cards, and yet is refreshing and surprising and super simple. Really nice design. If I was judging this would be a finalist for sure already.
QuoteHunting Dog
$4 Action - Reaction
Reveal the top two cards of your deck and put any number of them into your hand.
-
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word “reveal”), you may play it.
Priced at $4 as it synergizing with itself and there are a good amount of instances that cause one to reveal their hand and thus, by accident, this too.
I believe you need to say what happens to the cards you don’t put into your hand. “And discard the rest” is simplest and I like the synergy of this card triggering both “reveal” and “discard” reactions. I believe that works better than “put the rest back in any order” for this particular card.
I also think this is a little on the strong side, though I don’t know how to change it, so it might just be strong. I’m basing this on how easy/often I get cultist chains running— at $4 it’s a lot easier to do so. It might just be good being a stronger $4
16
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #215: Getting Engaged
« on: April 08, 2024, 11:55:38 pm »
Quote
Royal Advisor | Action - Duration - Command | $4
Play a non-Command non-Duration Action card from the Supply twice, leaving it there. Each player, at the start of their next turn, may play a copy of it from the Supply, leaving it there.
Now you pick the card once, and then each player gets to play it at the start of their turn. Which is powerful, but then YOU get to play it at the start of your turn as well.
Now you might end up using to play terminal draw. Even though your opponents get that awesome free-draw at the start of their turns, you also get that benefit on your next turn. And Royal Advisor sits out reminding everyone they get that free-play.
Modified it due to JW:
QuoteRoyal Advisor | Action - Command | $4
You may play a non-Command Action card from the Supply twice, leaving it there. Each other player may play a copy of it from the Supply, leaving it there.
After some play testing, it turns out the old version of Royal Advisor was often very weak. There were limited cards in Kingdoms worth throne-rooming if you give your opponents the benefit to play that card, even at start of next turn. And those cards might not even collide with your Royal Advisor, so you would rather just buy those cards instead. I first added +1 Card to it, which worked a bit -- but then I realized, playing from the supply is it's own kind of +1 Card, and solves other problems.
Unfortunately, this version is way too strong with cards that give +3 Coins, and even the existence of +2 Coins makes it too powerful as well.
I thought that +2$ without nice side-benefits could be rare. Well, I just generated 5 Kingdoms to see if you were right, and 3/5 had solid +2 coin options.
I think you're right that this is now too strong. I could move it to "cards that cost less than this" which moves the random too strong to 2/5 Kingdoms, but that's still too much... Unfortunately, I have to make it more complicated to fix it. So I fixed it above.
17
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #215: Getting Engaged
« on: April 08, 2024, 05:36:42 pm »
Edit: this is an out of date submission. I have updated it here
After some play testing, it turns out the old version of Royal Advisor was often very weak. There were limited cards in Kingdoms worth throne-rooming if you give your opponents the benefit to play that card, even at start of next turn. And those cards might not even collide with your Royal Advisor, so you would rather just buy those cards instead. I first added +1 Card to it, which worked a bit -- but then I realized, playing from the supply is it's own kind of +1 Card, and solves other problems.
Now Royal Advisor is guaranteed to collide with the cards you want to play, since it plays from the Supply. That is, until that Supply pile is empty.
I've also now feel comfortable allowing it to play Duration cards, since it itself is not a Duration, and the copy in play on the table can clearly track of playing Durations, for opponents "next turn."
Quote
Royal Advisor | Action - Command | $4
You may play a non-Command Action card from the Supply twice, leaving it there. Each other player may play a copy of it from the Supply, leaving it there.
After some play testing, it turns out the old version of Royal Advisor was often very weak. There were limited cards in Kingdoms worth throne-rooming if you give your opponents the benefit to play that card, even at start of next turn. And those cards might not even collide with your Royal Advisor, so you would rather just buy those cards instead. I first added +1 Card to it, which worked a bit -- but then I realized, playing from the supply is it's own kind of +1 Card, and solves other problems.
Now Royal Advisor is guaranteed to collide with the cards you want to play, since it plays from the Supply. That is, until that Supply pile is empty.
I've also now feel comfortable allowing it to play Duration cards, since it itself is not a Duration, and the copy in play on the table can clearly track of playing Durations, for opponents "next turn."
18
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #215: Getting Engaged
« on: April 04, 2024, 12:52:45 pm »
Edit: this is an out of date submission. I have updated it here
Figured I'd go for some bonus points -- a new way of interacting. This throne room lets other players play that card for free, on their turn. This is a throne room + next turn throne room for $4, what gives? Well, it can't throne itself, that's for starters. And it's restricted further, throning a Moat this turn nets you with a hand size two greater than when you started, minus the action. But it also increase all of your opponents hand size by two, without costing them an action. So you might only be willing to throne cards your opponents don't benefit from (terminal $?)
It's "may" play an action, so you can always choose not to play a card. If you don't play the card, no one gets to.
And lastly, you can play cards where the pile has run out or non-supply cards, then your opponents don't get the bonus.
I've made this play non-Duration cards following the conventions of fellow Duration-Command cards Captain and Prince. Frankly, it's too much track multiple players having played a Duration card without it ever being in-play.
Open to feedback. I'm considering giving this a "+1 Card" on play, since this throne room hates playing +Cards, so it could make sense to at least give it 1 card. I still think it could cost $4 then, and this card is more fun if used more often.
Quote
Royal Advisor | Action - Duration - Command | $4
Now and at the start of your next turn: You may play a non-Duration non-Command Action card from your hand twice. Each other player may play a copy of it from the Supply, leaving it there.
Figured I'd go for some bonus points -- a new way of interacting. This throne room lets other players play that card for free, on their turn. This is a throne room + next turn throne room for $4, what gives? Well, it can't throne itself, that's for starters. And it's restricted further, throning a Moat this turn nets you with a hand size two greater than when you started, minus the action. But it also increase all of your opponents hand size by two, without costing them an action. So you might only be willing to throne cards your opponents don't benefit from (terminal $?)
It's "may" play an action, so you can always choose not to play a card. If you don't play the card, no one gets to.
And lastly, you can play cards where the pile has run out or non-supply cards, then your opponents don't get the bonus.
I've made this play non-Duration cards following the conventions of fellow Duration-Command cards Captain and Prince. Frankly, it's too much track multiple players having played a Duration card without it ever being in-play.
Open to feedback. I'm considering giving this a "+1 Card" on play, since this throne room hates playing +Cards, so it could make sense to at least give it 1 card. I still think it could cost $4 then, and this card is more fun if used more often.
19
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #214: Cornucopia AND Guilds AND Menagerie
« on: April 02, 2024, 11:26:55 pm »I don't mind the judging overall so this isn't a big deal; howeverReleasing a Victory card is a pretty steep price to pay for non-terminality, but its a $2, so that makes sense. And sometimes you will be desperate to continue your turn. I like that a lot. My one gripe here is that the the overpay is prohibitively expensive. You're requiring me to pay $4 to just thin a single card. Then $6 to just thin two cards. Compare that to say Bonfire, or Mint -- of course those cards only help you thin treasures, and of course this is Exile, which is better than trashing Estates. Still, it makes this seem a little weak. I wouldn't mind this card being stronger, perhaps base cost of $3 and exiling one card per $1 overpaid would be better. I love Mint as a trasher, so I really like the design space of this card as well.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong on the overpay being weak. Remember the shelter in playtesting that could trash itself when you discard your hand, and how Donald X said it was correct to do even when you draw it with 4 coppers? If getting rid of one dead card is worth an opening turn, then buying a moat for 4$ is as well (arguably better). I think you're very happy buying this for $4; Exiling an Estate helps your deck as much as buying a Laboratory.
If it was 3 and Exile 1 per $, the opening would be the same, but paying 5$ and Exiling two Estates is not something I want. If you draw just right and can pull this off, the game is probably over.
edit: or compare Doctor, which is 3+1 rather than 2+2 with the trashing being far less reliable, and it's still pretty good
You could totally be correct here!
Your analysis "moat + trash for 4" is the exact same whether it's 3 and Exile 1. It's still a strong opening move and should be done. I was thinking about later in the game, it's really fun to thin multiple cards with Mint and Cemetery. With the $2 per thin, those fun possibilities dwindle significantly. There's also the elegance of having it be a 1 for $1 overpay, following the rest of the overpays which increase with each $1 overpaid.
You're right in that a T3 or T4 hand that somehow generates $5 and has two estates left over is breaking game-warping. I haven't done the math but it seems pretty unlikely to occur.
I liked the card a lot, and think you should be proud of the design. I didn't make it a finalist because of the improvement I had thought of, but it's possible my improvement is worse overall.
20
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #214: Cornucopia AND Guilds AND Menagerie
« on: April 02, 2024, 04:44:26 pm »| Card details | Judgement Analysis |
 Kingswood by grep. A victory rewarding Action variety, with an Overpay to get those actions. | I'm a huge fan of Fairgrounds, so I don't mind having another VP card that rewards variety. Although it does feel a little bit like a lesser-fairgrounds. With the VP thresholds, it seems to be less interesting. You want a variety of cards in your deck anyway when playing with Cornucopia, so getting 8 out of 9 remaining Kingdom actions to make this 4VP will can easily happen. At the very least it will easily be 3VP, and now you've created a strictly better Duchy. Which doesnt feel balanced. Compare this to Fairgrounds, where I have to balance keeping Coppers in my deck, buying Curses, not trashing all estates, etc. and there's not as many interesting decisions on this (plus Fairgrounds costs more than duchy). I love the over-pay mechanic on here, though it's strictly dependent on if there are good spammable $4s. It does help encourage you to get Victory cards early, something I think is a great design space. And it's priced properly for the overpay. I just think the VP doesn't scale properly. I think that portion of the card would be more balanced at a cost of $4 saying with being "Worth 1vp per three differently named Action cards." It makes it more challenging to get it to a Duchy, and if you work hard, with Horses and Prizes, and Banes, and Ferryman, there's a good chance you could get it to 4vp. |
 Prism by BryGuy. A Treasure granting coffers or Horses based on variety | This is way overpowered. You can see in this thread there was a discussion of how strong a treasure that says "gain a Horse per differently named Treasure in play" is. It's broken strong. And saving a Coffer is a small price to pay for that, it's still bonkers good, easily acting as a double lab for $4. But then the first part is also over-powered. It's a silver+ -- if you spend the Coffers each turn, it's literally silver + a buy, for $4. And Silver+ needs to be $5. But Coffers are a lot stronger anyway, and this card gives you the +Buy to use those coffers efficiently. This card, as is, should at least cost $6. |
 Conformist by czzzz. A Coffer gaining smugglers for in-play cards, that plays from hand when duplicates are played | Gain a copy is pretty nice, and it fits to be on a terminal card when you have played your other cards first. I also love with Menagerie and its "play Action at odd times" motif works with this to help you gain Treasures. It's simple and seems about balanced. Nice. Finalist |
 Beguiler by 4est. A sort of storyteller for Coffers that can be played when anyone gets Coffers | I can't help but feel this is weak, especially compared to similiar $5s. First let's look at Butcher, whose extra bonus of remodeling is pretty great, especially since you can save coffers to turn coppers into $3 or $4 actions. Saving the same Coffers for terminal draw is less appealing, especially since you don't even get to do both on one play! Storyteller let's you use any source of $, not just coffers, and it is non-terminal, giving you that same draw for $. The only way this card stands out is that it can be played when anyone gets Coffers, you can make your second play non-terminal if you already played one. But if you used the first one for Coffers, and the second one to draw, you turned two 5 cost cards into a net $0 cantrip. Even if you got to choose both effects (which you need to modify this card for it to be remotely playable), there's a lot of $5s it seems less favorable to. I like the idea but it's weak. |
 Ancient Gear by J410. A terminal draw Menagerie that rewards with Coffers instead of more draw and it costs less if you didn't gain Coffers that turn | I find the costing less not very elegant. It requires players to remember if they gained Coffers in a particular turn, normally that should be easy since you can look at the Actions in play. It still feels odd to me. I also have a hard time wrapping my head around it. As a $2, it seems on the strong side of balanced. At $6 -- it seems unbuyable. I feel most of the menagerie alternate costs you would possibly buy it for either cost. So now the $6 cost is mainly remodel fuel which seems an unnecesary strength to give a card you buy for only $2 |
 Diversify by Will(ow|iam). An Event granting Coffers for treasure variety | This is a tricky one. You can't give it a +Buy, because with many unique treasures (Loot or Heirlooms) you can get infinite $. So it can't give a +Buy which then means this is really expensive since you have to lose a buy for it, just to transfer some $ to Coffers. And the exchange rate isn't even very good. Most games you'll be lucky to have 3 unique treasures in play, and I don't see 3 Coffers being worth $5. Even in games where you can make it work with more unique treasures, sacrificing a Buy to get extra Coffers seems silly. Especially since you could have just used that extra buy to spend the $ this turn instead. Not every event needs to be Strong, but they at least need to be interesting, and to me this is neither. Perhaps playtesting would prove me wrong. |
 Bounty by AJL828. A treasure-victory action player and gainer. With gaining and VP based on card type variety. | First, let's analyze the victory component. Without trying, this is worth 1VP (action, treasure, victory). The hunt for the next 3 is a little more interesting. We of course always have Curse. We probably have two of Reaction/Duration/Attack. So there's a good chance this can be made a Duchy, but it requires some variety diligence or buying Curse. I like that. For the gain, we can't have Curse in play, but we get a $3 for free, which means we need at least a Reaction/Duration/Attack/other to make this a strong $4 gainer, and maybe we can get it as a strong $5 gainer. If you're able to get it to $5 it becomes over-powered. If we look at Hill Fort, University, Horn of Plenty, for an Action gainer this seems a little strong if you can easily have 4 types in play. My biggest problem with this card is there's not much of a downside. It's a strong gainer, AND it's a source of VP, there's no drawback here. I love the concept though, it just seems too strong. Finalist |
 Harvester by LibraryAdventurer. A silver +buy action exiler that grants coffers for exiling more expensive cards | I like the simplicity of this. As a +Buy treasure producing thinner, this is a solid buy on most boards. I'd prefer to grant the Coffer on victory cards as well personally. The Coffers synergizes because this card has a +Buy to use those Coffers. Nice. Finalist |
 Convoy by silverspawn. Cheap terminal draw that becomes non-terminal to release Victory cards from Exile, with an Exile on overpay mechanic. | Releasing a Victory card is a pretty steep price to pay for non-terminality, but its a $2, so that makes sense. And sometimes you will be desperate to continue your turn. I like that a lot. My one gripe here is that the the overpay is prohibitively expensive. You're requiring me to pay $4 to just thin a single card. Then $6 to just thin two cards. Compare that to say Bonfire, or Mint -- of course those cards only help you thin treasures, and of course this is Exile, which is better than trashing Estates. Still, it makes this seem a little weak. I wouldn't mind this card being stronger, perhaps base cost of $3 and exiling one card per $1 overpaid would be better. I love Mint as a trasher, so I really like the design space of this card as well. I liked this concept a lot, but due to the overpay being so high, it is not a finalist. |
 Donkey Tamer by grrgrrgrr. A non-terminal horse Gainer that when in the game, changes +cards to draw-to-x | To cut the chase, I'm not a fan of the game changing rule on this. One, you abbreviated a word "respectively," which is confusing. In fact, the whole setup could be simplified. "In games using this, when you get +2 Cards, instead draw until you have 6 cards in hand." You can leave the +3 cards alone, as Horses only do +2. Even such, game-warping cards should be fun! They should offer more possibilities. This just makes Horses more annoying to use. Of course, Donkey Tamer itself is non-terminal hand-size reducer, so it helps the draw-to-x, but I think this game-warping is less fun and a bit deprives the joy out of normal horses. |
 Financial Center by JW. A Village that grants coffers based on variety of cards in play | So, Bazaar costs $5. In most games, it's pretty simple to get three uniquely named cards in play, especially if you have a Village (Financial Center). Coffers are better than $, so for most cases this card becomes strictly better than Bazaar. Then of course, there's the high likelihood of getting later plays to be two coffers, now it's Grand Market status. The reason menagerie (the card) is so fun, is because it requires you to have a lot of variety such that it is represented in a given draw of 5 cards. Same idea for Carnival, you must have so much variety that every set of 4 cards has variety. Financial Center just needs you to play the cards at some point (followed by Financial Centers), so it doesn't need as much variety overall, you just have to play them at some point. So, overall I find this a little too strong and not as compelling as other variety cards. |
 Trendsetter by NoMoreFun. A cantrip or terminal + coffer, that can be played out of turn when other player gains duplicates of cards you have in hand | I love that you made +1 Card work. If it's an action, I make this a cantrip to play it. If it's not, hey I get a Coffer. And if your opponent has the same cards as you, you get to basically make it a peddler with Coffers, pretty strong. It creates a cool incentive for variety, as long as that variety mirrors what your opponent might gain! Quite interesting Finalist |
 Cache by Augie279. A non-terminal treasure gain and play with +buy that costs less if you have no duplicates in play | I think this could be a lot cleaner as a treasure that gains treasures to hand. Although there are some good reasons to play treasures in your Action phase. (Supplies, Coronet!) It's over-powered with Platinums, but oh well. Also, theme-wise it should be called something Hero (since it says "gain a treasure.") I am not sure this needs to have a +Buy with it. It's a pretty solid card, and in many gains you'll be able to get it for $4 (which will be fun to do) |
 Caravanserai by chronostrike. Cantrip discard for Exile and/or discard for Horse | Double hand decreaser for thinning is a tough penalty. And thinning one card is *sort of* like adding a lab to your deck, or in this case, a Horse. But because you had to filter for the Horse, it basically turns this card into a sifter. So, this card might be a little weak-unexciting. Of course, it's non-terminal thinner, so I'm likely to incorporate one in most decks. I just am not that excited by it. |
 ROUNDABOUT by fika monster. A now-or-next-turn draw-to-7 that can play a unique card | So you basically have to open this as it will cost $3 with just Coppers. And it's a pretty solid card, one of them is almost +3cards +1action. Later on this card will very quickly become prohibitively expensive. With just two actions in play and Coppers it's as expensive to Library. It's better than Library, but quickly it just becomes too expensive to buy. I feel like in most cases, I might double open Roundabout, then load up on variety after that. Which is kinda cool, but it doesn't feel so fun that the price increases so dramatically so quickly. |
 Horseshoes by Tiago. A treasure that gains Horses per treasure variety, that "in games using this" grants Coffers when Victory cards are gained. | With Copper and Silver, this acts sort of like a Lab. And if you work hard to have 3 treasures in play, it could be stronger. I think it's priced correctly, though the balance falls apart a bit with heirlooms or loot. Still, a fine card. I'm not a fan of the bottom half. One coffer is not compelling enough to incentivize early greening, so this basically does one of two things. It either unbalances victory-action (and victory-treasure cards), or it creates momentum for whoever starts greening first. Dominion has the nice design of when you get VP, your deck gets worse, as opposed to games like Catan where building another settlement gives you VP and a stronger game. A card like this throws that balance off a bit. It's not dramatic, but it's enough to be a less interesting form of Dominion. I think something like "when you gain a duchy +2 Coffers" would be a lot more interesting. |
 Rancher by MochaMoko. A vault that gives horses instead of draws, and coffers instead of $ for discard. | Vault, without hand-size reduction, guarantees $6. So this card, buy delaying the draw, only guarantees $4. But that $4 of Coffers is fairly strong, turning many future hands into $5. This card also combos less with Draw-to-X, since the Horses don't work as well with draw-to-x, and I like that balance. I don't have critiques here, it just feels not super novel to me, and possibly too strong. |
 Hoarder by Sverre. An Exiler granting + cards for unique cards in Exile. | Thinners that don't decrease hand-size are always going to be strong. And the mandatory Exile isn't so bad, since I can just release the card I exiled later. Despite the fact you can get a $4 cost up to +4 cards without too much hassle, it's still balanced, since each play requires you to Exile something and that lowers your hand size again. Pretty elegant, nice. Finalist |
I do like all the finalists a lot, but there has to be one winner. I am not feeling well so I'm going to do this a little more quickly than normal.
Conformist, Bounty, and Hoarder are the most interesting of the finalists, so it's going to be one of those.
I wanted to know if Bounty was too strong, so I generated a bunch of random Kingdoms Of Menagerie/Cornucopia and Guilds.
First kingdom: Bounty, Menagerie, Plaza, Animal Fair, Camel Train, Destrier, Groom, Kiln, Sleigh, Village Green with Way of the Rat.
Village Green means Bounty will easily make you gain $5s, and a curse turns them into Duchies. The gaining of Kilns (plus if you used Sleigh earlier you can get Destrier is fairly strong, plus the ability to play Actions this game works because there's several that would like to be played in the Buy Phase (Plaza, Animal Fair, Camel Train, Groom, Kiln, Sleigh, Village Green). Bounty is uningorable here.
Second Kingdom: Remake, Herald, Merchant Guild, Plaza, Hostelry, Mastermind, Sanctuary, Sleigh, Snowy Village, Way of the Goat. Mastermind being in play will make you always be able to non-terminally gain $4s with Bounty and loading up on some of those villages are decent, plus the ability to save all your treasures for Hostelry discarding is nice, especially since that's your main draw this game. Having played a Sleigh you can gain and play Merchant Guilds or Mastermind which are both buy-time plays. So bounty is fairly strong, and is going to be worth a duchy this game as well.
Third Kingdom: Candlestick Maker, Bounty Hunter, Displace, Fisherman, Goatherd, Scrap, Stockpile, Supplies, Wayfarer.
Well, there's only 3 playable card-types this Kingdom, and you don't want a bunch of Candle Stick makers, Goatherds, or Scraps. You can potentially gain Wayfarer, which is nice, but with the lack of village, you probably don't want a bunch of them anyway. So bounty doesn't work.
In this small sample size, Bounty was either too strong or too weak, instead of that middle-ground of interesting. So it's third place in this contest. Still a great card, though.
I'm having trouble debating between Conformist and Hoarder. Hoarder seems straight like it should have been printed in Menagerie, excellent card. Conformist feels like it could only exist because of this contest. So that's giving it the edge this time around.
Winner: Conformist by czzzz
Second: Hoarder by Sverre
Third: Bounty by AJL828
21
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #214: Cornucopia AND Guilds AND Menagerie
« on: April 01, 2024, 01:52:16 pm »Contest Closed. Check the opening post to see your entry and let me know any mistakes.
Judging to come in the next few days
22
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #214: Cornucopia AND Guilds AND Menagerie
« on: March 31, 2024, 01:54:41 pm »Financial Center
+1 Card and +2 Actions.
For every 3 differently-named cards that you have in play (rounded down), +1 Coffers.
Notes: It counts itself. Cornucopia (variety) + Guilds (coffers).
I like Village-variants with large potential upsides that you need to work for (e.g., City Quarter, Swamp Shacks). This concept works better with Coffers than if it just gave coins, as in IRL play you don't need to track how many coins each one gave you.
Card image coming later.
Should I expect a card image in the next 24 hours?
23
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #214: Cornucopia AND Guilds AND Menagerie
« on: March 30, 2024, 10:08:15 pm »
24 hours notice
Here are the entries I have now. Please check if yours is missing, or if it links to an old version.
Entries:
I said 24 hours -- but in reality, tomorrow is Easter which many people celebrate, and so I won't be closing the submissions until Monday at some point in all likelihood.
Here are the entries I have now. Please check if yours is missing, or if it links to an old version.
Entries:
- Kingswood by grep. A victory rewarding Action variety, with an Overpay to get those actions.
- Prism by BryGuy. A Treasure granting coffers or Horses based on variety
- Conformist by czzzz. A Coffer gaining smugglers for in-play cards, that plays from hand
- Beguiler by 4est. A sort of storyteller for Coffers that can be played when anyone gets Coffers
- Ancient Gear by J410. A terminal draw Menagerie that rewards with Coffers instead of more draw that costs less if you didn't gain Coffers that turn
- Diversify by Will(ow|iam). An Event granting Coffers for treasure variety
- Bounty by AJL828. A treasure-victory action player and gainer. With gaining and VP based on card type variety.
- Harvester by LibraryAdventurer. A silver +buy action exiler that grants coffers for exiling more expensive cards
- Convoy by silverspawn. Cheap terminal draw that becomes non-terminal to release Victory cards from Exile, with an Exile on overpay mechanic.
- Donkey Tamer by grrgrrgrr. A non-terminal horse Gainer that when in the game, changes +cards to draw-to-x
- Financial Center by JW. A Village that grants coffers based on variety of cards in play
- Trendsetter by NoMoreFun. A cantrip or terminal + coffer, that can be played out of turn when other player gains duplicates of cards you have in hand
- Cache by Augie279. A non-terminal treasure gain and play with +buy that costs less if you have no duplicates in play
- Caravanserai by chronostrike. Cantrip discard for Exile and/or discard for Horse
- ROUNDABOUT by fika monster. A draw-to-7 that can play a unique card, but it costs more if you have unique cards in play
I said 24 hours -- but in reality, tomorrow is Easter which many people celebrate, and so I won't be closing the submissions until Monday at some point in all likelihood.
24
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #214: Cornucopia AND Guilds AND Menagerie
« on: March 27, 2024, 11:45:06 am »
This breaks contest rules. Potions are a mechanic from Alchemy, and would require a rulebook addition to explain what those symbols mean.
I made this ruling here
25
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 85: March Matness
« on: March 26, 2024, 02:52:48 pm »
Quote
Nobleman | Action | $5
Gain and play an Action card other than Nobleman.
Each other player may Shadow a copy of it from the Supply.